Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, today is an important day. This is the day that we are going to take up toxic exposure in the U.S. Senate. It is a day that, quite frankly, should have been two decades ago, three decades ago, five decades ago, but we are where we are. The bill we are going to be considering is the SFC Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act. This bill is the most comprehensive toxic exposure package for veterans Congress has ever considered and hopefully I can say has ever delivered. It has literally been years in the making. I am especially proud of this bill because it addresses decades of inaction and failure by our government to do the right thing by the men and women who have served this country in uniform and stood in harm's way. I want to thank my friend and ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Jerry Moran, for being able to work together across the aisle to deliver what is truly a bipartisan bill that will give veterans of all eras the benefits that they have earned but maybe even more importantly, the benefits that they deserve. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, there have been few issues as important as this one is to me. It has been a top priority of mine since I first came to Congress and started hearing from veterans, their families, their advocates, and veterans service organizations about exposures to chemical, physical, and environmental hazards as they serve this country in the line of duty. So let's talk about military toxic exposures and why we are here today. In World War I, there was a thing called mustard gas. In World War II, we had radiation. In Vietnam, we had Agent Orange. Now we have burn pits--massive areas used to dispose of plastics, rubber, jet fuel, and other chemicals in Iraq and Afghanistan and other locations around the globe. Generation after generation, war after war, servicemembers have returned home, only to face yet another battle here at home when seeking the care and the benefits that they have earned and that they desperately need because Washington--we, Congress--has been unwilling, simply unwilling to give the Department of Veterans Affairs the tools they need to take care of our veterans. Our men in uniform answered the call of duty. They held up their end of the bargain, so we need to hold up ours. I will never forget what I heard from a Vietnam veteran in Montana my very first year on the VA Committee. I was holding a townhall meeting. This gentleman stood up in the back of the room at the townhall, and he said: You are not going to treat this generation of veterans the way you treated us, the Vietnam veterans. I remember it because it hit home with me. I remember those Vietnam soldiers coming home. I remember the stories of toxic exposure to Agent Orange. I remember how we knew what we needed to do, but, man, it took us a long time to get stuff done. In fact, we still are dealing with Agent Orange, and it is dealt in this bill with hypertension. But here we are today treating this generation of veterans just like we treated the Vietnam veterans and other generations of veterans who have served this country. As a result of turning a blind eye on the needs of our veterans, they have died, they have died, and they have died due to toxic exposure. Here are the facts. More than 3\1/2\ million post-9/11 veterans may have been exposed to toxic substances overseas during their time in uniform. Seventy-five percent of those men and women report being exposed to burn pits. As a result of these exposures, many veterans suffered from rare, deadly cancers, respiratory conditions, and other illnesses--let me say it again: rare but deadly cancers and respiratory conditions and other illness--sometimes developing years after they served in the military. Now, it is easy for me to stand up here and talk about cancer--I don't have it; at least I don't think I have it--and talk about respiratory conditions. I don't have to gasp for air. But the truth is, because of these men and women's service to this country in the Middle East and their exposures to toxins, they have developed these illnesses or if what happens with all the past ones, they will develop them in the future. Because of that, today, hundreds of thousands are going without the care and the benefits they need to treat these conditions. By the way, we are still not addressing Agent Orange for veterans suffering from conditions like hypertension, where the science is clear, and in the worst cases, folks are paying with their lives. Veterans and heroes like SFC Heath Robinson, for whom this bill is named--Heath deployed to Kosovo and Iraq with the Ohio National Guard, was exposed to burn pits, and he died. He died in 2020 from toxic exposure. SFC Heath Robinson--he was a son; he was a husband; he was a father. In fact, we heard from his daughter this morning at a press conference that Senator Moran was at--a beautiful little girl who, in her words, said: I love my dad. But yet we didn't step up. The country failed to deliver for him, and we also failed to deliver for his family. The situation has happened with far, far, far too much regularity, and that is why we are here dealing with this bill. The SFC Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act will right the wrong for our past, for our present, and for our future veterans. Here is how it is done: This bill will expand eligibility for VA healthcare to more than 3\1/ 2\ million combat veterans exposed to burn pits since 9/11. By the way, when I was in Afghanistan and we were flying around with my good friend Jim Webb when he was in this body, we flew to the bases based on the smoke coming out of these burn pits. The toxic exposure was real, it happened, and it happened to 3.5 million combat veterans exposed to since 9/11. It will support our post-9/11 and Vietnam-era veterans by removing the burden of proof for 23 presumptive conditions caused by toxic exposure, from cancers to lung disease. It will also establish a framework for the establishment of future presumptions of service connection related to toxic exposures. What does this mean? It means that we have had toxic exposures for over 100 years and maybe even before that, and it has taken an act of Congress to get these folks the benefits they need. Now we are giving the VA the mechanism to deal with toxic exposure. It will give the VA the tools it needs to bolster its workforce, to establish more healthcare facilities, to improve claims processing, and to better meet the immediate and future needs of every veteran our VA serves. The bottom line is, this bill is far too important for this country and for those who fought to protect it. When it comes to our fighting men and women, when it comes to sending our folks off to war, we never talk about money; we just do it because we think it is the right thing to do. They are coming back. This bill is going to cost $287.6 billion over 10 years, so it is a big-ticket item. But the fact is, we sent them off to war. We told them we were going to take care of them when they came back home. There shouldn't be a debate about the money. I would agree that we should try to figure out ways to pay for as much stuff in this body as we can, but the truth is, freedom is not free. There is a price to pay when we send our men and women in uniform to fight wars on our behalf, and you don't have to be a veteran or be exposed to Agent Orange or burn pits to understand that price. We have been waging war for far too long, and now, right now, veterans across this country are the ones paying for that cost of war, and we can't wait any longer. No more empty promises. We have a unique opportunity to make history with the passage of this comprehensive toxic exposure package that will recognize our veterans' service and their sacrifice. We are too close to fail. It is time for this body to act. It is time we address the true cost of war. Our Nation's veterans and their families are counting on it. I want to close with one thing. This is a big bill. I have been in this body long enough to know that if there is a big bill, you can always find a reason to vote against it, and you can always find a reason to vote for it. This is more important. If we are going to take into account the future of our fighting men and women, the future of this All-Volunteer military we have, the future of the people who have been hit by toxic exposure, the future of our Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange exposure, this is too important to find a reason to vote against it. This is doing right by our fighting men and women in this country. This is doing right by our military. This is doing right for freedom and democracy. Our Nation's veterans deserve this, and maybe just as important, our Nation's veterans' families deserve passage of this bill. With that, I will yield the floor to the ranking member, Senator Moran.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maine for the recognition. I appreciate it very, very much. I will be very brief. I ask for up to 5 minutes, which I will use less than that. Today is a historic day. Today, the Senate has agreed to move one step forward to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson PACT Act of 2022. I want to thank Ranking Member Moran and Senators Boozman and Heinrich for working with me to help deliver this bipartisan solution. It is the most comprehensive toxic exposure package for our veterans that Congress has ever delivered in this country's history. Frankly, it is one that has been years in the making. Actually, it has been decades in the making. Named after a veteran who died from exposure to a toxic burn pit, this bill will address decades of inaction and failure by the U.S. Government to do the right thing by delivering toxic-exposed veterans their long-overdue healthcare and benefits. This bill spans generations of veterans. It expands the presumption of Agent Orange exposure for those who served in Vietnam. Yes, that is right. That is what I said. We still haven't done right by the Vietnam- era veterans, but this bill makes it right. It adds new service- connected conditions to Agent Orange, including hypertension. This bill also expands healthcare for more than 3\1/2\ million post- 9/11 combat veterans and service-connects two dozen conditions caused by burn pit exposure, from cancers to lung disease. To pull this off, we have to give the VA the resources it needs to better serve vets. This bill does that by funding more employees to process claims, upgrading claims processing technology, authorizing innovative ways to hire and retain VA healthcare staff, and investing in VA facilities across the country. Passing this bill in Congress and getting it to the President's desk is the only way to keep our end of the bargain to our All-Volunteer military. This cannot be overstated: Freedom is not free. There is a price to pay. We send men and women in uniform off to fight wars on our behalf. You don't have to be a veteran exposed to Agent Orange and burn pits to understand that price. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of veterans in my State and across this country are already paying for it, and they can no longer wait. So now is the time, folks. We are going to get back from Memorial Day. We are all going to be at Memorial Day events, and we are going to be celebrating the folks who gave the ultimate sacrifice. When we come back, we need to vote and celebrate the folks who have survived but yet have the impacts of toxic exposure. I would encourage your support for this bill when we get back the week of June 6. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to share a few words today to honor an outstanding Montana educator who is retiring at the end of this school year. Kirk Miller has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of the next generation of Montanans. Over the years, Kirk served as a teacher, a principal, and a superintendent before being appointed to the Montana Board of Public Education where he later served as chair. I first got to know Kirk Miller when I was a State senator, and he was the superintendent of schools in Havre, MT. I found him to be somebody who was dedicated above all to the kids' education, somebody who knew the value of public education and always did his best to make sure our kids got an education that would allow them to compete in the worldwide economy. As Bozeman schools superintendent, Kirk played a key role in improving infrastructure for students for years to come. He championed numerous successful initiatives that supported that strengthened public education in the region and serve as a template for other communities to follow. At the end of this year, Kirk will be retiring from his most recent position as executive director of the School Administrators of Montana, where he has worked tirelessly to support administrators and educators across the State. Those who have been lucky enough to work with Kirk recognize that he has a knack for connecting with people, even those who have different views than his own. And his passion for public education shines through in everything he does. Under Kirk's leadership, the School Administrators of Montana established the Leaders Professional Learning Program, or SAM LPLP, a mentorship program that brings administrators from across the State together to receive student-focused, solution-based professional development training. The SAM LPLP has served more than 500 administrators to date. As a former public school teacher I commend Kirk for his steadfast commitment to improving our school system from the top down. In addition to his work, Kirk has a lot to be proud of--in particular, the wonderful family he has built with his wife of 42 years, Nan. A lifelong educator and a dear friend to many, Kirk has shown through his kindness and work ethic that he is truly dedicated to bettering the lives of the next generation of Montanans. Thank you for your service, Kirk; our Montana schools are better because of you.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, the Department of Veterans Affairs needs a steady hand to guide the Veterans Health Administration, this Nation's largest integrated healthcare system that delivers quality care and timely care to our veterans, if they have a leader. I rise today because Dr. Shereef Elnahal is that person. He has an impressive record of leading healthcare systems and health agencies. Most recently Dr. Elnahal served as president and CEO of University Hospital in Newark, NJ, and previously as New Jersey's 21st health commissioner. But, more importantly, he is committed to caring for the more than 9 million veterans in VA care, a commitment he has carried out as assistant deputy undersecretary for health and quality, safety, and value at the department. It is no secret that VHA and healthcare systems of providers nationally are going through a challenging time. VA is continuing to battle the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, with veterans' cases, hospitalizations and death on the rise again. And VA staff are dealing with burnout and increasing turnover in our VA system. So I am going to tell you, if the people of this body want to help-- want to help veterans, holding this nominee is not the way to help veterans. And I will tell you what, they are actually doing a disservice to veterans and their families by playing political games and preventing permanent healthcare leadership at the VA, which is so critically important. In the past, this body has been able to rise above politics to install qualified individuals at the VA, responsible for getting vets the healthcare and the benefits that they not only need but they have earned. And today, we must do that again. We must act without delay to confirm Dr. Elnahal as VA's next undersecretary for health. So with that, I would ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 902, Shereef M. Elnahal, to be undersecretary for health of the Department of Veterans' Affairs; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, this individual--through the Chair--has been President and CEO of University Hospital in Newark, NJ. He has been New Jersey's 21st health commissioner. Why do you think--Senator from Florida, through the Chair, why do you think that makes him unqualified? Would the Senator from Florida like to respond?

Mr. TESTER. What is that? I couldn't hear you.

Mr. TESTER. So we had a hearing on Mr. Elnahal. If my memory serves me correct, he went out by voice, because he was so very, very good. I would really appreciate it if the Senator from Florida would at least stay here rather than turn his back on the veterans of America and walk out the door, turning his back on the American veterans, the people who have served this country, the people who have fought. We are coming up to Memorial Day. I hope that the Senator from Florida doesn't walk into Memorial Day services and talk about what a great friend he is of our veterans because he is not. All I am asking for is to give the VA the tools they need to be able to provide our veterans with the healthcare they have earned. This isn't the first time I have been on the floor for a unanimous consent request with the Senator from Florida. But this is an excuse that doesn't hold water. I didn't see the Senator from Florida at the committee hearing. Even though he is not a member of the VA Committee, if he was so concerned about this person, why wasn't he at the committee hearing to hear the responses that Dr. Elnahal gave? I am going to tell you what this is. With all due respect to the Senator from Florida, this is obstruction at the worst because this obstruction stops our veterans from getting the healthcare they need. You want to talk about why the American people think the U.S. Senate is dysfunctional? The Senator from Florida could look in the mirror. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Is this a proper forum to do a unanimous consent request?

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I would like to share a few words today to honor an outstanding Montana educator who is retiring at the end of this school year. Kirk Miller has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of the next generation of Montanans. Over the years, Kirk served as a teacher, a principal, and a superintendent before being appointed to the Montana Board of Public Education where he later served as chair. As Bozeman schools superintendent, Kirk played a key role in improving infrastructure for students for years to come. He championed numerous successful initiatives that strengthened public education in the region and served as a template for other communities to follow. At the end of this year, Kirk will be retiring from his most recent position as executive director of the School Administrators of Montana, where he has worked tirelessly to support administrators and educators across the State. Those who have been lucky enough to work with Kirk recognize that he has a knack for connecting with people, even those who have different views than his own. And his passion for public education shines through in everything he does. Under Kirk's leadership, the School Administrators of Montana established the Leaders Professional Learning Program, or SAM LPLP, a mentorship program that brings administrators from across the State together to receive student-focused, solution-based professional development training. The SAM LPLP has served more than 500 administrators to date. As a former public school teacher I commend Kirk for his steadfast commitment to improving our school system from the top down. In addition to his work, Kirk has a lot to be proud of--in particular, the wonderful family he has built with his wife of 42 years, Nan. A lifelong educator and a dear friend to many, Kirk has shown through his kindness and work ethic that he is truly dedicated to bettering the lives of the next generation of Montanans. Thank you for your service, Kirk; our Montana schools are better because of you.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I would like to share a few words today to honor an outstanding leader and friend of mine who recently passed away. Mark Sweeney was a State senator for Montana's 39th District and a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. Mark was the face of public service in Montana, with an unyielding commitment to make our State better for all of our kids and grandkids. Born in Butte, raised in Miles City, and a longtime resident of Anaconda, Mark was a Montanan through and through. Mark worked for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks for 32 years until he retired as a fisheries manager. He started his political career as a commissioner in Anaconda-Deer Lodge and later successfully ran for a seat in Montana's State Legislature as a representative. He was elected to the State senate in 2020. During his career, Mark was a tireless advocate for public lands and public access, working with sportsmen and women around Montana to protect our greatest treasures for future generations. When Mark talked about running for office, he focused on how he would improve the lives of his fellow citizens, and he worked with anyone and everyone, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with him. Mark was a fierce advocate for working families across Montana. He believed in the power of public education to lift folks up and prioritized the creation of good-paying jobs, especially for young people, that would keep them living and working in Montana. Mark was an effective policy-maker who made it a priority to balance conservation and responsible development in our communities. Mark's lifelong commitment to bettering our State and preserving our public lands for generations wasn't something he preached; it was something he lived every day. I want to express my deepest sympathy to Mark's wife, Sue, his children, Shannon and Jordan, stepchildren, Carly and Brandi Johnson, and grandchildren, Wes and Brooks, as well as the rest of the Sweeney family. Those who knew Mark will remember him as not only a dedicated public servant, but as a family man and a dear friend. His friendly demeanor and sense of humor will be sorely missed. Mark has left a lasting legacy on us all, but especially his family and friends, his colleagues in the State legislature, and those he represented in the State of Montana. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I could hardly hear you, but thank you very much for that recognition. I am about to talk about an issue that the man in the Chair, the good Senator from New Jersey, I know is passionate about. It is certainly something that I know Montanans are passionate about, and, quite frankly, it is what I do every day when I am not in this body, and that is, talk about rural America and talk about the issues that are facing working families and communities across our State, across our country, those issues being inflation and rising costs and market consolidation and depopulation and drought. Last year about this time, I made a quick trip to the town of Great Falls, which is about 75 miles away from my farm, to pick up some tires, and I was shocked about not only the price but the availability. Prices had gone up, and availability was--well, they were high in demand, and there wasn't a lot of inventory. When I got back home, almost the same moment in time, I got a call from my equipment dealer--and this was the first time this has ever happened to me in my 44 years on the farm--and the equipment dealer said: We are going to have harvest in about 60 to 90 days, and if you have any repairs that you need to be done on your combine, we need to know what those are today so we can get the parts ordered. Otherwise, we can't guarantee you those parts will be here. That was the second shock about the supply chain issues that I was dealt with. So when I came back here to DC, I rang the alarm about the rising costs that were occurring in rural America and impacting producers in rural America caused by this pandemic. I had a manufacturer in my office a few weeks ago saying how this pandemic has made it so they can't supply America with what they were making. He said: You know, during the pandemic, we told folks to go home, and the 40- and 50-year- olds have forgotten to come back. So, quite frankly, this pandemic has created some challenges in business, in manufacturing, and in agriculture that we need to be paying attention to. Then we have Putin's war in Ukraine, which has made things worse, particularly in the areas of energy and, from a farm standpoint, fertilizer. It has also put a strain on our family farms across this country, which, by the way, have already spent years under the gun where things have not been that cheery. Even before the pandemic upended supply chains and the global economy, we had the previous administration's unnecessary, needless, and, quite frankly, stupid trade wars, which disrupted critical ag markets for the family farmers across this Nation and the family farm ranchers across this Nation who depend upon trade to make ends meet. In the years since, we have seen the price of grain rise because this administration has done a much better job on trade policy than the last one, but the fact is, we have also seen increases in fertilizers, in chemicals, in housing, and in retail food. But the reality is that rural America truly is in crisis today, and it has been a growing problem for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations here in Washington. Ag producers have become so reliant on the Federal Government that in the year of 2020, the last year of the Trump administration, 39 percent of net farm income was provided through subsidies by the American taxpayer. That is a big problem, and it is not something that farmers and ranchers want either. The reason for this is because of market consolidation, because of farm gate prices being artificially low, requiring this government's support. To further contribute, whether it is buying inputs or selling our products--our grain, our cattle, our postcrops, or whatever it might be--consolidation in that marketplace, whether it is on inputs or in the market itself, has made profitability at the farm gate a huge challenge, to the point where we have been driving folks out of business for decades and decades and decades, and it is getting worse. As most folks know here, I have a real life, and that real life is as a farmer. My wife Sharla and I took over our family operation in 1978. This operation is the same operation that my grandfather and my grandmother homesteaded in the early 1900s and that my folks took over from them and farmed through the forties, the fifties, the sixties, and a good portion of the seventies. In many ways, the little community in which I live is much the same as when my parents lived there. There is a big difference, though: The farms now are bigger, and they are fewer. This is an aerial shot of our place, and the arrows point to farms that, quite frankly--farmsteads where--when we came to the farm, there were families who lived there. There were people who sent their kids to the school who lived there. Now, those places--those farmsteads and those farms that go with those farmsteads are farmed by other people. In fact, in my home county of Chouteau County, which is a big county--it is a big agricultural county--since 1987, we have lost nearly 35 percent of our farms. The numbers have gone from 752 farms down to 477 farms. This is from 1987 to 2017, a 30-year period, which is the last that we have data for. In the State of Montana overall, operations over $2,500 have gone from 20,000 basically to 17,000, as this chart shows--once again, the same 30-year period from 1987 to 2017. Across this Nation, operations with more than $2,500 in sales have dropped from nearly 1.6 million farms down to 1\1/4\ million farms in 2017, as this chart shows. So, look, if these charts show you nothing else, they should show you that, from a rural America standpoint and a food supply standpoint and a food security standpoint, we are not healthy. We are heading in the wrong direction. You know, there has been a lot of talk about agriculture and its impact on mental health. So try to imagine for a second that you are a farmer or a rancher. You are working nearly every day on the land that was your grandparents or your great-grandparents, potentially your great-great-grandparents. The land is literally a history of your family and the generations before you who did basically the same work-- feeding people--in the same place to make the same living, except that, over time, the numbers, they don't work out anymore. The amount of money you have coming in when you sell your product isn't that much different than it was years before, but yet input costs have gone up. By the way, I might add, they are not that much different than they were before because we have some serious consolidation in the marketplace, which I am going to talk about in a second, but yet inputs go up. Look, in the last 44 years that I have been on the farm, I have seen many boom-and-bust cycles in agriculture, and I can tell you, every time the price of grain or cattle has gone up, the input costs have risen more than what you are getting in the marketplace, and then when those marketplace numbers drop, the input prices never go down. But getting back to that farmer that you imagine yourself to be like, I want you to think about what it would be like to take over the farm that your grandfather or great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather homesteaded and it has been successful for generations, and now, all of a sudden, the books don't balance. You don't have enough money to pay the bills. And it is not because you are a bad operator. It is not because you don't know what you are doing. It really is through no fault of your own that you can't make it work anymore. And we wonder why we have a challenge with mental health in rural America. So the question is, is why did we lose 345,000 farms in the last 30 years, many of them generational farms? It is because folks can't make the numbers work anymore. And that main culprit is consolidation in the corporate ag world. No competition means you don't get fair prices. So I have listed four companies up here that in the--or four industries, I should say--in the poultry business, 54 percent of the poultry processing is controlled by one company. Sixty-six percent--or by four companies, I mean. Sixty-six percent of the hog processing is controlled by four companies. Four commodity traders control 70 percent of the global market for grain, and four companies control over 80 percent of the beef processing in the United States. Now, any one of these sectors--truthfully, any one of these sectors, those four companies could go out on a golf course and set the price that my neighbors are getting for their products and that the consumer is going to pay for their products when it is on the retail end. And this happens while they continue to pull in record profits. And the ultimate effect of all this consolidation on rural communities is it has pushed family farming and ranchers to the brink of extinction. And so you ask yourself: Why should I care? Well, for one, the American taxpayer is paying a pretty penny because of this consolidation. In recent years, we have averaged well over $10 billion a year to help keep American farmers in the business across this country. I believe it is money well spent, but the truth is that there is not a farmer or a rancher out there that doesn't want to get their check from the marketplace; they do not want it from the Federal Government. But without it, we would see even a bigger mass exodus out of rural America. They want their markets to work. They want to make it so it benefits them and it benefits the consumer, and, quite frankly, right now it is not working because we have four companies that control 54 percent of the food supply in chickens, four companies that control 66 percent of the supply in pork, 70 percent in the grain markets, four companies, and over 80 percent when it comes to beef. There is no competition, folks. There is no competition. And this is also bad not only for the taxpayer, but also for our food security. What this pandemic has taught us is when you have big processors with thousands of people that work in these plants and you get an incidence of COVID, for example, it shuts the entire plant down because you literally have people in these plants that are working shoulder-to- shoulder processing meat. So COVID goes through these plants like that. So they shut them down. Or you end up with a fire like we had at a processing plant in Kansas, which, obviously, a fire shuts the plant down. Or we have a cyber attack that happened on one of these big four, JBS, which shuts them down. So you say: What the heck? It is just one plant. Well, these plants individually make up a large portion of these percentages that I talked about. And so what happens? The marketplace goes away once again for the producers, the farmers, the ranchers; and on the other end, it limits supply and the family--the working family that goes to the grocery store sees their prices go up and they say what do we want? Well, we can't do this. I mean, we can't afford to eat because the prices are jacked up. So it is bad for producers; it is bad for the consumers. And the fact is, is these packers are doing pretty darn well. The last quarter of 2020, Tyson Foods increased their year-to-year profit over $469 million to $1.13 billion. That is a 140-percent increase in profit. Now, I am going to tell you something. I don't think there is anything wrong with making a profit. In fact, I think if you are going to have a business that is successful, you have to make a profit. But the fact of the matter is, if we are making a profit--these kinds of profits--and it is killing our folks in family farm agriculture, I don't think that is quite right. And I don't think that is good for rural America, and I don't think it is good for the consumers that live in this country. So bottom line is, we have got to put some guardrails on the system if we are going to make this marketplace work because it is not working today. So we have got some legislative solutions. Congress has the opportunity to do something, and I have worked very closely with a number of my colleagues, including the man that is sitting in the chair today, on bipartisan legislation that can put guardrails on consolidation and puts some sunlight on this industry. I particularly want to thank Senators Grassley, Fischer, Wyden, and Rounds, as well as Senator Booker, for their good work. In the case of Grassley, Fischer, Wyden, and Rounds, we have put forth the bipartisan Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act. That is a long name for a bill that is going to increase transparency in the marketplace and set regional mandatory minimum thresholds for negotiated cattle purchases. This is going to ensure that the ranchers get a fair price, but it won't ensure it alone. We have to do more. We have to also pass the Meat Packing Special Investigator Act, which will put teeth back in the Packers and Stockyards Act, which was passed back in 1921 because of consolidation in the packing industry, and we are more consolidated today than we were in 1921. So this will give the Department of Ag a team of investigators within the USDA, with subpoena power, dedicated to preventing and addressing anticompetition practices in the meat and poultry industry and enforcing our Nation's antitrust laws that are currently on the books. And I am asking my colleagues, when these bills hit the floor--and I believe they will hit the floor, hopefully this work period--to pass these bills, get them to the House so we can get them to the President's desk as quickly as possible. If you take these two bills, the meat packing special investigator bill and the bipartisan cattle price discovery bill--by the way, they are both bipartisan--and you combine that with the dollars that the administration has put out to loan to small meat packers, to expand and start up meat packers, we will infuse more competition into this marketplace and that will be good for producers and it will be good for consumers and we will not continue to see this decline in rural America. Look, a well-fed citizenry is essential if a democracy is going to survive. With the consolidation that we have seen over the last many decades, we see the potential for food to become a serious problem in this country, and potentially even weaponized. Rural America is going to dry up if we don't fix this problem. It is going to continue to see this diagram where we could see fewer folks on the land and we see bigger corporations manipulating for their prices, because, quite frankly, they have already found out--``they'' being the big packers--that they can have it their way because they have had it their way for a long, long time. And because they have had it their way for a long, long time, consumers are paying higher prices because there is no competition, without any regard to what people can afford. It is all about the profit margins, which--I will show you that one again too. It is all about record profits. It is not about making sure that we have food security. It is about how we can maximize our money at the expense of families. And by the way, the same is true on the agriculture side of the equation. We will maximize our profits, and we don't care if these generational ranchers go broke. We don't care. Somebody else will buy it. We will still get the cattle. It will be some big hedge fund in New York City. It is OK. So we need to do something because our citizenry needs to have access to food that they can afford. These two bills are going to help capitalism work for farmers and it is going to help capitalism work for consumers because, I am telling you, when capitalism works, everybody does better. I said this problem has been around for over 100 years since the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed in 1921. So there will be some in this body who say: Look, we don't need to do this. This is government intervention. It is not necessary. Things will be just fine. I can guarantee you one thing for sure: If you look at where we have been and predict where we are going, if we do nothing, there will be very, very, very few people living in rural America. Family farm agriculture will be dead in this country. And if we lose family farm agriculture, this country will change for the worse in a major way for all the reasons I have already put out. So I am going to tell you what. Folks serve in this body because they want to do right by the next generation. They want to make sure our kids and our grandkids have the same opportunity that we had. They want to make sure this country remains the greatest country on Earth. I implore the Members of this body: When these bills come to the floor, and they will come to the floor because I think they are going to come out of Agriculture probably in the next week to 10 days--no pressure, Chairman Stabenow, but that is what I hope happens--and we can get these bills to the floor, I hope that you put your shoes--put your feet in the shoes of those people that are involved in agriculture, and I hope you put your feet in the shoes of the consumer, because if we do these bills, we will be putting the country back on the right track for food security for the long term.

Mr. TESTER. Yeah. So, look, you have a situation where you have got four companies who control 82 percent of the meat in this country. There is no secret. When you don't have any competition--and that is not competition--that you are not going to get a fair price. And, by the way, these ranchers all have fixed costs. It is not like they can just cut their costs. They have fixed costs. And right now, because of the drought west of the Mississippi, hay prices are at an alltime high. So all this stuff exacerbates the problem. What we need is more competition. We will get more competition. And when we get more competition, it will be fair for everybody, both the producer and the consumer.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and service of a decorated veteran, fierce advocate, and great man, Garry Augustine. As the executive director of the Disabled American Veterans, DAV, from 2013 to 2018 and a 50-year life member, Garry helped shape the legislative landscape for disabled veterans and their families nationwide by advocating before Congress, the White House, and Department of Veterans Affairs. While Garry is no longer with us, his legacy lives on. On behalf of myself, Congress and my fellow Americans, I would like to extend our deepest gratitude for his life and service to this Nation. A native son of Cleveland, OH, Garry enlisted in the U.S. Army in August 1969. As a member of the 198th Infantry Brigade in South Vietnam, he served on the Batangan Peninsula. During a combat patrol operation on April 9, 1970, he was severely wounded by a land mine explosion. After 18 months and multiple surgeries at Walter Reed Medical Army Hospital, Garry returned home to Cleveland, where he continued physical rehabilitation. Following his time in uniform, Garry's commitment to serving others never faded. In 1978, Garry went on to earn a bachelor's degree with honors from Ohio University and a master's degree in sociology from Cleveland State University in 1983. That same year, he became a life member of DAV Chapter 42 in Mentor, OH. In Mentor, he served in various positions, including chapter commander and adjutant, and on statewide committees, as well as director of service for the DAV Department of Ohio. He was also selected as one of the Outstanding Young Men of America in 1989. Along the way, Garry met and married his loving wife Kelly Lambing and raised two children, Chelsea and Kyle. He was rightfully proud of them, and spoke of them often. He began his tenure with DAV in 1988 as a hospital service coordinator for the Department of Ohio at the Cleveland Wade Park VA Hospital. That same year, he joined DAV's professional staff as a national service officer apprentice and went on to serve as assistant supervisor and supervisor at the national service office in Cleveland. Eventually, Garry left this role to help lead DAV's efforts nationwide. He was appointed to assistant national service director at DAV's Washington headquarters in 2002 and then deputy national service director in 2004 and national service director in 2010. He was named as Washington headquarters executive director in 2013, where he was tasked with overseeing DAV's service and legislative programs and leading DAV's advocacy efforts on behalf of more than 1 million DAV members. As executive director of DAV, Garry was in charge of an organization that has always been at the forefront of advocating for veterans and securing the resources, healthcare, and benefits veterans have earned. In the position, he was a tireless and successful advocate for VA healthcare reform, expanding caregiver benefits, securing critical resources for veterans' initiatives, modernizing the disability appeals system, and improving VA care and services for women veterans. As the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and Committee member since 2007, it was a great honor of mine to work with Garry and DAV on countless important pieces of legislation like the Deborah Sampson Act, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, and the VA MISSION Act. These bipartisan efforts, many of which were signed into law, serve as a testament to Garry's dedication and leadership on behalf of all veterans. Future generations of veterans will look at these bipartisan reforms and feel the reach of his mission to serve veterans in their communities. Garry's enduring legacy lives on at DAV, which--thanks to his leadership--continues to be a cornerstone for communities across the Nation. After three decades of service to DAV, Garry retired as executive director on December 17, 2018, and moved to Maryland's Eastern Shore. Even in his retirement, he continued to use his experience to serve as a strategic adviser on veterans' healthcare technology. On March 14, 2022, Garry passed away in Washington, DC at the age of 71 years old. He is survived by his wife Kelly, daughter Chelsea, son Kyle, and grandson Austin, and will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. It is my honor to recognize Garry's lifetime of service as a soldier, veteran, and leader of DAV--but also as a loving husband and father. On behalf of myself and a grateful nation, I extend my greatest appreciation for Garry's enduring sacrifices, service, and advocacy on behalf of all veterans. His work will be felt by veterans nationwide for years to come, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to reserve the right to object. I have been listening to the arguments that are made here. Let's get to the facts. The fact is, if we split this Ukrainian funding now, it is not going to get there quicker; it is going to get there slower. The bottom line is, if you want to help the Ukrainian people out--and I believe the speakers want to help the Ukrainian people out--then pass the omnibus bill that is in front of us. The Senator from Florida is proposing just to pass one portion of this omnibus appropriations bill, and that is the $13.5 billion in aid to Ukraine. I want to be very, very clear on what this move would mean. If we don't pass the rest of the omnibus, the Pentagon is going to shut down at midnight on Friday. OK? Now, all our eyes are on Ukraine, and they well should be, but don't forget for a second that China is a pacing threat to this world. We are going to shut the Pentagon down on Friday? I don't think that is a smart move. Eleven days ago, all the Senators in this body had the opportunity to go to a classified briefing led by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. I asked him what he needed from Congress to respond to the Russian aggression. Do you know what he said? He said: We need a full-year appropriations bill. That is what we have in front of us today. And yet, the Senator from Florida is effectively proposing to give the military less than 1 percent of what the Secretary of Defense says he needs to respond to threats around the world. That is $6.5 billion out of $744 billion. And for the folks who say this $1.5 trillion package is a boondoggle, well, let me tell you, then you should stand up and say half of this bill is a boondoggle because half of it goes into defense to protect this country, to make the world a safer place. I really don't understand what the Senator from Florida is trying to accomplish, but I want no part of it. Congress should have passed this budget to cover the military needs and cover this country's needs over 6 months ago. Passing a bill to cover 1 percent of our troops' funding needs is, once again, kicking the can down the road. It is 110 percent unacceptable to me and to every American who expects their government to keep them safe at home and around the world. This is really, really, really a bad idea, and we should quit wasting time on these kinds of ideas and get to the point of voting on this omnibus bill, getting it out so that we can deal with the Ukraine situation. And by the way, in the Defense bill, over and above the $13.5 billion, there is another $300 million for Ukraine. So it is time to get this ball rolling. It is time to get this bill passed in the U.S. Senate. Quit dilly-dallying around. Let's get `er done. There is too much on the line today to keep fooling around. I object. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the House is not in session. To say that we are going to pass this and presto chango it goes right to the President's desk--that is not how the process works, Senator Scott. That is not how the process works. So you can stand up and say, you know, we are blocking this aid. No, no, no, no, no. The fact is, the person who came up and asked for unanimous consent-- the good Senator from Florida--is blocking this bill or we would be voting on it right now. You want to talk politics? That is what this is about--politics. You can be unhappy with the omnibus bill, but the fact of the matter is, it has been negotiated over the last year by Democrats and Republicans, and that is where we are at today. We need to pass this bill. If you are concerned about Ukraine, we need to pass this bill. If you are concerned about feeding hungry people in this country, we need to pass this bill. If you are concerned about childcare, we need to pass this bill. If you are concerned about housing, we need to pass this bill. If you are concerned about the high cost of gasoline, we need to pass this bill. And if you are concerned about the threat that China is to this country, we need to the pass this bill. Enough excuses. Let's get the job done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Moran, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. When we started this Congress, the No. 1 issue that was put forth by the veterans service organizations representing the veterans in this country was toxic exposure. It was incumbent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee do something about toxic exposure. We created the bill called the COST of War. We are at a point now where we are going to try to implement that bill in phases. The phase we are working on today has six major components to it. No. 1, it expands the screening period of healthcare eligibility for combat veterans who served after September 11, 2001, from 5 years to 10. No. 2, it provides an open enrollment period for any post-9/11 combat veteran who is more than 10 years from separation. No. 3, after we do the first two things, it tells the VA to have an outreach plan to contact veterans who did not enroll during their initial period of enhanced eligibility so that they can sign up for the potential benefits. It directs the VA to incorporate a clinical screening regarding a veteran's potential exposures and symptoms commonly associated with toxic substances. The fifth thing it does is it mandates toxic exposure early education and training for healthcare and benefits personnel who work at the VA. And, finally, it strengthens Federal research on toxic exposure. This is a big bill; it is an important bill; and it does right by our veterans in this country. Toxic exposure is not something that is new. We have dealt with it since World War I, World War II, Agent Orange, and the Vietnam war, and, right now, toxic exposure due to burn pits. When we get done with this process, it is not going to take an act of Congress to get the benefits they need to get moving into the future. This is a giant step forward in that regard. So I want to thank both the minority and majority staffs, the Senator from Kansas, who has been an incredible help to be able to work together to get this to the point where it is today. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 263, S. 3541.

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. TESTER. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. TESTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of Martha Williams to be the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I represent a State that goes by many names. Most of you know it as Montana, but it is often called Big Sky Country, the Last Best Place, and even the Treasure State. Montana has earned these names through an abundance of beauty and natural resources, and as a result we have fostered a robust outdoor economy that relies on responsible forest management. Folks come to Montana from all over the world to enjoy all that our State has to offer. Thousands of folks make their living by working the land and showing folks the best way to enjoy it. But the key to preserving our multibillion-dollar outdoor economy is proper stewardship and oversight of our natural resources. That means talking to folks on the ground. It means bringing competing interests to the table to find the most sustainable ways to manage our public lands. Not only do our forests and rivers create thousands of good- paying jobs, but they also create countless memories for families in our country. So it is critically important that we have balanced oversight in place to guarantee that Montana's outdoor economy remains vibrant for generations to come. The Director of Fish and Wildlife Service plays a central role in this oversight, and that is why I am proud to support Martha Williams' nomination today. As Director, she will be tasked with the management and recovery of our Nation's fish and wildlife and overseeing a large chunk of our public lands--89 million acres, to be exact, from Montana's own Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge all the way to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As a Montanan and a former Director of the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Ms. Williams has demonstrated time and time again her ability to bring folks together to find lasting solutions, to collaborate to find common ground. She always leads with science and has developed State management plans for issues ranging from grizzly bears to aquatic invasive mussels, and she has done it with input from all the relevant stakeholders. She also has a profound respect and understanding of the bedrock laws that guide responsible land and wildlife management. She will be bringing with her over a decade of legal experience with the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks as well as a well-regarded legal scholar at the University of Montana. She has spent her entire career standing up for our public lands and proven herself to be a thoughtful, nonpartisan steward who works collaboratively with folks on the ground to make positive change. Her top-notch ability to find common ground between sportsmen and conservationists alike and her skills as an exceptional problem-solver will make her an outstanding Director at the Fish and Wildlife Service. She has strong support from sports men and women, biologists, and academics alike and has already received strong bipartisan support from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. She was passed out of committee on a 16-to-4 vote. Make no mistake about it, we will miss her leadership in the Treasure State, but I am looking forward to seeing her effective management skills at the Federal level. This position is very important for the stewardship of our land and our waters, and I would urge my colleagues to support her confirmation today. And in that vein, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 650, Martha Williams, of Montana, to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, could I just get a minute?

Mr. TESTER. Because I know there is a vote coming. First of all, I would ask my friend from Alaska--I appreciate the fact you are standing up for your constituents to do what is right. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have no problem with the concerns you brought up on the Russian River and the King Cove Road, although I don't know the issues nearly as well as you do. But my point is this: If you are able to put Ms. Williams in as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, she has a track record of listening to people. You happen to have a ``U.S. Senator'' in front of your name; you will be at the top of the list. She is not somebody who shuts the door and says: Just because you are Republican, I don't want to listen to you. She is somebody who always brings in people, collaborates, and comes to a decision that will work. I wouldn't be up here advocating for her if I didn't believe that.