Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, this week the Senate will hopefully begin debate on an economic stimulus package. Front and center in the debate will be how we balance the need to get our economy going while once again addressing issues that revolve around the national debt. I hope there is one thing this body will agree on unanimously, that we must not forget America's disabled veterans in the debate. Earlier today I heard Members on the floor talk about pet projects. Veterans issues are an important project to me, and I will not forget about disabled vets as we move forward with this economic stimulus package. There are about 2.8 million vets who receive some form of disability through the VA. The good news is that most of these folks hold down other employment and would get a tax rebate through the House's economic stimulus bill. But for another 250,000 disabled vets who have no other income other than their veterans disability benefit and maybe a Social Security disability check, they would get absolutely nothing from the House bill, not one red cent. Let me say that again: The bill proposed by the House and by President Bush would not give a quarter of a million disabled veterans one nickel. That is simply wrong. Under the leadership of Senator Baucus, the Senate Finance package corrects that error. It would ensure that the folks who were injured in the cause of defending our freedom are able to get something back. I assure my colleagues that these veterans feel the pinch of higher gas prices, heating costs, and everything else in between, just as much as any other household struggling on a fixed income. The difference is that these folks have worn the colors of our country. They have defended this country. The way we treat those who have fought for our freedom and our Nation says a great deal about our society because when it comes to veterans, we are not talking about a handout, we are talking about a country honoring our promise we have made to our service men and women. I wish to take a minute to read a letter I received recently from Warren Matte, a veteran from Harlem, MT. Here is what he says: For those of us who are combat veterans and poor people, we are now and have been in a recession for a good numbers of years. We are on the bottom rung of the ladder, and it looks like we will always be there. Some of us are surviving on VA benefits and Social Security. The long distances we have to travel here in Montana and the high cost of living is keeping us in poverty. There are 500,000 homeless veterans in this great Nation and no one cares. We put our lives on the line so everyone can be free and live the good life, and no one cares what happens to us and our families. When our combat veterans are using phrases such as ``the bottom rung of the ladder,'' I think we can do better than that. When disabled veterans worry that ``no one cares,'' we must do better than that. This Finance Committee bill is a step in the right direction. So I urge my colleagues, no matter what else you may think of the stimulus package, do not forget about the Warren Mattes of the world. Do not forget about our disabled veterans. I have been in this body for a little over 1 year. I can tell my colleagues that from my perspective, the Senate is an easy place to stop things. If you choose, you can stop any piece of legislation from moving forward. I think the House stimulus package is a good stimulus package, but it can be made a whole lot better, and we need to make it a whole lot better. For the 250,000 disabled vets, for the 2.5 million seniors, for those folks who need unemployment benefits, for those folks who need assistance with their heating bills, we need to make it better. I am not sure this economic stimulus bill will get us out of the economic stresses we feel right now in this country, but I can tell my colleagues one thing: If we don't address the issues that revolve around the people I just talked about--the disabled vets, the seniors, the folks who need help with their heating, the folks who need unemployment benefits--we are making a huge mistake. We ought not to be stopping with this bill. We ought to be making it better in the Senate and passing it on for the President to sign it. We ought to be stamping it with our approval. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his fine work on this amendment. My comments today will indicate my full support for it. I hope this body uses its wise judgment to put this on the Intelligence bill as it comes forth. I think it is critically important that we move this amendment forward to protect American citizens from unwarranted wiretapping. Let me say I am very glad we finally reached an agreement on the amendments to the Intelligence Committee bill that would replace current law, that current law being the Protect America Act. I voted against the Protect America Act this last August because it included measures that would permit the Federal Government to conduct warrantless wiretapping and intercept innocent Americans' communications. We all recognize the need for our Government to have the necessary tools to keep us safe. That is at the forefront in all of our minds. At the same time, we must do this in a way that protects our civil liberties and constitutional rights to privacy. A number of amendments have been offered with that goal in mind, including the one I rise to talk about today: the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment. This amendment would require that all inadvertent surveillance of a U.S. person--someone who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or a U.S. corporation--be tagged and sequestered. Right now, under the Protect America Act and under the Intelligence Committee bill that we are currently debating, the Government would be authorized to have unfettered surveillance of all communications of all people outside of the United States without a warrant. This access would also be extended to Americans here in the United States at the other end of that phone call or e-mail message. Americans abroad or those who receive communications from abroad could be wiretapped without a warrant. That deficiency is what this amendment addresses. Let me be clear. This amendment does not stop surveillance from happening; it merely sets a higher threshold for access to communications that involve Americans. Let me repeat that. It sets a higher threshold for access to communications for those that involve Americans. The Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment will not impede the collection of foreign intelligence information or compromise our national security. It would merely require that intelligence intercepted overseas of an American citizen's communications would have to be tagged and sequestered before it could be accessed. To be accessed, the intelligence community would have to have a specific warrant to review Americans' overseas communications. Why is this necessary? Because in the past, the administration implemented a warrantless surveillance program which severely encroached upon our rights against unauthorized search and seizure. Under the Protect America Act, when we monitor foreign communications, there is no requirement that anyone involved in the communication be under any suspicion of wrongdoing. As a result, simply communicating with someone in a foreign country opens any American to surveillance. This is most often the case when a conversation starts abroad and ends up with someone in the United States. Why? Because the Government must meet only two criteria: that at least one party to the communication be outside of the United States, and that the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence. This overreaching protocol is even more expansive than the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program which is focused on people targeted because of their involvement with suspected terrorists. I am opposed to the widespread wiretapping and surveillance of innocent Americans. The Director of National Intelligence has openly stated that the current law, the Protect America Act, allows full collection of all international communications into and out of the United States, well beyond what the Government says it needs to protect the American people. Further amendments will be offered during the course of this debate that explicitly state such widespread full collection of all international communication is not authorized. However, as it stands, any time you communicate with someone overseas by e-mail or by phone, your conversation could very well end up in a Government database somewhere. These days, international communications are commonplace. Many Americans have friends and family living overseas studying or for business or vacationing. When they return, they often keep in touch with the friends they have made while living abroad. For example, if you are on a vacation in Europe and call home to check on your elderly parents, the entire conversation could get caught in the crosshairs of this foreign surveillance program. That is not right and it does not make any sense. It opens innocent Americans to the unrestricted surveillance of wholly innocent conversations by the Federal Government. This is not what Americans expect or deserve. We must act to ensure that such communications caught in the widely cast net of surveillance are segregated or specifically designated so that privacy concerns can be minimized. This amendment, the Feingold- Webb-Tester amendment, would require that this information be kept apart as a way to protect the privacy rights of those people who innocently find themselves under surveillance. The content would not be destroyed, but investigators would have to go through additional steps in order to access it in the future. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is meant for foreign surveillance. Our amendment reiterates that focus and it protects Americans from the accidental but very real intrusion of our right to privacy. I don't want my granddaughter, my wife, your kids, or any other Americans to have their communications monitored, stored away, and then easily accessible at a later date. This amendment ensures that doesn't happen. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is critically important for the success of this bill and to protect innocent Americans' civil liberties. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Physical Therapist Student Loan Repayment Eligibility Act of 2007 with Senators Johnson, Cardin, and Brown on behalf of the folks across America who are in desperate need of access to qualified health care providers. This bill will help bring physical therapists to the rural, frontier and underserved communities of America. Many rural States have an inadequate number of health professionals, let alone access to physical therapists whose services help shorten the recovery time from injury or surgery, as well as provide noninvasive treatment to conditions that might otherwise end up more severe. We all know kids who go to school with dreams of becoming a health care professional and serving their communities. But, they graduate with so much debt that they have to take the highest paying job usually in an urban setting--leaving their dreams in the dust. My colleagues and I are offering this bill to help them fulfill that dream of working in underserved areas, often the very same areas they grew up in. Like many other health care professionals serving in the National Health Service Corps, physical therapy students are more likely to serve in rural areas if it is financially feasible through the loan repayment program that is part of the National Health Service Corps. The average total costs of tuition and fees for a physical therapist student attending an in-state public or private institution are $26,000 and $64,000 respectively. When they are starting out, they can expect to earn about $51,000 per year. One can easily understand why they would be really tempted to find the highest paying job they can. Despite the health care needs, these jobs are not in places like Culbertson, MT; Martin, SD; Ironton, OH or Denton, MD, where reimbursement and salaries tend to be lower. However, a loan repayment program will make it possible for these committed health care professionals to be able to come into our communities, serve our families and be able to pay off their school loans. My cosponsors and I think this a very important bill and we welcome our colleagues support. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Physical Therapist Student Loan Repayment Eligibility Act of 2007 with Senators Johnson, Cardin, and Brown on behalf of the folks across America who are in desperate need of access to qualified health care providers. This bill will help bring physical therapists to the rural, frontier and underserved communities of America. Many rural States have an inadequate number of health professionals, let alone access to physical therapists whose services help shorten the recovery time from injury or surgery, as well as provide noninvasive treatment to conditions that might otherwise end up more severe. We all know kids who go to school with dreams of becoming a health care professional and serving their communities. But, they graduate with so much debt that they have to take the highest paying job usually in an urban setting--leaving their dreams in the dust. My colleagues and I are offering this bill to help them fulfill that dream of working in underserved areas, often the very same areas they grew up in. Like many other health care professionals serving in the National Health Service Corps, physical therapy students are more likely to serve in rural areas if it is financially feasible through the loan repayment program that is part of the National Health Service Corps. The average total costs of tuition and fees for a physical therapist student attending an in-state public or private institution are $26,000 and $64,000 respectively. When they are starting out, they can expect to earn about $51,000 per year. One can easily understand why they would be really tempted to find the highest paying job they can. Despite the health care needs, these jobs are not in places like Culbertson, MT; Martin, SD; Ironton, OH or Denton, MD, where reimbursement and salaries tend to be lower. However, a loan repayment program will make it possible for these committed health care professionals to be able to come into our communities, serve our families and be able to pay off their school loans. My cosponsors and I think this a very important bill and we welcome our colleagues support. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina, my comrade in the Russell Building. I appreciate his comments. You have to have good information to make a good decision. There are a couple of things I need to point out. First, in production agriculture, we are not price makers, we are price takers. When you have 80 percent consolidation in the meat packing industry, you don't have much choice when they don't have this language in the Packers and Stockyards Act. If you are talking about rewarding a grower because they have less fat, or bigger ribeye size, or leaner beef, this doesn't stop that from happening. I believe there are enough attorneys in the room that if you read this Packers and Stockyard Act in its entirety, which is about a page, you will find out that the alleged business justification applies to when you are restraining commerce or creating a monopoly. If you want a free market system, which you talked about, this body needs to pass this amendment so there is a free market in the pork, poultry, beef industry. Pork, by the way, is more consolidated than beef. Chickens are worse yet. All I want for farmers and ranchers and the people in production agriculture--the cow/calf operators, in particular--is that they get a fair shake. If we pass this amendment No. 3666, you will allow those cow/calf operators to get a fair shake in the marketplace and be able to become financially viable, so this Government doesn't have to talk about subsidies, and they can get their paycheck from the marketplace, and it is a fair paycheck. With that, I ask the Senate to vote for this amendment. I thank my fellow Members for the good debate.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Kansas for their time. I appreciate a good discussion on the amendment. If they would not have come to the floor, we would not have had this good discussion. I also thank Senators Grassley and Harkin for cosponsoring this amendment. I particularly thank Senator Harkin for his comments on the floor, and also Senator Grassley for his comments. Senator Grassley and I are arguably the two folks in the Senate who are in production agriculture. I am very proud of that fact personally. I know Senator Grassley is, too. I know everybody in this body wants to make sure that people in production agriculture get a fair shake--not over and above what they deserve but a fair shake. That is what the farmers want and what this bill is supposed to be about. In this body, we all know you can only make good decisions if you have good information. We also know if you take just three words--and I will admit this is called the ``no justification amendment.'' But if you take those three words and set aside all of the other words around it, they don't mean a heck of a lot. You can interpret them to mean anything you want. I am not an attorney. I respect those in this body who are and folks around this country who are. But you need to take the entire bill and look at the language as it is inserted into the bill. If a farmer or rancher has health issues with their herd, whether it is pork, chickens, beef, or any other livestock they are marketing for food purposes, they don't have to buy it. That isn't restraining trade or commerce. That is not creating a monopoly. That is what those words revolve around--those three words--``no business justification.'' You have to take at least the segment before, if you are going to get an idea of what it says. It says the effect of restraining commerce or creating a monopoly ``regardless of any alleged business justification.'' If you want to put the boots to the ranchers--it won't happen all the time, and let's hope it happens very little. In fact, if they don't put this amendment on the farm bill to make the Packers and Stockyards bill what it was when it was originally passed in 1921, you are not going to have a free market system. You are going to have a system where the four major packers can manipulate the marketplace when they feel like it. They may never feel like it. But if times get tough, what the heck, make a few extra bucks and keep the stockholders happy. It was talked about today that it is going to make beef or pork into a generic commodity. I led the charge on country-of-origin labeling in Montana. We passed it in 2005. I want our products to be different. I am all in favor of certified Angus beef and grassfed and all those specialized things that the consumer wants. This bill doesn't take that ability away. If you have sick cattle, you don't have to buy them. If you have Angus certified beef, you can market it that way, as long as it meets their criteria--certified Angus beef I am talking about, not stockyards. In fact, this is good for production agriculture. Senator Grassley talked about farm gate prices. If you want to hold them artificially low and keep putting in subsidies, these are the kinds of things you do. If you want to have a free market system where people get a fair price for a fair day's work for the product they worked so hard to get on the market, the family farms and ranchers--cow/calf operators, in this particular case--this amendment needs to be passed. How much time do I have?

Mr. TESTER. Yes.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the good Senators from Kansas for their comments. I, too, respect your opinion. I ask that you pay careful attention to what I am about to say. I am actually in the specialty crop business personally. It has been well documented, I raise organic crops. I do not raise organic beef, but I am around people who raise organic beef and market it freely. They will be able to continue to market it freely with the adoption of this amendment. So the folks, the Knights you talked about, in Kansas are still going to be able to market their hormone-free beef. It speaks specifically in the Packers and Stockyards Act about restraining commerce and creating a monopoly. They cannot have an alleged business justification to do that. When you are adding value to a product, you are increasing the value. When you are raising specialty crops or you are specializing in grass-fed beef or specializing in hormone-fed beef or antibiotic-fed beef, you still have access to those premium prices. What the Packers and Stockyards Act does is it protects the cattle producers and those feeders you talked about. It allows them to stay in business, to be able to get that premium price. What this amendment does is protects them from those four packers--who control 80 percent of the country's meat supply; and it could be fewer than that next year controlling 80 percent of the meat supply if they buy one another out-- it protects them from those four packers setting prices by using an alleged business justification to create a monopoly or restrain the commerce around the meatpacking industry. It is critically important that you know that the unintended consequences you talk about are not going to exist with this amendment. Those unintended consequences are simply not there. What this amendment will do is it will reinstate the free market system in our cattle industry. The point I made earlier, in my opening statement, is where you can literally have four CEOs of four companies that control 80 percent of the meatpacking industry be able to manipulate forward contracts, be able to manipulate the transactions within their business, and put on a business justification for it, and now all of a sudden it is OK under the Packers and Stockyards Act. That simply is not right. We ought not go encouraging monopolization anywhere, much less in agriculture that puts our producers at risk to driving them off the ranches in this country. In Montana, we have about four times as many cattle as we do people, I believe. It is a big issue. Premiums are still going to be there. Specialized beef is still going to be there. The ability to add value to our meat products is still going to be there for them to get the price they deserve for it. What this will stop is the meatpackers from--and I read right straight from the Packers and Stockyards Act-- restraining commerce, creating a monopoly, regardless of any alleged business justification. Next paragraph: restraining commerce, regardless of any alleged business justification. The last time I heard, the last time I checked, if you are getting paid a premium, you are not restraining commerce, you are promoting commerce. And it goes on: to manipulate or control prices regardless of any alleged business justification. There are no boogeymen in these amendments, folks. This is a good amendment. We dealt with an amendment yesterday that talked about producers and the kind of pressures they are under and the mental health aspects that impact farmers and ranchers when they are put under financial pressures. I believe we adopted that amendment. The fact is, if you want to help farmers' and ranchers' success, adopt this amendment. It will make them more financially vibrant. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. You bet.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I will speak after they get done, so I will retain my 2 minutes.

Mr. TESTER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. TESTER. How much do you want?

Mr. TESTER. Yes.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 3666, which we will have a vote on at some point later in the day. This amendment to the farm bill addresses manipulation in the livestock industry. We have had consolidation in agribusiness over the last many decades. In the meat packer industry, for example, there are four major meat packers that control 80 percent of the market in the United States. Being big is not necessarily bad, but it can allow companies to manipulate and control the marketplace. We all know a monopolistic and controlled marketplace doesn't benefit anybody. Without competition, without that free market, we put our cow/calf producers at risk. The meat-packing companies have the past because of packer ownership manipulated forward contracting and pressure on producers to distort the supply and demand, maximizing their profits often at the expense of the cow/calf producer. The producer ends up being price taker and not price maker due to manipulation of the marketplace and restriction of the free market we all expect in the cattle industry. Way back in about 1921, this Government had the foresight to realize the free market system was a good one and that it wasn't working quite right, even with the antitrust laws which were deemed inadequate. So they passed an act called the Packers and Stockyards Act. That act has worked pretty well over the many decades since 1921. Unfortunately, court decisions recently misinterpreted the intention of the act. Back in 2005, a lawsuit was brought forward by a handful of livestock producers. This lawsuit claimed market manipulation by the meat-packing industry, thereby artificially lowering the price the cow/calf producer would get for their cattle. A jury awarded $1.28 billion in damages. Some time later, three judges decided to rewrite the Packers and Stockyards Act instead of interpreting it. They overturned the decision based on a legitimate business reason. Amendment No. 3666 once again clarifies the Packers and Stockyards Act to its original intent, reintroducing competition into the marketplace, helping maintain a level and competitive playing field between widely dispersed cattle producers throughout the country and highly concentrated meat packers. I don't think there is a person in this body who doesn't think the free market system is a good one. Currently, what we have in the meat- packing industry is four companies that control 80 percent of the marketplace. The CEOs of these four companies could go out on the golf course and determine how they are going to manipulate the marketplace. We need to make sure as a government we have protection in place for our family ranchers. That is what this amendment will accomplish. It will reinstate the Packers and Stockyards Act to its original form which worked so well for so many years. We have 170 groups in favor of this amendment. There is going to be some groups that oppose it. The truth is, if we want to have a vibrant cow/calf producer environment and economy, we need to pass the amendment. We need to make sure they have every market advantage they deserve. It is tough enough on the farm and on the ranch to make a living. Right now in Montana, I didn't check the weather this morning, but it is probably a heck of a lot colder than it is here. In some places in Montana, because of drought, they are out feeding cattle right now. They are doing an honest day's work, and they should get an honest day's pay. When you have monopolization in the marketplace, it takes away the ability to get an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. This amendment is going to help the folks in Montana where agriculture is the No. 1 industry and the No. 1 issue. If we are going to keep this industry vibrant, we need to pass this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. In closing, there are no unintended consequences here. This is straightforward. If you read the language as it goes in the Packers and Stockyards Act, it can be interpreted no other way other than if a company wants to restrain commerce or create a monopoly, period. It will stop packers from, as Senator Grassley talked about, dumping cattle when prices are high. It will make the market work better. In closing, I again thank the Senators from Kansas. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin. I ask this body to take this amendment for what it is. It is an amendment that will indeed support family farm cow/calf producers on the ranches of this country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I encourage the body to support the amendment. It addresses manipulation in the meatpacking industry. It would stop the meatpackers from using business justifications to create a monopoly or restrain commerce. That is it. If you want free markets and to support family farmers and ranchers and cow/calf operations, you need to vote for this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside amendment 3711 and call up amendment No. 3666, and further ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged against the time allocated for amendment 3711.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 prohibits meatpackers from engaging in any course of business or doing any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices. This act was passed in Congress way back when it was determined that the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act were insufficient to promote competitive markets. Unfortunately, back in 2005, three judges decided to rewrite the Packers and Stockyards Act instead of interpreting this statute. What this amendment will do is reinstate the Packers and Stockyards Act, and with that reinstate free market competition in the marketplace.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. With that, Madam President, I want to announce that yesterday I introduced a piece of legislation that will establish a 24- hour port of entry at the Port of Wild Horse, which is north of Havre, MT. This legislation will establish this 24-hour port on the Montana- Alberta border. American trade with Alberta is growing at a rapid rate. Excluding pipeline shipments, Alberta's exports to the United States have grown 86 percent over the last decade. America's exports to Alberta have increased 75 percent. So it is a good deal in both directions. The United States now sells more than $12.5 billion worth of goods to Alberta, most of which moves by truck through just five border crossings--only one of which is open 24 hours a day. Commerce between the United States and Alberta is expected to increase. The Canadian development of the Alberta oil sands region means the United States is sending more heavy machinery north of the border. That is traffic which must move by truck. But today, truck traffic from Texas and other main shippers of these products must go hundreds of miles out of the way to reach the oil sands region. According to one Canadian study, an additional $4 billion worth of goods will be needed annually as the oil sands are developed in Alberta. This represents more than 40,000 truckloads of goods each year. If all these trucks--as well as the 160,000 trucks that currently pass through our 24-hour port of Sweetgrass--were forced to move through the one existing 24-hour border crossing, the result would be an average of 480 trucks crossing it every day of each year. There is little doubt that such a pace would be both economically insufficient and unsustainable for our security needs. It would be faster and more economical for many of these products to move to the oil sands area through an eastern Alberta crossing, such as a crossing north of Havre at Wild Horse, and that is exactly what this legislation will do. The State of Montana and the Provincial Government of Alberta have both passed resolutions calling for an upgrade to the border crossing at Wild Horse. Over the next few months, Senator Baucus and I will work with our colleagues and with Customs and Border Protection to determine how best to accomplish this goal. I understand that CBP faces numerous staffing challenges in order to meet this proposal. I have tried in my short time in the Senate to highlight and address these challenges. But the cost of ignoring economic growth in Alberta and the border crossing needs in that region would be harmful to Montana's economy and to our Nation's economy. For that reason, I am pleased to have offered this bill. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

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

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about this farm bill. Before I start, though, I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this time to speak. I certainly appreciate his hospitality. This farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will vote on this year. Along with the members of the committee, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss for their hard work on this bill in committee. This farm bill just doesn't affect farmers and ranchers and folks who need nutritional assistance; it impacts all Americans and it ensures that food in this country is secure. Our agricultural policy has created the most dependable and affordable food system in the world. Americans have incredible choices at the grocery store. We have high quality and safe food, and our supplies and prices are stable. What makes this stability possible is a comprehensive farm bill that helps set national priorities, keeping our family farms and ranches productive and food on America's tables. I bring a different perspective to the farm bill than a lot of my colleagues. I am a third-generation farmer. My wife and I farm the same land my grandparents homesteaded nearly a century ago. I have spent a lifetime with my hands in the dirt, and I know how difficult it is to get by in production agriculture, especially in these days. I am proud that Sharla and I are passing that same farm down that my grandparents homesteaded to the fourth generation of our family. If this bill is vetoed as the President has promised, many families won't have the option to pass their farm down, because over the next 5 years, many of them will go broke. American agriculture is facing very difficult challenges, such as skyrocketing land prices, aging populations in rural America, and the high cost of fuels and fertilizers. The changing global marketplace creates more uncertainties for our producers and challenges when our so-called free markets sometimes come with a high price. America's family farms and ranches have a lot on the line right now. They also have tremendous potential. This farm bill provides new opportunities for rural America. America's farmers and ranchers can be leaders in energy production as they are leaders in food production. For years, Montana, especially farm and ranch country, has adapted to our Nation's growing energy needs. The folks who put food on America's dinner tables also have tremendous opportunity in contributing to this country's energy independence through biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and wind power-- just to name a few. That is good news for rural America, it is good news for our pocketbooks, and it is good for family agriculture. In Montana, an oil-seed crop called Camelina is being used for biodiesel production. It grows on marginal soils, takes few inputs and doesn't need a whole lot of water. This year Montana started its first biodiesel facility--this farm bill will help this facility get off its feet and supply this country with much needed energy. I hope this plant is the first of many. We have only scratched the surface of our energy potential--and this farm bill could really tap into it. This bill will put the necessary resources into the production of biofuels, and more incentives for rural wind power projects. Many folks may not know that the farm bill is perhaps our largest conservation program. Our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land and are constantly working to improve their operations to reduce their impact on the environment. This bill strengthens our working lands conservation programs to help make our farms and ranches productive and protected. This bill will finally implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling. May I say it is about time. In Montana, we passed a country- of-origin labeling law in 2005. It is time we implement it at the Federal level. Whether it is the t-shirt I wear, the truck I drive, or the toy I buy for my grandkids, I can tell where it was made. It only makes sense that we know where our food comes from, too. COOL is good public policy. Americans deserve to know where their food comes from, and implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling is long overdue. Part of adequate labeling is the ability for our producers to market their products. I am happy to see that this farm bill will allow for the interstate shipment and sale of beef. Montana has some of the best beef in the world and smaller producers should be able to market their safe, healthy, quality products across State lines. I don't like shopping all that much--but it is even worse here in Washington. The lines are too long and the prices too high. But I will tell you what, it sure would put a smile on my face to see a t-bone on the shelf with a ``Made in Montana'' stamp on it. We hope to include in this bill permanent ag disaster assistance. I hear that some of my colleagues don't think this is the best way to protect family farm and ranch businesses but as a farmer I strongly support this measure. I know what it is like in the good years when you have a crop to put in the bin. And I know what it is like to have no crop. Whether it is hail, drought, floods, grasshoppers, or any other disaster, we need to make sure that our farmers and ranchers are protected. This is a real safety net that will help family farmers get by when disaster strikes. This disaster assistance program has strict requirements on who may receive assistance and will only help those farmers who have taken steps to mitigate their risk. This program will provide the predictable and consistent safety net that our family farmers and ranchers deserve. This farm bill makes great strides in acknowledging the importance of organic agriculture in our food system. Organic foods have been growing at a rate of over 20 percent a year for 20 years. This bill offers money for research dollars to support organic agriculture. And it will provide funds to help family farms--if they choose--convert to organics so that U.S. farms can meet the needs of this growing market. Organic agriculture is really a value-added program. It allows farmers and ranchers to find ways to increase the profitability of their products by consumers driving the marketplace. As far as nutrition is concerned, of course, the farm bill has a tremendous impact on the underprivileged segments of our society. The people who use these programs aren't lobbying our congressional offices, or sending thousands of letters, or using influence with the media to shape public policy. They are our children. They are the elderly. They are young, single mothers working two jobs. They are disabled veterans who need nutritional assistance until times get better. In Montana, nearly 20 percent of our children live below the poverty line. Each month, more than 80,000 Montanans seek assistance through the food stamp program; 20,000 seek supplemental assistance through the Women, Infants, and Children program. Out of a total population of just under a million people this is a big impact on our State. Montana also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We have good schools and college participation. We just can't always make ends meet where there is high cost of living and low wages. These nutrition programs are just the help folks need until they can get on their feet. In the wealthiest, most-advanced society in the world, no person should go hungry. I am glad that this farm bill has made long overdue increases to our food assistance programs. This farm bill is something that our Nation can be proud of. It strikes a balance between our different regions, and different interests. It does not have everything we want, but it has what we need. This is a farm bill that meets the needs of this country's family farmers, and it takes great strides in helping families with a more realistic nutrition component. Mr. President, I know firsthand how important this bill is for America's producers and America's consumers. This is mainstream, bipartisan legislation that was crafted and passed out of the Ag Committee without a dissenting vote. The farm bill is too important for anyone to obstruct, or to delay, or to play political games with. American consumers, from all walks of life, living paycheck-to- paycheck, depend on this farm bill. American producers, in every corner of this country, living harvest to harvest, depend on this farm bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this legislation, and the President of the United States needs to sign it.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before I begin my speech today on the Wild Horse border crossing legislation, I want to say a couple things in reference to the farm will, and I will be speaking on it, potentially, later today. But if what I have heard this morning here in morning business is correct, I ask the leadership on the other side of the aisle to bring that caucus together. The farm bill is far too important to play politics. It is a critical issue dealing with this country's food security and dealing with this country's family farmers. As I have said many times before, if we ever lose family farm agriculture in this country, this country will change for the worse--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This farm bill is a good farm bill, passing out of committee, I believe, unanimously. It is a bill that deserves an honest debate by this body and deserves passage. It is critically important that this happen very soon, that we set our differences aside and work together to get this bill done.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the return of the remains of LTJG Donald F. Wolfe, whose body has finally been returned to American soil. Lieutenant Wolfe--along with four of his fellow Navy aviators and sailors--was killed on October 8, 1967, when the E-1B aircraft they were flying on crashed near Da Nang in heavy weather. The bodies of these brave Navy servicemen could not be recovered at the time due to weather, terrain and hostile activity. But today, almost exactly 40 years after this terrible incident, the remains of Lieutenant Wolfe and his colleagues are back home, bringing peace of mind and closure to his family at long last. One of the great stains on the history of this Nation is the way that many of our Vietnam War veterans were treated when they returned home from war. We should be honest with ourselves and with our veterans: The way that many of these veterans were treated during this time was wrong, and that kind of treatment hurt our country psychologically, and it hurt our country militarily. Fortunately, our Nation has learned from that sorry episode. I take comfort in the fact that despite our vigorous disagreements about the Iraq war, all of us in this Senate and in our hometowns and States honor those who serve there. And today we have an opportunity to make sure that these five men get the welcome home that all our troops deserved. We should stop to honor their memory and their service. It is not too late to say to these men and their families: Thank you. I intend to observe a moment of silence this afternoon in memory of these men and in memory of all those who are still classified as missing in action. I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to do the same. There are 1,767 individuals who are still classified as Missing in Action from the Vietnam War. Eighteen of these soldiers are from Montana. They are: David Allinson, Helena; Richard Appelhans, Dodson; Alan Ashall, Billings; Michael Bouchard, Missoula; Alan Boyer, Missoula; Anthony Caldwell, Missoula; William Christensen, Great Falls; Jack Dempset, Helena; Charles Dudley, Bozeman; Michael Havranek, Missoula; Robert Holton, Butte; James Hunt, Missoula; Edward Letchworth, Libby; Patrick Magee, Alder; Lee Nordahl, Choteau; Victor Pirker, Trout Creek; Dean Pogreba, Three Forks; and Robert Willett, Great Falls. To them and their families, you are not forgotten.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.