Jon Tester on Homeland Security Democratic Jr Senator

Irresponsible to put two wars on credit card

Tester depicted Rehberg as an irresponsible spender during his 12 years in Congress. He described Rehberg as a politician who used a "credit card" to vote for a new federal prescription drug program and two wars, among other spending.

Build forces to fight terror cells; not take away our rights

TESTER: It deals with the freedoms that so many people have fought and died for. If we want to get serious about the War on Terror, we need to make the investments to fight the war on terror. We ought not be taking rights away from honest citizens. If we've got terror cells around the world, then let's invest in human intelligence. Let's invest in our Special Forces. Let's go after ‘em, and let's be serious, and not get sidetracked by Iraq. Right now, we're taking rights away from honest people. If they think you fall into their list, you're a target. By the time they figure out there's a terror cell, they can get a warrant. The Senator wants to let them have Carte Blanche. The government ought not be taking away our freedoms.

JONES: We've lost our Fourth Amendment rights; now there's no protection to our privacy.

BURNS: The Patriot Act is a tool that is in place now for drug kingpins and organized crime.

I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act--I want to repeal it

Patriot Act has very little to do with the War on Terrorism

TESTER: The Patriot Act has very little to do with the War on Terrorism and a lot to do with why the terrorists attacked this country, which is to take away our freedoms.

BURNS: The Patriot Act gave our law enforcement people the same tools that they had to go after organized crime and drug kingpins. That's all it is. Mr. Tester doesn't understand this enemy. It is global. He wants to weaken the Patriot Act, and take away the tools from the people who work for our protection.

TESTER: Let me be clear--I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. It's two inches think, and it does far more than what Burns said--it takes away your freedoms. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought and died for our freedoms. If we lose our freedoms, the terrorists will have won. We need to be very forceful against the terrorists, and get ‘em. We're taking away freedoms--first!--and that's ridiculous.

Critical of President Bush on Patriot Act

Study & address suicides among veterans.

Veterans Suicide Study Act - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997, and the date of the enactment of this Act. Congress makes the following findings:

• Suicide among the veteran population is a serious problem.
• There is lack of information on the number of veterans who commit suicide each year.
• Study Required- The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997 and the date of the enactment of this Act.
• Coordination- In carrying out the study, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense; Veterans Service Organizations; and States` public health offices and veterans agencies.
• Report to Congress- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on the study and the findings of the Secretary.

Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays.

Repeals current Department of Defense policy [popularly known as `Don`t-Ask-Don`t-Tell`] concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a member. Authorizes the re-accession into the Armed Forces of otherwise qualified individuals previously separated for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage` and `spouse` and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act`).

Non-proliferation includes disposing of nuclear materials.

Press Release from Sen. Merkley`s officeCiting the dangers to US national security posed by terrorists and rogue states seeking nuclear weapons, a bipartisan group of 26 senators sent a letter last week to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), calling on the President to support increased funding in the FY2016 budget to more rapidly secure and permanently dispose of nuclear and radiological materials. The letter comes in response to the President`s proposals in recent years to decrease funding for nuclear material security and nonproliferation programs.

The senators indicated that unsecured nuclear material poses unacceptably high risks to the safety of Americans and argued that the rate at which nuclear and radiological materials are secured and permanently disposed of must be accelerated. The senators expressed concern that cutting funds would slow what has been a successful process of elimination and reduction of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and separated plutonium in the international community. In just the last five years, nuclear security and non-proliferation programs have proven successful in eliminating HEU and separated plutonium from 13 countries, including Ukraine.

`Reducing budgets for agencies and programs that help keep nuclear and radiological materials out of the hands of terrorists is out of sync with the high priority that the President has rightly placed on nuclear and radiological material security and signals a major retreat in the effort to lock down these materials at an accelerated rate,` the senators wrote. `The recent spate of terrorism in Iraq, Pakistan, and Kenya is a harrowing reminder of the importance of ensuring that terrorist groups and rogue states cannot get their hands on the world`s most dangerous weapons and materials.`

In the past two fiscal years, Congress has enacted $280 million additional dollars to the President`s proposed funding for core non-proliferation activities.

End bulk data collection under USA PATRIOT Act.

Congressional summary:: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act or the USA FREEDOM Act:

• Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to require that the records sought pertain to an individual in contact with a foreign power.
• Amends the USA PATRIOT Act to minimize the acquisition and retention of information and to prohibit its unauthorized dissemination.
• Imposes additional requirements on the authorized use of pen registers and trap and trace devices (devices for recording incoming and outgoing telephone numbers).
• Prohibits the searching of collections of communications of US persons.

  Opponent`s argument against (Electronic Frontier Foundation): The bill only addresses a small portion of the problems created by NSA spying. It does not touch problems like NSA programs to sabotage encryption standards; it does not effectively tackle the issue of collecting information on people outside of the US; and it doesn`t address the authority that the government is supposedly using to tap the data links between service provider data centers, such as those owned by Google and Yahoo. The bill also does not address excessive secrecy; it won`t deal with the major over-classification issues or the state secrets privilege.

  Opponent`s argument against (J. Kirk Wiebe, former NSA Senior Intelligence Analyst interview with TheRealNews.com): It`s window dressing. Stopping bulk collection is a good step, but the only thing that`s going to fix this is direct access into NSA`s databases by an independent group of hackers, techie types, people like Snowden who know how to get into a network and look at things and verify that the data they`re collecting and what they`re doing with it complies with the Constitution. The NSA has essentially operated illegally--unconstitutionally--for 60% of its existence.

  Source: HR3361 & S1599 14-S1599 on Oct 29, 2013

  $515B for military plus $89B off sequester for wars.

  Tester voted YEA National Defense Authorization Act

  Congressional Summary: HR 1735: The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes FY2016 appropriations and sets forth policies regarding the military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), and military construction. This bill also authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which are exempt from discretionary spending limits. The bill authorizes appropriations for base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and prohibits an additional BRAC round.

  Wikipedia Summary: The NDAA specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) for Fiscal Year 2016. The law authorizes the $515 billion in spending for national defense and an additional $89.2 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations fund (OCO).

  Opposition statement by Rep. Gerry Connolly (May 15, 2015): Congressman Connolly said he opposed the bill because it fails to end sequestration, and pits domestic investments versus defense investments. Said Connolly, `This NDAA uses a disingenuous budget mechanism to circumvent sequestration. It fails to end sequestration.`

  Support statement by BreakingDefense.com(Sept, 2015): Republicans bypassed the BCA spending caps (the so-called sequester) by shoving nearly $90 billion into the OCO account, designating routine spending as an emergency war expenses exempted from the caps. This gimmick got President Barack Obama the funding he requested but left the caps in place on domestic spending, a Democratic priority. `The White House`s veto announcement is shameful,` Sen. John McCain said. `The NDAA is a policy bill. It cannot raise the budget caps. It is absurd to veto the NDAA for something that the NDAA cannot do.`

  Legislative outcome: House rollcall #532 on passed 270-156-15 on Oct. 1, 2015; Senate rollcall #277 passed 70-27-3 on Oct. 7, 2015; vetoed by Pres. Obama on Oct. 22, 2015; passed and signed after amendments.

  Source: Congressional vote 15-HR1735 on Apr 13, 2015

  Military spouses don't lose voting residency while abroad.

  Tester signed Military Spouses Residency Relief Act
  A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to matters of residency, and for other purposes.
  • Prohibits, for purposes of voting for a federal, state, or local office, deeming a person to have lost a residence or domicile in a state, acquired a residence or domicile in any other state, or become a resident in or of any other state solely because the person is absent from a state because the person is accompanying the person`s spouse who is absent from the state in compliance with military or naval orders.
  • Prohibits a servicemember`s spouse from either losing or acquiring a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation because of being absent or present in any U.S. tax jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember in compliance with the servicemember`s military orders if the residence or domicile is the same for the servicemember and the spouse. Prohibits a spouse`s income from being considered income earned in a tax jurisdiction if the spouse is not a resident or domiciliary of such jurisdiction when the spouse is in that jurisdiction solely to be with a servicemember serving under military orders.
  • Suspends land rights residency requirements for spouses accompanying servicemembers serving under military orders.
  Source: S.475&HR.1182 2009-S475 on Feb 25, 2009

  Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security. 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 Homeland Security:		Jon Tester on other issues:
  MT Gubernatorial: Greg Gianforte Ryan Busse Tanner Smith MT Senatorial: Brad Johnson John Driscoll John Mues Mike Cooney Steve Bullock Steve Daines Susan Good Geise Tim Sheehy Wilmot Collins MT politicians MT Archives	Senate races 2024: AZ: Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent) vs.Ruben Gallego(D) vs.Kari Lake(R) vs.Mark Lamb(R) CA: Laphonza Butler(D,retiring) vs.Adam Schiff(D nominee) vs.Steve Garvey(R nominee) vs.Gail Lightfoot(L) vs.Barbara Lee(D, lost primary) vs.Katie Porter(D, lost primary) CT: Chris Murphy(D,incumbent) vs.John Flynn(R) vs.Robert Hyde(I, on ballot) DE: Tom Carper(D,retiring) vs.Eric Hansen(R) vs.Mike Katz(I) vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D) FL: Rick Scott(R,incumbent) vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) HI: Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent) vs.Bob McDermott(R) IN: Mike Braun(R,retiring) vs.Jim Banks(R nominee) vs.Valerie McCray(D nominee) vs.Marc Carmichael(D, lost primary) MA: Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent) vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R) vs.John Deaton(R) MD: Ben Cardin(D,retiring) vs.Larry Hogan(R) vs.Robin Ficker(R) vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D) vs.David Trone(D) ME: Angus King(I,incumbent) vs.Demi Kouzounas(R) vs.David Costello(D) MI: Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring) vs.Leslie Love(D) vs.Peter Meijer(R) vs.James Craig(R) vs.Mike Rogers(R) vs.Elissa Slotkin(D) MN: Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent) vs.Royce White(R) vs.Steve Carlson(DFL) MO: Josh Hawley(R,incumbent) vs.Karla May(D) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) MS: Roger Wicker(R,incumbent) vs.Dan Eubanks(R) vs.Ty Pinkins(D) MT: Jon Tester(D,incumbent) vs.Tim Sheehy(R) vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary) ND: Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent) vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)	NE: Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat) vs.Preston Love(D) Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat) vs.Dan Osborn(I) NJ: Bob Menendez(I,resigned) vs.George Helmy(D,incumbent) vs.Andy Kim(D) vs.Curtis Bashaw(R) vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew) NM: Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent) vs.Nella Domenici(R) NV: Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent) vs.Jim Marchant (R) vs.Sam Brown(R) NY: Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent) vs.Mike Sapraicone(R) vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1) OH: Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent) vs.Bernie Moreno(R nominee) vs.Frank LaRose(R, lost primary) vs.Matt Dolan(R, lost primary) PA: Bob Casey(D,incumbent) vs.David McCormick(R) RI: Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent) vs.Patricia Morgan(R) vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew) TN: Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent) vs.Gloria Johnson(D) vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D) TX: Ted Cruz(R,incumbent) vs.Colin Allred(D) vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary) vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary) UT: Mitt Romney(R,retiring) vs.John Curtis(R) vs.Trent Staggs(R) vs.Brad Wilson(R) vs.Caroline Gleich(D) VA: Tim Kaine(D,incumbent) vs.Scott Parkinson(R) VT: Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent) vs.Gerald Malloy(R) WA: Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent) vs.Raul Garcia(R) WI: Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent) vs.Eric Hovde(R) vs.Phil Anderson(L) WV: Joe Manchin III(D,retiring) vs.Don Blankenship(D) vs.Jim Justice(R) vs.Alex Mooney(R) vs.Glenn Elliott(D) WY: John Barrasso(R,incumbent) vs.Reid Rasner(R) vs.Scott Morrow(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
  [Title9]

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Oct 30, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org