Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor my friend Dick Brown, an extraordinary Montanan who has dedicated his life to improving healthcare across Big Sky Country. Dick has shown incredible leadership as president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association for 11 years, advocating at both the State and Federal levels for healthier families and communities.

Through his 40 years in healthcare, Dick has been on the frontlines to bring positive change to our healthcare system. He has fought for lower costs, better access, stronger healthcare facilities, and improved patient outcomes. He partnered with Montanans across the political spectrum to lead the charge for Medicaid expansion in Montana, which has created jobs, saved the State money, and, most importantly, provided coverage to more than 90,000 Montanans who would have otherwise gone without.

We also worked together to host the first Rural Health Summit in Montana, which brought together experts from across the country to tackle the unique challenges of providing quality healthcare in frontier communities.

Dick's positive influence on healthcare in Montana is widely felt from Plentywood to Dillon. Dick is an adviser and friend, a moral compass and steady hand, a wise leader and compassionate advocate.

Healthcare in Montana, and especially rural Montana, wouldn't be the same without Dick Brown. His dedication to quality, affordable healthcare for Montanans has been a blessing to our State, and generations of healthier Montanans will stand as a lasting testament to his legacy.

On behalf of Montana and this body, we wish him the best in retirement.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the 152,000 Montanans whose healthcare coverage is currently in jeopardy.

Next week, a Texas courthouse will become the newest battlefield in the war against our healthcare. The latest attack is a lawsuit attempting to get rid of legal protections for folks with preexisting conditions. These are protections that make it illegal for insurance companies to deny healthcare coverage or charge absurd rates because of common conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes or heart disease or cancer or even pregnancy.

These protections were signed into law almost 10 years ago, passed by majorities in both the House and in the Senate. Despite many attempts to undermine them, they have been upheld by the Supreme Court and continue to be supported by Members of both parties in Congress. That is because an overwhelming majority--more than three-fourths--of Americans support these protections. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported

that 88 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 58 percent of Republicans think it is very important to maintain protections for folks with preexisting conditions.

So why are we even here?

Well, in June, the Department of Justice announced it would stop defending these critical protections in court. That is correct. You heard it right. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats have decided to stop defending the law of the land that protects folks with preexisting conditions. This decision not only harms millions of Americans, it threatens to create chaos in the marketplace and could drive up healthcare costs, not to mention it is a dereliction of duty.

Now, I know we all wake up some days, and we would just rather go fishing, but a job is a job, and you just can't decide it is not worth doing, especially when your job is to defend protections for millions of Americans and thousands of Montanans with preexisting conditions.

Montanans like Christina, from Missoula, who told me last week about how the Justice Department's decision could impact her husband who suffers from a chronic type of leukemia that can be managed but not cured. Christina wrote:

Six years ago, we started the cancer journey when my

husband was diagnosed with CLL, a type of lymphoma/leukemia.

Thankfully, he found work and is receiving the care he needs

to manage his chronic disease that has no cure. But if he

could be denied health insurance because of a preexisting

condition, my husband probably would not have received the

care he needs.

Karen, from Belgrade, MT, wrote something similar, saying:

I am very concerned about the DOJ's decision to no longer

defend Americans against insurance companies who want to

disallow people with preexisting conditions. I am a cancer

survivor, as is my 22-year-old son. It is frightening to

think that both of us may be uninsurable in the future if

this trend continues.

Kim, from Helena, wrote me and said:

I have been a Type 1 diabetic for 35 years--and the burden

is heavy. The cost of insulin continues to soar to the point

that some people have to choose between their insulin or

their rent, food, or other medication. I have good health

insurance through my employer, which makes the financial cost

of my diabetes manageable. But if preexisting conditions

weren't covered, my next health insurer could simply choose

not to cover my diabetes.

I am here to tell you, there are thousands of others in Montana like Karen, Kim, and Christina. In fact, a new report released today, also by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that without current protections--without current protections--52 million Americans could be denied healthcare coverage because of a preexisting condition.

The report broke this number down even further and found that in Billings, MT--our State's largest city--one out of every four adults between the ages of 18 and 64 have a preexisting condition that could prevent them from getting healthcare coverage if our current protections were repealed. That is not to mention the thousands of others who could be charged higher rates or denied reimbursement for care if these protections disappear.

Instead of doing their job and protecting folks like Kim and Karen and Christina, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Justice have decided to help repeal a law that it is their job to defend.

Well, if they will not protect Montanans, then we will. That is why I have helped introduce legislation that will authorize the Senate to intervene in next week's lawsuit and defend protections for people with preexisting conditions.

I would be the first to say that our healthcare system isn't perfect, but folks are no longer denied coverage or forced to pay higher premiums because of common ailments like high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer, and the vast majority of Americans, on both sides of the aisle, want to keep it that way.

That is why a group of my colleagues from across the aisle introduced a bill last week to try and preserve some of these protections. That might sound good in theory, but in reality it will still threaten people with preexisting conditions.

That is why I am calling on my colleagues to pass our resolution, which will ensure folks with preexisting conditions get the coverage they need. The thousands of Montanans and millions of Americans who rely on these protections deserve nothing less.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the fine broadcasters at KRTV in Great Falls, MT, who are celebrating their 60th year on the air.

On June 27, 1958, KRTV went live with its first broadcast, only to be promptly knocked off the air by a severe windstorm that damaged its television tower, but as they would prove, time and again, nothing could keep KRTV from bringing the news of the day to northcentral Montana. Three months later, they were back on the air, and they have been leading the way ever since.

In 1960, KRTV pioneered the first live broadcast from the Montana State Fair. At the time, it was a historic technological development in northcentral Montana. In 1961, they began broadcasting in color, bringing life to storytelling and breaking news. Every day since, KRTV has set the standard for excellence in broadcast journalism in Montana, winning EB Craney newscast of the year numerous times.

They have covered events large and small, from Presidential visits and historic flooding to six-man football and fall harvest. Legendary broadcasters like Norma Ashby laid the groundwork for the familiar faces of Tim McGonigal and Shannon Newth and so many others. They have brought the news to Great Falls and its surrounding market area with passion, grace, and persistence.

For 60 years, KRTV has been a shining example of how much local news matters to a community. I know the next 60 years will be as good as the first.

Mr. President, Today I wish to honor the memory of a Montana native who, through his faith and devotion to justice, touched the lives of thousands.

Raymond G. Hunthausen was born in the mining town of Anaconda.

Over the next two decades, he developed a strong faith in God, a devotion to humanity and peace, and a heart of compassion and advocacy.

He was ordained a priest for the diocese of Helena in 1946. He took over as president of Carroll College at the age of 35, where he taught, coached, and served as athletic director. In 1962, he was appointed bishop of Helena by Pope John XXIII. He attended the Second Vatican Council, which was convened by Pope John XXIII in the early 1960s to reconcile church teachings and practices with the modern world. He described the experience as transformative, and after, he set about making his mark on the church and on society.

In 1975, Pope Paul VI appointed Father Hunthausen archbishop of Seattle. Archbishop Hunthausen led reform efforts in the church. He led protests against nuclear weapons stockpiling, let a group of gay Catholics use a cathedral for mass, gave women leadership roles in the parish far before it was common, and defended the use of birth control. He wrote what is believed to be the first letter from an American bishop calling for the church to value the gifts of women equally with those of men.

He stood for peace and justice in all matters, even when it meant risking condemnation from the church, and he advocated strongly for conservation and human rights, all while remaining a humble servant of his religion and his diocese.

Above all, Archbishop Hunthausen stood for those who couldn't stand for themselves.

His legacy is one of peace and compassion and unrelenting devotion to others. I stand here today to honor that legacy and to implore us all to reflect on the lessons he had to offer during his remarkable lifetime.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and legacy of a brave American, Eugene Joseph Earley.

Eugene's story begins in 1884 in Watertown, MN, where he was born to Bernard and Cordelia Earley. He was one of 16 children. He grew up on his parents' farm, learning independence, grit, and an ability to fend for himself.

From his parents' farm, he left to homestead and log the nearby forests in the Black River Country of Northern Koochiching County, MN. There, his determination was tested by the hot summers and long, brutal winters. Through the many challenges he faced, Eugene persevered.

After the United States entered World War I, Eugene enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Division. It wasn't long before he was deployed to France as a part of the American Expeditionary Forces led by General John Pershing.

Under Pershing's command, Eugene prepared for battle. On September 12, 1918, in Saint-Mihiel, France, Eugene and his comrades contributed to a major turning point. The American offensive caught the Germans unaware and in the process of retreating. The courage and determination of the American forces solidified the stature of U.S. military might in the eyes of our European allies and enemies.

During the second day of fighting, Eugene endured a shrapnel wound that would prove fatal. He died on the field of combat in northeast France, less than 2 months before the end of the war. Eugene was just 24 years old. He is buried in the Saint-Mihiel American Cemetery in Thiaucourt, France, alongside 4,153 of his fellow fallen comrades.

Back in Minnesota, Eugene's family honored his memory and mourned his death for the rest of their lives. In the years after his death, Eugene's mother established a local American Legion Post in his name. Watertown American Legion Post 121 still honors the memory and the name of Eugene Earley today.

Earlier this year, Eugene's grand-nephew Jim Bruggeman and his daughters Megan and Molly traveled to France to visit his grave. Through their hard work, Eugene was awarded with the Purple Heart Medal in the centennial year of his death. His life and brave service will live on through this honor and the memory that his loved ones hold dear.

To Eugene Joseph Earley, on behalf of myself, Montana, and a grateful nation, I extend our deepest thanks for Eugene's service, sacrifice, and valor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the bold and groundbreaking service of Dolores ``Dee'' Nelson.

When Dee was only 20 years old, she longed to serve her country in World War II, just like her brothers. She joined the Women's Army Air Corps but, to her disappointment, was placed in an office job. That wasn't what Dee had in mind, and she told her superiors that that was not what she signed up for.

Because of Dee's boldness, she began to get special assignments and, before long, was promoted to special operator. She passionately tackled every challenge and task brought before her. Her service took her to the newly opened Pentagon in Washington, DC, where she helped with preparations for the Allied landing at Normandy. For this mission, she was personally sworn to secrecy by President Roosevelt. Decades later, Dee still feels the sacrifice of the Allied lives that were lost on the beaches of Normandy.

At every step of her career in the Women's Army Air Corps, Dee faced discrimination and disapproval from the men she worked alongside. Men would stand in front of her in line-ups when their superiors would walk by. Her superiors refused to put any of her special assignments or accomplishments into her record. After helping plan some of the most pivotal moments of the war, her military record unfairly downplayed her contributions to our Nation.

After her military service, she used her GI Bill benefits to get a college education. At school, she met her husband, Donald, a fellow veteran of the U.S. Navy. She continued to buck tradition by traveling and working alongside her husband. As Donald continued his career in the military, Dee continued to serve her country in civil service.

Dee's passion and intelligence has taken her far in life. From working in a shipyard in Long Beach, to teaching children on the windy Aleutian Islands, Dee found joy and fulfillment in serving other people.

Dee is a miraculous woman who has not received enough recognition and appreciation for her service to our Nation in World War II. She didn't let anyone get in the way of her desire to serve, and our Nation is better off today because of her strength and determination. Women like Dee paved the way for generations of Montana and American women to take up the call to arms and serve our Nation.

I stand here today to say thank you to Dolores Nelson for her service, strength, and sacrifice, on behalf of myself, Montana, and a grateful nation.

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

Mr. President, over the years I have been on the Senate floor many times bringing up the challenges of rural America, whether it is delivering quality healthcare or investing in vital infrastructure that supports our businesses or connecting our schools to the 21st century. I have worked hard to make sure that rural States like Montana have a voice in the Senate.

That is why I am so frustrated by the recent comments made by National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro. Mr. Navarro last week characterized the economic uncertainty that tariffs are causing to the American farmer and rancher as nothing more than a ``rounding error.''

Mr. Navarro has an important position. He is a trade adviser, and he is a strategist for the President of the United States. He believes the tariffs that are harming Montana producers equate to nothing more than a ``rounding error.'' This statement is inaccurate, it is insulting, and it is dismissive of rural America. If Mr. Navarro truly believes that his comments are true, he has a lot to learn about what is going on across this country.

I am willing to bet that he hasn't been to a farm, a ranch, a stockyard, or a grain elevator facility recently--maybe ever--and I am sure he hasn't picked rock in North Central Montana. I don't think he would call the administration's trade war a ``rounding error'' if he met with Montana's homebuilders, construction workers, small business owners, farmers, and ranchers,

who are being squeezed by the rise of the cost of doing business now because of these tariffs.

I urge Mr. Navarro to leave the swamp, and come to Billings, Fort Benton, or Dutton, MT, and get an accurate perspective of how these tariffs are impacting family farms, ranches, and businesses across my great State. If he or anyone else in Washington were to speak with the folks who are most impacted by their trade policies, here is what they will hear. In ag country, they will say: Do you know what? Our commodity prices weren't that cherry to begin with, and now we are seeing them drop even more. We are seeing our input costs go up.

The head of the Montana grain growers, a lady by the name of Michelle Erickson Jones, testified recently that they didn't buy a grain bin. A grain bin is a facility that is made out of steel that stores grain. The costs went up on that very simple structure by 20 percent over the last year.

Forterra, in Billings, MT, builds bridges and has seen bridge component structures such as I-beams and rebar go up double digits just recently. In fact, in Missoula, MT, where they are building a new library to export information out of--a very good thing for that community, and for any community, as far as that goes--they passed a bond issue. Their costs went up more than $700,000 just because of the increased cost of steel. Those are the input costs.

We have been working for generations and generations to develop markets all around the world, as we live in a world that is getting smaller every day, and we are losing those export markets. We are losing certainty, and without certainty you cannot plan for the future.

Many of these agricultural farms and ranches have been in the family for generations, as mine has been. We hope to pass it along to the next generation, but if you create enough uncertainty, that will simply be impossible. That is exactly what is going on in this country today.

In the 1980s, we saw family farm after family farm go broke. That started, by the way, with a grain embargo. We will see that same scenario being repeated today if we don't change the way we are doing business.

So I ask: What is the endgame? I don't know that what is going on in the White House right now gives me any sort of hope that there is an endgame.

Here are the facts. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ongoing trade war will threaten $20 million in Montana exports alone-- just Montana exports--and, in fact, 140,000 Montana jobs. We have just over 1 million people living in Montana, and 140,000 jobs is a lot of jobs.

Only in Washington, DC, is a $20 million drop in Montana's exports and the potential impact of 140,000 jobs considered a rounding error.

Just 5 days ago, after he called the impact of the tariffs a ``rounding error,'' the administration announced that taxpayers are going to have to pay $12 billion to offset the financial impacts of these trade policies. Unlike drought, hail, floods, insects, or disease and other challenges that farmers and ranchers must deal with each year, this disaster is man-made. It is government-made. Make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted problem, and it is a financial problem that is a direct result of tariffs and irresponsible policy.

Now in order to try to ease the pain caused by these reckless tariffs, the administration has decided to further rattle the marketplace with an infusion of $12 billion of taxpayer money.

I will state that folks in production agriculture want to sell their products, not depend upon undependable erratic payments from the government. I never, ever met a farmer who wanted to receive their paycheck from the government. They want to earn their paycheck. They want to earn it from the free market. They want a free market. They want places where they can sell their products. They want to raise the products--and in my case and Montana's case, some of the finest agricultural products in the world--and they want to sell them to customers both at home and in markets around the world.

They don't want to collect cash payments from the government. That is not why they got into business. They want to get it from the marketplace. They want to get their living from the marketplace.

These dollars are being used as a bandaid to stop the bleeding that is being felt by America's farmers and ranchers as a direct result of these trade policies. This $12 billion is not going to help hold on to any markets. It will simply be a patchwork to get through the problems that the government--this administration--has created. It will not provide them long-term certainty. It will not provide them the ability to make long-term investments. It will not provide them the opportunity to pass the farm on to their children.

It will provide temporary relief, and because of these trade policies, that temporary relief is important, but it is far from a real solution for the folks who give us food security and the folks who feed the world--our family farms and ranchers.

I will just say this. I have had conversations across the State of Montana over my tenure in the Senate. I can tell you that folks work hard. They work hard for their money, and they expect to be given a level playing field, but what we are seeing right now are markets that we have worked a generation to create and to mold being given away to other countries. We are seeing infrastructure in other countries that is not being focused on the United States and the products we produce, but it is being developed to do trade with other countries, in their markets. They produce sometimes the very same products that we produce.

I was at a meeting the other night and talked about the fact that in regards to Mexico, which buys more barley from Montana than any other nation in the world, and Canada, our No. 1 trading partner, Mexico is sitting down and they are negotiating and Canada isn't. It is interesting because we have heard this before. As Mexico negotiates, they also have signed a trade agreement with Argentina. To my knowledge, this is the first one ever to be able to supply their people with food. That is a market that we need.

As far as Canada goes, I have had plenty of issues with Canada--the Canadian Government knows that--whether it is softwood lumber, grain grading for our products going north, or whether it is issues that revolve around the Columbia River Treaty. The fact is that this is our best friend in the world. We need to treat them fairly and, in the process, make sure we have markets for the people in the United States.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to thank a very dedicated group of folks--the Federal employees working for us, the American people. As Federal employees gather this week, I want to remind the country about the vital work being done each and every day by these hard-working public servants.

It is no secret that organized labor is under attack. The bargaining rights, the hard-earned benefits, the safe working conditions, and the fair pay of American workers are under attack from folks right here in Washington, DC, and in State capitols around the country. We aren't ones to run away from a fight. That is why, when the administration proposed to freeze hiring across Federal agencies, I and others pushed back. I knew that across-the-board freezes would hurt their ability to serve the American people and do the job within government that the American people expected. Then, when bad National Labor Relations Board nominees came before the Senate, I voted no. I have been proud to stand with our Federal workforce--our hard-working Federal workforce--as we fight to protect those government employees.

As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have been working with them to address chronic workforce shortages that are plaguing veterans' clinics across the United States. While building capacity within the VA to ensure we uphold our commitment to those who serve, we need to staff those very facilities.

I have also been honored to work with our friends in labor to address disparities in Federal benefits and pay. Congress must make sure that whether you are a Border Patrol agent or a TSA worker, you get the same workforce protections as other members in our Federal forces.

I am committed to defending our workers, holding Washington accountable, and fighting for a stronger Federal workforce each and every day because that is what the American people expect.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the Montanans who served our Nation during the Korean war.

Their service and sacrifice will forever be remembered in the official Congressional Record. Many of them rest in peace in the sacred ground of the Yellowstone National Cemetery.

During the Korean war, 6.8 million Americans served between 1950 and 1953. About 20,000 Montanans served in the military during that time, and 5,000 of them saw combat. We lost 350 Montanans in Korea.

Today about 6,000 Korean war veterans call Montana home. Survivors of the ``Forgotten War,'' far too many of them have struggled for far too long to receive the recognition and benefits they truly deserve.

As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, it has been my honor to fight for legislation that rights this wrong. I have introduced legislation that extends benefits related to toxic exposure to more veterans who served along the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Because when servicemembers deploy to harm's way and are exposed to toxic chemicals, our country has a responsibility to meet their healthcare needs.

Honoring these veterans takes more than just legislation; it takes dedicated people who are committed to telling their stories and honoring those who have served.

The Montana American Legion, led by Commander Richard Klose, is an important partner working to ensure veterans who fought in every conflict can get the healthcare, honor, and recognition they have earned.

Since 2014, Montana veterans and their loved ones can choose to be buried under the Big Sky in the Yellowstone National Cemetery--veterans like COL John R. Black of the U.S. Army, the most highly decorated veteran interred at the Yellowstone National Cemetery, earned two Silver Star medals and two Legion of Merit medals in his service to our Nation in the Korean and Vietnam wars; veterans like Captain Ralph D. Myer, a U.S. Public Health Service Officer of the Korean and Vietnam wars, is one of the highest ranking veterans interred at the Yellowstone National Cemetery.

Montana will remember Colonel Black, Captain Myer, and all of our citizens who fought during the Korean war.

We will honor their memory by relentlessly fighting to get the veterans of the Korean war the equal benefits and care that they earned but are too often denied.

Some paid the ultimate sacrifice. Some returned home bearing the seen and unseen wounds of war. All showed courage and strength when they heeded the call to protect our Nation far from home. We cannot forget their service and sacrifice.

To Commander Klose, the Montana American Legion, my friends at the Yellowstone National Cemetery, and all those who dedicate their lives to this country in service, on behalf of myself, Montana, and our Nation, I extend my greatest thanks for your enduring bravery, service, and self-sacrifice.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of George Ell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation who is being remembered by his family, by his community, and by his Tribe.

George was born and grew up on Livermore Creek near Browning, MT, fishing and exploring the mountains surrounding it. In the year 1890, not long after Montana was admitted to the Union, the U.S. Government forcibly took him from his home at the age of 16.

George was forced to board a train to Pennsylvania to attend Carlisle Indian Industrial School. He was turned away from his cultural practices, forced to cut his hair, and discard his traditional clothing. He was barred from speaking his language.

George died under mysterious circumstances a little more than a year after he arrived in Pennsylvania--a foreign land for a 16-year-old boy. The government buried him in Carlisle. It took 128 years for George to rightfully return home to Montana, where he belongs, to be reburied.

George's ancestors laid him to rest recently on a bluff next to Flattop Mountain, where his family can mourn and our Nation can learn from this sad chapter of America's history.

I also want to recognize George's family, including Dale Ell, Leon Chief Elk, Rhonda Boggs, and everyone involved, who were relentless in their quest to bring George back home. Their efforts are not only admirable, but an essential part of the collective healing process.

The Ell family is just one of many Native American families who were torn apart by this Nation's horrendous assimilation policies and the boarding school era. It is my hope that, as his family lays George Ell to rest, we commit ourselves to a brighter future--a future where we celebrate the first people of this Nation, their culture, heritage, religion, and strength. It is imperative that we learn from the story of Mr. Ell, so the next generation is educated about the suffering, so our kids and grandkids are inspired by his fortitude and the resilience of so many other Native Americans.

I rise today to honor those who were tested by cruelty; may their stories resonate in our history and spur us toward a stronger tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I think Robert Wilkie is the right man for the job to be VA Secretary. Today, we are going to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the President's nominee. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously, especially in my role as ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

In our committee, Chairman Isakson and I have overseen the screening of the confirmation of 12 nominees to serve veterans. I am proud to say that we confirmed them without dragging our feet.

Recently, we had Mr. Robert Wilkie before the committee for his confirmation hearing. Members of our committee asked him tough questions about his vision for the VA. We asked him about his plan to bring much needed stability to the Nation's largest healthcare system. Following the important exchanges during that hearing, Members sent more tough questions to the nominee for his response. In the days since his nomination, Mr. Wilkie has sat down with Members to respond to their questions and concerns one-on-one.

By voting to confirm Mr. Wilkie today, I believe we are providing stronger leadership for America's veterans. With this vote, we are fulfilling our obligation to them.

We are doing our job, but our job just doesn't stop today. As Members of this body, we must hold Mr. Wilkie accountable to the commitments he has made through his confirmation process.

There are some critically important issues to be addressed within the VA. There are workforce shortages, whether in rural America or urban America. We need more doctors and nurses and more psychiatrics and psychologists within the VA. This is critically important if he is going to oversee a successful VA. We need to have the VA personnel. We need to have it manned appropriately to meet the challenges that are out there after being at war for 17 years and veterans from previous eras getting older.

Today, unlike ever before, we have political forces at play inside the VA. This is very unfortunate because, quite frankly, I believe that good employees are being forced out, not because of the job they are doing but because of their views. When Mr. Wilkie becomes Secretary, he is going to have to make sure that stops. It is critically important that we keep the employees that we have who are good employees and move the VA forward so it can do the job that it is meant to do.

He also has some challenges to address in rural America. The community-based outpatient clinics we have there need to be staffed up. We need to make sure that the VA has what it needs to meet the needs of the veterans in rural America, and, by the way, with the passage of the MISSION Act, we need to make sure that veterans aren't run around once that act gets fully implemented and they need community care and the VA can't provide that care.

He needs to make sure the disability appeals process continues to move forward and that the backlog is whittled down. He needs to make sure that the accountability bill is implemented as Congress intended and that the whistleblower protection in the bill lives up to what it means. He also needs to implement the ``Forever GI bill'' in a way that makes sense for our veterans. Last and certainly not least, he needs to make sure the VA MISSION Act is implemented in a way in which a veteran can make the decision as to how he gets his or her healthcare.

Veterans need a leader who will build bridges and find solutions to the issues that face our veterans, not who will tear down the Department to meet a political agenda. Veterans need a leader who will not shy away from those challenges that face the VA. We need someone who is going to tackle the challenges like workforce shortages, like access to mental healthcare, and like barriers, particularly in rural America, for women veterans. I believe that Mr. Wilkie is the right fit for that job.

Right now, the VA does not have a confirmed Secretary who is focused on the larger mission of serving these veterans, of implementing the reforms, and of improving VA care and benefits. Instead, we have had temporary political appointees in charge who have been more interested in picking political fights with people who have not been their enemies. I believe we have lost sight of the VA's mission. It will be up to Mr. Wilkie to right that ship.

That is why I am so hopeful that this evening, we can get Mr. Wilkie confirmed so that he can get on the job as soon as possible. Veterans are depending on him, and they are depending on us to make sure he gets to work. Once he gets to work, I guarantee that the chairman of the VA Committee and I, as ranking member, and all of the members of the Senate's Veterans' Affairs Committee will make sure that he does the job and fulfills the promises we have made to our veterans.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about tariffs and their impact on Montana's family farmers and businesses. In Montana we have more than 27,000 family farms and ranches. Folks who farm and ranch these lands are descendants of homesteaders and pioneers, including myself. They are also young producers who may be preparing for their first harvest. Might I add that we don't have enough young producers in our State. The population of farmers is getting far too old.

These folks work 7 days a week, for long hours, to raise the food that feeds our families across this world, and they power our rural economies in this country. Farmers and ranchers are small business operators and owners who are always on tight margins and always are looking to make sure that they can make the books balance by being on the positive side of the ledger. Why? So they can keep their farms and ranches viable to be able to have the next generation take over their operation. Just like any other business--a local bar or a hardware store--you need to be able to make a profit to stay in business.

Producers need to make sure that they have predictability in input costs--we are talking about fertilizers, fuel, and seed--and predictability in markets, the places where we sell our grain, which has always been a challenge and which has become more of a challenge over the past 6 months. When farmers plant a crop, they need to know there is a market for that crop, because if there is not, it can put them in a world of hurt financially.

Unfortunately, in Montana, we are preparing to harvest winter wheat crops as we speak. Spring wheat crops will soon be coming, pulse crops will soon be coming, and oil seeds will soon be coming. The fact is that there is no certainty in any of those crops right now. Why? Because our farmers and our ranchers are being used as pawns in a trade war that I can guarantee not one of them asked for.

This trade war is eliminating access to foreign markets that have taken generations to develop and putting family farm and ranch operations in a financial pinch--such a severe financial pinch that we haven't seen anything like it since the 1980s, when we saw a mass exodus off the land due to bad ag prices.

The retaliatory tariffs against family farmers and ranchers is harming Montana's No. 1 industry, agriculture. Montana's grain producers produce about $2 billion worth of wheat, barley, pulse crops, and oil seeds every year. Since the middle of June, the price of No. 1 Dark Northern Spring wheat in southeastern Montana has fallen more than 60 cents a bushel. That is more than 10 percent, and the same can be said throughout the State of Montana.

To put that in perspective, just think what would happen in your business if your prices were reduced by 10 percent right off the top. It would put you in a world of financial hurt, and that is where Montana's farms and ranches are today. If prices continue to plummet, some of these families who have been on the land for over 100 years will be forced to make some very difficult decisions in the next 6 to 8 months.

These tariffs are eliminating producers' access to foreign markets-- markets that are in Asia and Europe and markets in Canada and Mexico. In Montana, we sell our grains and our beef to these countries and others: China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Pacific Rim countries, and European Union countries. These exports didn't just pop up overnight. They came to fruition after years of hard work, good faith and trust, and negotiations.

Negotiations and trust are being thrown out the window with these tariff fights. In some cases--Japan, for example--it has taken multiple generations to establish these export markets. If we lose them, it will take many generations to get them back. Countries such as Argentina and Russia are circling the markets like sharks, wanting to strike the minute we lose a grip on them to fill those voids.

Take, for instance, Mexico. Mexico is the largest importer of Montana barley in the world. For years, Mexico bought Montana's barley to be able to make beers, like Corona and others. These tariffs have put those markets at risk to the point that one Mexican barley buyer told one of the folks from the barley association of Montana: I don't know that we can depend on America to supply our barley anymore because these tariffs have put our markets at risk.

As a result, Mexico, which is a huge importer of American wheat, just this last spring turned toward Argentina for their wheat for the first time ever. They signed a contract for Argentine wheat to take the place of the wheat from this country, of which Montana is a part and will no longer be supplying.

The real question is, How long is this going to have to go on? We are faced with enough uncertainties in production and agriculture with weather, drought, hail, bugs, and disease. The list goes on. Unfortunately, this is a manmade problem.

I get it. I think the President is right when he talks about holding China accountable. They have stolen a lot of intellectual property. They manipulate their currency. But to put on tariffs where retaliation comes on ag products is not the right direction to go. We can get their attention by other ways.

I would also say that these tariffs aren't just felt by farmers and ranchers. They are felt by other businesses too. For builders, for example, their costs are going up. In 2016, the voters of Missoula, MT, approved a $30 million bond to build a new city library. They started the project, but tariffs on steel sent material costs soaring. Now the cost of rebar alone has increased the cost of the project by $100,000. Library officials have told me that as a direct result of these tariffs, they are preparing with a need to go out and raise another $500,000 to finish this project. The people of our State have to pay that price.

One of Montana's fastest growing industries is microbreweries. It is a real success story, employing a lot of folks and adding value to grains in our State. They are being hit hard by tariffs on aluminum. These emerging businesses have no other option but to pass that cost on to their patrons.

So we are paying both ways, folks. We are paying on the tariffs coming in, and we are paying on the tariffs being put on our products going out.

In agribusiness, for example, everything that is made of steel is going up and going up significantly. From I-beams to cattle guards, to posts for fencing, to metal for storage bins, anything made out of steel is going up significantly. Manufacturers who have been on the rebound since the 2008 financial crisis now have a hard time bidding contracts on materials. Less of their money is going into their pockets, if there is any left at all, because of these tariffs. Every sector of our economy is feeling the pinch of this escalating trade war.

Fair trade is really important. Getting manufacturing back to this country is really important, but it doesn't appear that we are doing those things. Instead, we are putting our existing businesses--whether it is in production or agriculture, construction or manufacturing--at risk with these trade wars.

We should have open markets. Those markets need to go in both directions, but we shouldn't be driving people into bankruptcy in the meantime. That is what is happening.

I ask: What is the end game? If this trade war continues, I had an ag banker tell me that family farms and ranchers have about 18 months before they have to start liquidating. That is the reality we are facing, and that is not very long.

That is the reason why this body needs to understand that we need to send strong messages to the administration that they can't use farms, ranches, and small businesses as bargaining chips. Their livelihoods are on the line.

Earlier this month, I hosted a roundtable discussion on tariffs at the Billings Chamber of Commerce. I was able to meet Montanans eyeball to eyeball,

and I heard their concerns. This is not a political issue. These tariffs aren't targeted toward Democrats or Republicans. They are targeted at everyone. Ag producers at this moment in time are probably carrying the majority of the load. It needs to stop before the damage is irreversible.

My grandparents homesteaded the land that we farm and lived through the 1930s. My folks, who took over the land, took the farm over in the early 1940s and lived through a lot of hard times themselves. My wife and I took the farm over in the late 1970s, and we saw what happened in the 1980s. We have seen what happens in agriculture, where so many of the folks can't make it on the farm anymore, and they have to have jobs off the farm to be able to make the books balance.

These tariffs are making things harder. We have been down difficult paths in this country before. I don't believe we can afford another punch to the gut in rural America. I will continue to fight for and defend the folks who put food on our table, but their bottom lines are being severely, severely impacted by this trade war.

Now look, the legislation we passed last week is a start. The Senate version of the farm bill provides a safety net, but I am here to state that if things continue to go south for our markets, we are going to be faced with a bill that dumps a bunch of money into production agriculture to keep these folks afloat. Why? Because of tariffs that are being put on ag products. It doesn't have to be this way.

We are an equal branch of government. I believe that both Republicans and Democrats can work on this issue in a commonsense way, especially in this body. The administration needs to understand that if they keep continuing down this war of who can put the most tariffs on products, we are going to have a hard time keeping our businesses afloat, particularly our family farms and ranches in this country. That will not help with food security for our country, and the long-term negative impacts of that are unacceptable.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today on behalf of this Nation's farmers and ranchers. I would urge this body to continue in the bipartisan way that they have been on the farm bill to get this farm bill passed, keep in good shape the strong farm bill at this moment in time, and work to improve it and get it out of the body so that farmers can have the certainty they need with a predictable farm bill.

I believe I am the only actively engaged working farmer in this body. I have lived on the farm I live on for over 61 years. My wife and I have been farming the land that my grandfather and grandmother homesteaded, and my folks farmed after them, for the last 41 years. During that time, I have been able to see good farm bills that have worked, and I have seen bad farm bills--the kinds of farm bills that have resulted in devastating consequences for our family farms, driving families off the land, paving the way for more consolidation; bad farm bills that have dried up our rural areas and our small towns and along the way dried up our rural way of life.

This is an important time for folks in production and agriculture. The commodity prices are low pretty much across the board. We are seeing this administration engaging in tariffs and a potential trade war that is threatening Montana's No. 1 industry--agriculture--and threatening the viability of the economy of Montana and rural America. That is why it is critically important that this week we pass a good farm bill that will work and give certainty to Montana's producers and rural communities across this country.

In my travels around the State of Montana, I have had a number of listening sessions on the farm bill. I have heard from farmers and ranchers. I have visited with them, looked at them eyeball to eyeball, and heard their concerns and their priorities. During these farm bill listening sessions in Montana, I heard from grain growers, cattlemen, sugar beet producers, hops growers, wool growers, pulse growers, specialty crop producers, and organic farmers. We grow a lot of stuff in Montana. I even sat down with the folks who fight the good fight to make sure our kids don't go hungry. I sat down with fifth-generation Montana farmers and ranchers whose families have worked the land for over 100 years and young producers who are getting ready to go out for their very first harvest.

For the most part, they all said the same thing; that is, they want certainty. They want access to quality crop insurance that is a big part of the safety net for our farmers and ranchers. In times when they can't get their paycheck from the marketplace, this safety net is critically important. They also want to be in a position financially where they can hand their farm--or their ranch or their operation--down to their kids and their

grandkids, but don't just take my word for it.

Since my last farm bill listening session, literally hundreds of Montana's farmers and ranchers have written in to my office to make sure their voice is heard on the farm bill.

Tom, from Glasgow, MT, wrote to me about the challenges facing farmers and ranchers. He said:

I urge you to support the Farm Bill before it expires on

September 30. The legislation that came out of the Senate

Agriculture Committee has a robust farm safety net, including

a strong Crop Insurance Program. Our farmers face a

challenging agriculture economy. They need the certainty of

knowing what programs are available as they make their plans

for the coming years.

That is critically important. Everybody who is in agriculture knows that you have to plan multiple years out before you can get to a point where you can harvest that crop and bring it to the bin and bring it to market. So having that kind of certainty of a long-term farm bill and getting one done long before September 30 is critically important.

Another fellow by the name of Frank, from Lewistown, MT, wrote me about the important role the farm bill plays in feeding this country-- the United States. Here is what Frank said:

The farm bill can help put the United States on track to

ending food insecurity and hunger in our country. I urge you

to work on a bipartisan farm bill that protects and

strengthens domestic nutrition programs, especially SNAP.

We have a democracy in this country, and we are very proud of it, but as we offer that safety net for our folks in production agriculture, we need to make sure we don't have hunger in this country, to the best of our ability, because democracies don't work well when you have a hungry society.

So I am on the Senate floor to tell Tom and Frank and the hundreds of other Montana farmers and ranchers who have contacted me that their voices have been heard and that their priorities are reflected in this Senate farm bill.

This bill reauthorizes critical crop insurance initiatives that keep farmers in business. It rejects the House attempt to combine and cut funding for successful conservation practices. It amends EQIP to allow dollars to flow to producers that focus on research conservation and drought resiliency. It strengthens our fight against foot-and-mouth- disease. It keeps in place important sugar provisions which have a multidecade track record of success, especially in the sugar beet country of Southeast and Eastern Montana. It reauthorizes funding for agricultural research and, as we know, for every dollar invested in agriculture research, we see major returns to our economy. It gives the green light to industrial hemp growers. Industrial hemp is a crop that can fit in most rotations around this country, and Montana is no exception, and it reauthorizes funding for critical USDA rural development grants, which help fund water and wastewater infrastructure, and it helps build rural communities.

Although the House chose to make political hay out of the farm bill, I commend the folks in the Senate because we got to work and, through the Senate Ag Committee, we put together a bill that farmers and ranchers can literally take to the bank. We did so while protecting the provisions that feed hungry families and protect seniors.

Now is the time to get this bill across the finish line. Through the amendment process this week, we have the opportunity to make this farm bill an even better bill.

We have already attached a bipartisan amendment to this bill that strengthens the safety net by ensuring that ARC-county payments probably reflect yields. We are giving more authority to the State and local FSA committees to identify ARC boundaries that reflect the conditions and the crops being raised in that region.

I want to thank the Montana Grain Growers for their support of this amendment, as well as the Montana Farmers Union for their input.

It is my hope that folks continue to check their politics at the door and do what is right for Montana's family farms--the folks who are making a living off the land--by passing a good farm bill this week.

Farmers and ranchers are always talking about the future. They are always thinking about the future, whether it is the future of commodity prices or market access or costs, yields, or, yes, the weather. They are constantly thinking about the future of their operation--how they can implement new practices that will make their operation more financially viable to pass on to their children. So let's get the job done this week and pass a good farm bill that gives our producers in this Nation and my producers in Montana the kind of long-term certainty they deserve and gives them the keys to building an even stronger family farm unit.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Indiana for this amendment. It is a good amendment and is an amendment we need to pass in this body. As Senator Young pointed out, issues around mental health are very prevalent. It is the signature injury coming out of the Middle East. When these folks come back home, our men and women who have served need to have access, especially when they are in crisis. I thank Senator Young.

Amendment No. 2971

Mr. President, I have a different amendment. This amendment does one simple thing. It stresses the importance of the independence of the Office of the Inspector General at the VA. To be honest, I am not sure we should ever have had to have this amendment, but we do because it is clear the VA is denying access to the Office of Inspector General to get the information it needs to carry out its mission of oversight. Over the past week, there have been a flurry of letters back and forth from the VA to the IG about access to information about the nature of the relationship between the two.

This is what I have to say. The rhetoric coming out of the VA is a bit troubling. Sunlight, bringing information to light, is the best antiseptic for good government. When the IG is doing its job correctly, that is exactly what happens. So with the rhetoric that is coming out of the VA, it opens the door to the VA to be able to control or interfere for political reasons what should be the OIG's independent oversight efforts. I am here to state that the VA is not above the law or exempt from independent oversight. Despite the Acting Secretary directing the inspector general to act like he is his subordinate, he is not. This amendment No. 2971 simply prohibits funds appropriated in this bill to be used in a way that limits the access of the Office of Inspector General to the information or documents it deems necessary to investigate and do the oversight of the VA's work.

As we have seen, the Department cannot be trusted to police itself. It must be held accountable to the veterans and taxpayers, and the Office of Inspector General is an important watchdog that should not be undermined.

I would like to add to the Record the cosponsors of this bill: Senators Isakson, Murray, Blumenthal, Hirono, Manchin, Duckworth, Baldwin, King, Gillibrand, Warren, Brown, McCaskill, Jones, Durbin, and Wyden.

This is a good amendment. It is a good governance amendment. It is an amendment to allow us, the folks in the Senate, to offer the kind of oversight we need to offer to the VA to make sure it is serving the veterans of this country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 2926

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, for the leadership he has shown from the get-go. From the moment he took the gavel in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, he has been wanting to work together in a bipartisan way, put aside our differences, and get things done.

This VA MISSION Act had a great vote yesterday, and people might say:

Well, gee, this is just another one of those slam-dunk bills. It is not. We would not be here today if it wasn't for Chairman Isakson and the great work he has done on this bill.

I also thank the entire Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I thank the leadership of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. I thank the 38 veterans service organizations that offered their support for this bill. I said many times during the hearings, we will take our cues from the veterans. This is exactly what the entire Senate, hopefully, will do in a minute or two with this bill, is take our cues from the people who serve this country in the military. This is a big win for them. They are also going to put a lot of pressure on the VA to deliver for them, but, nonetheless, this is one of those rare times when the Senate and House have done their job and done it in a bipartisan way, worked together, and worked for the benefit of the veterans of this country.

I also thank my staff, Tony McClain, Dahlia Melendrez, and Jon Coen for their great work.

In a brief review, what this bill does is scrap the Choice Program and all the community care programs and puts them into one program where the veteran and the doctor control where to seek care, whether it is within the VA or the private sector. It strengthens the VA and helps build capacity in the VA in two ways, with a loan repayment program for our employees, and it incentivizes medical residencies within the VA. It also improves rural healthcare in States where I come from in Montana by deploying mobile health teams and by expanding telehealth.

Finally, this bill expands the caregiver program to veterans of all eras--something Senator Murray has worked on for years and years. I was there when Senator Murray came up to the chairman of the committee on a previous bill and said to Chairman Isakson: We really need this caregiver bill in. Chairman Isakson said: We are not going to forget about you, Patty. We are going to make sure this is taken care of. He lived up to his promise to her, and he lived up to those veterans who have a family member who takes care of them at home, where people don't even know what is going on. They don't even know what is happening. Sometimes these folks have to quit their job to take care of a veteran at home who needs help. So the caregiver program is a very important part of this bill.

It happened because we worked together. When I go home to Montana people ask: How come you guys can't work together? We kind of broke the mold a little bit, and we worked together in a bipartisan way. We put aside politics, and we did what was right for our country and our veterans.

Hopefully, we will get a strong vote out of this bill when it is brought up for passage, and we can get it to the President for his signature.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.