Scribd

Senator Jon Tester

Senate Floor Remarks

March 13, 2013

As Prepared for Delivery.

Mr/Madame President, I rise today to speak about the Continuing Resolution before theSenate to fund the government and keep this country moving forward.

This is a very difficult assignment that they have been handed, especially as the brand-new chair and ranking member.The bill increases support for firefighters battling blazes out west, maintains a criticalsafety net for women and children, returns full funding to several critical conservation programs, and reaffirms our commitments to veterans

–

especially rural veterans.I very much want to thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Tim Johnson in particular for their efforts in those areas.

But while no bill is perfect,

Mr/Madame President, I’m deeply disappointed by two

provisions that were slipped into the bill by the House of Representatives when this dealwas being cooked up in December.

This is Sunshine Week for the federal government.

It’s a time to highlight the n

eed for greater transparency and openness so voters can hold their elected leaders accountable for what happens in Washington.

I take transparency seriously. When I first ran for the Senate seven years ago, Icampaigned on the need to bring more accountability and honest leadership toWashington.

My first vote in the Senate was for a sweeping ethics bill that, among other provisions,improved disclosure rules and reformed the earmark process, so that everyone wouldknow which member

–

or members -- of Congress requested the earmark.And it required members to certify that they and their families had no financial interest inthe earmark.Under regular order, folks had a chance to come down to the floor and try and remove

earmarks they didn’t like.

In fact, a few years ago former Senator Jon Kyl and I had a pretty good debate on the floor here about an important project for the City of Whitefish,Montana. So we debated it and took a vote on it in the Senate.

That’s why I’m so upset by two agriculture

-related provisions that someone from theHouse of Representatives put into this bill

–

and that the Senate seems willing to accept.

I don’t know who authored this provision.

Maybe someone in Washington knows, but noone is willing to put their name to it. A

nd that’s a shame.

It’s a shame that folks who get so bent out of shape about earmarks do not seem to be

troubled by these provisions.

Mr/Madame President, Montana is home to thousands of working families that make aliving off the land. Like my wife and I, they are family farmers and ranchers.

The House of Representatives is prepared to toss these working families aside in favor of

the nation’s large, meatpacking corporations.

The House inserted a provision in the billthat gives enormous market power to

America’s three largest meatpacking corporations

while stiffing family farmers and ranchers.

Family-run production agriculture faces tremendous market manipulation. Chickenfarmers, hog farmers, and cattle ranchers all struggle to get a fair price frommeatpackers. And if they fight back, they risk angering corporate representatives and being shut out of the market.

Thanks to this provision, the Agriculture Department will not be able to ensure a fair,open market that puts the brakes on the worst abuses by the meatpacking industry.

What’s worse is that the USDA took Congressionally

-mandated steps to protect ranchersfrom market manipulation over the last few years.

That’s what we told them to do in the 2008 Farm Bill.

And this provision will actuallyoverturn rules that USDA has already put in place. But apparently intense behind-the-

scenes lobbying won out in the House of Representatives, and now we’re back to square

one with big meatpackers calling the shots.

The second provision sent over from the House tells USDA to ignore any judicial rulingregarding the planting of genetically-modified crops.

Its supporters are calling it the “farmer assurance” provision, but all it really assures is a

lack of corporate liability.The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, thedepartment must re-approve the crop and allow it to continue to be planted

–

regardlessof what the judge says.

Think about that.The United States Congress

is telling the Agriculture Department “Even if a court tells

you that you failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you MUST

disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crops to be planted anyway.”