Jon Tester on Government Reform Democratic Jr Senator

Spotlight Act: no dark money in campaigns

Matt Rosendale (R): No. Voted against state bill requiring independent groups to reveal how money they contribute to election campaigns is being used & where it's coming from. Supports Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling as protecting freedom of speech.

Jon Tester (D): Yes. Introduced Spotlight Act, requiring political nonprofits to disclose donors. "Dark money is a threat to our democracy. I will do everything I can to defend Montanans from this shadowy behavior." Opposed Citizens United ruling.

Introduced bill to ensure Native American voting access

Matt Rosendale (R): Yes. Voted to repeal same-day voter registration. Require government-issued photo identification to vote.

Jon Tester (D): Unclear on photo ID. Introduced bill to ensure Native American voting access.

Citizens United is scary for democracy

Tester, ever the opponent of Citizens United, acknowledged the problem in his closing statement. "We're back in 1912," he said, harkening back to the days of Montana's Copper Kings. "We've come back to a time when corporations can give unlimited amounts of money, secret money, and influence the political structure of this country. And that's scary for a democracy."

But Rehberg, who had no response when asked directly how much outside interests had spent in this race, doesn't seem to be too troubled by where that money is coming from.

Oppose Citizens United: limit corporate political spending

Rehberg appeared to speak favorably of Citizens United, saying political free speech is the most important, but he added that he supports 100 percent transparency with campaign donations.

The problem, Tester pointed out, is that Citizens United doesn't require transparency in reporting political contributions.

Citizens United ruling puts democracy at risk

The decision has been derided by many Montana politicians. Montana, 21 other states and the District of Columbia have asked the high court to rule that Citizens United doesn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending.

Rehberg said he supported the 2010 ruling, although he added that there should be full transparency on where campaign money is coming from. "There should be nothing more free than political free speech," he said.

Tester responded that "corporations are not people. Because of Citizens United, corporations have more rights when it comes to donations than people do," he said.

Earmarks without transparency are wrong for democracy

TESTER: The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don’t support earmarks, period.

If a project’s a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I’m not for earmarks because they don’t pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.

JONES: Incumbents always put something in the transportation bill so they can brag about all the money they brought to the state. None of the 34 are qualified.

BURNS: I’m proud about what I brought back to Montana. That money’s going to be spent somewhere in America, and I want Montana to get her share.

K-Street cronies control Congressional spending decisions

A: I’d start with no-bid contracts in Iraq. That’s kind of wild. Then negotiations for Medicare Part D prescription drugs--I negotiate when I go to buy a pickup truck, so we ought to be negotiating-- but that’s what happens when you have big pharmaceutical companies writing legislation. It’s time that we spend the money wiser, that we prioritize better, and start looking out for middle class folks. But that’s not the people who have control- the cronies on K-Street that buy votes have more control than the folks that elect us. You need to have people back there in Washington who have experience balancing a checkbook and setting priorities. I have balanced a checkbook in the private sector and in the public sector. My opponent has not been able to do that.

End policymaking for those with the biggest campaign checks

End the “pay-to-play” culture of Washington

“I’m all for strengthening rules, but it’s even more important to change the culture of corruption. We need to let Washington know now that the ‘For Sale’ sign has to come down, and Conrad Burns’ days of ‘pay-to-play’ are ending,” Tester said. “But judging by how some of the so-called reforms are already meeting resistance from Washington insiders-senators and lobbyists-I’m not going to hold my breath.”

Ban lobbyist gifts, and more, starting with my own campaign

• I won’t just pass a law, I’ll set an example. I’ll ask a Montana judge to conduct an ethics audit of my office every year.
• I’ll ban all lobbyist gifts, meals and travel paid by outside sources. All of it.
• I’ll shut my door to former members and staff who try to cash in on their connections.
• I’ll end secret meetings with lobbyists.
• I’ll work to end the anonymous ‘earmarks’ that allow a member of the Senate or the House to slip in a lobbyist’s favorite pork-barrel spending item without any accountability.
• I’ll close loopholes, not loosen them.

Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.

Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1. expense allowances;
2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
5. inquiries and investigations;
6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8. miscellaneous items;
9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10. official mail costs.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
• D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
• Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
• Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
• Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

Require Internet disclosure of all earmarks.

• Establishes a free public searchable website, listing all requests by Members of Congress for congressionally directed spending items (congressional earmarks).
• Requires each congressional committee, within five calendar days of receipt of a request for a congressional earmark from a Member of Congress, to provide the initial information regarding that request that is required to be placed on the website.
• Makes it out of order to consider any legislation unless it meets the requirements of this Act.

The website shall be comprised of a database including the following information, in searchable format, for each earmark:
1. The fiscal year in which the item would be funded.
2. The number of the bill or joint resolution for which the request is made, if available.
3. The amount of the initial request made by the Member of Congress.
4. The amount approved by the committee of jurisdiction.
5. The amount carried in the bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) as passed.
6. The name of the department or agency, and the account or program, through which the item will be funded.
7. The name and the State or district of the Member of Congress who made the request.
8. The name and address of the intended recipient.
9. The type of organization (public, private nonprofit, or private for profit entity) of the intended recipient.
10. The project name, description, and estimated completion date.
11. A justification of the benefit to taxpayers.
12. Whether the request is for a continuing project and if so, when funds were first appropriated for such project.
13. A description, if applicable, of all non-Federal sources of funding.
14. Its current status in the legislative process

Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:

• 500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;
• a public debate requirement;
• establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;
• remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;
• Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.

Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won't be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we'll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we'll win.

Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

Congressional Summary:<

• Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as "My Voice Federal" contributions.
• Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.
• Provide, upon request, a "My Voice Voucher" worth $50.
• Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
• Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.
• Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].
• Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress' priorities and erodes the public's trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to the American people:

1. Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
2. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
3. Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won't moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for "the rational small donor who right now isn't going to give $25 because they've figured out that it's not going to matter." The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.

CC:Oppose strict Constitutionalist judges.

The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution' Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."

Sponsored bill for election holiday & easier voting access.

• This bill expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
• The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
• The bill also sets forth provisions for sharing intelligence information with state election officials, and supporting states in securing their election systems, and establishing the National Commission to Protect U.S. Democratic Institutions.
• This bill addresses campaign spending, by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; and expanding disclosure rules.
• This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system [with] federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
• The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

  Opposing argument from the Heritage Foundation, 2/1/2019: HR1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process. What HR1 Would Do:

  • Seize the authority of states to regulate the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
  • Make it easier to commit fraud at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration.
  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV.
  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

  Legislative outcome: Passed House 234-193-5 on 3/8/19; received with no action in Senate thru 12/31/2019

  Source: H.R.1 &S.949 19-S949 on Jan 3, 2019

  Repeal automatic Congressional pay raises.

  Tester signed Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act

  A bill to prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment in 2010.

  For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2010 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule.

  Source: S.542&HR.156 2009-S542 on Jan 6, 2009

  Voted YES on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

  Tester voted YEA Impeachment of President Trump

  RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

  ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included
  1. Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
  2. With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought.
  3. Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.
  ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:
  1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
  2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
  3. and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections. Source: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019

  Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jon Tester. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jon Tester. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Jon Tester. Click here for a summary of Jon Tester's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MT politicians. Click here for issue statements from MT primary archives. Click here for issue statements from MT secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:		Jon Tester on other issues:
  MT Gubernatorial: Albert Olszewski Brian Schweitzer Casey Schreiner Corey Stapleton Gary Perry Greg Gianforte Mike Cooney Reilly Neill Steve Bullock Tim Fox Whitney Williams MT Senatorial: Albert Olszewski John Driscoll John Mues Matt Rosendale Mike Cooney Steve Bullock Steve Daines Susan Good Geise Wilmot Collins MT politicians MT Archives	Senate races 2021-22: AK: Incumbent Lisa Murkowski(R) vs.Challenger Kelly Tshibaka(R) vs.2020 candidate Al Gross(D) AL: Incumbent Richard Shelby(R) vs.U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks(R) vs.Ambassador Lynda Blanchard(R) vs.Shelby staffer Katie Britt(R) vs.State Rep. John Merrill(R) AR: Incumbent John Boozman(R) vs.Candidate Dan Whitfield(D) AZ: Incumbent Mark Kelly(D) vs.Sen. Kelli Ward(? R) vs.CEO Jim Lamon(R) vs.Challenger Blake Masters(R) vs.A.G. Mark Brnovich(R) vs.Energy executive Jim Lamon(R) CA: Incumbent Alex Padilla(D) vs.State Rep. Jerome Horton(D ?) vs.2018 Senate candidate James Bradley(R) vs.Candidate for San Diego city council 2020 Lily Zhou(R) CO: Incumbent Michael Bennet(D) vs.USAF Lt. Darryl Glenn(R) CT: Incumbent Richard Blumenthal(D) vs.Challenger Joe Visconti(R) vs.2018 & 2020 House candidate John Flynn(R) FL: Incumbent Marco Rubio(R) vs.U.S.Rep. Val Demings(D) vs.U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson(D) GA: Incumbent Raphael Warnock(D) vs.Navy vet Latham Saddler(R) vs.Appointed Senator Kelly Loeffler(R ?) HI: Incumbent Brian Schatz(D) vs.Former State Rep. Cam Cavasso(R ?) IA: Incumbent Chuck Grassley(R) vs.State Sen. Jim Carlin(R) vs.U.S. Rep. Cindy Axne(D ?) vs.Former U.S. Rep IA-1 Abby Finkenauer(D) ID: Incumbent Mike Crapo(R) (no prospective opponents yet) IL: Incumbent Tammy Duckworth(D) vs.U.S.Rep. Adam Kinzinger(? R) IN: Incumbent Todd Young(R) vs.Challenger Haneefah Abdul-Khaaliq(D) vs.Psychologist Valerie McCray(D) KS: Incumbent Jerry Moran(R) vs.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo(? R) vs.2020 Congressional candidate Michael Soetaert(D) KY: Incumbent Rand Paul(R) vs.State Rep Charles Booker(D) LA: Incumbent John Kennedy(R) vs.Gov. John Bel Edwards(D ?)	MD: Incumbent Chris Van Hollen(D) (no prospective opponents yet) MO: Incumbent Roy Blunt(R) vs.Gov. Eric Greitens(R) vs.State Sen. Scott Sifton(D) vs.Treasurer Eric Schmitt(R) vs.Marine Officer Lucas Kunce(D) vs.Attorney who waved gun at BLM protestors; 2020 GOP convention speaker Mark McClosky(R) vs.U.S. Rep. MO-4 Vicky Hartzler(R) NC: Incumbent Richard Burr(R,retiring) vs.State Sen. Erica Smith(D) vs.U.S.Rep. Mark Walker(R) vs.Challenger Ted Budd(R) vs.Gov. Pat McCrory(R) vs.Justice Cheri Beasley(D) vs.mayor of Beaufort, https://www.rettnewton.com/ Rett Newton(D) ND: Incumbent John Hoeven(R) (no prospective opponents yet) NH: Incumbent Maggie Hassan(D) vs.Brig.Gen. Don Bolduc(R) vs.Gov. Chris Sununu(R ?) vs.Former Senator Kelly Ayotte(R ?) NV: Incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto(D) vs.NV Attorney General; Candidate for Governor 2018 Adam Laxalt(R) NY: Incumbent Chuck Schumer(D) vs.Challenger Antoine Tucker(R) OH: Incumbent Rob Portman(R,retiring) vs.State Rep. Dan Carter(? D) vs.U.S.Rep. Tim Ryan(D) vs.Challenger Bernie Moreno(R) vs.U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan(D) vs.OH GOP Chair Jane Timken(R) OK: Incumbent James Lankford(R) (no prospective opponents yet) OR: Incumbent Ron Wyden(D) vs.QAnon adherent Jo Rae Perkins(R) PA: Incumbent Pat Toomey(R,retiring) vs.HSBC whistleblower Everett Stern(R) vs.2Lt.Gov.nominee Jeff Bartos(R) vs.Commissioner Val Arkoosh(D) vs.Ambassador Carla Sands(R) vs.Lt. Gov. John Fetterman(D) vs.State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta(D) vs.Past Congressional candidate & political commentator Kathy Barnette(R) vs.State senator; son of former mayor Sharif Street(D) vs.Congressman Conor Lamb(D) vs.Candidate in 2020 House race Sean Parnell(R) SC: Incumbent Tim Scott(R) vs.State Rep. Krystle Matthews(D) SD: Incumbent John Thune(R) vs.State Rep. Billie Sutton(? D) UT: Incumbent Mike Lee(R) vs.Challenger Allen Glines(D) vs.Challenger Austin Searle(D) VT: Incumbent Patrick Leahy(D) vs.Lt.Gov. David Zuckerman(? D) WA: Incumbent Patty Murray(D) vs.Challenger Tiffany Smiley(R) WI: Incumbent Ron Johnson(R) vs.County Exec. Tom Nelson(D) vs.Treasurer Sarah Godlewski(D) vs.Sports Exec. Alex Lasry(D) vs.State senator Chris Larson(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  Contact info: Email Contact Form Phone number: (202) 224-2644

  Search for...

  X
  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Jul 14, 2021