Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Chambliss amendment and in opposition to the amendment filed by my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin. I am pleased that the Durbin amendment has been filed because it is good to see others share my idea that the retirement system for our Guard and Reserve soldiers needs to be updated to meet the new role these soldiers are playing as part of our Nation's military. By way of introduction, let me say I think it is a very good thing we are debating this issue at this time in the Senate today because not only is this an important issue we need to talk about as policymakers in the Congress, but today we have a majority of the men and women serving in the theater in Iraq who are members of the Guard and Reserve. It is critically important that as we utilize these soldiers, we provide them with benefits that compare to the active-duty soldiers. I would like to compare the military personnel system to a finely tuned machine because that is what it is. The Department of Defense and the individual military services have staffs that devote significant time and energy to determining how to recruit, retain, promote, separate, and retire people in their respective services. The Department recommends incentives, which we in Congress consider and authorize, which shape this process of recruiting and retention according to the needs of the services. It is a fact that any change in the military personnel system will change the process and the incentives in question and could change them in ways that are detrimental to the military services. I have crafted my amendment, the underlying amendment, with these factors in mind. However, in my assessment, the Durbin amendment has not received the same scrutiny along these lines and will, indeed, shape the personnel system in unintended ways that are detrimental to the military which we simply cannot afford from a cost perspective. The effect of this amendment will be to create an imbalance in the personnel system which will likely result in an increase in end strength and result in people in the higher ranks of the enlisted and officer corps clogging the system and not allowing the people beneath them the opportunity for promotion. This amendment also rewards and retains people who, generally speaking, are already being retained at the required rate. In my assessment, this amendment solves a problem that does not exist. The Durbin amendment simply rewards longevity of service. It does not reward those members of the Reserve components who disrupt their lives in support of a contingency operation, and does not provide an incentive or reward for soldiers deployed in harm's way in defense of their country. Both amendments target soldiers who have sacrificed, but my amendment targets the ones who have put their lives in harm's way, and we should be giving them a real incentive to stay in the military. From a cost perspective, the Durbin amendment has a 1-year reward for as few as 22 days of Reserve duty. That is a 17-day reduction in the age a reservist could collect retirement for every 1 day of service, whereas my amendment is far more equitable. It is a one-for-one reduction. The Durbin amendment scores at $4.8 billion over 5 years. My amendment scores at $320 million over 5 years. I agree that cost should not be the sole determining factor, but we are in a real budget world today where we are struggling to find dollars to buy weapons systems and to provide for these quality-of-life issues for our men and women. I had an amendment last year that was too expensive. We have come back this year with a much more realistic amendment that is affordable and, in my opinion, is more rewarding to those who deserve it at this point in the life of our military. The scoring of Senator Durbin's amendment is roughly 8 times, almost 10 times as expensive as my amendment. In summary, while length of service is one area which I do believe we should incentivize for our Guard and Reserve soldiers, it is not the only behavior or even the primary behavior we need to reward. Rather, it is our reservists who have truly sacrificed, who have left their homes, their jobs, and their families and put themselves in harm's way who need to be rewarded and incentivized to stay in the Reserve. That is exactly what my amendment does and does it in a fair and cost-effective way. We incentivize voluntarism, not just incentivize longevity of service. I urge my colleagues to reject the Durbin amendment and to support the underlying amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, these next couple of votes involve an amendment I filed and an amendment the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, has filed. I think the significant thing about both amendments is that we are finally starting to recognize that, because we are calling up our Guard and Reserve folks on an all too regular basis these days, and because today, as we enjoy the freedoms that we sometimes take for granted in this country, we have troops serving in Iraq, 60 percent of whom are Guard and Reserve troops, it is necessary that we continue down the path we have been down for the last several years under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, trying to increase the benefits to our Guard and Reserve and the families of those brave men and women. Both these amendments seek to do that. There is a fundamental difference in the two amendments, though. My amendment, the underlying amendment, provides for a reduction in retirement age from 60 to 55 for reservists, based upon the activation of those reservists and Guard men and women into contingency areas. For every 3 months they have been activated and sent into a conflict, they receive a 1-for-1 or 3-month reduction in the retirement age, from 60 down to the minimum or lower level of 55. The Durbin amendment simply would not make that kind of 1-to-1 offset but would treat the Guard and Reserve the same as the Active-Duty folks. Unfortunately, the difference between the two is we cannot afford the Durbin amendment. What my amendment does is to ultimately allow the reduction down to age 55 for those Reserve and Guard people who are activated. It has a cost, over 5 years, of about $320 million. The Durbin amendment has a cost of about $4.8 billion over that same 5-year period. That is such a significant difference that, in my opinion, we will never get that done. My amendment can be done. It is a movement in the right direction, to recognize that we are calling up these folks on a more regular basis and that we should continue to provide them and their families with some security measures from the standpoint of incentivizing them to go into the Guard and Reserve and stay in the Guard and Reserve.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, if we are going to call on these brave volunteers, we need to incentivize them, and my amendment does that. It seeks to call on the individual from a volunteer standpoint. It doesn't seek to protect the top level, the officers and the uppercrust, the enlisted personnel. It seeks to protect all members of the Guard and Reserve from the enlisted standpoint and give them an opportunity to reduce their retirement age from 60 down to 55. I think it is fair. I think it is reasonable. And I think it is supportable. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against the Durbin amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is correct.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Naval Reserve Association in support of my amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as I said earlier, while I sympathize with the Senator from Illinois, because this is a critical issue, it is simply a matter of not being able to provide the funding for this particular retirement bill. We had this issue up last year, and we did not get the funding for it. My bill takes a more reasonable approach. It rewards those men and women who are serving in Iraq today. I ask that we render a ``no'' vote against this amendment so we can make a strong move to include my amendment in the conference report that will be forthcoming.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the Senator will yield very briefly, I say the passion that the Senator from Virginia has relative to the men and women in our Armed Forces has been exhibited in our committee time and again. It is pretty obvious to see why. It is because of men and women like the Senator who have served in the Guard and Reserve over the last 50 years that we now truly are a blended force. We are a force of military men and women when it comes time to join hands and go to the fight. It truly is a seamless integration between the Active Duty and the Reserve and the Guard today in Iraq. That is why I think it is very important. I thank the Senator for his comments and his leadership.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. First, Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the committee, as well as the ranking member, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, for their great leadership on this bill. This has been a difficult process we have gone through, having spent, I guess, a week and a half at one point in time and having to suspend further proceedings and now we are back on it. In my opinion, all the work in this body is certainly very critical to the Nation itself, but there is no more important legislation we take up every year than the Defense authorization bill. When we are a nation at war, as we are right now, there certainly is no more important legislation to show support by this body, by the House, and by the American people to our men and women in uniform by making sure that we provide quality of life issues for them, whether it is pay raises, looking after their families, or making sure they have better than adequate housing, but to also say to them that we are going to provide you with the best weapons available in the world today, that we are going to provide you with the best training in the world today to make sure that you remain the strongest military in the world, and as you fight for freedom and democracy on foreign soil, as our men and women are doing today, that they know and understand, without any hesitation, the American people and the Members of Congress stand firmly behind the work they are doing. I wish to preface my comments with regard to this particular amendment by stating something with which no Member of the Senate would disagree, and that is that the way our Nation uses the Reserve components of the U.S. military has fundamentally changed over the last 15 years. Several of my colleagues already alluded to this fact during discussion of TRICARE coverage for reservists earlier this year. I support that legislation and commend my colleagues, specifically Senator Graham from South Carolina and Senator Clinton from New York, for their perseverance on this issue of providing TRICARE for Guard and Reserve members. Over the last decade and a half, the Reserve components have changed from a force in reserve to an absolutely essential component of the war fight in almost every operation the military engages and in every career field represented in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The Reserve components are now, and continue to become, a true operational Reserve that our military cannot operate without. This is reflected primarily in the rate of deployments and mobilizations of the Reserve components. The contribution of the Reserve components has increased over 60 times from the pre-Desert Shield/Desert Storm time period to the present. From the post-Desert Storm period, from between 1993 and 1997 to the present, the Reserve contribution has increased between 5 and 10 times, depending on which year you consider. The same trends are illustrated if you look at the number of support days reservists have performed over the last 20 years. The trend over the last 5 years is exponential. My point, which cannot be any more clear, is that the way we are using the Guard and Reserve has fundamentally changed. Based on this fact, I think it is only appropriate to consider that the way we compensate and reward our reservists needs to change. Another important factor to be considered is the current recruiting trends for the National Guard and Reserve. The overall trend in Reserve component recruiting is negative. In fiscal year 2005, the Army and Air National Guard, the Army Reserve and the Navy Reserve, all did not meet their enlisted recruiting goals. In fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard exceeded its goal by recruiting 104 percent of its objective, but in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 that number dropped to 87 percent. It now stands at 80 percent. A similar story can be told for the Army Reserve where it exceeded its goal for fiscal year 2002 with 108 percent of its objective only to see that percentage drop to 84 percent for fiscal year 2005. Although not a crisis yet, these trends are definitely a cause for concern. Retention numbers for the Guard and Reserve are holding fairly steady for now. However, I do not believe anyone expects the retention rate to hold steady if we keep using our Reserves at the current rate. I believe the current rate at which we are using reservists, as well as current recruiting trends, necessitates that we reexamine the way we manage the Reserve. As the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, and the current cochairman of the Senate Reserve Caucus, this is an issue with which I have wrestled considerably and want to be sure that we account for as we provide oversight of the personnel policies of the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has made changes in this area by improving the process of training and equipping the Reserve and supporting changes in personnel policies that improve quality of life for members of the Reserve. However, with the possible exception of the TRICARE issue, these changes have been at the margins. The amendment I am calling up today makes what I believe is a relatively minor adjustment to the Reserve retirement system. My amendment would lower the age at which a reservist can receive their retirement annuity by 3 months, counting down from age 60, for every 90 days a reservist spends on active duty during a fiscal year. Any service credited under my amendment would have to be served in support of a designated contingency operation. This amendment specifically rewards the members of the Guard and Reserve who have been called or ordered to active duty, had their civilian lives interrupted for an extended period of time, and in many cases placed themselves in harm's way in defense of their country. Currently, the average reservist, if they collect any retirement pay at all, receives a small fraction of the annuity that an Active-Duty member receives. If this amendment becomes law, that percentage will rise slightly but in no way will this amendment result in a major change with large financial implications. I do not have a formal CBO estimate for the current version of my amendment. However, based on CBO scoring for an earlier version, I suggest that the cost of this amendment will be approximately $300 million over 5 years. There have been several other bills and amendments related to Reserve retirement introduced in Congress and for the sake of comparison, I believe my amendment provides the right incentives and rewards, and it is also the least costly alternative which has been offered so far. I think it is very important that we strike a balance between the Active-Duty forces and the Reserve component with respect to compensation, quality of life, and other assets and incentives that we offer for people coming into Active-Duty service. I know and understand that we can never totally equalize the benefits to the Active Duty along with those of the Guard and Reserve for the simple sake that if somebody joins the Active Duty, they need to be incentivized to come in and do the work that they are assigned to do knowing that they will be compensated in a way that has been provided for them for decades relative to retirement in this case. We cannot do that with the Guard and Reserve, but we do need to provide more incentives to do something about these drastic reenlistment, as well as enlistment, numbers that I alluded to earlier in my comments. One way I think we can certainly do that, from a retirement standpoint, is to provide some small incentive to our reservists and our Guard men and women so that they will be somewhat comparable, though never totally comparable, to the Active-Duty members. I believe this amendment is significant and important because it recognizes the increased contribution our reservists are making, rewards them for the service in support of the global war on terrorism, and provides reservists in the middle of their careers with an incentive to stay on board. I have received some very good feedback from the Department of Defense on this amendment because, first, it incentivizes voluntarism. Secondly, it provides a motivation for retention. Thirdly, it is relatively low cost. The Reserve Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Reserve Enlisted Association also support this amendment and see it as an important, responsible step forward in support of our reservists. There is no more important issue facing the Senate Armed Services Committee than how we treat our men and women in uniform and their families. It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill over this week, and as the committee entertains legislation and policy changes in the coming months, that we keep the people at the receiving end of our decisions and deliberations foremost in our minds. We will continue to include the members of the Reserve components in those deliberations and ensure that the Senate adopts policies that work to their advantage that are fiscally responsible and that recognize the significant changes that have taken place in the Reserve over the past decade and a half. I close by saying, again, that without the leadership of Senators Warner and Levin, we simply would not be providing the compensation, nor the incentives, that we have in place today to the members of the Guard and the Reserve. I thank them for not just their great leadership but their cooperation in working through these very difficult issues, a lot of which are driven strictly by budget. That is what makes it particularly difficult when we have to talk about providing incentives like compensation versus buying weapons systems. It makes it very difficult, and to their credit they have provided the great leadership that is necessary to make sure that we continue to be in a position to be the strongest military in the world. And we are because our men and women who volunteer for that military, whether it is Active Duty or Guard or Reserve, are the very finest young men and women America has to offer. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2433, which is at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Pryor, Senator Isakson, and myself, I rise to call up amendment No. 2433 to S. 1042 and request that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor. I believe the amendment is at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, I want Senator McConnell and his staff for all the heavylifting and hard work to complete this important bill. As a committee chairman, I know how difficult it can be to pass legislation. I am pleased that the House-Senate conferees considering the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bills have included language which withholds taxpayer dollars to those countries which refuse to extradite violent criminals to the United States for prosecution. While this is a positive step, I must express disappointment that the conferees saw fit to provide for the continued flow of tax dollars to these countries upon a mere certification by the Secretary of State that a cutoff would not be in the national interest of the United States. My original amendment, which passed the Senate on July 20, 2005, by a vote of 86 to 12, contained no such loophole. The earlier passage of my original amendment and the House passage of a similar amendment by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia, by a vote of 294 to 132, sent a powerful message to those countries which refuse to extradite murderers and other violent criminals. The passage of these earlier amendments represented a victory for law enforcement, for victims of violent crime, and for simple justice and the rule of law. When an individual is charged with a crime and flees to a foreign country, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State to seek extradition of the fugitive. In some instances, countries refuse to extradite even defendants charged with violent crimes when the evidence is overwhelming. Some refuse when the defendant faces the possibility of the death penalty in this country and this issue represents a particular challenge to our ongoing relations with other countries. However, even in instances in which the defendant does not face the death penalty, some countries have still refused to extradite--some for the articulated reason that they do not extradite their own nationals. Others--Mexico, Costa Rica, Spain, Venezuela and Portugal, for example--have refused to extradite because the defendant faces a possible life sentence if convicted in the United States. Of course the possibility of life imprisonment reflects the seriousness of the offense and should result in a greater, not lesser, justification for extradition. Such policies stand common sense on its head. These unjust policies by some countries came into sharp focus in connection with the brutal murder of the son of David Fulton, who is a constituent of mine in Hampton, GA. On December 21, 2002, Mr. Fulton's son, CPL Joshia Fulton of the U.S. Marine Corps, was murdered right here, on the streets of Washington, DC. At the time of his murder, CPL Fulton was a member of the elite Presidential Protection Program called Yankee White, an assignment through which he had the honor of traveling abroad with the President of the United States. Corporal Fulton was awaiting assignment for service as a guard in the West Wing of the White House when he was murdered. After an investigation by the DC Police Department, a criminal complaint was filed charging a suspect named Carlos Almanza with the murder of Joshia Fulton. Almanza, however, fled the United States to his home country, the Republic of Nicaragua, where that country's constitution prohibits extradition of its citizens. And so the person charged with this heinous crime is free to kill again and to live the good life while the family of his victim endures the cruel consequences of their loss day in and day out, without justice and without closure to their suffering. If a country refuses to turn murder suspects over to U.S. authorities so they can be brought to justice in the United States where the heinous crime occurred, then that country should not receive any financial aid from the United States under the appropriations bill now before the Senate. A country's constitutional ban on extradition of its citizens who are fugitives from justice is unacceptable. Quite simply, that law needs to change if they want to continue to receive American aid. While I am disappointed in the final wording in the conference report, I take comfort that my amendment has already gotten the attention of these countries. Following passage of my amendment in July, I and my staff met with representatives of various countries, as well as representatives of the Departments of State and Justice. While we worked diligently to craft language to address legitimate concerns of these countries and our own Government, the final conference language, in my view, falls short of reflecting America's resolve to put a stop to refusals to extradite. As I stated during debate on my original amendment in July, the intent of this language is not to deny aid to any country, but rather to provide a substantial incentive for recalcitrant countries to reform their extradition laws so that suspected criminals can be brought to justice in the United States. I hope that this experience will be a wake-up call to the State Department to redouble its efforts to encourage all countries to extradite murderers and other violent criminals to stand before the bar of justice. I will continue to work for the extradition of Corporal Fulton's killer.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, in 2002, this body, along with the House and along with the President, made a commitment to farmers and ranchers all across America with the signing and implementation of the 2002 farm bill. This was an issue back then, in 2002, in the farm bill. It will be an issue in the farm bill in 2007. Today, when our farmers are hit with high fuel prices, with low commodity prices, and with disasters all across the country in different sections, this is not the time to say to our farmers, who feed all of America, we are going to change the program in midstream. This issue will be dealt with in the farm bill in 2007. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act that the pending amendment is not germane to the measure now before the Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas 4 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I rise today in support of the budget reconciliation package passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and in opposition to this amendment. The Senator from West Virginia knows what great respect I have for him and his long-term service in this great institution. But I chaired the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 108th Congress. During that time, I worked very closely with my friends and colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Grassley, to enact H-1B reform legislation. That is the part of the amendment I wish to address. One of the most important aspects of that reform was to increase the H-1B visa fee to $1,500 per application to fund education and training programs for U.S. workers. In addition to the application fee, the legislation added a $500 anti-fraud fee to every H-1B visa application to detect and prevent fraud in the visa program. The reconciliation package passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 14 to 2, will generate $45 million annually from H-1B visa fees that will go toward scholarships and training programs for U.S. workers. It will also generate $15 million annually to enhance government enforcement of the H-1B program requirements that are designed to protect the U.S. workforce. These excess funds provide even more muscle to the Department of Labor's enforcement and U.S. worker education and training programs. The Judiciary Committee's reconciliation package will allow for the recapture of up to 30,000 H-1B visas that were authorized and made available by Congress but went unused in previous years, provided the employer pays a $500 fee for each recaptured visa. I believe this proposal injects much-needed flexibility into current law by allowing the flow of these highly educated and highly skilled workers to be driven by supply and demand rather than by an arbitrary cap each fiscal year. Currently, only 65,000 H-1B workers are allowed into the U.S. each year. Over the past 3 fiscal years, 2004-2006, the H-1B cap was reached before the end of the fiscal year. A similar shortage occurred in the mid-1990s when demand for high-skilled workers outpaced supply due to the high-tech boom. Congress responded to the needs of the U.S. economy in the 1990s by increasing the H-1B cap to 115,000 for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and then increasing it again to 195,000 for fiscal years 2001-2003. By allowing the recapture of up to 30,000 H-1B visas for the next 5 years, Congress will only be returning the total number of H-1B visa holders allowed to come to the U.S. to the fiscal year 1999 levels. I know that many companies, in my home State of Georgia, ranging from the biggest beverage companies and airlines in the world, down to small businesses, rely on access to these H-1B workers to effectively compete in the global economy. Other companies rely on the expertise of foreign specialists to perform much-needed services their companies provide. For instance, recently, a small company with 60 employees--all U.S. citizens--was awarded a contract with the Pentagon to improve rapid response communications between agencies in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Not only are innovations like these critical to the security of citizens of my home State, but they also can help create jobs for Americans everywhere as demand for the innovation grows and the company expands. This company wanted to bring in a specialist from Northern Ireland to lead its development efforts. The company applied on behalf of this specialist in August 2005 to come in on one of the available H-1B visas for fiscal year 2006. However, there were no remaining H-1B visas available for fiscal year 2006 and as a result, this company will have to wait until fiscal year 2007--14 months--to bring this specialist to the U.S. I am supportive of the increased flexibility provided in the Judiciary Committee's reconciliation package. When adequate U.S. worker protections are in place, as they are in the H-1B visa program, with strict wage requirements and labor market tests, Congress should facilitate the success of U.S. businesses with our immigration laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me wind up with a couple of responses to some of the comments that have been made. First, Senator Dorgan got up and said we had one farm that had gotten $37 million over 5 years. That is preposterous. It is wrong. It is simply incorrect. The Senator from Arkansas made it very plain there is one cooperative that has 9,000 members, called Riceland. The entity which Senator Dorgan was talking about was not an individual farmer. There is no provision in the current law that would allow such payments to be made. That is simply wrong. Secondly, there was a statement made that 55 dead farmers received payments. Let me tell you what happened so the American people understand. A farmer goes into the Farm Service Agency at the beginning of the year, and he fills out a form. That form says how much he is going to plant of each specific crop. They then know what payments they qualify for. Those checks are sent out during different times of the year and even into the next year after the farm season is over. It is unfortunate that 55 farmers died during that year before they got their checks. I am sorry about that. But those farmers were family farmers. Their families deserve that income because that family member was actively engaged in farming at the time he went into the office and made the application. I kind of resent that. We talk about the fact that we want to continue the family farm. The way we can continue the family farm is to take those folks who do unfortunately pass away and eliminate the estate tax. But, unfortunately, our friends on the other side don't agree with us about that. Let me just say the commission to which Senator Grassley referred, and others have referred, was a commission created in the 2002 farm bill made up of farmers from Kansas, Texas, Mississippi, Illinois, North Dakota, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, as well as USDA. That commission made strong recommendations that we should not change this payment limitation provision during the course of this farm bill. That is a discussion that should be held in the next farm bill debated in 2007. I submit that is when it ought to be. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, before the Senator from North Dakota moves forward, I want to make sure that we are going back and forth. Does the other Senator from Arkansas need time?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator like to reduce that to an hour?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, will you tell us what time is remaining on each side, please?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to yield as much time as he may consume to Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I don't take that as a sign of weakness, but I appreciate the comment from my fellow Senator from the great State of Iowa who, like myself, comes from a strong agriculture production State. I will have a little bit more to say about that in a minute. Madam President, I rise today to make a few remarks, first, about S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, that is being considered by the Senate this week. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would reduce mandatory spending by a total of $39 billion over 5 years as compared to current law. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I know very well that restraining the growth of Federal spending is a very challenging task. It is a difficult job that most Senators, including myself, would prefer we not tackle, yet we must tackle. We must reduce growth of mandatory spending to get the deficit under control because that is increasingly where the bulk of Federal spending occurs. This is the first bill in 8 years that reduces the growth of such spending. Most importantly, this bill achieves these savings mainly by reforming mandatory programs rather than cutting benefits to low-income individuals families. The fiscal year 2006 budget resolution instructed the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to reduce outlays by $173 million in fiscal year 2006 and by $3 billion over the 5 years covering the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 within mandatory spending programs under the committee's jurisdiction. CBO estimates that title I of this bill reduces mandatory outlays in the Agriculture Committee's programs by $196 million in fiscal year 2006 and $3.014 billion over 5 years. The fiscal year 2006 savings amount is actually $23 million more than our instruction for that year, and the 5-year savings is $14 million higher than the committee's instruction. As a result, title I of the bill fully complies with the Agriculture Committee's reconciliation instruction under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. Title I of the bill reflects the thoughts and suggestions of a broad array of agriculture conservation and nutrition groups, all of whom care deeply about the Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending programs. The Congress worked hard to write a farm bill in 2002. This title achieved savings from the farm commodity programs, but does so in a way that leaves the structure of farm programs unchanged. The title achieves savings in our conservation programs, but it does this in a way that does not impact existing multiyear contracts in any program. The title achieves modest savings in our research programs, but it does this in a way that allows the basic structure to remain intact and recognizes past funding levels. Also, importantly, the title preserves budgetary resources for the upcoming 2007 farm bill debate generally suspending spending reductions in fiscal year 2011. None of the outlay savings in the Agriculture Committee's title of the bill comes from the Food Stamp Program, despite the fact that this program accounts for nearly half of the mandatory spending in the committee's jurisdiction. I have heard concerns about achieving savings from the Food Stamp Program from Senators on the Agriculture Committee, off the Agriculture Committee, and from Senators on both sides of the aisle, and we reacted. My view is that the Food Stamp Program supports poor and low-income families trying to put food on the table and helps farmers by increasing the food purchasing power of those families. It is a win-win program for American agriculture and for America. As we move forward in the reconciliation process, I intend to oppose attempts to make any substantial cuts in the funding to the Food Stamp Program. I have made that very clear from day one, and I continue to maintain that position today. While I support the reconciliation bill, I would like Senators and others to know that we plan to work, hopefully in a bipartisan manner, to provide disaster assistance to farmers and ranchers and others in need of separate legislation in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other adverse weather events. In the aftermath of these dramatic events, farmers are struggling with production losses, sharply higher energy prices, and lower farm prices. I will oppose amendments that attempt to address disaster assistance for agriculture in this bill. It is my hope that the Senate will support this bill and, in particular, will not seek to make any changes in the provisions of title I. I adamantly oppose any amendments that will change farm policy. We made a contract with our farmers in the 2002 farm bill, and we, as legislators, have an obligation to honor that contract that we made with our farmers in 2002. We owe it to our farmers that the structure of this farm bill does not change until 2007, when reauthorization will be considered in Congress. My colleagues need to understand that if we have to redebate major provisions of the farm bill every time we engage in a budget reconciliation process, then we will rapidly reach a point where it will be impossible to gain needed support from U.S. agriculture. I reiterate that under the circumstances of the current deficit, I do not relish making these spending reductions, but I believe that we owe it to the American people to help reduce the growth of mandatory spending. With respect to the amendment offered by Senator Grassley, my goal in crafting the agriculture title of this reconciliation bill was to trim spending of agriculture programs rather than make sweeping policy changes. Senator Grassley's amendment makes significant policy changes. This debate should occur during reauthorization of the next farm bill. It is a complex issue that deserves thorough discussion when all of our farm policies are reviewed in 2007, not on the Senate floor during budget reconciliation. Let me first say that the chart that Senator Grassley put up I have no doubt is correct, when he says that 10 percent of the farmers in this country received 72 percent of all payments. The fact of the matter is, 10 percent of the farmers in this country produce more than 72 percent of the products that come off the farm. It is not surprising that the folks who produce crops are the farmers who are getting Government payments. That is what farm policy--good farm policy--is all about. Poor farm policy will provide payments to those folks who are not producing. But we have a good farm policy in place today. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized a commission on payment limitations for agriculture. This has been alluded to by Senator Grassley in his comments. The purpose of the Commission was to conduct a study on the potential impact of further payment limitations on direct payments, countercyclical payments, marketing assistance loan benefits on farm income, land values, rural communities, agribusiness infrastructure, planning decisions of producers affected, and supply and prices of covered and other agricultural commodities. This is a very broad array of issues which was to be looked at by this Commission. Here is the first recommendation that the Commission stated, the Commission that Senator Grassley previously alluded to: The 2002 farm bill establishes farm payment programs including payment limits through the 2007 crop year. While farm bills can be changed, their multiyear nature provides stability for production agriculture. Producers, their lenders and other agribusiness firms make long-term investment decisions based on this multiyear legislation. Consequently, if substantial changes are to be made in payment limits, payment eligibility criteria, or regulations administering payment limits, such changes should be part of the reauthorization in the next farm bill. Basically what the Commission that Senator Grassley alluded to is saying is in 2002 we entered into a contract with farmers all across America--in Iowa, in Georgia, in Arkansas, in California--wherever they may be. Based upon the contract this body agreed to with farmers across America, those farmers went to their bankers, to their equipment manufacturers or retailers, to any number of other individuals who own land, they entered into rent agreements, they entered into loan agreements and long-term purchase agreements for farm equipment. I might mention, farm equipment today, whether it is in Iowa or Georgia, is not cheap. A cotton picker in Georgia costs about $250,000. I am sure a soybean combine costs just about that much also, even though you can use it for corn and, by changing heads, other commodities such as wheat. A cotton picker can be used for one thing, and that is to pick cotton. But we made a contract with those farmers, and they, in turn, made obligations with other individuals based upon the contract we had given them. Now some of my colleagues want to go back and reopen the farm bill and have the debate which we had in 2002, the last time there was a vote on the Senate floor. The House has not taken up this issue. The House understands what the obligation of their body is. But here we are, trying to reopen this bill one more time. Let me tell you specifically what farmers are going to be faced with if this amendment should pass. Senator Grassley refers to the fact that he is reducing payment limit caps from $360,000 down to $250,000 per year. That is right. That is a debate that we had during consideration of the 2002 farm bill. It is an issue we will debate again in 2007. In fact, because of comments from Senator Grassley as well as others who feel strongly about this, we reduced the caps in the 2002 farm bill from $450,000 in the 1996 farm bill down to $360,000; we reduced it by $90,000. We will have that debate in 2007. That is the time to argue for lower payment limits. In addition to that, the lower payment limits that are provided in this amendment will reduce direct payments from their current level of $40,000 down to $20,000. So whether you are an Iowa corn farmer or you are a Georgia peanut farmer or a California cotton farmer, your direct payments are going to be cut in half in the middle of the stream, even though you have made commitments out there which you are going to have to honor. You signed notes with your banker, with John Deere, AGCO or whoever it might be, to purchase equipment. Your direct payments are going to be cut in half. Let me tell you exactly how that works. Last year, there were $12.5 billion in farm payments made. Guess where 10 percent or $1.3 billion of those farm payments went. It went to the State of Iowa, to farmers in Iowa, because they had a tough year last year. Because of the high yields of corn, the price dropped significantly, and under the countercyclical programs, Iowa farmers got 10 percent of all payments. Under the rationale Senator Grassley has put up on this chart here, that this is unfair because 10 percent of the farmers get 72 percent of the payments--10 percent of the payments went to one State. Do I think that is unfair? Absolutely not. Because that is the way the farm bill was designed. When Iowa farmers have it tough, we have an obligation to extend a helping hand to them. When folks in Georgia have a tough time in agriculture, or in Arkansas or in Texas, we have an obligation to extend a helping hand. When times are good, yields are good and prices are good, farm payments are very low. In fact, when the 2002 farm bill was passed, there was a lot of criticism coming from the same newspaper editorials to which Senator Grassley just alluded. One of them is in my State. I wear any negative editorial from the Atlanta Constitution as a badge of honor because they are anti any major industry in our State, including the No. 1 industry, which is agriculture. In the 2002 farm bill, we established good policy for the countercyclical payments to be made in those tough years. It was projected by CBO that we would spend $52 billion over the first 3 years of the farm bill, and that is the figure that was continually alluded to by editorials and those who were critics of the farm bill--not necessarily for the first 3 years, but that was a provision in the farm bill that was the most criticized. The fact is, even though it was projected that we would spend $52 billion, we had good yields and good prices all across farm country, and our farmers and ranchers only received $37 billion. So we had savings of $15 billion. Have you seen any of these editorials from these newspapers saying thank you to the American farmer and the American rancher for saving us $15 billion? Absolutely not. But here again we are, in spite of the fact that we have had these savings, we are coming back now and saying: Sorry guys, we want to dip into your pocket a little bit more. We want to change your program, irrespective of what commitments you have made, and we are going to change your farm program and we are going to change your farm bill in midstream instead of letting it run through 2006 and 2007 and renegotiate the farm bill in 2007 as we are required to do right now. I have strong objections to this amendment, not just because I think good agricultural policy is going to be affected by this, because I as a Member of the Senate do not think it is fair to look American farmers and ranchers in the eye and say: Look, I know we made a commitment to you, but sorry, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to change the way we do business. We are not going to honor the commitment we made to you. That is wrong. It is wrong for America, and it is certainly wrong for American agriculture. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.