Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, over the years I have been on the Senate floor many times bringing up the challenges of rural America, whether it is delivering quality healthcare or investing in vital infrastructure that supports our businesses or connecting our schools to the 21st century. I have worked hard to make sure that rural States like Montana have a voice in the Senate. That is why I am so frustrated by the recent comments made by National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro. Mr. Navarro last week characterized the economic uncertainty that tariffs are causing to the American farmer and rancher as nothing more than a ``rounding error.'' Mr. Navarro has an important position. He is a trade adviser, and he is a strategist for the President of the United States. He believes the tariffs that are harming Montana producers equate to nothing more than a ``rounding error.'' This statement is inaccurate, it is insulting, and it is dismissive of rural America. If Mr. Navarro truly believes that his comments are true, he has a lot to learn about what is going on across this country. I am willing to bet that he hasn't been to a farm, a ranch, a stockyard, or a grain elevator facility recently--maybe ever--and I am sure he hasn't picked rock in North Central Montana. I don't think he would call the administration's trade war a ``rounding error'' if he met with Montana's homebuilders, construction workers, small business owners, farmers, and ranchers, who are being squeezed by the rise of the cost of doing business now because of these tariffs. I urge Mr. Navarro to leave the swamp, and come to Billings, Fort Benton, or Dutton, MT, and get an accurate perspective of how these tariffs are impacting family farms, ranches, and businesses across my great State. If he or anyone else in Washington were to speak with the folks who are most impacted by their trade policies, here is what they will hear. In ag country, they will say: Do you know what? Our commodity prices weren't that cherry to begin with, and now we are seeing them drop even more. We are seeing our input costs go up. The head of the Montana grain growers, a lady by the name of Michelle Erickson Jones, testified recently that they didn't buy a grain bin. A grain bin is a facility that is made out of steel that stores grain. The costs went up on that very simple structure by 20 percent over the last year. Forterra, in Billings, MT, builds bridges and has seen bridge component structures such as I-beams and rebar go up double digits just recently. In fact, in Missoula, MT, where they are building a new library to export information out of--a very good thing for that community, and for any community, as far as that goes--they passed a bond issue. Their costs went up more than $700,000 just because of the increased cost of steel. Those are the input costs. We have been working for generations and generations to develop markets all around the world, as we live in a world that is getting smaller every day, and we are losing those export markets. We are losing certainty, and without certainty you cannot plan for the future. Many of these agricultural farms and ranches have been in the family for generations, as mine has been. We hope to pass it along to the next generation, but if you create enough uncertainty, that will simply be impossible. That is exactly what is going on in this country today. In the 1980s, we saw family farm after family farm go broke. That started, by the way, with a grain embargo. We will see that same scenario being repeated today if we don't change the way we are doing business. So I ask: What is the endgame? I don't know that what is going on in the White House right now gives me any sort of hope that there is an endgame. Here are the facts. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ongoing trade war will threaten $20 million in Montana exports alone-- just Montana exports--and, in fact, 140,000 Montana jobs. We have just over 1 million people living in Montana, and 140,000 jobs is a lot of jobs. Only in Washington, DC, is a $20 million drop in Montana's exports and the potential impact of 140,000 jobs considered a rounding error. Just 5 days ago, after he called the impact of the tariffs a ``rounding error,'' the administration announced that taxpayers are going to have to pay $12 billion to offset the financial impacts of these trade policies. Unlike drought, hail, floods, insects, or disease and other challenges that farmers and ranchers must deal with each year, this disaster is man-made. It is government-made. Make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted problem, and it is a financial problem that is a direct result of tariffs and irresponsible policy. Now in order to try to ease the pain caused by these reckless tariffs, the administration has decided to further rattle the marketplace with an infusion of $12 billion of taxpayer money. I will state that folks in production agriculture want to sell their products, not depend upon undependable erratic payments from the government. I never, ever met a farmer who wanted to receive their paycheck from the government. They want to earn their paycheck. They want to earn it from the free market. They want a free market. They want places where they can sell their products. They want to raise the products--and in my case and Montana's case, some of the finest agricultural products in the world--and they want to sell them to customers both at home and in markets around the world. They don't want to collect cash payments from the government. That is not why they got into business. They want to get it from the marketplace. They want to get their living from the marketplace. These dollars are being used as a bandaid to stop the bleeding that is being felt by America's farmers and ranchers as a direct result of these trade policies. This $12 billion is not going to help hold on to any markets. It will simply be a patchwork to get through the problems that the government--this administration--has created. It will not provide them long-term certainty. It will not provide them the ability to make long-term investments. It will not provide them the opportunity to pass the farm on to their children. It will provide temporary relief, and because of these trade policies, that temporary relief is important, but it is far from a real solution for the folks who give us food security and the folks who feed the world--our family farms and ranchers. I will just say this. I have had conversations across the State of Montana over my tenure in the Senate. I can tell you that folks work hard. They work hard for their money, and they expect to be given a level playing field, but what we are seeing right now are markets that we have worked a generation to create and to mold being given away to other countries. We are seeing infrastructure in other countries that is not being focused on the United States and the products we produce, but it is being developed to do trade with other countries, in their markets. They produce sometimes the very same products that we produce. I was at a meeting the other night and talked about the fact that in regards to Mexico, which buys more barley from Montana than any other nation in the world, and Canada, our No. 1 trading partner, Mexico is sitting down and they are negotiating and Canada isn't. It is interesting because we have heard this before. As Mexico negotiates, they also have signed a trade agreement with Argentina. To my knowledge, this is the first one ever to be able to supply their people with food. That is a market that we need. As far as Canada goes, I have had plenty of issues with Canada--the Canadian Government knows that--whether it is softwood lumber, grain grading for our products going north, or whether it is issues that revolve around the Columbia River Treaty. The fact is that this is our best friend in the world. We need to treat them fairly and, in the process, make sure we have markets for the people in the United States. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank a very dedicated group of folks--the Federal employees working for us, the American people. As Federal employees gather this week, I want to remind the country about the vital work being done each and every day by these hard-working public servants. It is no secret that organized labor is under attack. The bargaining rights, the hard-earned benefits, the safe working conditions, and the fair pay of American workers are under attack from folks right here in Washington, DC, and in State capitols around the country. We aren't ones to run away from a fight. That is why, when the administration proposed to freeze hiring across Federal agencies, I and others pushed back. I knew that across-the-board freezes would hurt their ability to serve the American people and do the job within government that the American people expected. Then, when bad National Labor Relations Board nominees came before the Senate, I voted no. I have been proud to stand with our Federal workforce--our hard-working Federal workforce--as we fight to protect those government employees. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have been working with them to address chronic workforce shortages that are plaguing veterans' clinics across the United States. While building capacity within the VA to ensure we uphold our commitment to those who serve, we need to staff those very facilities. I have also been honored to work with our friends in labor to address disparities in Federal benefits and pay. Congress must make sure that whether you are a Border Patrol agent or a TSA worker, you get the same workforce protections as other members in our Federal forces. I am committed to defending our workers, holding Washington accountable, and fighting for a stronger Federal workforce each and every day because that is what the American people expect. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the Montanans who served our Nation during the Korean war. Their service and sacrifice will forever be remembered in the official Congressional Record. Many of them rest in peace in the sacred ground of the Yellowstone National Cemetery. During the Korean war, 6.8 million Americans served between 1950 and 1953. About 20,000 Montanans served in the military during that time, and 5,000 of them saw combat. We lost 350 Montanans in Korea. Today about 6,000 Korean war veterans call Montana home. Survivors of the ``Forgotten War,'' far too many of them have struggled for far too long to receive the recognition and benefits they truly deserve. As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, it has been my honor to fight for legislation that rights this wrong. I have introduced legislation that extends benefits related to toxic exposure to more veterans who served along the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Because when servicemembers deploy to harm's way and are exposed to toxic chemicals, our country has a responsibility to meet their healthcare needs. Honoring these veterans takes more than just legislation; it takes dedicated people who are committed to telling their stories and honoring those who have served. The Montana American Legion, led by Commander Richard Klose, is an important partner working to ensure veterans who fought in every conflict can get the healthcare, honor, and recognition they have earned. Since 2014, Montana veterans and their loved ones can choose to be buried under the Big Sky in the Yellowstone National Cemetery--veterans like COL John R. Black of the U.S. Army, the most highly decorated veteran interred at the Yellowstone National Cemetery, earned two Silver Star medals and two Legion of Merit medals in his service to our Nation in the Korean and Vietnam wars; veterans like Captain Ralph D. Myer, a U.S. Public Health Service Officer of the Korean and Vietnam wars, is one of the highest ranking veterans interred at the Yellowstone National Cemetery. Montana will remember Colonel Black, Captain Myer, and all of our citizens who fought during the Korean war. We will honor their memory by relentlessly fighting to get the veterans of the Korean war the equal benefits and care that they earned but are too often denied. Some paid the ultimate sacrifice. Some returned home bearing the seen and unseen wounds of war. All showed courage and strength when they heeded the call to protect our Nation far from home. We cannot forget their service and sacrifice. To Commander Klose, the Montana American Legion, my friends at the Yellowstone National Cemetery, and all those who dedicate their lives to this country in service, on behalf of myself, Montana, and our Nation, I extend my greatest thanks for your enduring bravery, service, and self-sacrifice.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of George Ell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation who is being remembered by his family, by his community, and by his Tribe. George was born and grew up on Livermore Creek near Browning, MT, fishing and exploring the mountains surrounding it. In the year 1890, not long after Montana was admitted to the Union, the U.S. Government forcibly took him from his home at the age of 16. George was forced to board a train to Pennsylvania to attend Carlisle Indian Industrial School. He was turned away from his cultural practices, forced to cut his hair, and discard his traditional clothing. He was barred from speaking his language. George died under mysterious circumstances a little more than a year after he arrived in Pennsylvania--a foreign land for a 16-year-old boy. The government buried him in Carlisle. It took 128 years for George to rightfully return home to Montana, where he belongs, to be reburied. George's ancestors laid him to rest recently on a bluff next to Flattop Mountain, where his family can mourn and our Nation can learn from this sad chapter of America's history. I also want to recognize George's family, including Dale Ell, Leon Chief Elk, Rhonda Boggs, and everyone involved, who were relentless in their quest to bring George back home. Their efforts are not only admirable, but an essential part of the collective healing process. The Ell family is just one of many Native American families who were torn apart by this Nation's horrendous assimilation policies and the boarding school era. It is my hope that, as his family lays George Ell to rest, we commit ourselves to a brighter future--a future where we celebrate the first people of this Nation, their culture, heritage, religion, and strength. It is imperative that we learn from the story of Mr. Ell, so the next generation is educated about the suffering, so our kids and grandkids are inspired by his fortitude and the resilience of so many other Native Americans. I rise today to honor those who were tested by cruelty; may their stories resonate in our history and spur us toward a stronger tomorrow.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I think Robert Wilkie is the right man for the job to be VA Secretary. Today, we are going to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the President's nominee. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously, especially in my role as ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. In our committee, Chairman Isakson and I have overseen the screening of the confirmation of 12 nominees to serve veterans. I am proud to say that we confirmed them without dragging our feet. Recently, we had Mr. Robert Wilkie before the committee for his confirmation hearing. Members of our committee asked him tough questions about his vision for the VA. We asked him about his plan to bring much needed stability to the Nation's largest healthcare system. Following the important exchanges during that hearing, Members sent more tough questions to the nominee for his response. In the days since his nomination, Mr. Wilkie has sat down with Members to respond to their questions and concerns one-on-one. By voting to confirm Mr. Wilkie today, I believe we are providing stronger leadership for America's veterans. With this vote, we are fulfilling our obligation to them. We are doing our job, but our job just doesn't stop today. As Members of this body, we must hold Mr. Wilkie accountable to the commitments he has made through his confirmation process. There are some critically important issues to be addressed within the VA. There are workforce shortages, whether in rural America or urban America. We need more doctors and nurses and more psychiatrics and psychologists within the VA. This is critically important if he is going to oversee a successful VA. We need to have the VA personnel. We need to have it manned appropriately to meet the challenges that are out there after being at war for 17 years and veterans from previous eras getting older. Today, unlike ever before, we have political forces at play inside the VA. This is very unfortunate because, quite frankly, I believe that good employees are being forced out, not because of the job they are doing but because of their views. When Mr. Wilkie becomes Secretary, he is going to have to make sure that stops. It is critically important that we keep the employees that we have who are good employees and move the VA forward so it can do the job that it is meant to do. He also has some challenges to address in rural America. The community-based outpatient clinics we have there need to be staffed up. We need to make sure that the VA has what it needs to meet the needs of the veterans in rural America, and, by the way, with the passage of the MISSION Act, we need to make sure that veterans aren't run around once that act gets fully implemented and they need community care and the VA can't provide that care. He needs to make sure the disability appeals process continues to move forward and that the backlog is whittled down. He needs to make sure that the accountability bill is implemented as Congress intended and that the whistleblower protection in the bill lives up to what it means. He also needs to implement the ``Forever GI bill'' in a way that makes sense for our veterans. Last and certainly not least, he needs to make sure the VA MISSION Act is implemented in a way in which a veteran can make the decision as to how he gets his or her healthcare. Veterans need a leader who will build bridges and find solutions to the issues that face our veterans, not who will tear down the Department to meet a political agenda. Veterans need a leader who will not shy away from those challenges that face the VA. We need someone who is going to tackle the challenges like workforce shortages, like access to mental healthcare, and like barriers, particularly in rural America, for women veterans. I believe that Mr. Wilkie is the right fit for that job. Right now, the VA does not have a confirmed Secretary who is focused on the larger mission of serving these veterans, of implementing the reforms, and of improving VA care and benefits. Instead, we have had temporary political appointees in charge who have been more interested in picking political fights with people who have not been their enemies. I believe we have lost sight of the VA's mission. It will be up to Mr. Wilkie to right that ship. That is why I am so hopeful that this evening, we can get Mr. Wilkie confirmed so that he can get on the job as soon as possible. Veterans are depending on him, and they are depending on us to make sure he gets to work. Once he gets to work, I guarantee that the chairman of the VA Committee and I, as ranking member, and all of the members of the Senate's Veterans' Affairs Committee will make sure that he does the job and fulfills the promises we have made to our veterans.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about tariffs and their impact on Montana's family farmers and businesses. In Montana we have more than 27,000 family farms and ranches. Folks who farm and ranch these lands are descendants of homesteaders and pioneers, including myself. They are also young producers who may be preparing for their first harvest. Might I add that we don't have enough young producers in our State. The population of farmers is getting far too old. These folks work 7 days a week, for long hours, to raise the food that feeds our families across this world, and they power our rural economies in this country. Farmers and ranchers are small business operators and owners who are always on tight margins and always are looking to make sure that they can make the books balance by being on the positive side of the ledger. Why? So they can keep their farms and ranches viable to be able to have the next generation take over their operation. Just like any other business--a local bar or a hardware store--you need to be able to make a profit to stay in business. Producers need to make sure that they have predictability in input costs--we are talking about fertilizers, fuel, and seed--and predictability in markets, the places where we sell our grain, which has always been a challenge and which has become more of a challenge over the past 6 months. When farmers plant a crop, they need to know there is a market for that crop, because if there is not, it can put them in a world of hurt financially. Unfortunately, in Montana, we are preparing to harvest winter wheat crops as we speak. Spring wheat crops will soon be coming, pulse crops will soon be coming, and oil seeds will soon be coming. The fact is that there is no certainty in any of those crops right now. Why? Because our farmers and our ranchers are being used as pawns in a trade war that I can guarantee not one of them asked for. This trade war is eliminating access to foreign markets that have taken generations to develop and putting family farm and ranch operations in a financial pinch--such a severe financial pinch that we haven't seen anything like it since the 1980s, when we saw a mass exodus off the land due to bad ag prices. The retaliatory tariffs against family farmers and ranchers is harming Montana's No. 1 industry, agriculture. Montana's grain producers produce about $2 billion worth of wheat, barley, pulse crops, and oil seeds every year. Since the middle of June, the price of No. 1 Dark Northern Spring wheat in southeastern Montana has fallen more than 60 cents a bushel. That is more than 10 percent, and the same can be said throughout the State of Montana. To put that in perspective, just think what would happen in your business if your prices were reduced by 10 percent right off the top. It would put you in a world of financial hurt, and that is where Montana's farms and ranches are today. If prices continue to plummet, some of these families who have been on the land for over 100 years will be forced to make some very difficult decisions in the next 6 to 8 months. These tariffs are eliminating producers' access to foreign markets-- markets that are in Asia and Europe and markets in Canada and Mexico. In Montana, we sell our grains and our beef to these countries and others: China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Pacific Rim countries, and European Union countries. These exports didn't just pop up overnight. They came to fruition after years of hard work, good faith and trust, and negotiations. Negotiations and trust are being thrown out the window with these tariff fights. In some cases--Japan, for example--it has taken multiple generations to establish these export markets. If we lose them, it will take many generations to get them back. Countries such as Argentina and Russia are circling the markets like sharks, wanting to strike the minute we lose a grip on them to fill those voids. Take, for instance, Mexico. Mexico is the largest importer of Montana barley in the world. For years, Mexico bought Montana's barley to be able to make beers, like Corona and others. These tariffs have put those markets at risk to the point that one Mexican barley buyer told one of the folks from the barley association of Montana: I don't know that we can depend on America to supply our barley anymore because these tariffs have put our markets at risk. As a result, Mexico, which is a huge importer of American wheat, just this last spring turned toward Argentina for their wheat for the first time ever. They signed a contract for Argentine wheat to take the place of the wheat from this country, of which Montana is a part and will no longer be supplying. The real question is, How long is this going to have to go on? We are faced with enough uncertainties in production and agriculture with weather, drought, hail, bugs, and disease. The list goes on. Unfortunately, this is a manmade problem. I get it. I think the President is right when he talks about holding China accountable. They have stolen a lot of intellectual property. They manipulate their currency. But to put on tariffs where retaliation comes on ag products is not the right direction to go. We can get their attention by other ways. I would also say that these tariffs aren't just felt by farmers and ranchers. They are felt by other businesses too. For builders, for example, their costs are going up. In 2016, the voters of Missoula, MT, approved a $30 million bond to build a new city library. They started the project, but tariffs on steel sent material costs soaring. Now the cost of rebar alone has increased the cost of the project by $100,000. Library officials have told me that as a direct result of these tariffs, they are preparing with a need to go out and raise another $500,000 to finish this project. The people of our State have to pay that price. One of Montana's fastest growing industries is microbreweries. It is a real success story, employing a lot of folks and adding value to grains in our State. They are being hit hard by tariffs on aluminum. These emerging businesses have no other option but to pass that cost on to their patrons. So we are paying both ways, folks. We are paying on the tariffs coming in, and we are paying on the tariffs being put on our products going out. In agribusiness, for example, everything that is made of steel is going up and going up significantly. From I-beams to cattle guards, to posts for fencing, to metal for storage bins, anything made out of steel is going up significantly. Manufacturers who have been on the rebound since the 2008 financial crisis now have a hard time bidding contracts on materials. Less of their money is going into their pockets, if there is any left at all, because of these tariffs. Every sector of our economy is feeling the pinch of this escalating trade war. Fair trade is really important. Getting manufacturing back to this country is really important, but it doesn't appear that we are doing those things. Instead, we are putting our existing businesses--whether it is in production or agriculture, construction or manufacturing--at risk with these trade wars. We should have open markets. Those markets need to go in both directions, but we shouldn't be driving people into bankruptcy in the meantime. That is what is happening. I ask: What is the end game? If this trade war continues, I had an ag banker tell me that family farms and ranchers have about 18 months before they have to start liquidating. That is the reality we are facing, and that is not very long. That is the reason why this body needs to understand that we need to send strong messages to the administration that they can't use farms, ranches, and small businesses as bargaining chips. Their livelihoods are on the line. Earlier this month, I hosted a roundtable discussion on tariffs at the Billings Chamber of Commerce. I was able to meet Montanans eyeball to eyeball, and I heard their concerns. This is not a political issue. These tariffs aren't targeted toward Democrats or Republicans. They are targeted at everyone. Ag producers at this moment in time are probably carrying the majority of the load. It needs to stop before the damage is irreversible. My grandparents homesteaded the land that we farm and lived through the 1930s. My folks, who took over the land, took the farm over in the early 1940s and lived through a lot of hard times themselves. My wife and I took the farm over in the late 1970s, and we saw what happened in the 1980s. We have seen what happens in agriculture, where so many of the folks can't make it on the farm anymore, and they have to have jobs off the farm to be able to make the books balance. These tariffs are making things harder. We have been down difficult paths in this country before. I don't believe we can afford another punch to the gut in rural America. I will continue to fight for and defend the folks who put food on our table, but their bottom lines are being severely, severely impacted by this trade war. Now look, the legislation we passed last week is a start. The Senate version of the farm bill provides a safety net, but I am here to state that if things continue to go south for our markets, we are going to be faced with a bill that dumps a bunch of money into production agriculture to keep these folks afloat. Why? Because of tariffs that are being put on ag products. It doesn't have to be this way. We are an equal branch of government. I believe that both Republicans and Democrats can work on this issue in a commonsense way, especially in this body. The administration needs to understand that if they keep continuing down this war of who can put the most tariffs on products, we are going to have a hard time keeping our businesses afloat, particularly our family farms and ranches in this country. That will not help with food security for our country, and the long-term negative impacts of that are unacceptable. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of this Nation's farmers and ranchers. I would urge this body to continue in the bipartisan way that they have been on the farm bill to get this farm bill passed, keep in good shape the strong farm bill at this moment in time, and work to improve it and get it out of the body so that farmers can have the certainty they need with a predictable farm bill. I believe I am the only actively engaged working farmer in this body. I have lived on the farm I live on for over 61 years. My wife and I have been farming the land that my grandfather and grandmother homesteaded, and my folks farmed after them, for the last 41 years. During that time, I have been able to see good farm bills that have worked, and I have seen bad farm bills--the kinds of farm bills that have resulted in devastating consequences for our family farms, driving families off the land, paving the way for more consolidation; bad farm bills that have dried up our rural areas and our small towns and along the way dried up our rural way of life. This is an important time for folks in production and agriculture. The commodity prices are low pretty much across the board. We are seeing this administration engaging in tariffs and a potential trade war that is threatening Montana's No. 1 industry--agriculture--and threatening the viability of the economy of Montana and rural America. That is why it is critically important that this week we pass a good farm bill that will work and give certainty to Montana's producers and rural communities across this country. In my travels around the State of Montana, I have had a number of listening sessions on the farm bill. I have heard from farmers and ranchers. I have visited with them, looked at them eyeball to eyeball, and heard their concerns and their priorities. During these farm bill listening sessions in Montana, I heard from grain growers, cattlemen, sugar beet producers, hops growers, wool growers, pulse growers, specialty crop producers, and organic farmers. We grow a lot of stuff in Montana. I even sat down with the folks who fight the good fight to make sure our kids don't go hungry. I sat down with fifth-generation Montana farmers and ranchers whose families have worked the land for over 100 years and young producers who are getting ready to go out for their very first harvest. For the most part, they all said the same thing; that is, they want certainty. They want access to quality crop insurance that is a big part of the safety net for our farmers and ranchers. In times when they can't get their paycheck from the marketplace, this safety net is critically important. They also want to be in a position financially where they can hand their farm--or their ranch or their operation--down to their kids and their grandkids, but don't just take my word for it. Since my last farm bill listening session, literally hundreds of Montana's farmers and ranchers have written in to my office to make sure their voice is heard on the farm bill. Tom, from Glasgow, MT, wrote to me about the challenges facing farmers and ranchers. He said: I urge you to support the Farm Bill before it expires on September 30. The legislation that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee has a robust farm safety net, including a strong Crop Insurance Program. Our farmers face a challenging agriculture economy. They need the certainty of knowing what programs are available as they make their plans for the coming years. That is critically important. Everybody who is in agriculture knows that you have to plan multiple years out before you can get to a point where you can harvest that crop and bring it to the bin and bring it to market. So having that kind of certainty of a long-term farm bill and getting one done long before September 30 is critically important. Another fellow by the name of Frank, from Lewistown, MT, wrote me about the important role the farm bill plays in feeding this country-- the United States. Here is what Frank said: The farm bill can help put the United States on track to ending food insecurity and hunger in our country. I urge you to work on a bipartisan farm bill that protects and strengthens domestic nutrition programs, especially SNAP. We have a democracy in this country, and we are very proud of it, but as we offer that safety net for our folks in production agriculture, we need to make sure we don't have hunger in this country, to the best of our ability, because democracies don't work well when you have a hungry society. So I am on the Senate floor to tell Tom and Frank and the hundreds of other Montana farmers and ranchers who have contacted me that their voices have been heard and that their priorities are reflected in this Senate farm bill. This bill reauthorizes critical crop insurance initiatives that keep farmers in business. It rejects the House attempt to combine and cut funding for successful conservation practices. It amends EQIP to allow dollars to flow to producers that focus on research conservation and drought resiliency. It strengthens our fight against foot-and-mouth- disease. It keeps in place important sugar provisions which have a multidecade track record of success, especially in the sugar beet country of Southeast and Eastern Montana. It reauthorizes funding for agricultural research and, as we know, for every dollar invested in agriculture research, we see major returns to our economy. It gives the green light to industrial hemp growers. Industrial hemp is a crop that can fit in most rotations around this country, and Montana is no exception, and it reauthorizes funding for critical USDA rural development grants, which help fund water and wastewater infrastructure, and it helps build rural communities. Although the House chose to make political hay out of the farm bill, I commend the folks in the Senate because we got to work and, through the Senate Ag Committee, we put together a bill that farmers and ranchers can literally take to the bank. We did so while protecting the provisions that feed hungry families and protect seniors. Now is the time to get this bill across the finish line. Through the amendment process this week, we have the opportunity to make this farm bill an even better bill. We have already attached a bipartisan amendment to this bill that strengthens the safety net by ensuring that ARC-county payments probably reflect yields. We are giving more authority to the State and local FSA committees to identify ARC boundaries that reflect the conditions and the crops being raised in that region. I want to thank the Montana Grain Growers for their support of this amendment, as well as the Montana Farmers Union for their input. It is my hope that folks continue to check their politics at the door and do what is right for Montana's family farms--the folks who are making a living off the land--by passing a good farm bill this week. Farmers and ranchers are always talking about the future. They are always thinking about the future, whether it is the future of commodity prices or market access or costs, yields, or, yes, the weather. They are constantly thinking about the future of their operation--how they can implement new practices that will make their operation more financially viable to pass on to their children. So let's get the job done this week and pass a good farm bill that gives our producers in this Nation and my producers in Montana the kind of long-term certainty they deserve and gives them the keys to building an even stronger family farm unit. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Indiana for this amendment. It is a good amendment and is an amendment we need to pass in this body. As Senator Young pointed out, issues around mental health are very prevalent. It is the signature injury coming out of the Middle East. When these folks come back home, our men and women who have served need to have access, especially when they are in crisis. I thank Senator Young. Amendment No. 2971 Mr. President, I have a different amendment. This amendment does one simple thing. It stresses the importance of the independence of the Office of the Inspector General at the VA. To be honest, I am not sure we should ever have had to have this amendment, but we do because it is clear the VA is denying access to the Office of Inspector General to get the information it needs to carry out its mission of oversight. Over the past week, there have been a flurry of letters back and forth from the VA to the IG about access to information about the nature of the relationship between the two. This is what I have to say. The rhetoric coming out of the VA is a bit troubling. Sunlight, bringing information to light, is the best antiseptic for good government. When the IG is doing its job correctly, that is exactly what happens. So with the rhetoric that is coming out of the VA, it opens the door to the VA to be able to control or interfere for political reasons what should be the OIG's independent oversight efforts. I am here to state that the VA is not above the law or exempt from independent oversight. Despite the Acting Secretary directing the inspector general to act like he is his subordinate, he is not. This amendment No. 2971 simply prohibits funds appropriated in this bill to be used in a way that limits the access of the Office of Inspector General to the information or documents it deems necessary to investigate and do the oversight of the VA's work. As we have seen, the Department cannot be trusted to police itself. It must be held accountable to the veterans and taxpayers, and the Office of Inspector General is an important watchdog that should not be undermined. I would like to add to the Record the cosponsors of this bill: Senators Isakson, Murray, Blumenthal, Hirono, Manchin, Duckworth, Baldwin, King, Gillibrand, Warren, Brown, McCaskill, Jones, Durbin, and Wyden. This is a good amendment. It is a good governance amendment. It is an amendment to allow us, the folks in the Senate, to offer the kind of oversight we need to offer to the VA to make sure it is serving the veterans of this country. With that, I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 2926

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, for the leadership he has shown from the get-go. From the moment he took the gavel in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, he has been wanting to work together in a bipartisan way, put aside our differences, and get things done. This VA MISSION Act had a great vote yesterday, and people might say: Well, gee, this is just another one of those slam-dunk bills. It is not. We would not be here today if it wasn't for Chairman Isakson and the great work he has done on this bill. I also thank the entire Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I thank the leadership of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. I thank the 38 veterans service organizations that offered their support for this bill. I said many times during the hearings, we will take our cues from the veterans. This is exactly what the entire Senate, hopefully, will do in a minute or two with this bill, is take our cues from the people who serve this country in the military. This is a big win for them. They are also going to put a lot of pressure on the VA to deliver for them, but, nonetheless, this is one of those rare times when the Senate and House have done their job and done it in a bipartisan way, worked together, and worked for the benefit of the veterans of this country. I also thank my staff, Tony McClain, Dahlia Melendrez, and Jon Coen for their great work. In a brief review, what this bill does is scrap the Choice Program and all the community care programs and puts them into one program where the veteran and the doctor control where to seek care, whether it is within the VA or the private sector. It strengthens the VA and helps build capacity in the VA in two ways, with a loan repayment program for our employees, and it incentivizes medical residencies within the VA. It also improves rural healthcare in States where I come from in Montana by deploying mobile health teams and by expanding telehealth. Finally, this bill expands the caregiver program to veterans of all eras--something Senator Murray has worked on for years and years. I was there when Senator Murray came up to the chairman of the committee on a previous bill and said to Chairman Isakson: We really need this caregiver bill in. Chairman Isakson said: We are not going to forget about you, Patty. We are going to make sure this is taken care of. He lived up to his promise to her, and he lived up to those veterans who have a family member who takes care of them at home, where people don't even know what is going on. They don't even know what is happening. Sometimes these folks have to quit their job to take care of a veteran at home who needs help. So the caregiver program is a very important part of this bill. It happened because we worked together. When I go home to Montana people ask: How come you guys can't work together? We kind of broke the mold a little bit, and we worked together in a bipartisan way. We put aside politics, and we did what was right for our country and our veterans. Hopefully, we will get a strong vote out of this bill when it is brought up for passage, and we can get it to the President for his signature. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs I continue to fight hard on behalf of new policies that will allow VA to better serve our Nation's veterans. As a former ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and VA, I am also very mindful of the need to secure the resources necessary for VA to properly carry out those policies. The Choice program has been a disaster in Montana, and I am proud that the VA MISSION Act streamlines VA community care in a manner that makes more sense for veterans and their doctors and for community providers, but as we provide the tools and authorities necessary for veterans to get the care they need, I agree that we also need to secure the resources necessary to achieve the goals of this legislation without short-changing other domestic priorities. I am therefore strongly supportive of including language in an upcoming appropriations bill that provides veterans with the certainty they deserve, and I remain committed to working with the chairman and vice chairman on this effort.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Moran for his kind comments. I want to begin my comments by acknowledging the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. We would not be here today taking up the VA MISSION Act without the leadership of Senator Johnny Isakson of the majority. He is a fierce advocate for veterans, and he has been an incredible pleasure for me to work with. The bipartisanship and collaboration on our Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee happens because we leave politics at the door. That is possible because of Johnny's personality and leadership style, as well as his commitment to the veterans of this Nation. I would also like to thank the many veterans service organizations that have weighed in and provided positive feedback on the VA MISSION Act. Thirty-eight veterans organizations representing millions of veterans and service men and women nationwide support the VA MISSION Act. They have been asking for Choice reform and responsible investment in the VA, and this bill gets it done. I also thank the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with us in getting a bill drafted that we can all be proud of. At the beginning of this Congress, we set out to draft a bill that reforms community care and also strengthens the VA. As Senator Moran pointed out, coming from a State like Montana--a rural State, 147,000 square miles--I know we cannot have a VA clinic in every community, but veterans cannot always drive 2 hours to the nearest VA clinic, and they certainly can't afford to wait months for an appointment. That is why we need private healthcare to fill in the gaps when the VA cannot deliver that healthcare. I also know how much veterans need the services they get from a VA clinic. In my dozens and dozens of face-to-face listening sessions with veterans, they have told me that the kind of care they get from the VA is important. They are surrounded by their peers, many of whom have experienced the mental and physical implications of being in combat. VA doctors and nurses know how to treat PTSD, toxic exposure, and other wounds unique to their service. The best defense against any effort to privatize the VA or send veterans wholesale to the private sector is to make sure the VA is living up to our promise to veterans. The VA MISSION Act recognizes that there is a balance between VA care and community care and invests in medical and clinical staff to serve veterans at the VA. It builds capacity within the VA, and it uses the private sector to fill in the gaps where the VA falls short. It takes the bill that Johnny and I wrote, the Caring for Our Veterans Act, and adds a few things, but the foundation of this legislation is something Senator Isakson and I have written over the course of the last year with veterans groups. So I am incredibly proud to be standing here today to hopefully push this bill to the President's desk. The Choice Program was created with an important mission: to make it easier and faster for veterans to get healthcare. It hasn't worked like that for many veterans--veterans like Tom, a retired U.S. Navy commander of the Vietnam war, a Montanan. In his 24 years as a Navy pilot, Tom spent a lot of time yelling to be heard over the roar of an engine. That took a toll on his ability to hear. Three years ago, he began the process of getting hearing aids from the VA. He got his hearing test done, but when it came time to order the hearing aids, Tom was told that he wasn't authorized. The nearest VA facility to Tom was almost 3 hours away, so he and his wife decided to drive to the closest civilian clinic, which was about 45 miles away in Sandpoint, ID, just across the line from his home in Noxon, MT. There, he hit another snag. After weeks of back-and-forth visits, the authorization was again denied because he was not a resident of Idaho. So he returned to square one. He drove 5 hours to Fort Harrison in Helena, 250 miles away. With assistance from my office, he got the authorization for those hearing aids. Tom had to drive two 5-hour roundtrips to a Choice provider in Kalispell, but a few months later, he finally received his hearing aids. All in all, Tom drove nearly 20 hours to get those hearing aids, and I am here to tell you that it shouldn't be that hard for a veteran to get the healthcare they have earned from the VA. Do you know what the worst part is? There was an audiologist in Tom's hometown the entire time who could have helped him if the VA had just realized how important it was to access that audiologist instead of driving 20 hours down the road. Unfortunately, Tom is not the only veteran with a story like this. I could tell you about a veteran in Lake County who had several appointments scheduled through the Choice Program, and then he was told he wasn't eligible for Choice at all--after his appointment. When he caught pneumonia, my office stepped in and got him the care he needed through the Choice Program. I could tell you about Bruce, a veteran in Billings who couldn't get a followup appointment through the Choice Program after his hip surgery. He was told he wouldn't wait more than 5 days, and then he couldn't get anybody on the phone. We were able to help him get the followup care he needed. Terry, in Butte, got a procedure done through the Choice Program. It was approved, completed, and then he was told he didn't qualify for the Choice Program. Again, this U.S. Senator had to step in so Terry didn't have to foot the bill for his healthcare. I could go on and on. Veterans across the State of Montana have called my office for help since the Choice Program was started. Their frustrations over issues like scheduling, reimbursements, or traveling long distances for care are a sorry way to say thank you to those folks who have served this country. It shouldn't take a Senate office stepping in to make sure the government lives up to its promises to America's veterans, so Chairman Isakson and I wrote a bill that reforms the entire system. We negotiated with the House, the White House, veterans, and advocates to move our bill forward. The Caring for Our Veterans Act was a giant step forward. Thanks to the leadership of the House Veterans Affairs Committee and our effort, the Caring for Our Veterans Act is included in the VA MISSION Act. Our bill gets rid of seven different community care programs, including Choice, and replaces them with one community healthcare system with a streamlined set of rules for veterans, local providers, and VA staff. It will be much easier to understand. Under the MISSION Act, if a veteran wants to get care in their community, they can have a discussion with their doctor and decide what is best. VA doctors and nurses won't have to spend time figuring out which program to refer a veteran to. Local providers who see veterans won't be waiting months for payments from the VA. A new, streamlined payment system will make sure they are getting paid in a timely manner. Our bill holds the VA accountable and requires them to create a business plan to tell us exactly how the agency will spend taxpayer dollars if and when they ask for additional funding. Our bill brings more providers to work at the VA, especially in rural and Tribal areas and vet centers. The bill breaks down barriers along State lines that prevent veterans from accessing mental health care closer to home. The bill expands the VA Caregiver Support Program to veterans of all eras and their caregivers. This was a provision Senator Murray worked on very hard. It was the right thing to do, and Senator Isakson made it a priority of his. The VA and community care are equally important parts of the VA healthcare system. It will either starve the VA to death and empower rural community hospitals or, as this bill does, strike a balance--the right balance--between investing in the VA's ability to provide care for our veterans and cutting the bureaucracy when it makes sense for a veteran to go to a local doctor. The VA MISSION Act is a bold, bipartisan product of working together that puts healthcare decisions in the hands of veterans and breaks down barriers to healthcare wherever it makes the most sense for a veteran to get the care they need. This Nation owes our veterans much more than a thank-you. Veterans deserve a healthcare system that works for them regardless of where they live, what medical condition they are struggling with, or their means. Our bill gets rid of a one-size-fits-all system and creates a more efficient and easier to navigate system for veterans. I urge the Senate to pass the VA MISSION Act to send the message that saying thank you isn't enough for those who put their lives on the line for our Nation. We are going to deliver them a healthcare system that is worthy of their service. Mr. President, I turn the floor over to Senator Johnny Isakson, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I was absent when the Senate voted on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 608. On this vote, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 608. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today, during National Police Week, I wish to honor the thousands of uniformed Montanans who put their lives on the line to guarantee the safety and well-being of our families and the communities they call home. Day in and day out, they keep out drugs, provide justice for families shattered by crime, and ensure parents are secure tucking in their kids at night. These law enforcement officers are well-trained, committed, and they deserve our deepest gratitude. When others run from danger, they courageously face it head on. They bravely stand up to threats, and in the most tragic of circumstances, some make the ultimate sacrifice. Last year, Montanans lost Deputy Mason Moore of the Broadwater County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Moore was a beloved son, husband, father, and brother. He had a strong faith and a deep commitment to Montana and this Nation. His legacy lives on in his family, his fellow law enforcement officers, his community, and our State. Montana will never forget his dedication to service and his promise to keep all Montanans safe. Tragic moments like this make us all stop and remember how thankful we are for the men and women who serve and protect our communities. This National Police Week we add Deputy Moore's name to National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC, to respectfully document his sacrifice and to preserve his legacy. In addition to honoring the life and service of Deputy Moore, we recognize six outstanding Montana law enforcement officers who also responded on May 16, 2017. Deputy Austin Micu of Powell County Sheriff's Department, Troopers Thomas Gill and Timothy R. Wyckoff of Montana Highway Patrol, and Sergeant Tim Berger, Lieutenant John O'Brien, and Officer Rich O'Brien of Butte-Silver Bow Law Enforcement Department all went above and beyond the call of duty, and we honor them today as ``Top Cops.'' During this week and every week, we thank you for putting your lives on the line to make Montana a safer place. God bless you, and God bless your families, and God bless America.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Harold Blattie, the outgoing executive director of the Montana Association of Counties, for his longtime commitment to public service in the State of Montana. Mr. Blattie has dedicated his life to helping preserve our Montana way of life through countless public works projects. He has served as the executive director of MACo for over a decade, providing strong leadership for Montana's counties and facilitating cooperation between local, State, and Federal leaders to deliver for the residents of Big Sky Country. Throughout his respected career, he has secured critical resources for citizens from Libby to Baker and Dillon to Plentywood. The residents of our great State owe him a debt of gratitude, and I rise today with a small token of our appreciation. Mr. Blattie has built his life around building stronger communities. He is a role model for all Americans, and Montana is a better place because of his work. I rise today to thank him for all he has done for the Treasure State and wish him all the best of luck in whatever comes next.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to reflect on the landmark legislation that this body passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last week. It isn't every day that folks in Congress can work together in a bipartisan way to get something done that will benefit Main Streets across rural America, but that is exactly what we did last week. I am very proud of that effort. I say a big thank-you to the chairman of the Banking Committee, Chairman Crapo, for the work he has done, his ability to listen, his commonsense perspective, and his patience. It would not have happened without those qualities that Chairman Crapo exhibited. I also want to single out three Senators who worked very hard on this bill. There are a number of others who did, too, but I am just going to mention Senators Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Warner. Those folks did yeoman's work in bringing into view the challenges that our banking industry has out there, coming up with solutions for those challenges, and coming up with consumer protections to put into this bill to move it forward. There were many others. I think there were 17 or 18 cosponsors on the Democratic side of the aisle, but I say a special thank you to Senators Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Warner for their advocacy, input, knowledge, expertise, and their ability to work to get things done. People ask me: Senator Tester, why did you write this bill? Well, I was a part of the folks who wrote this bill for good reason. I remember very well that during the financial crisis, then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson came in--it was in 2008, I believe--and said that we were on the cusp of a financial meltdown in this country. I remember some of the free and irresponsible activities that were done in the financial system. I remember bringing regulators in front of the Banking Committee and ripping them up one side and down the other as to why we had gotten into this situation. In the end, we came up with a bill called Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank was put together after a lot of public input and a lot of hearings, and it was put into effect really to regulate the folks who got us into the situation we were in. At that moment in time, we had banks that were too big to fail, folks who were doing no-doc or low-doc loans, and foreclosures happening everywhere. We put in the regulation. One of the things we heard when we put in the Dodd-Frank regulation was that it was a big bill and that it was going to need to be changed, adapted--however you want to put it--moving forward. I believe that bill was passed in 2009. Here we are 8 or 9 years later, and we look at Dodd-Frank and see that in some cases, it has done exactly as was intended, especially for the larger banks. Some could argue that there is more work to be done there. One of the negative things that resulted from the Dodd-Frank regulation was that some of that regulation bled down onto our local community banks and credit unions. This is particularly concerning to me because I come from a very rural part of this country. It is a small town where, when my grandfather homesteaded, they had all sorts of options when they marketed their grain. In the 1940s and 1950s, when my folks took over in my small town, I believe there were five grain elevators there. When Sharla and I took over in the late 1970s, there were three. Today, there is one. You ask, why does that have anything to do with the banking industry, Jon? Well, it is consolidation. And the consolidation didn't happen overnight; it took decades. You end up with less competition in the marketplace when it comes to selling your grains. That same thing could be adapted to what has gone on in our community banks over the last 8 or 9 years, where they have been bought up by bigger banks. The bigger banks will tell you that they have to get bigger to be able to compete with the regulations put on them. So they were bought up, and the same thing will extrapolate out over time. Those folks who say: Well, this isn't necessary because banks are making a lot of money--look, banks may be operating today, but they are looking into the future, as any good business does, and they are saying to themselves: Do I really have what it takes to stick around? They can see the writing on the wall, and they are selling out because of it. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this--this will result in less consumer choice and more consolidation, making the bigger banks even bigger and really helping the folks who caused the crisis back in 2008--ultimately, the biggest of the big banks. We have seen the consolidation at grocery stores, grain elevators, and even bars. The truth is that it isn't all due to one single thing. The consolidation in the financial industry and on the ground isn't due to just regulations. Technology has its impact, and a moving population also has its impact. As I looked at this 5 years ago, I said: If we don't do something to tweak Dodd-Frank, we are going to end up in a situation where we don't have consumer choice to buy that house or expand that business or start that new business--what entrepreneurs do. So as a policymaker, I thought it was my job to look ahead to the next generation of people who are going to be out there in rural America, whether it is a Main Street small business or a farm or a family who is working for a business. That is why I helped write this bill, because from a rural America perspective, it was the right thing to do, and it was time to do something for the next generation, for our kids and our grandkids, so that they could have the kind of opportunity that, quite frankly, my folks and my grandparents had given to my generation. I am not the kind of person who will sit back on the sidelines and complain about stuff over a cup of coffee. When we see a problem, my folks taught me to work and try to fix it. I see a problem, and there is little doubt in my mind that if we had not done what we did last week to give some regulatory relief to community banks and credit unions, things would have continued to get worse in rural America. They still may get worse in rural America, but at least we have done what we needed to do in this body to try to change that. There are some out there who, for whatever reason--and I haven't quite been able to figure it out yet--are spreading misinformation about this bill. Maybe it is just the day we live in. So let me set the record straight about this bill. This bill does not help the Wall Street banks. It does not. Those who say it does are not correct. This bill does not set us up for another financial crisis. In fact, the authors of the original Dodd-Frank bill, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--both smart guys whom I admire--wrote: As the authors of the original Dodd-Frank reform law, we want all Montanans to know that the banking bill Senator Tester helped write does not dismantle Dodd-Frank as some people claim. Jon knows Montana and challenges facing rural America. While we did not agree with every part of this bill, it helps local credit unions and community banks across Montana while keeping protections in place that are designed to prevent another financial crisis. Those are the original authors. That is why it is called Dodd-Frank-- because it is from Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank. The other thing the bill does not do is it does not leave banks unregulated. There is implication by some out there that this bill deregulates 25 of the 40 largest banks. To me, that implication is that now they are no longer regulated. The fact is, all the banks are highly regulated for safety and soundness. Quite frankly, this does not leave banks unregulated. They still have plenty of regulation to go through. In conclusion, the bill we passed last week does several things. I believe it is going to increase access to capital, particularly in rural America. I think it makes the regulation fit the risk, while still continuing to crack down on risky behavior. It has great consumer protection components to it. Last and certainly not least, from my perspective, it is good for rural America. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement be printed in the Record on behalf of AASA; the School Superintendents Association; Afterschool Alliance; Alliance for Excellent Education; American Association of School Librarians; American Association of School Libraries; American Federation of Teachers; American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; American Library Association; American School Counselor Association; Americans for Democratic Action; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Association of Educational Service Agencies; Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents; Association of School Business Officials International, ASBO; Center for American Progress; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Council for Exceptional Children; Council of Administrators of Special Education; CUE; EDGE; Education Networks of America; Every Child Matters; GLSEN; Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; Learning Disabilities Association of America; Learning Forward; MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Association for Bilingual Education; National Association of Black School Educators; National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of State Directors of Special Education; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Learning Disabilities; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of Teachers of English; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; National Education Association Retirees Organization, NEARO; National Education Association; National PTA; National Rural Education Advocacy Consortium; National Rural Education Association; National School Boards Association; National School Public Relations Association; National Science Teachers Association; Network for Public Education; New Teacher Center; People for the American Way; Project Tomorrow; School Social Work Association of America; Stop Sexual Assault in Schools; Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children; and University Council for Educational Administration.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor Janet Jones for her distinguished public service to the U.S. Senate. Janet began her Senate career in the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment in 2006 as a litigation paralegal. Not long after that, she took on the tremendous responsibility of getting Senate offices prepared for their mandatory OSHA inspections by the congressional Office of Compliance. During the 114th Congress alone, Janet pre-inspected almost a half- million square feet of office space, assisting Senate offices with identifying potential hazards and potential safety violations. Janet's tireless work with Senate offices over the past 12 years has contributed to making the offices that serve this body safer for our employees, our visitors, and our constituents. With Janet's assistance, many Senate offices, including my own, have earned Safe Office Awards. We will miss Janet's institutional knowledge and unparalleled professionalism. Janet, thank you for your service, and I wish you great happiness in retirement.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Crapo. I want to associate myself with my good friend from Tennessee, Senator Bob Corker. We always say ``good friend,'' but the truth is that Senator Corker has truly been a good friend. We came to this body together, and he has exhibited uncommon common sense in this body time and again, and once again, he has today. I thank Senator Corker for his remarks about this bill. Mr. President, time and again over the past year, I have been here on the Senate floor raising my concerns about the direction this body is heading--secret backroom deals on the healthcare bill, a ``take it or leave it'' tax bill that was dropped on our desks literally hours before the vote, and the floor time that has been wasted to score political points. Quite frankly, this dysfunction has turned the world's most deliberative body into a shell of its former self. Folks in Washington have shied away from the big debates and refused to tackle the tough issues that are facing hard-working Americans every day, but this week I am hopeful that can change. Today we begin the debate on the bipartisan Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. This bill is the product of years of bipartisan negotiations, hearings, and compromises. Under the leadership of Chairman Crapo and my good friends Senators Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Warner, we have struck a bipartisan agreement that is needed to provide an economic boost for rural America. Folks from both parties put their differences aside. We negotiated from our points of agreement, and we emphasized common ground. We kept working toward our shared goal of strengthening America's economy by providing commonsense regulatory reform to small- and medium-sized banks, community banks, and credit unions. During the committee process, this bill was marked up and debated for 7 hours. We voted on 36 amendments during an open amendment process. The chairman handled that committee process incredibly professionally. Since this bill was introduced in the Banking Committee last year, it has been strengthened by Senators who are not on that committee, and it has been endorsed by regulators, veterans groups, and job creators from both parties. This bipartisan bill has support from folks of all walks of life and is cosponsored by more than a quarter of this body because they know that reform is desperately needed. In my home State of Montana, prior to the financial crisis in 2008, there were 72 chartered banks. Today that number has dropped to 49. What we have seen in Montana is not unique throughout this country. Across rural America, bank consolidation is leaving communities underserved. Community banks and credit unions didn't cause the financial crisis back in 2008, but they have suffered under a one-size- fits-all set of regulations specifically designed to rein in the behavior on Wall Street. As a result of complying with these regulations, many of our community bankers are hanging up their hats, and our local banks are being swallowed up by bigger banks. Ultimately, they will be swallowed up by the folks on Wall Street. Furthermore, when a community bank is bought out by a big bank, its business model changes and it is no longer tailored to fit that community. Despite being a small portion of the banking industry, community banks provide--listen to this--48 percent of the small business loans in this country, 15 percent of the residential mortgage lending, 43 percent of farmland and farm lending, and 34 percent of commercial real estate loans. These banks are designed and built to serve their communities. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the number of banks in this country has declined by 14 percent, and in our State of Montana, with some quick math, it is closer to 30 percent. If you are a product of rural America like I am, you know full well the consequences when a bank leaves town. It is just a matter of time before that community shrivels up. Folks, something must be done. Eight years ago, during the dark days of the financial crisis, I proudly supported Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank was needed to crack down on risky financial behavior. For the most part, Dodd-Frank has been successful, but, like all major bills, Dodd-Frank had some unintended consequences. Since its passage, small business lending has declined by 41 percent. That is why our bill is needed--to bring more capital to Main Streets across America and to protect community banks from further consolidation. Our bill provides small and midsized banks and credit unions with more flexibility to meet the unique needs of the communities they serve. It also provides our community banks with much needed regulatory relief and cuts the redtape to keep our local banks competitive. It includes critical consumer protection provisions to better protect our veterans, our seniors, and tenants. This bipartisan bill makes it easier for young families to purchase their first home. It helps family farmers and ranchers secure the capital they need to survive a tough year when Mother Nature doesn't cooperate. It helps small businesses and startups secure the funding they need to grow their businesses and create more jobs. It protects the small banks that serve as a cornerstone of rural communities from being eaten alive by the big boys on Wall Street. In addition to banking reform, this bill strengthens the rights of consumers. It provides consumers with unlimited free credit freezes and unfreezes. It prevents mortgage companies from immediately kicking tenants out of their homes if a landlord is foreclosed on. It increases safeguards against fraud for veterans, Active-Duty servicemembers, seniors, and children. Over the course of this debate, there are going to be some folks who come to this floor and peddle misinformation, so let me be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not roll back the regulations on Wall Street's fat cats. It does not make structural changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It does not weaken or repeal the Volcker rule for large banks. It does not change the way the Federal Reserve regulates foreign banks. It does not weaken efforts to combat lending discrimination. I have already seen a lot of falsehoods about this bill claimed out there, so I hope this debate stays grounded in the facts, and the fact is that folks in rural America need this bill. Take for instance the Community Bank in Polson, MT. Polson's population is 5,000, and that might be generous. The Community Bank had faithfully served this community for decades, but the regulations from Dodd-Frank were so burdensome on that small bank and so costly that it was forced to sell out to a larger bank. But it is not just Polson. Here is what other folks in my State are saying about the bill. A small credit union in Billings, MT, said: As a small credit union, we spend a ridiculous amount of time complying with complex rules and I am pleased to see a bill that would eliminate some of this red tape so I can focus my resources on serving members. That was from Sydney El-Bakken, manager of Homestead Federal Credit Union in Billings, MT. This is a quote from another bank in Jordan, MT: Dodd-Frank has disproportionately affected small banks like mine who have limited staff and resources to comply with the regulations created by the bill. Prior to Dodd-Frank's passage, my bank was able to keep up with compliance regulations with one staff member. Now, in addition to our one staff person, we also have outside compliance consultants that cost us over $23,000 last year alone. I am going to get back to that figure in a second. I have talked to many of my fellow bankers who decided to sell to, or merge with, another bank. Almost every one of them has told me that the regulatory burden was one of the main reasons for them to sell or merge. The loss of small community banks is not good for our country, our consumers, or our economy. This bill provides many remedies to lessen the regulatory burden on small banks, which allow us to remain competitive, viable, and able to serve the needs of our communities. The reason I bring up the $23,000 is that there are some out there who may be listening and may say that $23,000 is not even a rounding error in a lot of businesses. Rex Phipps is the CEO of Garfield County Bank in Jordan, MT. Their total assets are $86 million. This is a small bank that is getting pounded and that this bill is going to help in a big, big way. I am going to tell you, I could go on reading the words of community bankers and credit union leaders and businesses in Montana that support this bill, but the bottom line is this: Folks sent us to the Senate to do something to help out the folks we represent. For too long, this body has been dragged into the mud, and as a result, we have had partisan and zero-sum policies and zero-sum politics. Dysfunction has kept this Congress from doing its job, and part of that job is to fine- tune laws to ensure that regulation fits the risk. Enough is enough already. We must do something. And I am proud to work with 13 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 1 Independent who worked so hard to compromise on this bill that I think works very well for rural America. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act is a jobs bill, and it is a much needed solution for the folks who power our local economies. I look forward to this week's debate. It is encouraging to see that the Senate is back here doing the job we were sent here to do. It is encouraging that we have a bill here that has gone through the process to gather public input, gather bipartisan support, and it is now on the floor so that we can debate it. I look forward to that debate, and I hope that debate is based on the facts. I want to say one more thing before I yield the floor. We would not be here today without Chairman Crapo. Chairman Crapo has done a fine job getting everybody's opinion, respecting everybody's opinion, and walking that line to allow for negotiations and having a good bill as the final product. I don't know what is going to be in the final managers' package, but I hope it doesn't change this bill dramatically because I think this bill really fits the needs of our economy, especially in rural America right now. With that, I would just say, look, we have some work to do. Hopefully we can do it in a timely fashion and get this bill off to the House. Hopefully the House doesn't screw it up and we can get it to the President's desk for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Paul Reeder, a retired Billings Police Department chaplain, for his unwavering faith, rock-solid dedication, and compassionate heart. His words of wisdom have brought comfort, peace, and joy to families all across Billings and the State of Montana. Paul was born to John and Ella Reeder during the Great Depression, and as a young boy, Paul helped support his family, working in their garden, raising food, and helping to preserve it each fall. Paul took his first job in the ministry in 1955 in Valier, MT, before moving to Havre in 1958 to pastor at the First Baptist Church. In 1966, he and his family moved to Great Falls, where he led the Riverview Baptist Church. After a few years there, he reached out to other community organizations in the area facing administrative challenges. Finally, he, his wife, Mary, and their three children Doug, Karen, and Barbara moved to Billings, where Paul accepted the directorship of Friendship House of Christian Service. He helped coordinate and expand programs there including early childcare, afterschool programs, and nutrition classes. Though Paul is retired, he continues to preach one Sunday each month at All Nations Church and still attends morning briefings at the Billings Police Department. Paul has built a life around helping others and building stronger communities. He is a role model for Montana, and Billings is a better place because of his work.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for allowing me to say a few words, and I thank you, Mr. President, for doing the same. Hopefully, today works out better than the last 131 days have, in that hopefully today a bipartisan group of Senators will be able to put forth a budget agreement that will be long term. I thank them because as part of that--although it isn't done yet so we don't want to get the cart too far ahead of the horse--there is funding for community health centers in this agreement. Funding for community health centers has become a top priority for me, and it became that because of my visits to community health centers around the State, from Bullhook in Havre to RiverStone in Billings, to the Southwest Montana Community Health Center in Butte, to Partnership Health Center in Helena and Missoula, and the list goes on. These health centers provide incredibly affordable and efficient healthcare to people across Montana. So I am incredibly pleased to work with the leadership in this body and get a deep deal for community healthcare centers across this country, including Montana's 17 community health centers. I would say 2 years is a good start, but there happens to be 19 bipartisan cosponsors on a bill called the CHIME Act, which would reauthorize community health center funding for 5 years. That is where we really need to be. I am not complaining about the 2 years. I think it is important that we keep these folks going, and 2 years is certainly better than where we are now, but, really, we don't look with much vision in this body, and it is not visionary to say we are going to give a 5-year funding mechanism to our community health centers, but that is what we need to do today. We need to give the community health centers the long-term predictability they deserve. In Montana, these centers are the backbone of much of our healthcare delivery system. They provide affordable access to care, keeping our communities and families healthy. Let me give you a little example of how important these are. Community health centers alone provide over 10 percent of the healthcare for the people of the State of Montana. It is where they go to get care, and 85 percent of those folks are low income. These are folks who probably wouldn't be able to get healthcare without the community health center there, and 20,000 of them are children. Montana is a big State geographically, with not a lot of folks. Oftentimes folks have to travel a long way, under the best of conditions, to see a doctor. If we didn't do this funding mechanism that we hope happens today or tomorrow, we would see these folks traveling hundreds of more miles to see a doctor because oftentimes this is the only healthcare facility close to them. Although the news we have heard today so far seems to be positive on our budget, it doesn't change the fact that Congress should have acted on this 131 days ago. A solution should have been passed when our fiscal year ended at the end of September. It speaks to the dysfunction of this body. Our basic job is to put forth a funding mechanism, known as a budget, that will provide basic healthcare that will fund community health centers and CHIP--not use them as political pawns-- fund them, give people certainty, give our military certainty, give our security folks certainty, and not continue governing from crisis to crisis with continuing resolution after continuing resolution. I have seen firsthand the destruction these short-term budgets have had on health clinics, veterans, and small business. I just had a group of school board folks in my office yesterday who talked about Impact Aid. These are schools that serve our military and Native Americans. They said these CRs were limiting the possibility for payments for Impact Aid schools. We have heard from our military leaders about how the short-term CR is wasting taxpayer dollars and hurting our military readiness. At a time when men and women from this great country are stationed around the world, we need to give them certainty. They need to know we are doing our job as they do their jobs in incredibly difficult conditions. So, for 131 days, too many Americans have been living with uncertainty as a direct result of dysfunction in Congress. This agreement is a step in the right direction, and I am very pleased to see progress on a budget because 131 days is too long. Let's get this fixed, and over the coming weeks, I will be more than happy to sit down with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who are willing to roll up their sleeves and work to give this country, small businesses, and working families predictability through a longer term budget so they can move forward and be all they hope to be in the greatest country in the world. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today on this 13th day of January to call out this body, the body of the U.S. Senate, for its dereliction of duty. Enough is enough. We need a long-term budget bill for all of America, including my home State of Montana, because that is what Americans expect because it is our job. It has been 122 days since Congress has failed to pass a budget. What makes this even more egregious is the fact that we haven't done anything but continuing resolution after continuing resolution after continuing resolution. There is no certainty in that. And even if we passed a long-term budget deal, it isn't even for that long of a term-- through the end of this fiscal year, which is when it needs to be done by. For the last 122 days, Congress has left community health centers, small business owners, America's families, Montana's families without the certainty of a long-term budget. During that time, Congress has instead settled for four short-term, crisis-funding bills that don't do what is necessary and that provide more uncertainty and more chaos. I have heard a lot of folks say that government needs to be run like a business. There is no business that would put off what it is doing just because it is convenient. In my real life, I am a farmer. I know that you have to plan. I know that you can't go from month to month with uncertainty ahead of you because if you do, you will end up in a situation where it will put you out of business. You have to be able to plan, whether it is for the seeds you buy or equipment maintenance or anything else in agriculture. It is the same way in any business, and by the way, it is the same way in government. Unfortunately, the norm has been a month of funding in continuing resolutions, or 3 weeks, instead of coming to a point where we can fund things until the end of the fiscal year, which will give folks certainty, whether it is the military or our southern border or community health centers. Why do I bring this up? It is because fully 10 percent of the citizens of Montana depend on community health centers for access to their healthcare. It is in some cases the only source of healthcare for these folks. I have had listening tours and roundtables and over a dozen different public meetings on healthcare over the last year, and I can tell you that these facilities are critically important. So who cares? Why should we worry about that, because we have a continuing resolution. Why? Because these folks right now, if you go talk to them in the State of Montana and I think in any other State in the Union, they will tell you they are not sure whether they will keep their doors open. That does not provide the kind of certainty they need and the kind of access to healthcare folks in our country need, and Montana is no exception. We cannot continue governing from crisis to crisis. Montana deserves better. America deserves better. We need a budget that goes to the end of the fiscal year, that provides the kind of certainty and security the American people elected us to do. Congress simply needs to do its job. Mr. President, I yield the floor.