Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2005. With the introduction of this important legislation, we are able to acknowledge our Nation's rich heritage of hunting. The purpose of this bill is to pass that legacy on to future generations by protecting and preserving the rights of our Nation's sportsmen and women. In 2001, over 13 million Americans contributed over $20.6 billion to the U.S. economy while hunting--a true recreational activity. Many believe that in order to hunt you must own land, but that is not true. I believe that hunting should be available as a recreational activity for everyone. I have been an avid outdoor sportsman since my adulthood. I am also an avid conservationist, like most other hunters. Recreational hunting provides many opportunities to spend valuable time with children, just as I do with my son. He has been hunting since he was a young boy where he discovered and learned to appreciate one of the Earth's greatest treasures, nature. Over the years, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to wildlife conservation, by purchasing licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as paying excise taxes on goods used by hunters. Since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt, father of the conservation movement, sportsmen and women have been and will continue to be some of the greatest supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation practices in the U.S. Hunters need to be recognized for the vital role they play in conservation in this country. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act will do just that. This bill formalizes a policy by which the Federal Government will support, promote, and enhance recreational hunting opportunities, as permitted under State and Federal law. Further, the bill mandates that Federal public land and water are to be open to access and use for recreational hunting where and when appropriate. I should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open all national parks to hunting. As I mentioned, the goal is simple--I want recreational hunting on our public land to be available to the citizens of this country where and when appropriate. It is crucial that the tradition of hunting is protected and that the valuable contributions that hunters have made to conservation in this country are recognized. And, we want to ensure that Federal land management decisions and their actions result in a ``no net loss of hunting opportunities'' on our public lands. This bill allows Congress to address this issue and to honor our Nation's sportsmen and women.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Delaware for his terrific work on this and other issues. Without his assistance this compromise would not have come together. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, first of all, that Senator Harkin be given 5 minutes following my comments.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has held two exhaustive hearings on the nomination of Tom Dorr to be Under Secretary of Rural Development. One of those hearings was held under the previous chairman's direction and a subsequent hearing was held earlier this year during my tenure as chairman, from which two issues were raised. The issues have been thoroughly explained by the Senator from Iowa in his previous comments, and based upon the two significant--and I do not want to minimize them--concerns the Senator from Iowa has, we have made a presentation. When I say ``we,'' the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, has been invaluable in helping us work through this process. Over the past 24 hours we have had conversations with Mr. Dorr and based upon those conversations, we have a letter in hand dated today to me as chairman of the committee, in which Mr. Dorr basically acknowledges a statement he made in 1999 that raised concerns of some people. He has rendered a public apology regarding the comments he made. He further says in this statement: Regarding farm program payment issues, what I did was wrong. I regret I did it. If I had to do it over, I would not have filed my farming operations as I did with the Farm Service Agency. I hope other farmers learn from what I did. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that no time be charged against either side.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa that he has been very diligent in his pursuit of this. As someone who has been integrally involved in American agriculture for almost 40 years, I appreciate his diligence because we need to make sure that people who are in the administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are respected and that they are the types of individuals who we need in these positions. I know Mr. Dorr. I have seen Mr. Dorr in action, so to speak, in his position that he has been in for the last 4\1/2\ years. He is well respected across the country in the agriculture community because of the great work he has done. He is qualified for this position and I am going to support his nomination. Before I yield 5 minutes to Senator Harkin, which I will do, I would be happy to yield to my friend from Delaware for any comments he wishes to make.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Second, I ask unanimous consent that the pending cloture motion be vitiated, provided further that upon the use or yielding back of the remaining debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the nomination. I further ask consent that following that vote the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on Calendar No. 102, the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation and that the vote be by voice; provided further that, following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that none of the funds made available under this act may be used to provide assistance to any country whose government has notified the Department of State of its refusal to extradict to the United States an individual who is charged with a crime in the United States of America, where the penalty is life in prison without parole or less. A young man from Georgia was killed on the streets of Washington, DC, in 2002. He was a young Marine Corps officer. He was a member of the White House guard. A Nicaraguan, after he was charged with the offense, went back to Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan Government now refuses to extradict this individual to the United States to be charged with this crime he committed while he was here. What we are doing today is taking tax funds from the mother and the father of this young man who was killed and sending them to Nicaragua. That is wrong. This amendment will not allow that to happen. It is a great amendment. I urge agreement of the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the appropriations bill for State and Foreign Operations in regard to an issue that is very troubling to me. 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 that fugitive. In some instances, countries will refuse extradition. A common reason is where the prosecutors in the United States intend to seek the death penalty. Oftentimes, the prosecutors will waive the death penalty in order for the extradition to proceed successfully. I suppose this is an understandable bargain because not all countries around the world accept capital punishment. I am greatly concerned, however, about other instances where extradition is denied. For example, let me explain what happened to the son of a man named David Fulton, who is a constituent of mine from 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, Corporal 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 killed. After an investigation by the District of Columbia 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. If Nicaragua refuses to turn this murder suspect over to the U.S. authorities so he can be brought to justice in the United States, where this heinous crime occurred, then Nicaragua should not receive any financial aid from the United States under the appropriations bill now before the Senate. Nicaragua's constitutional ban on extradition of its citizens who are fugitives from justice is simply no excuse. That law needs to change if they want to continue to receive American aid. Mr. President, let me point out another situation in which extradition of criminal suspects has been frustrated in recent times; that is, where countries will not extradite fugitives not because they face the death penalty but because they face life in prison without parole. For example, in October 2001, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that extradition of a person from Mexico who faces life imprisonment in the United States would violate the Mexican Constitution's bar on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision has resulted in a serious setback to the United States-Mexico so-called bilateral relationship. Since that court decision, the Mexican Government has asked the United States for assurances that life imprisonment would not be imposed on persons extradited to this country. In the absence of such assurance, they refused to extradite. The impact of the Mexican Supreme Court decision has been ``severe,'' as described by the Department of Justice. Not only have extradition requests been denied by the courts, but many prosecutors hesitate to seek extradition due to the requirement of lessening a sentence. Costa Rica, Spain, Venezuela, and Portugal have also sought non- imposition of life sentences. Some of these countries have even set term limits for the maximum number of years a criminal faces before they will extradite. In Costa Rica, it is 50 years; in Venezuela, it is 30 years; in Portugal, it is 20 years. My amendment reads simply as follows: None of the funds made available in this Act for the Department of State, other than funds made available in title III under the heading ``International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,'' may be used to provide assistance to any country whose government has notified the Department of State of its refusal to extradite to the United States an individual, or has not within a reasonable period of time responded to a request for extradition to the United States of an individual, charged with committing a criminal offense in the United States for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or a lesser term of imprisonment, regardless of his or her citizenship status. My intent in offering this amendment 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, which I submit to you offers the greatest due process protections to those who stand accused of a crime of any country in the world. Mr. President, I applaud the House of Representatives for recently passing similar amendments to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill that will deny U.S. aid to countries that refuse to extradite fugitive criminal suspects to the United States. My colleague, Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia, offered such an amendment in the House, and it passed by a vote of 294 to 132. Likewise, Congressman Bob Beauprez of Colorado offered an amendment that would withhold funds to any country that refuses to extradite a fugitive cop-killer suspect. His amendment passed on a vote of 327 to 98. The thought behind my amendment, as well as those passed by our colleagues in the House, is that financial assistance from the United States is a privilege--a privilege that can and should be revoked where a recipient country refuses to extend to the United States the simple courtesy of sending back those who have been charged with breaking our laws. These fugitives should not be allowed to seek refuge under the laws of countries who would purport to be our friends. Friendship should be reciprocal and, consequently, privileges like foreign aid can be revocable. The bottom line on my amendment is that we should not spend the tax dollars of hard-working Americans to assist countries that don't want to treat us with the respect that a friendship deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1271, which is at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order to offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, my wife Julianne and I express our deepest sympathies to those who lost loved ones and those injured in the terrorist attacks in London last Thursday. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. The terrorists who claim allegiance to al-Qaida undertook these atrocious acts in response to the United Kingdom's unflinching, courageous support for the global war on terrorism. Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British people have stood along side the United States and the other members of the coalition in the war on terrorism. This is a reminder that we must always be vigilant against those who wish to attack our freedom and our way of life. We must not waiver in our resolve to pursue and bring to justice those who commit these heinous crimes I add my support to Monday's passing of S. Res. 193, which expressed ``sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks.'' At the time of the vote, I was delayed in returning to Washington because of Hurricane Dennis. Had I been in present for that vote, I would have voted in favor of the resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be charged against that of Senator Grassley, please.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Specifically, if the farm bill import trigger is exceeded and the domestic market does not need additional quantities, then the excess imported sugar, up to an amount equivalent to the DR- CAFTA imports, will be purchased by the Commodity Credit Corporation and made available for conversion into ethanol. Excess sugar above the trigger in the DR-CAFTA amount would be precluded entry by payment to exporters or preferably directed to other nonfood uses, such as additional ethanol production. I think this is a very important development, since it is the first time the Department is committing itself to a sucrose-to-ethanol program. The Department will also conduct a feasibility study examining the economics of sucrose-based ethanol. The study will be completed and submitted to the Congress not later than July 1, 2006. This should be enough time for us to use the information contained in the study to develop a long-term future program for the sugar industry in the next farm bill. On Tuesday of this week, we passed a very historic bill in this body. Our country has the greatest natural resources of any country in the world, but yet we have never established a long-term energy policy. For the first time in the history of the country we passed an Energy bill that will move us in the direction of becoming less dependent on foreign imports of oil for our petroleum and other fuel needs in this country. A major part of that Energy bill was a provision for alternative fuel resources like ethanol. In fact, there is a provision in there for the production of 8 billion gallons of ethanol per year in this country, which would be great if we could produce that amount and have it available all across America and not in the limited areas where it now is used. The reason it is in limited areas today is because we simply do not have the production of organic-based material to provide ethanol all across America. But with this provision that has been negotiated as a part of this agreement with the Secretary and USTR, we are going to take another crop, sugar, and we are going to convert sugar into ethanol in much the same way that we convert corn into ethanol, so we can have a greater supply of an alternative fuel, other than gasoline, for use by the American consumer. Under this agreement, the Secretary will have the ability to meet any changing domestic market conditions. If the amount of sugar provided by domestic growers, plus the minimum import requirement, is insufficient to meet the domestic market's needs and imports sufficient to do so will exceed the farm bill import trigger, then those imports will be allowed and no sugar would be diverted for conversion to ethanol. Another important aspect of this agreement will ensure that the USDA will review all U.S. Customs, Bureau of Census, and other import data to monitor imports throughout any given year. Many of us have heard criticism with regard to past trade agreements about lax enforcement and implementation of their provisions to the detriment of our producers. This will help address those concerns. In spite of the letter from Secretary Johanns and the assurances of the administration, the sugar industry opposes this agreement and will not support passage of this trade agreement. While I may disagree with their conclusions, that is their right. I want to say, at this time, that we have had a number of meetings between Members of the House, Members of the Senate, members of the industry--which have included USTR and other administration officials, including Secretary Johanns. We have had meetings with them and without them. At every single crossing, the sugar industry has negotiated in good faith and they have been very straightforward and above board with us. I commend those men. It is a great country that we live in that will allow us to dialog over an issue that is so important, as is this, to those farmers, to the Members of the House, and the Members of the Senate, as well as to others who have a significant interest in this, and to come out at the end of the day with an agreement with which some of us agree but with which others still have the opportunity to disagree. This agreement can be a real building block for sugar provisions in the next farm bill. Let me emphasize that my concerns have been fully satisfied, and I do plan to vote in favor of DR-CAFTA. This trade agreement is also important to many people in my home State of Georgia. I have heard from many workers who will reap the benefits of increased trade with Central America and the Dominican Republic. Reducing trade barriers will not only enhance American economic growth but will greatly benefit businesses in Georgia as well, by allowing more Georgia-made products to be sold into Central America. The DR-CAFTA region is an important trading partner with Georgia. Georgia's exports to the DR-CAFTA region increased $113 million from 2000 to 2004, and collectively the countries of DR-CAFTA were Georgia's 9th largest export destination. According to the Department of Commerce, the DR-CAFTA will help Georgia's textile manufacturers, chemical and paper manufacturers, as well as Georgia's farmers, because DR-CAFTA provides U.S. suppliers with access to these markets and levels the playing field with other competitors. Let me take a moment to praise the efforts of the Secretary Mike Johanns and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman for their hard work and their tireless efforts. These officials addressed each and every issue that we discussed. Without their good-faith efforts, this agreement simply would not have been possible. Special note should also go to my good friend, Senator Norm Coleman. His leadership and hard work in this effort has only increased my enormous respect for him. We have worked very closely over the past couple of weeks helping lay the foundation for a long-term and profitable future for the U.S. sugar industry. He is a workhorse, and I want him on my side every time. Let me conclude by saying I am very pleased with what we have crafted. This agreement will protect the sugar industry for the next 2\1/2\ years, through the life of this current farm bill. It deserves the support of the Congress. I look forward to voting for DR-CAFTA.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I first want to say thanks to my good friend from Minnesota for his kind comments. I am going to have more to say about him in a few minutes. The one thing we all find out in this great institution that we have the privilege of serving in is that everybody in their own way represents, in a very strong manner, the constituents who sent them here. Nobody has represented their constituents better over the last several weeks relative to this issue of CAFTA, and particularly the sugar issue, like Norm Coleman has. Senator Coleman has been a true advocate for the interests of his State. They need to erect a big sugar beet for him and call it the Senator Coleman Memorial back in Minnesota. I rise today to support the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement or DR-CAFTA. Earlier this year, I expressed opposition to DR-CAFTA since a provision in the agreement violates a part of the 2002 farm bill. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have a responsibility to the agricultural community to ensure Congress fulfills the commitments that we made to farmers and ranchers back in 2002 when we negotiated the farm bill and when it was passed by the House, by the Senate, and signed into law by the President. My specific concern centered on a provision that severely impacts the implementation of the farm bill by increasing sugar imports into the United States. We grow very little sugar in my State. This is not a parochial interest to me. Senator Coleman is right, perhaps I should have negotiated a peach, tobacco, or cotton ethanol provision in here. My whole point in this matter is that we have to maintain the integrity of the farm bill. It could just as easily have been a corn issue, wheat issue, or a peanut issue, but it just happened to be sugar. This could potentially result in exceeding the import trigger provided for in the farm bill. Exceeding the import trigger is of utmost concern because it is designed to manage domestic supplies and ensure the program operates at a no net cost to the U.S. taxpayer. The DR-CAFTA could compromise that trigger when combined with existing commitments to Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. In addition, the so-called compensation mechanism in the DR-CAFTA does not provide any additional comfort. I do not think it is a good idea to pay other countries not to import sugar into the United States when we can use those resources to promote fuel security here at home. I believe we all should be chastised back home if we let that happen. There have been several long weeks of discussions between the administration, which included the White House, USDA and USTR officials, Senators and House Members, and industry representatives. After much hard work, the administration has agreed to a proposal that addresses my concerns relative to this trade agreement. Secretary Johanns has sent me a letter that provides assurances that the sugar program will operate as we originally intended through the 2007 crop year. Furthermore, the Secretary committed to holding the sugar program harmless for the next 2\1/2\ years, to the completion of this farm bill, from any harmful effects of CAFTA, of NAFTA, and of any other trade agreement that may be negotiated during the interim period. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Secretary's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would be pleased to enter into such a colloquy.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am willing to consider your proposals as part of the reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act. In addition, you have my assurance that I will work with the leadership to accommodate the Senators' desire to address these issues when this matter comes before the full Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I stand before this body tonight with a heavy heart. One of Georgia's best and brightest young soldiers has paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of his country in the War on Terror. Tonight the people of Ellijay, GA are grieving the loss of one of their bravest sons on the battlefield of freedom. In our Nation's noble struggle to spread democracy, First Lieutenant Noah Harris gave his life in Baqubah, Iraq. Noah, a member of the 2nd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, died of wounds suffered as a result of an explosion near his armored vehicle around midnight, June 17, 2005. Noah's death came one week before his birthday. Most young men his age would be making plans for a celebration; however, this young hero choose the battlefield instead. Nearly 24 years old, this brave patriot was eager to serve his country and to spread our message of freedom and democracy to oppressed nations. His tragic and untimely death is a testimony of his passion and dedication to freedom's call. The only child of Rick and Lucy Harris, Noah was a state champion wrestler and the captain of his high school football team. A natural leader and athlete, Noah took these skills to the University of Georgia where he was the captain of the cheerleading squad. As a 1999 graduate of Gilmer High School, Noah's gifts were not merely athletic. He was honored as a scholar athlete during the Peach Bowl. These are but a few of the admirable accomplishments and achievements that endeared Noah to all of those with whom he came in contact. While a student at UGA, Noah was motivated by the attack on our country on September 11th. Noah walked in to the ROTC office immediately after 9/11 asking to serve. Told he was too far along in his studies, Noah persisted until he was allowed to join the ROTC. You see, Noah believed passionately that there were no exemptions from serving in the cost of freedom. A personal longing to promote liberty and help the Iraqi people who had long suffered under Saddam Hussein were a constant theme in Noah's letters home to his family and friends, but ever humble, Noah shrugged off the gravity of his commitment adopting the simple mantra ``I do what I can'' in response to being called a hero. Noah believed that a greater good was worth fighting for and recognized the power of leading by example which exemplifies the qualities in each one of our Nation's treasured soldiers. Noah's vision and passion to achieve a greater good for the people of Iraq is an excellent model for those who come after him to continue the fight against freedom's foes. Noah aspired to serve in public office, and he was also interested in real estate as a personal career. A passionate advocate for the mission in Iraq, Noah expressed the urgency of the cause when he was home visiting friends and family during his leave in May. It is clear that Noah had a caring heart, as his friends recount that he was known to give Beanie Babies to the children in Iraq. In tribute to Noah, members of the Gilmer County community will assemble at Gilmer High School Friday June 24 at 2 p.m. to distribute yellow ribbons across Gilmer County in preparation for the celebration of Noah's life on Saturday June 25, what would be his 24th birthday. The ribbons will line highway 52 East in Ellijay to Highway 515, which stretches from the county line to the Ellijay First United Methodist Church, the site of the memorial service. Another soldier in the vehicle was killed, and the driver was injured severely in the explosion. Noah and his fellow soldiers were transporting two captured insurgents during night operations in the Baquba neighborhood of Buhritz. Noah's fellow soldier, Corporal William A. Long of Lilburn, GA, also died from injuries sustained in the blast. Three years ago, after talking with his stepfather and stepbrother, who are former members of the military, William joined the Army. After his enlistment expired, he was very aware that his unit would be deployed to Iraq. His desire to serve our country and free the Iraqi people, however, led him to re-enlist. A resident of Atlanta for most of his life and a Berkmar High School alumnus, William was well-mannered and well-liked by all. His family describes him as a ``perfectionist'' and ``basketball-lover.'' Ironically, before going to Iraq, William participated in more than 700 funerals as a member of the prestigious ``Old Guard.'' Many of those funerals were held at Arlington National Cemetery, the cemetery where William will be buried. President Ronald Reagan once said: Putting people first has always been America's secret weapon. That secret weapon drives the American spirit to dream and dare, and take great risks for a greater good. Noah and William represented the true heart of servant leadership. Their desire was to first, serve others, not themselves. My wife Julianne and I wish to extend our sympathies and our prayers to both Noah's and William's family, friends, and fellow soldiers. Their sacrifice will not be lost or forgotten. May God bless Noah Harris and William Long.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commend an outstanding patriot and American, Major General Janet Hicks, the Commanding General of the United States Army Signal Center at Fort Gordon, GA, the first female Chief of the Signal Corps in the history of the Army and the first female Commanding General of the U.S. Army Signal Center at Fort Gordon, GA. General Hicks will be retiring from the Army on July 15, 2005, after a 30 year distinguished military career. Originally from Iowa, General Hicks was commissioned into the Army's Signal Corps on March 17, 1975, after receiving her bachelor of arts degree in French language and literature from Simpson College in Central Iowa. Her first assignments took her to Korea, then to Hawaii with the 25th ``Tropical Lightning'' Infantry Division, where she served as a platoon leader, division radio signal officer and company commander. Following her attendance at the Advanced Signal Officers Course at Fort Gordon, she joined the faculty and staff there where she taught basic and advanced officer courses. General Hicks was then reassigned to Alaska with the Information Systems Command and the 6th Infantry Division in key leadership positions before joining the staff of the U.S. Central Command at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL. Recognizing her outstanding leadership qualities, General Hicks was designated for Battalion Command and assigned to command the 125th Signal Battalion, 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks, HI, in June 1992. Following her command there, she was selected to attend the Army's War College before being posted as the Chief of the Army's Signal Branch at Personnel Command in Alexandria, VA. In June 1997 she was promoted to Colonel and assumed command of the 516th Signal Brigade in Hawaii, with concurrent duties as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Management, US Army Pacific. In June 2000, she was promoted to Brigadier General and became the Director of Command, Control, Communications and Computer Systems, the J-6 for the United States Pacific Command, covering the joint communications for all of the Pacific Theatre. Major General Hicks assumed command of the United States Army Signal Center and School and Fort Gordon on August 7, 2002. Throughout her career General Hicks has been decorated with many military and civilian awards and citations. But, completing her military career as the Army's Chief of Signal is truly an awesome responsibility and honor. Since assuming command General Hicks has improved the training of soldiers, campaigned for better equipment and upgraded the facilities and quality of life for soldiers and their families on Fort Gordon. She also claims that besides her demanding military life, she credits her successes to two wonderful people in her life--her husband Ron and her daughter Jennifer. Throughout her military career General Hicks has always taken the initiative, faced the challenges and resolved problems. Her leadership style has always impressed her superiors. She has always dealt with people--young soldiers, senior military leaders and civilians with equity, candidness and resolve. She is highly respected by the soldiers of her command, people of the Central Savannah Regional Area and the citizens of Georgia. I feel that it is most appropriate to recognize this outstanding American for her 30 years of dedicated and honorable service to this Nation as a military leader. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in thanking and commending Major General Hicks, her husband Ron and their daughter Jennifer on the completion of a distinguished military career. We also wish her and her family the best in their well deserved retirement and a happy and prosperous future.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a very special group of people in my home State who will soon celebrate an important 1-year anniversary. Deep in the heart of Georgia, right in the middle of my former House district, a small Congregational Methodist Church has been ministering to the people in their community for more than 150 years. This small town church is making a big difference in many lives across my State. Since 1852, this group of Christians has faithfully gathered each Sunday in the halls of a humble church building to worship God and seek His guidance for their lives. It is clear that God has heard and answered their prayers. One year ago, under the leadership of my good friend of Dr. Benny Tate, Rock Springs Church in Milner opened the doors to their new sanctuary--a room that seats more than double that of the previous sanctuary. The new sanctuary has equipped this thriving church with the tools they need to minister to even more folks than ever in the long life of this church. I am personally encouraged by the dedication of this congregation to do whatever it takes to see that they could provide a place of worship for the growing number of people attending Sunday services. As the son of a minister, I spent my youth traveling across the southeast, as my dad served in the Episcopal Church. I know first hand the challenges of church leadership and the joys of seeing God answer prayers. Dr. Tate, known by his friends as Pastor Benny, has demonstrated remarkable vision and direction as the head pastor of Rock Springs Church. My wife Julianne and I have had the opportunity to attend Rock Springs Church as Pastor Benny's guests on ``Friend Day'' and the parishioners there always make us feel welcome. I am proud to recognize my friends at Rock Springs Church in celebration of this momentous occasion and encourage each new member to reflect on the offerings and sacrifice on the part of those faithful few who helped make this new sanctuary a reality.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has been at the front of our country's fight for civil rights. Born a son of sharecroppers in Troy, AL, John grew up to become one of the leading proponents fighting on the frontlines of the civil rights movement. John grew up listening to speeches from the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and observing many courageous acts, such as the Montgomery bus boycotts. Through those examples, Lewis could no longer stand idly by while others suffered for his sake. He was motivated to become an active participant in these historical events. From organizing peaceful demonstrations, to riding in the fronts of buses, Lewis was a key leader and played a dynamic role in the civil rights movement. From 1963-1966 Lewis served as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. In 1963 Lewis was named one of the Big Six Civil Rights leaders along with Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and A. Phillip Randolph. In August 1963, John Lewis was a keynote speaker at the momentous March on Washington where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech. On March 7, 1965, Lewis helped the now pivotal voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, AL. Sustaining physical injuries for the principles he believed in, John Lewis remained steadfast in his commitment to promoting human rights in the United States. The violent reactions by Alabama state troopers that day sparked an outcry and eventually served to facilitate passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. President, as a congressman, statesman, humanitarian, the Nation has benefited greatly from the lifelong contributions of John Lewis. I am proud to introduce legislation honoring John Lewis.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in hope that the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, will engage in a colloquy with myself, as well as Senator Smith of Oregon, regarding some concerns we have about the renewable portfolio standard amendment. While I support the development of renewable energy and other clean energy resources, I believe that each region of the country has the ability to develop these resources in a variety of ways. In fact, at least 21 States already have a State RPS, and many other States have programs to promote renewable energy, all of this being accomplished without a Federal mandate. The problem with the RPS amendment is that it imposes a one-size- fits-all mandate on the whole country without regard for whether the requirement is technologically or economically feasible. Not every State or region has the same amount of renewable energy available to comply with the rigid 10-percent RPS mandate the amendment would impose. As a result, utilities in States that do not have enough renewable energy will need to comply with the RPS mandate by purchasing credits at a cost of 1\1/2\ cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. President, 1\1/2\ cents may not sound like a lot of money, but when it is multiplied by the number of kilowatts needed to comply with a 10- percent RPS by 2020, it can add up to billions of dollars--billions of dollars in what should be called a tax on consumers. I call it a tax because that is essentially what it is. It is dollars that will come out of the pockets of consumers and go straight to the Federal Government. That makes no sense at all. If the Government wants more renewable energy, it does not make sense to take billions of dollars away from consumers in a region simply because they do not have access to adequate renewable resources at a reasonable cost. If there must be an RPS provision in this Energy bill--and I do not believe it is necessary--it must, at a minimum, allow more flexibility for each State and region. I ask that the distinguished chairman commit to work with me in the conference to modify the provision to allow greater flexibility and to protect consumers from unnecessary cost increases. In particular, I ask that we work together to address the regional issues inherent in any such provision and ensure that States that do not have the technological capabilities to comply with the RPS mandate are not penalized. I note that even many supporters of a Federal RPS mandate recognize the need for State-by-State flexibility. The Senator from Oregon does have a comment relative to this issue, and I yield to the Senator from Oregon.