Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with a warning about S.J. Res. 34. This measure undermines the privacy of all Montanans and all Americans. It is a measure I strongly oppose because it takes the refs off the field, leaving consumers at the whim of internet service providers. It allows these companies to sell our data--to sell my data--and to snoop through your search history and to track the sites we visit. In other words, it allows internet companies to make a profit by invading your privacy. It gives them the ability to collect and sell your physical location, information about your children, your health, finances, Social Security number, and web browsing history. In fact, this legislation even extends to apps and your social media accounts.

Following the vote that we had here on this floor, a Republican State senator from Buffalo, MT, proposed an amendment to our State budget to push back against this irresponsible resolution. In my home State of Montana, folks on both sides of the aisle are deeply concerned about their right to privacy. Now folks you don't even know can have access to the websites you visit, and they can have this access without your consent.

This is another troubling step that folks in Congress have taken this year to violate the rights of privacy of law-abiding citizens. We already have a CIA Director who has advocated for the most intrusive acts of the PATRIOT Act. We have a Supreme Court nominee before us who supports the government's ability to reach into the private lives of law-abiding Americans. Now Congress is rolling out the red carpet for major corporations to collect and sell our personal online information.

Enough is enough. I am here today to provide a voice for all Montanans and all Americans who value their right to privacy, who expect their elected officials to defend civil liberties, to stand up for constitutional rights, and who do not want private information collected and shopped around like a used book on Amazon.

When the President decided to sign this resolution last night, he ushered in the latest significant threat to our right to privacy. Now it is the responsibility of service providers to protect our personal information online.

I think folks in Montana and across this country have the right to question the priorities of those who supported this resolution. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, and the government shouldn't be in the business of violating those individual rights, especially when doing the bidding of big companies looking to make more profits at the expense of people's privacy.

I want it to be known in this body that Montanans don't want anyone snooping around in their private lives, neither the government nor corporations. It is fundamental to our Montana values. Protecting online privacy is critical to the integrity of basic, fundamental freedom, of fundamental civil liberty. I urge all my colleagues to make their voices heard on this critical issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, MT, and to honor the many contributions that FVCC has made in northwest Montana.

In 1967, Dr. Larry Blake was hired as the first president of FVCC, and months later, he opened the doors to 611 students who made up the very first class.

Fifty years later, over 3,500 students are enrolled in FVCC and studying more than 100 degree and certificate programs.

The campus today is unrecognizable to those who studied at its original downtown location, and in recent years, I have seen the new campus boom with the construction of additional education facilities, laboratories, and campus housing.

In 2001, Jane Karas was hired as the 11th president of FVCC, and she has been instrumental in the growth of the region's largest higher education institution.

Under Jane Karas's leadership, FVCC has expanded the nursing school and developed a renowned culinary school that has helped meet the growing demand for jobs in the communities that lay in the shadow of Glacier National Park.

In addition to serving thousands of students in Kalispell, FVCC operates a satellite campus an hour away in Libby, MT.

Over the past 50 years, FVCC has made a profound impact in Montana, and I join all of the Montanans who can't wait to see what they have in store for the next 50 years.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 544 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I want to thank Senator Moran and members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for all their good work, Senator McCain for his good work, and Chairman John Isakson for his good work on this bill.

This Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act is an important piece of legislation that is going to really ensure that veterans can access care in their communities. It is a critically important piece of legislation that we should get done and get done now.

I think this body could learn from the work that was done on the Veterans' Affairs Committee under the leadership of Chairman Isakson for the veterans of this country. I don't think my home State of Montana is any exception. Veterans have been waiting far too long for an appointment at the VA and oftentimes had to drive 100 miles for an appointment. That is why we set up the Choice Program. It was supposed to allow these veterans to get their healthcare closer to home. Unfortunately, it did not work the way it should have. And we were inundated with redtape and a government contractor that struggled to schedule appointments with providers on time.

This Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act is not the end all. It is not what is going to fix the Choice Program in its entirety, but it certainly is a step in the right direction, a step that needed to be taken, and I commend the body for allowing this step to be taken.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to initially speak about the bipartisan Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act, but first I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bipartisan Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act. I will start my remarks by saying that Chairman Isakson was here earlier, and he had a meeting he had to get to. Johnny has been through a tough surgery, and it is good to have Johnny back. But the fact of the matter is he supports this bill. He is an original cosponsor of this bill. The same could be said of Senator Blumenthal, who also had a meeting and wanted to be here, once again. We heard from Senator Schatz earlier. This bill truly has bipartisan support, not only in the VA Committee but also in this body.

The reason people support this piece of legislation is because it brings much needed reforms to the Choice Program while ensuring that veterans can access care in their communities. It is a good bill.

A few years back, the Choice Program was established with the very best of intentions. In my home State of Montana, it is a fact that veterans were waiting far too long for an appointment at the VA and oftentimes had to drive over 100 miles for the appointment. The Choice Program was supposed to allow these veterans to access care closer to home. Unfortunately, it has not been working out the way it should, and veterans have been inundated with redtape and a government contractor that struggles to schedule appointments and pay providers on time. That is why we all worked together--Democrats and Republicans and even Independents--on this bill to put forth these much needed reforms.

The Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act cuts redtape so veterans can access care more quickly. In fact, I made it clear from the get-go that I would not vote to extend the Choice Program until Congress and the VA have addressed some of the biggest concerns I have been hearing from Montana veterans and community providers.

Once we get the bill passed, this program reimburses community providers more quickly for the care they provide to our veterans. It reduces out-of-pocket costs for veterans receiving care through the Choice Program. It improves the sharing of medical records between the VA and the community providers to better ensure seamless care for veterans, whether they are seeing a VA doctor or a doctor in their community. It allows the VA to access all the funding initially appropriated for this program to ensure that veterans' access to care is not disrupted.

This bill is not going to fix everything, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. With this legislation, combined with assurances that I have received from VA Montana, VA folks within the State will be allowed to schedule appointments for Montana's veterans directly instead of going through an inept government contract.

It is my hope that we can make the Choice Program work the way it was

intended when we first set it up, with the goal of serving those who have served our country.

I again express my appreciation for taking this bill up on the floor, this Veterans Choice Program Improvement Act, and I think it is a prime example of how this body needs to work together to solve problems--in this case, for our veterans community. We should push this bill out as soon as possible.

I yield the floor to Senator Moran.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the good Senator from Kansas for his comments and his leadership not only on the VA Committee on which we both serve but also as chairman of the Appropriations MILCON-VA Subcommittee, the subcommittee that really sees how the money is going to be utilized within the VA. I think Senator Moran has covered just about all of it. I just want to go back and say one thing.

We are going to have a unanimous consent. I am told there will be an objection to it. That is truly unfortunate because this has been a bipartisan effort. It has cleared everyone in the Senate except one person, to my knowledge, and I think that is unfortunate.

One of the complaints I hear is that the primary payer provision of this bill is the problem. The primary payer provision of this bill requires the VA to be exactly that--the primary payer of the bills. My question would be, Why is this a bad thing? Right now veterans are being hamstrung and delayed, and the folks who provide the benefits, the providers, are not getting the dollars in a timely manner. I would just ask, if the VA is not going to be the primary payer, who is?

These folks have put it on the line for this country, and they come back in different shape than when they left, after they bore the battles of war. Some of the injuries are seen; some of the injuries are unseen. And we are not going to say ``You know what. Don't worry about it. We are going to make sure you get the care, and we are going to make sure it is paid for''? It is part of the cost of war. So when we send our young men and women off to war, we ought to be thinking about this stuff. And we have a solution. We have a solution to part of the problems with the Choice Program.

If we get this bill passed, it will give us the opportunity to work together to get a long-term bill passed before the first of the year to really address the needs of our veterans so that there are wraparound services at the VA that veterans can count on.

I would just say that this is supposed to be a very deliberative body, and for the most part, it is pretty deliberative. But when you have a situation of a program that we put into effect--that Congress passed and the Senate had a big part of writing--and it is not working, we ought to fix it, and this bill fixes it in good part. We have some more to do, as I said, but this bill is a step in the right direction in cutting redtape and making it easier for veterans to find care and get care, whether it is in the VA or outside the VA. It

is also something that the Veterans Administration sorely needs to move it forward.

I just want to say that we come in here and we have good arguments and good discussions, and sometimes politics comes into the discussion. In this particular case, folks have come to the table--whether it is Senator Isakson or Senator McCain or Senator Moran or me or any of the others on the Veterans' Affairs Committee--and we have come up with a solution that 99 percent of the people in this body agree with, but we can't get it across the finish line. And we wonder why our popularity is in the single digits in this country.

I am just going to close by saying I want to thank everybody from both sides of the aisle who worked together to get this bill crafted and get this bill to this point. I hope that at some point in time, people will take a look at this bill for what it does and realize that there aren't bogeymen in this bill, that our veterans deserve us to work together to find solutions to move the ball forward so they can get the healthcare they were promised when they signed on the dotted line to protect this country.

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

Mr. President, I was going to ask for unanimous consent that S. 544, the bill we have been talking about, be discharged for immediate consideration, and then someone would have to object to that unanimous consent request--otherwise it would move forward.

I am going to do this on Monday. I hope the Senator who is truly going to object to this will have the opportunity to talk to Secretary Shulkin and Chairman Isakson, and he will find out that both those people are in support of this bill.

Hopefully we can come in and do a unanimous consent and get this bill passed on Monday. This is a bill that is good for America's veterans. I think it is good for our community providers, and I think it is very good for the VA. We will hold off today and take care of this after the weekend.

I would like to once again thank all the folks who worked on this bill. A special thank-you to Senator Moran for his statements today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to see the majority of the Senate move forward and vote on the nomination of a fellow westerner, Montana's Congressman, and the next Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke. I appreciate Ryan's willingness to serve in this very important post. The Department of the Interior is vital to Montana's economy, and I am glad to see someone from the West selected to lead it.

The job of the Interior Secretary is critically important, especially today as America's public lands come under attack by way too many folks who want to see them transferred to the States or outright sold off. Selling them off to the States is the first step in selling our public lands to the highest bidder, and we can't let that happen.

Congressman Zinke has publicly said that he will not sell off our public lands nor transfer them to the States, and in Montana, your word is your bond. For that, I am pleased to support his nomination.

Congressman Zinke's to-do list is no doubt long, and I look forward to working with him to check that list off for the people of Montana.

Montana is home to some of the world's most prized public lands, including Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks and the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The fact is, our public lands are huge economic drivers, creating and sustaining more than 64,000 jobs in Montana alone through our outdoor recreation economy and thereby pumping billions of dollars back into our local economies.

That is why, when a foreign mining company threatened the gateway to Yellowstone National Park, I was pleased that Congressman Zinke expressed interest in joining me and local

businesses and community leaders to protect it. I look forward to working with him to permanently safeguard the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park because Montanans know there are some places more valuable than gold, and Yellowstone is one of those places.

I feel confident that Congressman Zinke will handle the issues before him with Montana common sense--issues like our national parks, and coming up with a responsible solution to the deferred maintenance backlog that is wreaking havoc on our national park system; the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and how to work with Congress and work in this administration to ensure full and devoted funding to initiatives like LWCF, the visionary Land and Water Conservation Fund; in Indian country, living up to our trust responsibilities that we owe to America's sovereign Indian nations; and in resource development, how to responsibly manage our public lands for energy and resource development, and how to balance that with respect to clean water and clean air and wildlife.

Of course, there are always some issues where Congressman Zinke and I don't see eye-to-eye, but he has publicly committed to working with Congress to try and address some of the most important issues of this Nation's economy as it applies to our public lands. Montana's economy is no exception, and I will take him at his word.

As a Montanan, I know how important the Department of the Interior is to our way of life, and I am optimistic that Congressman Zinke will do right by Montana and the country in his new role. Montana will be watching. For that matter, the country will be watching, and I know Congressman Zinke will make us proud.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Scott Pruitt.

I understand when we hit high noon, there will be time for prayer. You tell me, and we will yield back and get this done.

I want to talk about the nomination of Scott Pruitt and how this important vote will impact my home State. So many folks call Montana home today because their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents pushed west to start a new life in the homestead era. My family is no different.

I am proud and honored that my wife and I are still able to farm the land that my grandparents homesteaded over a century ago. I know that it does not matter if you are growing alfalfa, winter wheat, spring wheat, safflower, or garbanzo beans. I know it doesn't matter if you are raising cattle or sheep or hogs. You have to have access to clean water or you cannot succeed in agriculture.

In Montana, agriculture is the number one industry. Local economies around our State are driven by that agriculture economy, whether it is farms or ranches. In a good year, our State's wheat production alone will clear a trillion dollars.

This production not only helps create jobs and farms and ranches but it boosts the bottom line for the local grocery store, the hardware store, and local construction crews keep busy. Agriculture is the backbone of Montana's economy, but it is not the only industry in Montana that relies on clean air and clean water.

Montana's outdoor economy is growing rapidly every year. Hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping generate over $6 billion and sustain over 64,000 jobs in Montana each and every year. More folks are visiting Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks every summer.

And when they visit, these folks spend millions of dollars in communities outside the parks. Communities like Gardner, Livingston, Coram, and Columbia Falls constantly have packed restaurants and bars and hotels, thanks to our clean water and our clean air. Folks are flocking to Montana because of those assets.

prayer

Madam President, folks are coming to Montana from all over this country because of our clean air and clean water and the habitat it provides. Not only Montanans, but this entire country respects clean air and clean water. In fact, in Montana, it is Montana's Constitution that says we value clean air and clean water.

The reason we place such a high importance on clean air and clean water is because we see what happens when it is put at risk. On numerous occasions, Montanans have been victims to corporations who treated Montana like a Third World country. They reaped the value of our natural resources, and then they left the American taxpayer to clean up the mess. Folks like the Anaconda Company, W.R. Grace, Glencore, just to name a few.

They left a mess. It wasn't the EPA that left that mess. It was these corporations, and it is the EPA's job to make sure they clean up this mess, not out of the pocketbook of the American taxpayer. These folks, these corporations, have put our clean air and clean water at risk. Not only did they contaminate the land, they contaminated our local economies. One of the largest Superfund sites in this country is in Butte, MT. It took 16 years, nearly $150 million to clean up just a portion--just a small portion of what the Anaconda Company left behind after mining copper in Southwest Montana.

In Libby, hundreds of people have died, and over 1,000 people are ill because of asbestosis due to asbestos exposure. Even though a local vermiculite mine closed in 1990, folks are still getting sick due to asbestos-related diseases.

And for years, I have been fighting alongside the folks at Columbia Falls, MT, to hold Glencore accountable to that community for the cyanide and arsenic they left abandoned on the banks of the Flathead River near the gateway of Glacier National Park.

Companies that put our clean water at risk cannot be trusted because they never stick around to clean up the mess they have made. We have seen it firsthand. And that is why we need an EPA Administrator who is going to side with the American taxpayer, with local economies, with local families, and hold the polluters and contaminators accountable for their shortsighted actions.

It is for these reasons that I cannot support Scott Pruitt's nomination for Administrator of the EPA. Throughout his career, he has consistently sided with the big polluters over the local businesses and the local families.

I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt understands the critical role that clean air and clean water plays in agriculture and our outdoor economies. In my conversations with Mr. Pruitt, I received no assurances that he will be a

champion for Montana's family farmers, ranchers, those who love to hunt, fish, and hike in Big Sky Country. Mr. Pruitt has endorsed policies that will put Montana jobs at risk and put our outdoor heritage on the ropes.

Don't just take my word for it. Thousands of Montanans have contacted my office regarding Mr. Pruitt's nomination. Caitlin from Libby wrote me:

No community understands the grave impact lack of

regulation or failure to enforce environmental regulations

can have on a community like Libby does. Four hundred people

died in Libby because W.R. Grace mined vermiculite that was

contaminated with asbestos. . . . These people died . . .

when they were just doing their job. Libby doesn't want or

need another person that looks the other way while big

corporations prey on hard-working people.

Stephen from Corvallis wrote:

I am a farmer in Montana, and I regularly use pesticides,

where I hope the EPA has my back to make sure these things

are safe for me and the environment. . . . Farming continues

to be less predictable, due to a change in climate. I want

someone in that position that has my back as a farmer, not

someone that questions broad scientific consensus.

Rich is a retired public lands manager from Stevensville who wrote me saying this about Pruitt:

Is not fit to be leading an agency responsible for

protecting wildlife, clean water, clean air, and leading the

charge of addressing a changing climate. Pruitt is anti-

science, routinely disregarding well-established studies

involving climate change. I recently retired . . . the

thought of the possible damage and undoing of what I've lived

and worked for over my [entire] life by this man is

disheartening to say the least.

Look, folks, the Earth's climate is changing. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about that. If we want to be able to continue to take our fly rod and go fishing down those rivers, you have to have somebody in the EPA who will ensure that we have clean water and clean air. I will tell you something that happened in Montana for the first time this year. The Yellowstone River closed. The bottom reason for it was the water warmed that much. If you are going to have good habitat for fisheries, if you are going to have good habitat for elk and big game hunting, if you are going to be able to go up in the mountains and hike, fish, bike, and do the things we do in Montana, you have to have somebody in the EPA that makes a difference.

What we do today will not be felt today. It will be felt tomorrow. That is why today we need a man in the position of EPA who will fight for clean water and clean air. It is critical to our survival, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Stephen, Caitlyn and Rich are right. We need folks in the administration who will stand up and understand the value of clean air and clean water. Unfortunately, the President has nominated someone who can't deliver. Therefore, I will oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise, as did the Senator from Georgia, in support of the nomination of Dr. David Shulkin to be Secretary of the VA.

First, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Senator Isakson for his leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and throughout this confirmation process--and throughout the many processes--as chair of the committee.

Look, I think it is critically important that we have a Secretary of the VA to serve our veterans. I think Dr. Shulkin is the perfect person for that position. The solutions to the VA's problems should be based on common sense rather than partisanship or an extreme agenda. I think Dr. Shulkin recognizes that. He is committed to our Nation's veterans above all. Through the conversations I have had with him over the last year and a half, I think he understands the challenges ahead of us in the VA.

The Choice Program, for example, which has been a wreck by anybody's standards, is looming with dramatic funding shortfalls and is a program we need to work on here in Congress--and we will on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee--to fix, and I think Dr. Shulkin is on top of it.

I have many letters from veterans across Montana about how the Choice Program has not worked. It is not that it isn't a good idea. When we passed it, we all agreed that it was a good idea. But it needs to be changed to fix the needs of our veterans and make it more workable.

One other thing is a big problem, and that is the workforce problem we have within the VA. The hiring freeze has made this problem even worse. We all talk about the backlog, and the backlog is real. But we need to make sure the VA has the people they need to serve the veterans in this country, whether reducing that backlog or whether it is making sure they get the care they need.

Finally, and Johnny talked about this: privatization. He has reassured me he will oppose efforts to privatize the VA. Typically, this isn't a problem, but the administration has talked about it extensively. I think it would

be a path that is reckless for our veterans, and I think the veterans service organizations would tell us that.

Again, I express my support for the nomination of Dr. Shulkin to be VA Secretary. I believe he will stand up for our veterans. I believe he will put them above politics.

Moving forward, I look forward to working with him and other Members in this body to make sure we serve our veterans the best we possibly can. Our veterans deserve no less.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware, and I also want to thank the Senator from Georgia, who has about the same length speech as I have here--short and sweet.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of thousands of Montanans who have reached out to me in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

Health care in this country is a very complex thing. It has many moving parts. It impacts patients, doctors, nurses, hospitals, families, and rural communities in Montana and across this country.

Recently, I traveled across Montana, speaking with folks from most of the 60 hospitals that we have in Montana. There is no doubt our health care system has some problems. Costs are rising, and families are being priced out of health care. There is no doubt about it--not all but some. But these problems to be solved require thoughtful, responsible solutions. These problems require folks to put politics aside and work together for the health of our country and for rural America and for our next generation.

Over the years and throughout this confirmation process, Congressman Price has shown that he is not equipped for this vital and formidable job. Health care in this country is too important to turn over to a man who wants to reverse the progress, cut up the safety net, and rip away the health care that our seniors have earned.

Everyone in this body knows that we have work to do to fix the Affordable Care Act, but each and every Senator also knows that the ACA has expanded coverage for millions of Americans, improved rural America's ability to recruit and retain health care workers, and moved us closer to closing the Medicare doughnut hole. We cannot make any of these improvements if we do what Congressman Price has promised and repeal the ACA, especially without a single plan to replace it. I would tell you, if one exists, I would love to hear it, and I would love to hear it today.

So I want to work to fix the problems with the ACA, not send us back to a time when folks couldn't afford to get sick or couldn't change jobs due to preexisting conditions.

Don't take my word for it. Joseph from Missoula wrote to me and said:

I am a practicing cardiologist in Missoula. I am adamantly

opposed to the nominee, Congressman Price. His approach takes

us back to the 1980s, ignores the reality of life for a large

portion of our population, and is inconsistent with our

obligation to care for the least of our brothers.

Joseph knows Montana cannot afford to go back to the old system. But Congressman Price has indicated that is exactly what he wants to do.

In his confirmation hearing, when Congressman Price was pressed about President Trump's replacement plan, he played it off with a joke to a laughing audience.

The health care of the American people is no laughing matter. We need a serious plan to address rising premiums and deductibles, but Congressman Price and President Trump have come up empty. In fact, Congressman Price's plan to repeal the ACA without a replacement is a serious threat to the health of our country.

But the Congressman's attack on our health care system does not end with dismantling the ACA. He wants to take a chainsaw to the safety net that helps our hardworking, low-income families stay afloat.

Last year in Montana, under the leadership of Gov. Steve Bullock, the Montana Legislature worked across party lines to expand Medicaid to thousands of Montanans, giving folks coverage for the first time in their lives. A man in Butte, MT, looked me in the eye, and he told me that because of Medicaid expansion--listen to this--for the first time in his life, he was able to go see a doctor, get his diabetes under control, and ultimately find full-time employment. Because of Medicaid expansion, this man was finally able to provide for his family.

Congressman Price's proposals will rip that coverage away from that man and make it more difficult for others to use Medicaid as well. His plan to block-grant Medicaid will do exactly that, and I have heard from health care providers from across our great State that this will cripple rural America.

In Montana, with the expansion of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, it has created hundreds of jobs in the health care industry, and we can't afford to let those jobs go away. Rural America cannot afford Congressman Price's reckless plan--or lack of plan--to replace the ACA.

But Montana's working poor aren't the only ones threatened by Congressman Price. Our senior citizens often fall into the crosshairs of Congressman Price's irresponsible battle with the Affordable Care Act.

President Trump campaigned on protecting Medicare for seniors, and I am with him on that one.

If Congressman Price had his way, Medicare, as we know it, would cease to exist. He has supported budgets that would turn Medicare into a voucher system and cut the program by nearly $500 billion. Congressman Price's plan moves more of the burden of health costs onto our seniors.

Under Congressman Price's plan, a senior in Glasgow, MT, who is struggling with dementia would receive a fixed amount of money and would be expected to go out, shop for insurance, and buy a private insurance plan. A couple retired in Whitefish would be forced to spend less time enjoying their final years together in order to comparison shop and wrangle with insurance companies--not really how most of us would envision retirement. A farmer from Fort Benton, who has

given his blood, sweat, and tears to feed our country would be hanging up his dirty baseball cap for the last time and will have to worry about finding extra money in his savings to cover higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

Does that sound like a fair way to treat our seniors? I think not.

America's seniors have earned their Medicare over a lifetime of hard work, and because most of them live on fixed incomes, they can't afford to see it privatized. We cannot allow this administration to gamble with our seniors' future and their health care.

Ann from Stevensville agrees. She wrote to me and said:

Please do not support anybody wanting to privatize

Medicare. No to Tom Price.

But that is not all. Congressman Price's track record of fighting against affordable health care for all Americans is disturbing. Throughout his confirmation process, a disturbing pattern has emerged.

Congressman Price has spent his 12 years in Congress pushing legislation that would make health care less accessible for the poorest among us and enrich himself by corporate special interests. In 2016, Congressman Price used an exclusive sale of discounted stock of a foreign biotech company to line his own pockets. Now he is nominated to lead the agency that would directly impact this company.

Congressman Price underreported his holdings in this company by as much as $200,000. Now, I know $200,000 may not seem like a lot to some folks, but I am going to tell you, to this Montana farmer and to farmers across this country, we would remember if we had $200,000 or so invested in a company.

He introduced legislation to lower the tax bills of three pharmaceutical companies that he personally held investments in. CNN reported that during his time in the House, Congressman Price invested in a company and then 1 week later, introduced legislation to delay regulations that would have hurt that company's bottom-line profits.

Patients, nurses, doctors, and hospital administrators got a raw deal while Congressman Price and his corporate special interests got richer and richer.

As an elected official, as a potential Secretary, you are held to a high ethical standard. Congressman Price failed to reach that standard.

President Trump pledged to drain the swamp. Congressman Price's record shows that he swam with the alligators for a while.

It is clear to me that Congressman Price's priorities put him at odds with the fundamental job of HHS Secretary.

Congressman Price's record is not one of expanding access to affordable care, increasing coverage to rural America, and protecting the Medicare that our seniors have earned. The legislation that he has carried in the House enriched himself and the companies he has invested in.

I think Elaine from Lolo, MT, said it best when she wrote to me and said this:

I believe we should be expanding health care coverage for

Americans, not making it more difficult to access and afford.

Price wants to scale back Medicare and Medicaid, is out of

touch with the realities of the challenges and needs for

reproductive freedom and safety, and has financial conflicts

of interest that would potentially skew his judgment.

A better choice should be demanded for the person who will

lead Health and Human Services to ensure our country has the

best possible healthcare and service support for the needs

for all humans, not just those in line with Rep. Price's

interests.

I urge you to vote no on Price's appointment. I will be

watching the vote closely. Thank you.

Well, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote no for Elaine, for Montana seniors, for Montana families. Well, they are all going to be watching closely.

I would encourage a ``no'' vote on Congressman Price.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

I say to Senator Durbin, there has been a lot of talk about the fact that the number of Cabinet appointees were much higher in the Obama administration than they are now. Could you take us back 8 years ago? I mean, we just confirmed a lady to be Secretary of Education who has never spent 1 minute in a public school classroom, on a school board, teaching, student, otherwise. There are claims out there about some of these nominees being involved in insider trading. There are claims out there that some of these nominees did not pay their taxes.

Could you take us back 8 years ago and tell us how those folks were treated, if there was anything wrong with them when they came to this floor?

I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for his history lesson on the confirmation process over the last 8 years, at least in the Senate.

I want to speak today on behalf of the thousands of Montanans who have asked me to oppose the nomination of Mr. Sessions as the Attorney General of the United States. As this country's top law enforcement official, the Attorney General must stand up and fight for all Americans. The Attorney General must provide a voice for the folks who often are not able to speak for themselves.

The Attorney General must enforce the law as it is written, not how the President wishes it was written. I believe Mr. Sessions has proven time and time again that he does not fulfill these qualifications, and therefore I will oppose his nomination for Attorney General.

Mr. Sessions opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation protects women from domestic violence and sexual assault and brings perpetrators to justice. In my State of Montana, this law helped provide over $10 million every year to support women and children. Those are critical resources that make a real difference in the lives of women, children, and their families, and they keep our communities safe.

The Violence Against Women Act supports shelters like the Friendship Center in Helena, which is literally saving lives and protecting women and children from violence every day--in fact, they help over 1,000 Montanans each and every year--or programs like Rocky Boy Office of Victims Services, which is in the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation.

Thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, this has helped reduce the number of sexual assaults on that reservation. If he is confirmed, I would invite Mr. Sessions to Red Lodge, Missoula or Browning, and the many other places in our State to see how the Violence Against Women Act is saving lives and making communities safer. I invite him to sit down with the survivors at any of the YWCAs in Montana and explain to them why he opposes the Violence Against Women Act.

As Attorney General, Mr. Sessions will be responsible for administering critical resources through the Violence Against Women Act, resources that will save lives, but as a Senator, Mr. Sessions has turned his back on the survivors of domestic violence. I am not confident he will be there for them as Attorney General.

I will not support a nominee for Attorney General who opposed legislation that helps us better investigate and prosecute violent crimes against women, but that is not all. I am not convinced that Mr. Sessions will stand up for the privacy laws of law-abiding Americans. Less than 2 years ago, right on this Senate floor, Mr. Sessions fought to preserve the most intrusive aspects of the PATRIOT Act.

That was not the first time he supported unchecked government surveillance. Mr. Sessions has voted in support of the most intrusive aspects of the PATRIOT Act seven times--seven times.

He is a staunch advocate for the NSA's bulk data collection, which violates the privacy of millions of Americans. If Mr. Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General, will he push back and fight our government that undercuts our freedoms? Will he fight on behalf of government officials who listen into our phone calls, or scroll through our emails or preserve our Snapchats?

Will he intervene if the government once again spies on citizens without a warrant? I think the answer to that, quite frankly, is no. When government agencies like the NSA collect bulk data, they do so at the expense of our freedoms. If Mr. Sessions is not willing to protect our Fourth Amendment rights, can we expect him to fight for other constitutional rights?

Will he fight for the First, the Second, the Fifth? Again, the answer is no. We need an Attorney General who will fight and protect our individual freedoms, not one who is willing to sacrifice it.

I am not alone. Thousands of Montanans have contacted my office opposing Mr. Sessions. Here are some of the things Montanans have written to me. Anne from Missoula wrote me:

Please vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions for

Attorney General. He has a history of supporting the

weakening of our civil liberties. Voting rights should be

strengthened, not weakened. His support of the Patriot Act

and opposition of the Violence Against Women Act are just a

few of the many egregious positions that he has taken.

Susan from Bigfork:

Please vote no on Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. She

is an inappropriate choice due to women's issues and civil

liberty issues. He has shown poor choices in protecting

voting rights and women's choices.

Jerilyn from Belgrade:

Jeff Sessions is completely the wrong person to be Attorney

General. His record on civil rights and women's issues belong

in a different century.

Amy from Whitefish:

Vote no to the nomination of Jeff Sessions, who has shown

himself time and again to be no friend to equality or civil

liberties. Please know that we in Montana expect you to

uphold our desire for all members of this great Nation

regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation

or sexual orientation, to be treated with respect and

dignity.

Charles from Livingston:

He voted no on the Violence Against Women Act.

That ``he'' being Mr. Sessions. Mr. Sessions voted no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He voted yes on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

Now, I agree with Anne and Susan and Amy and Jerilyn and Charles and thousands of other Montanans. Because of that, I will not support Mr. Sessions, and I will urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to address the potential confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. I rise today not just as a Senator from Montana; I am a former public school teacher, a former public school board member. I have a mother who was a teacher and an aunt who was a teacher. I have a daughter who is a teacher. I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher. I have a number of teachers in my family. They all have either taught at or currently teach at public schools. When I was growing up, education was a critical part of what we developed into. Public education was something that my parents thought was very important. That was instilled in them by my grandmother, who over 100 years ago immigrated to this country from Sweden, due in part to the public education system we have in this country today.

When I came home from school every day, my mother would quiz me on what went on in public education. By the way, I went to the same school she did. She would find out what had transpired, both the interactions with the kids and what went on academically in the school, and also offer me a hand if I needed help with the academic portion. We would talk about my experiences in the public school because it was important. She knew it was important.

She was the daughter of a homesteader. When she was a child, homesteading wasn't exactly looked upon kindly by the ranchers of the community. They thought homesteaders were taking away their right to make a living--breaking up that good grass and putting wheat on it, making it so cattle couldn't continue to graze there. There was a lot of friction between ranchers' and farmers' kids. They all went to the same public school. In my particular case, it was Big Sandy Public Schools. In the environment of that public school, those kids learned to get along. What resulted from that was the ``greatest generation.'' We live in a world today due in much part to their figuring out a way to get along, figuring out a way to communicate, figuring out a way to make the world a

better place. That was due I think entirely because of the public education system we have in this country today.

Our public education system is--and this cannot be argued--the foundation of our democracy. When I was growing up and the Vietnam conflict was going on and there were conflicts around the world, everybody said: You know, these countries need to have a democracy. And then there was a realization that without an educated population, democracies really don't work.

We have had a democracy in this country for nearly 250 years because of the success of our public education system. We have had a middle class in this country that has been the envy of the world because of our--listen to me--public education system. It is the foundation of our democracy, it is the foundation of our economy, and it is a place where we learn to live together peacefully.

What is troubling about the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary is that she wants to privatize this public education system we have. I had her in my office. We talked about vouchers, and we talked about privatizing education. We talked about accountability. Her response to the public education system was that it was failing. Her response to that was, pull a few kids out. Pull the kids out who don't have any disabilities, pull the kids out who are a little smarter, and put them into a classroom, and that will be what makes this country great again. This country is already great, and if we do that, I am here to tell the people of the Senate today that we will destroy the foundation of this country and we will destroy--it may take a few years--we will destroy our democracy.

It would be different if Betsy DeVos had spent 1 hour, 1 minute, 1 second in a public education classroom. She was not educated in public schools. She has not dealt with public schools. I dealt with it as a teacher. I dealt with it as a school board member for 9 years. In fact, my second public service job was on the Big Sandy School Board. It is important because my first one dealt with soil and soil conservation, and my second one dealt with education. She has been in neither of those positions. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter that she wasn't in those--except it does because if you don't touch base with what is going on and see the successes that are happening in public education, you can have a warped view of what is going on in this country right now, and that warped view will cause you to do things like say ``You know what, we are going to put up charter schools, we are going to have vouchers, and ultimately we are going to take away public education as we know it today.'' Instead of saying ``You know what, we are going to invest in accountability, we are going to invest in teachers' salaries, and we are going to invest in a 21st-century education system so our kids can compete,'' the answer is ``No, we are going to pull kids out of the school.''

I am going to tell you a secret. I taught in the late seventies. I am far from a master teacher; I taught for a couple of years. I quit teaching because I could do anything else in society and make more money. I could cut meat for a day and make as much money as I made teaching school for a week.

Wouldn't it be a little bit smarter, instead of privatizing the schools, as Betsy DeVos wants to do, to invest in those schools? Let's give the kids the maximum opportunity we can give them. Let's value public education, and let's value education.

I am going to tell you what happens in a rural State like mine with privatization. My school system in my hometown of Big Sandy has about 175 kids. That is not an exception for Montana; there are a lot of schools that have 175 kids or fewer. By the way, that is not high school; that is K-12. Let's say that for whatever reason, somebody wants to set up a charter school a few miles down the road and suck a few kids out of Big Sandy and maybe suck a few kids out of the Fort Benton school system and a few more out of the Chester system. Pretty soon, they have their little charter school, and there is less money to teach the kids who are left in those public schools. What do you think is going to happen to those kids who are left there? That is going to take away from our public education system. Ultimately, it will cause those schools to close because the money that funds our education is at a bare minimum right now.

The other thing that has happened in our public education system is that Congress--people here--has made the promise to local schools to fund kids with disabilities, the IDEA Program, things we can do to help fix public education. Let's fund what we promised--40 percent. It is funded at 16 percent right now. So if we had a person who was going to go in as Secretary of Education and said: You know what, this is a problem, and we are going to fight to make sure that folks have the money from the Federal level to be able to teach the kids; and we are going to live up to our promise; and, by the way, IDEA is a good program that needs to be fully funded, and the Federal Government needs to do their part at 40 percent, I may have a different opinion. But that is not what she wants to do. She, in fact, wants to do something far worse than that.

She told me she wanted to block grant the money for IDEA, which would further put another nail in the coffin of schools around the country, and then put three or four in the rural schools.

It has been documented here earlier this morning that the phones have been ringing off the hook. They have been ringing off the hook opposed to Betsy DeVos. There are 1 million people who live in Montana. Over 3,000 people have contacted me opposing her. I have had 20 contact me to support her. Phones are ringing off the hook. In fact, the phones are ringing to the tune of 1,200 to 1,500 calls a day. The phone system has shut down. There are some Senators who aren't even answering their phone because they don't want to hear it. But the truth is that public education is important in this country. People know what is at risk here. To have somebody who has never spent any time in the classroom of a public education system is asking for catastrophic results.

I am going to read a few comments from people in my great State who have sent me emails and letters about Betsy DeVos. Here is one from Melee in Missoula:

Mrs. DeVos has no place in our national education system.

She is clearly not prepared nor does she even have the most

basic experience to do this job well. Our students, teachers,

and parents, deserve an excellent candidate, and she is not

it.

Kelly from Laurel:

As a mother of an 11-year-old daughter, the thought of this

woman in charge of our Nation's school system scares me.

Sandy from Billings:

It would be nice to have an Educational Secretary who has

actually worked, I say WORKED, in education instead of some

rich woman who has never spent a day in public schools.

Kim in Kalispell:

We need an Education Secretary that knows what the I-D-E-A

Act actually is and the needs of rural school districts. We

can do better and our kids deserve better.

Jenessa from Froid wrote me quite a long letter. I think it is particularly poignant, so I want to read this to you. It is a little bit long, but I think it is very clear. I want to back up a little bit and tell you that Froid is a very small town, not unlike Big Sandy. It doesn't have a lot of kids, but it has great people. Here is what Jenessa says:

After marrying my husband, a local farmer, in August 2010,

I put down my roots with plans to spend my entire teaching

career in Froid. With Mrs. DeVos pushing for private school

funding, our small school will be one of the first to suffer.

Having two small boys that will be soon entering into their

school years, they will be the third generation to walk the

halls of Froid Public School. I want them to be able to spend

all 13 of their public school years in the same school.

As an educator, I have seen what a small rural school can

do for a student. While we may not get the same opportunities

as large schools, when the opportunities knock on our door,

we have a large percentage of students take advantage.

They have pride in their school and their community.

Montana is currently suffering from teacher shortage. With a

lack of funding, this shortage will only get worse.

I am currently in the process of earning my Masters degree

in Educational Leadership. With this degree, I have been

given the opportunity to become the principal of our small

school. A school my family attends, my roots are dug, and I

do not want a woman like Betsy DeVos having control over [our

school].

Please vote no. A vote for Betsy is a vote for private

control. A vote for Betsy is against the community of Froid.

A vote for Betsy is against Froid Public School. A vote for

Betsy is a vote against public school teachers across this

country and against the great State you represent. A vote for

Betsy is a vote against my family. A vote for Betsy is a vote

against me.

Mary from Red Lodge:

As a 32-year veteran educator in a rural public school, I

am deeply concerned about the appointment of Betsy DeVos as

Education Secretary. I'm inclined to say that her loyalty and

financial backing of Mr. Trump were the reasons for the

misguided appointment and not her experience and knowledge in

education issues.

To be in such an esteemed position as Education Secretary,

one would expect years of experience and an advanced degree

to understand the ongoing issues we face in U.S.

education.

Sara from Billings:

As a first grade teacher in a low-income school, I believe

wholeheartedly in Montana's public schools.

Betsy DeVos believes in school privatization and vouchers.

She has worked to undermine efforts to regulate Michigan

charters, even when they clearly fail.

The marketplace solution of DeVos will destroy our

democratically governed community schools. Her hostility

towards public schools disqualifies her.

She will not work to provide a free and fair education to

my students who struggle every day with hunger, with

homelessness, and more. I am asking you to vote against the

confirmation of Betsy DeVos.

But I have heard from far more than that--from parents to grandparents, to doctors, to average Joes who oppose this nomination. Education is something that affects everybody's life. In my opening remarks, I talked about the need for public education for democracy to work and exist. As a former school teacher and as a former board member, I can tell you that there are a lot of things we can do to make public education better, and we ought to do it.

There are hard things to do. It is much easier to say: Let's just destroy the program and privatize it, and then see what we end up with. That would be a bad decision, and that is why we should not vote for Betsy DeVos.

The impacts are huge. They are huge on our economy, they are huge on our form of government, and they are huge for us being a leader in this free world we live in.

In closing, I want Montanans to know that we have heard you. You called, you wrote, and you contacted me on Facebook and Twitter. Your message has been loud and clear. It is a message that we are hearing all across this country. It is a message that, quite frankly, if we confirm this lady, will not make America great again. In fact, it will, over time, destroy this very country that we love.

As to people who I talk to who say: The Secretary of Education doesn't matter; it is not going to affect me--I don't know whom you are kidding. The fact of the matter is, this will affect every school in every community in this country.

We can say President Trump got elected, and he needs to have the team that he wants. I am not going to vote for a team that destroys the public education system in this country. I would not be doing a service to the people who came before me--the previous generations--and I certainly would not be doing a service to my kids and my grandkids and the generations to come after. This is a very important decision. If we want to do the tough work of debating our public education system and determining how we can make it better, get the best people in the classrooms, and get the best academic material in there for them to work off of, let's do that. But let's not destroy the public education system that has made this country great for generation after generation after generation.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the thousands of Montanans and the millions of Americans who have told us to vote no on Betsy DeVos.

Madam President, I yield my remaining postcloture debate time to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Patty Murray.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a great man, a colleague, and my friend: Jamie Wise.

It was nearly 10 years ago that Jamie joined Team Montana. The passionate Representative Rosa DeLauro had toughened him up and groomed him for success in the world's most deliberative body. As a newly elected Senator ranked 100 in seniority, one of the first decisions I made was to hire Jamie.

Some may say it is tough to break into Team Montana. We are few but proud, an independent but tight-knit family, a little unpolished, but persistent and most often underestimated. Jamie fit right in.

With his sharp wit and dry sense of humor, he quickly became a Montanan. Hailing from his adoptive hometown of Great Falls, it was a natural fit for him to tackle my veterans, defense, and homeland security portfolios. And tackle it he did.

He wrote my first bill that was signed into law to more fairly reimburse veterans who are traveling to and from their doctors' appointments. It may seem like a simple thing, but it has been life changing for veterans all across this Nation who cannot afford a tank of gas but are facing debilitating medical conditions and need to see their doctor. This bill would set the stage for Jamie's long and incredible career in my office.

Jamie's dedication to Montana has taken him down into the silo of an intercontinental ballistic missile, from the embassy in Yemen, to the Port of Wild Horse on the border of Canada. Needless to say, his legislative chops are unmatched on the Hill. His ability to look 1 inch ahead while also calculating the roadblocks 100 miles away is a skill that can't be taught. It is instinctual.

Jamie worked hard, long hours and rose through the ranks from legislative assistant to legislative director and ultimately chief of staff. It was common to find Jamie sitting in his office into the wee hours of the night plowing through appropriations bills, making sure Montana got its fair shake. Those long hours produced real results for families and small businesses across the State. You can see Jamie's fingerprints on hundreds of letters, thousands of press releases, and the careers of dozens of young, aspiring staffers.

James D. Wise has left his mark on this world, and I can't wait to see what he takes on next.

So today, I wish to thank Jamie on behalf of this Nation, 1 million Montanans, and one grateful Senator.