Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday February 7, 2007, at 9:15 am in SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Bill Proposal with Secretary of Agriculture, Michael Johanns.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Hazards of Electronic Voting--Focus on the Machinery of Democracy.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2007. The agenda to be considered: Global Warming and Wildlife.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal.''

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the thousands of Montanans who have lost faith in the way this administration is conducting the war in Iraq. Our troops have given more than most of us can imagine. This administration has asked much of them. They should be commended for their performance in a war that has been mismanaged from the get-go. In 1972, deep into the Vietnam war, the great Senator, the great statesman, Senator Mike Mansfield, whose seat I am now honored to hold, spoke of a great nation. When times demand it, it is wise for us to take a step back and look at those who served before us. Standing not far from where I stand today, Senator Mansfield said: Mr. President, it does no great nation any harm to admit that a mistake has been made. And sometimes when nations and men will do so, they will be the bigger and the better for it. Many years later, Mansfield would say that when he was gone, he wanted to be forgotten. We have not forgotten Mike Mansfield, and we must not forget his measured approach to diplomacy, his steady hand, and the lesson that admitting a mistake is the first step in correcting it. It is time we debate the facts of this situation so this country's leaders can make the right decisions. I have said for more than a year that this war is being conducted without a plan for success and there is no end in sight. For too long, this body has refused to ask the tough questions, to debate the merits of this war, and has not held the President accountable for the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Disturbingly, recent reports confirm that our invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Yet the terrorist who plotted the most deadly attack on U.S. soil--Osama bin Laden--remains at large and ignored by the administration. In addition to the more than 3,000 killed since the war began, 17 of whom are from Montana, there have been more than 23,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many will come home missing one or more limbs. Others will return home to battle posttraumatic stress disorder. Last week, I joined several of my colleagues, along with two Iraqi war veterans, and called on the administration to get serious about funding for veterans health care. I renew that call today for permanent mandatory full funding of VA health care. There is no reason veterans should be forced to come to us every year hat in hand and beg for funding. It should be permanent, and it should be fully funded. Right now, it is neither. Our country's veterans do not seek, nor do they expect, recognition from their Commander in Chief, nor the American people. But we owe them not only the recognition but also the promise that we will care for them and their families when they return. Following the gulf war, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Colin Powell, outlined his plan for efficient and decisive military action, now referred to as the Powell doctrine. The Powell doctrine clearly outlines what U.S. military action should look like: Military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to the national security by the intended target. Force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy. There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public. And last, there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. One by one, this administration has violated every principle of the Powell doctrine and, as a result, we are lost in Iraq and alone in the world. Clear risk to national security? Prior to the invasion, the administration claimed that Iraq's nuclear capabilities made it a grave threat to America's national security, allegations that proved to be false. Overwhelming force? The administration was unprepared for the dangers of urban combat, for improvised explosive devices, and continues to send troops into harm's way without proper armor. It is unconscionable that these soldiers are being sent into battle without all of the tools they need to be safe and successful. It is unacceptable to send them there with no plan for, or definition of, success. Public support? Perhaps the most significant difference between the first gulf war and the war in Iraq is the lack of support from our allies. Like World War II, the gulf war was successful because America built a strong coalition and did not force our troops to carry the burden alone. As support for this war continues to erode, so, too, does our standing in the world. Just a few years ago, nearly the entire world stood at America's side following the attacks on September 11. That good will has long since been squandered. And finally, an exit strategy? The President has proposed sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq as a strategy for victory. Staying the course by escalating this war only spells disaster. This country should no longer tolerate, nor can it afford, an open- ended conflict that has claimed more than 3,000 lives, injured more than 23,000, and cost the United States taxpayers $2 billion every week. Recently, the President proposed sending 21,500 more troops into downtown Baghdad. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, that actually means almost 50,000 additional troops when you include the 28,000 troops needed to provide critical support to those combat troops. This could cost up to $27 billion to sustain over the next year. That would be more than three times the largest estimate of troop escalation costs provided by the Bush administration. The addition of almost 50,000 American troops means more American young men and women without adequate body armor riding in ill-armored humvees into one of the most dangerous combat zones in history. Historical data from this war tells us that sending 21,500 troops into Iraq will mean that between 300 and 500 additional soldiers will die in Iraq than if this escalation were not to occur. Adding more troops is not a strategy, it is a tactic, and it is not a new one. There have been four such troop escalations in Iraq so far, and to what end? What benefit has been realized by this country, the Iraqi people, or the region? The long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate, prepared collectively by 16 intelligence agencies for the President, was released last week. It paints a bleak picture of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and it describes the urgent need for conditions to be reversed measurably to stop the violence and widespread polarization of the Iraqi society. So I call on the President to heed the grave warnings of the National Intelligence Estimate, to listen to his own Iraq Study Group, the Congress, and the American people. Last month, my colleague Senator Baucus called on the administration to map a new course in Iraq. Senator Baucus said we must not escalate the conflict, we must train Iraqi troops to stand up for themselves, we must start bringing our troops home as soon as possible, and we must engage Iraqi's neighbors and the world community. He was right then; he is right today. The solution for a new course in Iraq will not be solely a military one. Switching to political and diplomatic solutions involving our allies in the region is not a defeatist strategy, but instead an appropriate course for a war of this complexity and magnitude. The President needs to set a timeline to give the Iraqi people military control of their country. It should be the Iraqi Army--not Montanans, not Americans--disarming bombs and guarding bridges. The administration needs to reinvest in special forces and human intelligence if we are to win the real war on terror. Nearly 4 years have passed, more than a half a trillion dollars have been spent, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died since the President announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended and told us: ``Mission Accomplished.'' Funding for this war and its success or failure should have been debated long ago. It is time for a real debate on the direction and strategy of this war, starting with the President's proposal for escalation. The President must also tell the American people what success means and how it should be quantified. If success is free elections in Iraq, then we should have been gone 2 years ago. If success is toppling Saddam Hussein, then we should have been gone 3 years ago. If it is something else, then the administration needs to be honest with the American people and identify a clear and achievable outcome. I support the Warner-Levin resolution opposing the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. But I want to be clear: I view the Warner- Levin resolution as only a first step. We have a duty to debate the escalation on its merits and let both sides be heard. This week's efforts to delay a vote on Warner-Levin do nothing to make our troops safer. Blocking an up-or-down vote on this resolution does nothing to bring this bloody war any closer to its close. I have been here not too long--just a month--and I am still learning the ropes, but make no mistake, we should deliberate, we should not rush to judgment or sentence, but that does not mean we should not debate. For 3 days we have been debating about whether we should debate the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. I have been all over Montana in the last couple of years, and everywhere I went people were and continue to be deeply concerned about the war. They didn't all agree, but there was always a lively and passionate debate. Not a single person told me we should debate about whether to have a debate. Our troops, the American people, and the Iraqi people deserve an open and honest discussion. We need to ask the tough questions, we need to demand the answers, and we need to bring our troops home as safely and as quickly as possible. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, Montana is no different from any other State in this Union. We have a lot of hard-working folks who work for every penny they get. Quite frankly, sometimes they feel pretty unappreciated. It wasn't many years ago that we talked about American-made products and how proud we were of them and how proud we were of the workers who made those American- made products. We need to get back on that road once again. I will say, as I said a few minutes earlier, this is long overdue and is something on which I wish the Federal Government would have taken the lead. But better late than never.

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

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a subject that involves common decency and economic fairness--raising the minimum wage. In my State of Montana, thousands of workers struggle just to make ends meet with less than the State's current minimum standard. Twelve counties in Montana have 9 percent of their workforce making less than the State's current minimum wage standard. That makes it virtually impossible for those folks to try to obtain the middle class. Raising the minimum wage is the first step to empowering the middle class, to making the middle class all it can be. We have talked about and for the last 6, 7 days we have heard about how important it is to raise the minimum wage. Let me tell my colleagues, if we are going to make this country all it can be, we need to show some attention to the middle class. This raising of the minimum wage, make no mistake about it, is the first step to empowering the middle class to make it vibrant once again. There are many things that can be done and I hope will be done when this 110th Congress goes forward. We are doing the right thing. The fact is, people deserve a fair wage for the work they do. The current minimum wage at $5.15 an hour translates into less than $11,000 per year. One can't pay the bills with that kind of income. I can tell my colleagues that as I drove around the State of Montana over the last year and a half, one of the fellows who made one of the biggest impressions on me was at a truck stop, when he asked me what I was going to do for average workers in the State of Montana. I said: What do you have in mind? He said: Currently, I work three jobs, and I still have difficulty making ends meet. What kind of quality of life can a person have working three jobs, struggling every day just to pay basic bills like heating, lights, and insurance? The fact is that around this country, many States have passed minimum wage laws that have increased the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the leadership has not come from Washington, DC, on this issue; it has come from the States. And I think it is high time that this Congress--and it is unfortunate it hasn't happened before, but it is high time and it is welcomed that this Congress would step to the plate to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. It is the right thing to do, and it is a good first step. I will applaud the Senators if we, in fact, get this job done, which I think is entirely appropriate, to increase the minimum wage. My State of Montana is one of six States that passed initiatives last November raising the minimum wage to a wage higher than the Federal standard. It passed with 73 percent of Montana's voters favoring this minimum wage increase. It is now at $6.50 an hour, indexed for inflation with no tip credit, meal credit, or training wage. This means employers may not count tips or benefits as part of the employee's wage for minimum wage purposes. This is a significant step forward for our workforce, and I hope the Federal Government will follow suit with passing this bill to make the economic struggles of almost 15 million Americans, including 7.3 million children, a little easier. Raising the minimum wage is long overdue. It is about time, and it is about time we showed an appreciation for America's workforce. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements for food sold in the United States. Congress originally passed country of origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill, but has twice voted to delay its implementation. Country-of-origin labeling is good for American consumers; it is good for our farmers and ranchers, and the time to implement it is now. American farmers and ranchers raise the highest quality agricultural goods in the world. Country of origin labeling benefits farmers and ranchers by allowing them to market their world-famous products and consumers who deserve to know where their food comes from. Any American consumer can look at the tag on their shirt or under the hood of their car and know where it was made. But when meats and produce move into the market place, their origin often becomes a mystery. Considering the importance of food to our health and safety, the growth of our children, and the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, we should have as much information about the origin of our food as possible. When I was president of the Montana Senate in 2005, I helped lead the fight to pass and implement country of origin labeling because Congress had failed to act. In Montana we are particularly proud of the quality of our agricultural products, and of the people who raise them. Our clean air and water, well preserved natural environment, and modern agricultural practices make consumers want to buy Montana meats, fruits and vegetables. Our State government has given consumers the information and the choice to purchase American raised products through country of origin labeling. As a dry land farmer from Big Sandy, Montana I know how challenging it is to be successful in agriculture. American farmers and ranchers need all the tools they can get. We no longer compete only with our local neighbors. We compete internationally with South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Country of origin labeling adds value in the market place that was already added by being grown on American farms and ranches. American consumers will make choices to support our domestic industry and sometimes pay a premium to know that their food comes from the United States. They support American agriculture with its high-quality standards, where money made stays in our rural communities and in the hands of American farmers and ranchers instead of going overseas. The benefits of country of origin labeling are great, the costs are little and consumers have demanded it. Congress needs to take the next step and implement the program.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements for food sold in the United States. Congress originally passed country of origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill, but has twice voted to delay its implementation. Country-of-origin labeling is good for American consumers; it is good for our farmers and ranchers, and the time to implement it is now. American farmers and ranchers raise the highest quality agricultural goods in the world. Country of origin labeling benefits farmers and ranchers by allowing them to market their world-famous products and consumers who deserve to know where their food comes from. Any American consumer can look at the tag on their shirt or under the hood of their car and know where it was made. But when meats and produce move into the market place, their origin often becomes a mystery. Considering the importance of food to our health and safety, the growth of our children, and the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, we should have as much information about the origin of our food as possible. When I was president of the Montana Senate in 2005, I helped lead the fight to pass and implement country of origin labeling because Congress had failed to act. In Montana we are particularly proud of the quality of our agricultural products, and of the people who raise them. Our clean air and water, well preserved natural environment, and modern agricultural practices make consumers want to buy Montana meats, fruits and vegetables. Our State government has given consumers the information and the choice to purchase American raised products through country of origin labeling. As a dry land farmer from Big Sandy, Montana I know how challenging it is to be successful in agriculture. American farmers and ranchers need all the tools they can get. We no longer compete only with our local neighbors. We compete internationally with South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Country of origin labeling adds value in the market place that was already added by being grown on American farms and ranches. American consumers will make choices to support our domestic industry and sometimes pay a premium to know that their food comes from the United States. They support American agriculture with its high-quality standards, where money made stays in our rural communities and in the hands of American farmers and ranchers instead of going overseas. The benefits of country of origin labeling are great, the costs are little and consumers have demanded it. Congress needs to take the next step and implement the program.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Feinstein, 10 minutes will be more than adequate.

Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Mr. President. It is a great honor for me to be before you today in this Chamber as a Senator representing the great State of Montana. It is the genius of American democracy that a third-generation family farmer from Big Sandy, MT, can serve in the world's greatest deliberative body. We have a great opportunity with great responsibility. Americans are not enamored by ideology or political party. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I wanted to make Government work for the American people once again. Montanans stood by me to demand change. We are here today because the American people want their Government to work. Today, we can show the American people that their Government does work by enacting genuine ethics reform, to ensure a Government that is transparent and open. As I met with the folks across the State of Montana, I heard over and over again about the loss of faith in our Government and our elected officials. Scandals and questionable behavior have brought a shadow over this institution. But today the Sun is rising again. The leadership of Senator Reid and the addition of the Feingold-Obama ethics reforms are a giant step forward in restoring the public's faith in their Government and public officials. The ``for sale'' sign on Congress will be taken down, and the pay-to-play practices of past Members will finally come to an end. These bills shine a spotlight on how Members operate in Washington to ensure that the people's business rather than the special interests' business is being done. In Montana, we believe in working together with our neighbors to find solutions to our problems. And in our Nation, the American people are looking for all of us to represent them, the people, those hard-working families trying to make ends meet. The best way to work for the American people is to ensure that they cannot only see what is happening in their Government but that they can take part in their Government. It is time for transparency, time for working families, small businesses and family farmers and ranchers to not only be heard but to be represented and empowered in this body and in the Halls of our Nation's Capitol. No more currying favor with Members of Congress and staff by high- powered lobbyists through free court-side tickets or all-expense-paid travel to exotic destinations. No more slipping in special interest provisions in bills already signed, sealed, and all but delivered. No more floor privileges and Member gym privileges for former Members lobbying on behalf of their clients. No more so-called K Street projects in which Members force lobbying firms to hire staffers from a certain party or lose the Member's support for their clients' projects. Montanans and Americans simply deserve better from their Government and elected representatives. Montanans and Americans deserve a government that is working hard for their interests, not the big- moneyed special interests. All of these special privileges and activities get in the way of making real changes that will improve the lives of hard-working and honest American and Montana families. I want to do the job the people of Montana have hired me to do, and this ethics package gives me the tools to do just that. I am proud and honored to join with my colleagues in support of change that will bring sunshine to the process of government and allow for transparency. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.