Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, many of you know that in my real life I am a farmer. I know where my food comes from and how it is made. Unfortunately, that is not true for most Americans. We will be dealing with a bill called the DARK Act shortly, and quite frankly the DARK Act does not empower America's consumers. It does not tell them what is in the packaged food they purchase, and it doesn't give them any information when we are dealing with genetically modified ingredients. I was told that the customer is always right. If you are a good businessman, you listen to your customers. In this particular case, the customer has a right to know what is in their food. In fact, they expect it because 9 out of 10 consumers say they want labeling for genetically engineered foods. Some of the folks in this body are not listening to the customers. They are not listening to their constituents. Instead, they are listening to the big corporations that want to keep consumers in the dark, and we cannot allow that to happen in this body today. The Senate is above that. Transparency in everything leaves better accountability and gives more power to average Americans, and that is also true when we talk about food. Free markets work when consumers have access to information. The U.S. Senate should not be in the business of hiding information from consumers. Let's be clear. What the new DARK Act, which is sponsored by the Senator from Kansas, does is it tells the American people: We in the Senate know what is best for you, and quite frankly, whether you want this information or not, you are not going to get it. How does this DARK Act do this? First of all, it blocks the States from enforcing their own laws, so we can throw States' rights out the window. Second, this ``compromise'' would hide the information behind 800 numbers and QR codes. Let me tell you, if you think this is labeling, if you think this is giving the consumer a right to know what is in their food, you are wrong. This is a game. And for the mom who wants to know what is in her child's cereal or soup or bread, there may be a bunch of different 800 numbers out there, and I don't know about you, but when it comes to phone numbers, especially the older I get, the harder it is for me to remember. Or you will stand in a grocery store aisle and scan each individual product with a smartphone, if you have a smartphone and if you have cell phone coverage at that location, because, quite frankly, in rural America, we don't in a lot of places. And that is going to be the labeling. Unbelievable. The fact is, if folks are so proud of the GMOs, they should label them. What they are saying is you can voluntarily do it. Frankly, voluntary standards are no standards at all. If they were standards, we would say to the super PACs: Tell us who you get your money from. Tell us what you are spending it on, why you are spending it. We don't know that. We don't know that in our elections, by the way, which puts our democracy at risk, and we won't know about our food if this DARK Act passes. There are 64 countries out there that require GMO labeling. China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are not exactly transparent countries, but they are requiring GMO labeling. Vermont passed a GMO labeling law that would go in effect in July. Maine and Connecticut have passed mandatory labeling laws. There are numerous States that require things like farm- raised or wild- caught. FDA, in fact, even regulates terms such as ``fresh'' and ``fresh frozen.'' Some of the proponents of the DARK Act will say: Well, you know, folks from California and Washington defeated it when it was on the ballot. Yes, they did. Let me give you some figures. In Washington, more than $20 million was spent in opposition to the labeling law--more than $20 million. By the way, about $600 of that came from Washington residents, according to the Washington Post. About $7 million was in support of that campaign, with at least $1.6 million of that $7 million coming from Washington residents. In California, the opponents to labeling our food with GMOs spent about $45 million to defeat it. Monsanto alone spent $8 million of that $45 million. Supporters of the labeling spent about $7 million. So let's be clear. When people have a choice to vote and get the facts, they want their food labeled. This DARK Act does exactly the opposite. It is bad legislation. It does not empower consumers. It does not empower the American people. In fact, it does what the title of this bill says: Keep them in the dark. That is not what the U.S. Senate should be about. We need to defeat this bill, whether it is through the cloture process or later on. This is bad, bad, bad policy. I yield my time to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. TESTER. Well, you said it. For the people who heard you explain the process you would go through, that is not labeling. That is not transparency. That isn't telling folks what is in their food. Needless to say, I have to tell you, I think these are a pain in the neck. If I wasn't in this body, I don't think I would even have one, and there are a lot of people who feel that way. So now I am going to have to spend money and get a plan so I can determine what is in my food? Not everybody has the resources to have one of these. What does this do to folks who are poor? They deserve to have the food that they want to eat. They deserve to know what is in it. And they are not going to have that capacity. Then what about folks in places such as eastern Washington or all of Montana that isn't where a lot of people live? Oftentimes there is not that service. So it just does not make any sense. You are trying to replace what Vermont is doing with nothing, and that is not fair. It is not fair to the consumers. As I said in my remarks, the consumer is always right. They are. It is a fact of business. We ought to be listening to folks. That is why we have single-digit approval ratings in this body. We need to listen. And we are not listening with the DARK Act.

Mr. TESTER. Bogus.

Mr. TESTER. Yes. It is worse than nothing. At least if you had nothing, you know what you have.

Mr. TESTER. Well, I think that is up to the consumer to find out, and the consumer never knows if it is not on the label. I think we put a lot of things on labels. I bought some orange juice last night. It was not from frozen concentrate; it was fresh squeezed. That is a consumer choice that I have. I buy that because I like it. I think it is better. I think it is better for you. That is what I choose to do. I think what this DARK Act does is it doesn't allow consumers to make the choices they want. They can do the research. Once they see what is in it and make the decision whether they--some people may want to eat it. It may be a positive thing: This is good. It has GMO in it. I want to buy that. For other folks, they may say: No, I don't want to buy that. That is their choice. That is what this country is about. It is about freedom. Now we are stopping that. That is what this debate is about. It is about labeling of food. It is about letting consumers know what they are eating and letting them make the decision as to what is best for their family.

Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. It is just as bogus as the 800 number, quite frankly, if not more, for all the same reasons. First of all, you have to have a phone. You have to have service. Oftentimes that isn't the case. Quite frankly, what we need is what your bill does, and that is, just tell folks what is in the package--parentheses, three letters, or an asterisk that says what it is, very simple. People can understand and they don't have to jump through all these hoops. I know proponents of this DARK Act will say: Well, you know, that is going to cost a lot of money. Look, Budweiser makes a beer labeled for every NFL football team in the country. At Christmastime, they put Santa Claus on, and then they make the ones in the blue cans too. It is standard stuff. It is all the same price. Companies change their labels all the time. So the fact that we are replacing what would be common sense--the Senator's bill, which is what we should be taking up and passing here on the floor because it makes sense, it gives consumers the right to know what is in their food--with something that has an 800 number or QR code is crazy. It is crazy. And the arguments that folks are using for keeping people in the dark simply are not factual.

Mr. TESTER. No. In a word, no. And of all the choices that we have out there, that we do every day, food is one of the most important choices we make. That is what we put in our bodies. It gives us power. It gives us intellect. It gives us the ability to do our daily jobs, to work, to be successful, to support our family. Quite frankly, this bill--and the timing of it is curious--this bill does none of those things to help move families and the people and society forward. It just keeps them in the dark, which is disturbing. As I said in my opening statement, the Senate should be above this. We should be empowering people, not taking away their right to know.

Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. The Senator came out of the State Legislature in Oregon. I came out of the State Legislature in Montana. Quite frankly, much of the work is done at the State level. We follow their lead. This bill does exactly the opposite. It prevents States from labeling for genetically modified foods, and it replaces it with a voluntary labeling system basically or QR codes that nobody is going to have the technology, quite frankly, or the time to be able to investigate. So the Senator is right. This tells folks in Vermont and Maine and Connecticut and many other States--as I said, 9 out of 10 consumers want genetically modified foods labeled, and this replaces it basically with nothing. The proponents will walk out here and say: No, no, no, there is going to be a QR code or 800 number. That simply does not give the consumers the ability to know what is in their food. We live in a very fast-paced society. I can tell you, it happened just this weekend when I was home. I pulled up in a pickup. My wife ran in the grocery store, grabbed what she needed, came out, and we zipped home. People don't have the time to look unless it is sitting right there and they can see it. And that is what your bill does, I say to Senator Merkley. Your bill gives the consumer the ability to simply look at the package and know what is in it, and that is what we should be fighting for in this body. We shouldn't be fighting to keep people in the dark; we should fight to let people know so they can make good decisions. If you have good information--and it is true here and it is true amongst the American public--if you have good information, you can make good decisions. When parents buy food for their kids, they ought to have the information so they can make good decisions. It is simply a right to know what is in your food.

Mr. TESTER. Well, absolutely. The Senator from Oregon hit the nail on the head. We need to defeat cloture. We need to defeat this bill. If we want to take up a labeling bill, we ought to take up the Merkley bill and pass it. That would empower consumers. It would give them freedom. It would live up to what our forefathers had in mind for this country. Instead, in my opinion, they are doing exactly the opposite. This is a bad piece of legislation. The Senator is right. The polls do show that across the parties, we are all Americans on this one, 9 to 1. We have to listen. If folks are having a hard time hearing what people are saying, they should just read their emails. Hear what the folks out in front of our offices are saying, because folks are talking and we need to listen. Read the editorial pages. Folks are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. They just want to know so they can make decisions. So I hope this body will defeat this bill, put it to bed, and then we can talk about a labeling bill that makes sense for this country.

Mr. TESTER. Correct.

Mr. TESTER. You don't. And by the way, there are three doors here, and it is kind of like ``Let's Make a Deal.'' The problem is, what is behind No. 1, 2, and 3 are all zonks for the American consumers. I say to Senator Merkley, this makes no sense to me whatsoever because it is confusing. It absolutely keeps the consumers in the dark. And we are actually going to try to promote something like that in the Senate? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate overwhelming passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which is a good first step toward combatting the opioid addition epidemic facing our Nation. The bill authorizes expanded treatment options and empowers local health and law enforcement agencies to intensify efforts to combat opioid addiction. This bill is a good start, but there is a lot of work left to do to address this increasingly dire situation. This body needs to put real resources behind the initiatives we approved today and place a greater priority on investing in research for non- opioid alternatives to pain management. The CDC estimated that, in 2014, overdose related to prescription pain killers killed nearly 19,000 Americans. In Montana alone, according to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, prescription drug overdoses led to at least 369 deaths and more than 7,200 hospital inpatient admissions and emergency department encounters statewide over a recent 3-year period. The effects of opioid addiction are undisputedly devastating. It is also important to keep in mind that chronic pain is a very real problem that affects millions of Americans. When discussing the negative consequences of opioids, we must also remember that effective treatments for chronic pain are absolutely necessary for those struggling with long-term pain management. That is why I believe it is time to devote more energy and funding to the development of non-opioid painkillers. Early stage research in my home State of Montana is demonstrating incredible promise in developing non-opioid drugs that could help treat both chronic and acute pain. I am confident that medical professionals will eventually be empowered to offer their patients effective pain management alternatives that may significantly reduce our society's reliance on opioids. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to find ways to invest in the research and development of non-opioid painkillers. In the meantime, I encourage Federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, to ramp up focus on finding alternative treatments for chronic pain to reduce our Nation's dependency on opioids. Thank you. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Energy Policy Modernization Act that we have been considering on the Senate floor. This bill has a lot of good things in it. It includes provisions to support a wide array of energy technologies, from improving conventional energy sources to promoting renewables to advancing long- overdue policies to increase energy efficiency. It supports energy infrastructure, which is critical for energy exporting States like Montana. It includes specific provisions that I have worked on to promote geothermal development, and I thank Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for including them. In the course of this debate, we have adopted amendments to boost research and development overall and to clarify policies to recognize the value of energy development from forest biomass. I am also hopeful we will also be able to add provisions from the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act that I have championed for years. Furthermore, this bill includes permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund with my making public lands public provision to increase access to our public lands for hunters, fishers, and others who want to enjoy them. Although it does not provide the money to fully fund the LWCF, a permanent authorization would help us avoid letting the fund lapse, as it did last fall for over 2 months. It also invests in our national parks as we celebrate the centennial year of the Park Service. Though I may not agree with everything in the bill, these provisions I have highlighted are tremendously important to Montana. But we are also in the midst of a developing environmental catastrophe. The people of Flint, MI, including as many as 9,000 children, have been exposed to lead-contaminated water for a prolonged period due to decisions made by the State of Michigan in the interest of saving money. A generation of kids in this community could see lifelong effects from a completely avoidable and manmade disaster. As we know all too well in Montana, clean water is far more valuable than money. It is completely unacceptable that this has happened. In Montana, there are places where we are still living with the legacy of environmental pollution. In Butte, Anaconda, Libby, and elsewhere, long-term cleanups continue from mining development, industrial activities, and the tragedy of widespread asbestos use. The human health costs of these disasters have been tremendous. We must not stand by and watch another community and more kids be affected by manmade disasters without stepping in to help. If we have a chance to stop this particular catastrophe before it gets any worse, we ought to. We have to. And that is why I am disappointed that we are not currently able to provide meaningful and immediate assistance to help fix the pipes and address broader impacts. I hope we can figure out how to pass this bill. Let's stay on this bill, let's find a way to do right by folks in Flint, and let's pass this bill. Amendment No. 3140, As Modified Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Collins that was adopted this week. I support this amendment to help bolster forest biomass in our renewable energy portfolio and provide consistency across Federal programs. Our Nation has long depended on the flow of wood and fiber from our forests. Now, we are recognizing the role of forest biomass in lowering our carbon emissions and increasing our energy independence. When harvested sustainably, the carbon benefits of forest biomass can be great. Carbon emitted to the atmosphere from forest biomass is eventually removed again with forest growth, and this cycle can happen again and again. Forest biomass is also good for jobs, particularly in rural communities. Recognizing the carbon benefits of forest biomass can increase its value. This will help keep our Nation's forests healthy by making it economically feasible to conduct forest health treatments and reduce hazardous fuels that threaten our communities. It will also help the timber industry by allowing them to use more wood that would otherwise be wasted.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit today about food, transparency, and consumers' rights to know what is in their food. As many folks in this body know, in my real life I am a farmer. I get to see exactly where my food comes from. Last month, I spent some time butchering and processing beef, knowing exactly where that came from. I like that. But not all Americans have the ability to know where their food comes from. A few months ago, in July, the House passed a bill called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. It couldn't be anything more different from that, by the way. It basically denies Americans the right to know what is in their food by prohibiting the Federal Government, States, and municipalities from imposing any labeling standards that deal with genetically modified food. I come from a State where transparency is very important. It makes our government work better. For the Federal Government in this case to undermine States and municipalities and not allow the consumer to know what is in their food--it is exactly the wrong step to take. So why am I bringing this subject up today? I am bringing it up today because, quite frankly, there is some talk about air dropping an amendment that would allow the DARK Act to go into effect. It is not a bill we have debated on the floor to my knowledge. I don't know that it has even been heard in committee. But the bottom line is that this is bad policy. The arguments would be that it is confusing; it is going to be expensive. That is bunk. Consumers are smart. They pay attention to what they eat. If you give them the ability to choose and the ability to know what is in their food, they will make the decision--which is their decision to make--on what they are going to feed their family and what mothers are going to feed their children. It goes against everything this country stands for about letting people know we do have a great food system in this country. So let's be proud of it. Let's label it. Let's talk about what is in it. Let's let consumers have the choice. Consumers are smart, and they will absolutely make a choice that is best for their family. Food is very important. Food, in my opinion, is medicine. If you know what you are eating, you will have a healthier family. If you pay attention to these kinds of things, your health care costs will go down. The truth is that other countries require GMO labeling--countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia--not exactly countries that we would think would be very helpful to their consumers or transparent. But they think it is important to label it. We ought to here in this country too. Big Money is coming in here saying: We don't want the consumers to know if they have GMO products in food; we want consumers to be ignorant. That is not something this body should do. Let's give consumers the information they deserve. Let's allow this labeling to move forward, as Vermont has already done. Other States like Maine and Connecticut also are taking steps in that direction. The bottom line is, to put in an amendment that stops States or municipalities from requiring labeling is a step in the wrong direction. It is not fair to consumers, and, quite frankly, it is not fair to the folks who produce food in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor James Joseph Marshall, a third generation Montanan and a veteran of World War II. On behalf of all Montanans and Americans, I stand to say thank you to Jim's family for his service to our Nation. It is my honor to share the story of Jim's life and service, a story that most certainly will not be forgotten, and a story he perhaps wouldn't have told himself. In fact, it wasn't until his oldest daughter, Vicki, was in eighth grade that she even noticed her father's limp. She asked her mother, ``Why does daddy limp?'' Ruth told her that he limped because of his war wound. He never talked about his experience during the war, and it wasn't until he wrote about his injury for a presentation to middle schoolers that his family heard the full story. Jim was shot in the leg while fighting in the Ruhr Pocket, in Germany, near the border of Czechoslovakia on April 25, 1945. After sweeping the countryside searching for any remaining resistance, his platoon butted up against German troops on a mountainside. It wasn't long until the platoon was pinned down by the automatic weapon fire. The platoon made a dash for cover but to no avail. Every man was hit. Jim described the shot to his leg like being hit by a sledgehammer. German troops came to confirm they were all dead and to gather any rifles and ammo. Jim, with his orders shoved underneath him and the sole survivor, played dead. They passed on. Not long after, German medics came through. Surprisingly, a young German, whom Jim identified by the swastika on his arm, put a compress on his leg and a jacket over top of him before moving on. Shortly after, an American Jeep rolled up and rescued him. Jim always said he never would have made it out alive had that young German not stopped to show him some compassion. Once home from the war in 1946, Jim enrolled at Montana State University at Bozeman. It was there that he met his future wife Ruth Officer, a nurse who tended to some residual issues with Jim's hip. They married on March 15, 1947. Jim was always a man who took care of his family, and that devotion took them to Livingston, Ruth's hometown. There, he began work as a carpenter's apprentice, eventually becoming a journeyman. After returning to MSU to get his industrial art degree, he began teaching shop at Emerson Junior High in Bozeman. Eventually, he became a purchasing agent for Missoula School District No. 1. Jim and Ruth had three children: Vicki, Leann, and Jim. They remember him as a humble man who cared deeply for his family and frequently demonstrated that devotion. The fondness with which Jim is remembered is reflective of the life he lived. Folks will remember his willingness to help out a friend and his love of photography, especially bald eagles. He was passionate about making Montana better for future generations. In September of 2012, Jim had the pleasure of participating in one of the earliest Honor Flights to Washington, DC, to see the World War II Memorial there. His daughter, Leann, helped him register himself as a World War II veteran at the memorial, and his name will remain in the kiosks there for anyone to see. In fact, I had the honor of greeting that particular Honor Flight back to Montana afterward and am happy to hear that Jim immensely enjoyed that experience. Jim died on April 8, 2014, surrounded by family. It was my honor to recognize James Joseph Marshall's bravery and service to the United States by presenting his family with the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement based on his prior award of the combat infantryman badge and the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp. Our Nation is forever grateful for Jim's service.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I just need about 1 minute, Johnny--sorry, the Senator from Georgia. You can have everything, but just give me 1 minute.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I appreciate his comments and very much thank him for the compliments. This MILCON-VA appropriations bill is a critically important bill. Why? Because we are demanding a lot from the VA. In order to demand a lot, we need to give them the tools and resources they need to be successful. It would be totally unfair to put them on the line without the resources they need to take care of our veterans. That is important because today we have unprecedented demand. Not only are our Vietnam veterans getting older, not only do they need services like never before, but we have been at war for 15 years in the Middle East, and we have folks coming back with complex injuries. We have men and women who need help when they get back. Some of these veterans would not have survived if they had been in any other war but this one. So the pressure on the VA is incredibly important, and if we are going to fix the access problem, if we are going to serve our veterans in the way they need to be served, we need to pass this bill. Let me finish with a quick story. Not long ago a guy by the name of Henry--a Vietnam vet from Helena, MT--walked into my office. Henry fought in Vietnam. He was awarded four Purple Hearts for his combat and for his sacrifice. Henry walked into my office, sat down across from my staff member, and said: I can't live any more. Henry was in trouble. He had behavioral health problems that he needed professional help to get fixed. We were able to get him to the VA. The VA had a behavioral health professional who was able to help Henry, and Henry is living a good life today. Our veterans deserve no less than to make sure they get the help they need when they need it, and that is what this bill is about. So we will be voting on a managers' package soon, and then we will be voting on passing this bill and getting it to the President's desk. Hopefully, we can do it with a strong, healthy vote--a unanimous vote, as a matter of fact--because this is an important bill not only for military construction but also for veterans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, if I may have 1 minute, I urge my colleagues to vote for this Military Construction-VA appropriations bill before us. Thank-yous are in order. I thank the chairman, Senator Kirk, and his staff, Bob Henke, D'Ann Lettieri, and Patrick Magnuson. I also thank Tina Evans and Chad Schulken. By the way, it is Chad's birthday today, so make sure you wish him a happy birthday. I also thank Michael Baine, Tony McClain, and the other staff who worked on this bill. This bill does right by our veterans, and I am proud to have worked with our colleagues in this Chamber.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Madam President. It will be some time before Senator Kirk arrives, so I do want to give my remarks for the purpose of other folks who would like to talk about this bill. I rise today along with Senator Kirk to usher the legislation through this Chamber, the VA-MILCON appropriations bill, as quickly as possible. I want to thank Senator Kirk for his work on this bill. As I said last week when we began debating the VA-MILCON appropriations bill, this legislation has huge significance. It marks a good-faith effort on behalf of this body to move forward with an appropriations bill that responsibly invests in our national security, our economy, and our country. I also think that, among all the appropriations bills to move forward, it is right and just that a bill to honor our commitment to our Nation's veterans be the first one to break the gridlock. I recognize that the VA-MILCON appropriations bill that came out of the committee last spring fell far short of what the VA needs to provide the care our veterans have earned. But now that Congress has passed the budget agreement, we have crafted a substitute amendment that will bring this bill closer to where it has to be to meet the needs of the brave men and women who have served this country. This amendment will provide an additional $1.9 billion for VA medical services. This amendment fixes a flawed bill. The bill passed out of the committee in May grossly shortchanged our veterans and undermined the ability of the VA employees to do their jobs, and that is one of the reasons I voted against it. Now, 6 months later, we are about to right the committee's wrong and make investments that we have known all along the VA needs. The money will help allow the VA to address an increased demand for hepatitis C treatments, bolster health care for rural veterans, and will ensure that we can better recruit and retain VA doctors and nurses in every State of the Union. It also provides better care for Vietnam veterans who are reaching retirement age and treats the physical and mental ailments of veterans returning home after 15 years of war in the Middle East. These are investments the VA desperately needs to do its job. Now, I know the VA has been under a microscope, and it should be. It is responsible for honoring a promise, and when that promise is broken, we need to do more than to say ``I am sorry.'' We need to fix it. This substitute amendment before the Senate will begin to right these wrongs, and you have my word that I and others will be scrutinizing how every dollar is spent because we can't afford to make these investments without knowing they are producing real results for the courageous servicemembers who have earned it. Colleagues are encouraged to provide amendments in a timely manner because we all would like to pass this bill before Veterans Day. Once we pass the bill, it will prove we are serious about living up to promises that we make to our Nation's veterans. It will empower VA employees to do their jobs and provide veterans with the care they have earned. It is not just health care. This bill will improve consideration of compensation claims for injuries suffered during their service. It gives the VA the tools to maintain our national cemetery system. It supports the Office of the Inspector General, which we need in order to ensure that the VA is living up to the demands that we have placed upon it. It adds $170 million for military construction. These funds will go toward additional projects to enhance our military readiness, particularly for the Air Force and its Reserve elements, and it will set the stage for future appropriations bills that responsibly invest in education, energy, infrastructure, and in our public lands. I am very happy that we are considering this bill today. Hopefully, we can finish this bill tomorrow, as we should. It will take some cooperation, but I think the Senate is finally ready for some cooperation. I look forward to that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I will defer my remarks until the chairman of the VA-MILCON appropriations subcommittee comes, and after he speaks, I will. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the MILCON-VA Subcommittee bill that we will be taking up over the next day or so is critically important not only for our military from a readiness standpoint but also for our veterans. We are approaching Veterans Day this Wednesday. I hope we are able to put politics aside on this bill and do what is right not only for the military but for the men and women who have served this country in the military. If there are amendments that folks have, I would ask that they bring them to the managers as quickly as possible so we can go to work on them and clear them, if possible, and if not, push them off for another day. This is really an important piece of legislation. We continually talk about conflicts around the world and we continually send our men and women there, with no argument from them. They do a job we are all very proud of: protecting the freedoms of this country. The second half of that story is making sure we do right by them when they come back home. That is what this bill is about--doing right for our veterans when they come back into civilian society again. With that, I encourage the Members of this body to break from what we traditionally do; that is, play politics with a lot of things, and do what is right for our men and women who serve, our veterans, and for our military from a readiness standpoint in the bill within the MILCON component. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I want to speak on the MILCON-VA bill. We have 1 minute. We are going to take a giant leap of faith that the majority is going to do the right thing by our veterans and by this country. I will vote to proceed on this bill with the hope that Members of this body are finally ready to honor our commitment we made to the veterans of this country. As everyone knows, for most of the year, the Senate Appropriations Committee was crafting appropriations bills that fit under disastrous spending caps put forward by the majority's budget resolution. As a member of the VA appropriations subcommittee, I was especially concerned that because of the budget resolution, we were underfunding the VA by over $850 million. This shortchange to our veterans would have been a disgrace. Back in May when I introduced an amendment in the committee to provide an additional $857 million to the VA--$857 million the VA needs to do its job--every Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted against my amendment. I find it troubling that there are some so quick to send our troops into harm's way but neglect them when they return from war. That is exactly what happened, and we saw an appropriations bill that underfunded veterans health. The good news is that under the budget agreement we voted on this last week, that Senators in this body supported, we are going to fix the problem. It is now time to show the American people that we can govern responsibly by standing up for our veterans. With that, I yield the floor.

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 address a frustrating situation that has brought us here today. For months I have been calling on Congress to come to the middle and negotiate a responsible budget deal that works for the American people, but time and time again, whether it was in the Appropriations Committee or here on the Senate floor, Members of this body refused to have a conversation about how to do that. They dug their heels in and said: It is my way or the highway. Now here we are, down to the wire, and they finally realize that sequestration is damaging. It is something that we have been saying from day one. Unfortunately, it cost the Speaker of the House his job, it wasted months of time, and it continued to erode what is left of the faith that the American people have in Congress. Coming from Montana, I find this incredibly frustrating. Folks back home are reasonable. They talk to their neighbors even if they don't agree with them. They compromise, negotiate, give a little, and most of the time they get a lot. This body could learn a lot from my constituents. The Senate was designed to be a deliberative body. It was supposed to be a place where conversations and compromise happen, where we reach across the aisle and partner with our colleagues with whom we might not always agree. That kind of bipartisanship requires more time, harder work, and tougher conversations. Sure, it is a lot easier to scream and yell at the other side so the super PACs and millionaires who fund too much of our politics these days know we didn't back down, but at the end of the day, that doesn't move the country forward, and unfortunately that happened again this year. Had we started these budget negotiations back in July when 10 moderate Members of this body first rang the alarm, we wouldn't be in a last-minute scramble today. I am disappointed. I am disappointed in the Senate. The only time folks are talking to one another is when there is a crisis. The only time folks are working together is when we are faced with fiscal cliffs, economic meltdowns, and catastrophes. I hope we realize that Congress is the only place in this country that operates like this. Businesses and families plan, talk, and they certainly don't wait until the last minute to get their financial house in order. Why does it take an emergency for Congress to govern? Why does it take a looming deadline for folks to come to their senses and to do their jobs? It is because the voices in the middle are getting drowned out by the voices on the fringes. We have become afraid of compromise. In many circles it is a dirty word, one that should never be uttered. So here we are today, just a few days before we default on our debt, and we have wasted so much time. Our inability to tackle these issues earlier this year caused the appropriations process to break down. It caused an unnecessary veto of the Defense authorization bill, something our troops are waiting for us to resolve while they stand on the frontlines. I know this budget deal isn't perfect, but it is the product of compromise, however last minute it may be and however limited the ability of Senators to weigh in on it is. But by raising the debt ceiling, we will prevent interest rates from skyrocketing and the value of the dollar from plummeting. By ending the sequester, we will do away with severe budget cuts that are hurting our veterans, seniors, students, and working families. We will shore up Social Security and allow ourselves to make responsible investments in our national security, education, health care, and public lands. It will reduce a massive premium hike that was scheduled to impact 46,000 Montana seniors who use Medicare for their health insurance. This legislation will keep those premiums more manageable. Those accomplishments are critically important to our economy and worthy of this Senate's support, but as with anything that comes together at the last minute, there are provisions I don't like, things that could have been fixed if we had taken more time to negotiate. Take, for instance, the budget's impact on our rural hospitals. There are provisions in here that could severely limit access to rural health care. I am committed to addressing those concerns in the upcoming appropriations process because folks in Montana and other rural States shouldn't have to drive hundreds of miles to see a doctor. As I said, this budget isn't perfect. The most disappointing thing is that it could have been so much better. But in the spirit of compromise that got us here today, we need to use that conversation to make sure we get things done. I know there will always be those who refuse to get off the ideological soapbox and who like to watch others do the hard work of governing, but those folks usually don't last long with my constituents. With that, I yield the floor.