Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment will prohibit any fiscal year 2005 funds from being used to terminate the C-130J multi-year procurement contract. In hearings before this body over the past several weeks Department of Defense personnel have admitted that when they made the decision to terminate this contract in December of last year that they did not have all the information needed to make that decision. Since PBD 753 was drafted in December 2004, we have learned that the cost to terminate this contract is approximately $1.6 billion. Also over the past several months we have seen the C-130J, KC-130J, as well as C-130s operated by our coalition partners in Iraq perform superbly throughout USCENTCOM. To date, C-130Js in Iraq have flown over 400 missions, with a mission capable rate of 93 percent and have performed all assigned missions successfully. KC-130Js have flown 789 hours in Iraq with mission capable rates in excess of 95 percent. Nevertheless, the Department of Defense has not yet submitted the amended budget request for this program that they discussed during hearings. That is why this amendment is necessary. I am introducing this amendment to make sure that this program, which is performing extremely well and which meets validated Air Force and Marine Corps requirements, is not prematurely cancelled and that the Department of Defense follows through with their commitment to complete the multi-year procurement contract. There are some issues with the current contract being a commercial contract versus a traditional military contract. My colleague, Senator McCain, and I agree that a traditional contract is more appropriate in this case and applaud the Air Force's decision to begin transitioning the program in that direction. However, I think we can all agree, that regardless of how these planes are procured, that the United States military needs them and they are demonstrating their value to the warfighter, and to the taxpayer today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, doesn't the AgJOBS bill, as well as the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, recognize there is a need in this country for agricultural workers to do the job that is not being done by American workers today, and we are not displacing American workers?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Does the Chambliss-Kyl amendment not take the current H2-A program, which is very cumbersome and requires a lot of paperwork and requires the adverse effect wage rate to be paid, and streamline that program to where it is more easily usable by farmers who now simply don't use it because it is cumbersome? Does it alleviate some of the problems?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a hearing to consider the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development and to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. in SR-328A Russell Senate Office Building. Senator Saxby Chambliss will preside. For further information, please contact the Committee at 224-2035. committee on rules and administration

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I happen to agree with her 100 percent. She is exactly right. Not only are we going to see a flood of illegals coming across in greater numbers than what we have today, we are going to see status under the AgJOBS bill, which is pure and simple amnesty. But you are also going to have somewhere between 8 million and 13 million illegal aliens who are here today having the opportunity to become legalized. Just the fact that we don't know, as the Senator has alluded to, how many there are, with the difference being between 8 million and 13 million, that tells you how big the problem is. So I happen to agree with her, and I will simply tell her we are going to have an alternative--Senator Kyl and I--to the AgJOBS when we get to that. The Senator is exactly on target relative to these folks who are going to line up at the border.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chair. This body has a number of rules which have been in place for decades. Those are good and valid rules and need to be followed in most instances. But there comes a time when you have to look the American people in the eye and say: I know Americans sent a majority party to the Senate, and I know you want us to carry out the will of the American people but, unfortunately, even though it only takes 51 votes to confirm one of President Bush's judicial nominees, we have a Senate rule that says you have to have 60 votes before you get to the point where you only have to have 51 votes. It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out something is wrong with that rule, and it needs to be corrected. As we move into the consideration of these judges, I hope we will reach an accord so the integrity of this institution will be maintained. Hopefully, our rules can be maintained intact. But it is imperative we do the will of the American people, which is move toward the confirmation of the President's judicial nominees as required by the Constitution of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss an issue that is very dear to my heart. I practiced law for 26 years before I came to Congress and I had the pleasure of trying many cases before any number of judges, both at the State and Federal level, and I am very much concerned about what is happening with our judiciary today. For the last 2 years, I served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and have observed what obviously happened during those 2 years, but during the last few months, as we entered into this new session and approached the confirmation of nominees who are being put forward by the President, I remain concerned about some things that are happening. I will start by noting again that never before in the history of the Senate has a minority of 41 Senators held up confirmation of a judicial nominee where a majority of Senators has expressed their support for that nominee. It is for this reason, if given the opportunity, I will vote in favor of changing our rules to allow confirmation of a judicial nominee by a simple majority because under the Constitution of the United States, the Senate is required to give its advice and consent to the President on his judicial nominees. The Senate can say no in regard to any particular nominee, but to do so we need an up-or-down vote to decide what advice we give the President. Failing to answer the question is shirking our constitutional role in the separation of powers scheme. The Constitution spells out in certain areas, such as passage of constitutional amendments and ratification of treaties, where more than a simple majority of Senators is required. Confirmation of judges is not one of these areas. The Senate rules have changed on several occasions over the years as to whether and in what circumstances a filibuster is allowed, but we have, unfortunately, come to a point in time where the filibuster is being abused to hold up judicial nominees on which we are required to act; that is, to say yes or no. I believe it is in violation of the Constitution. I want to take a point in fact relative to the circuit in which I practiced for a number of years, and that is what is happening today with regard to the judicial nominee to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Democrats have held up confirmation of the only nominee President Bush has made to the Eleventh Circuit Court which handles Federal appeals in my home State of Georgia as well as Alabama and Florida. As a result, on February 20 of last year, President Bush exercised his constitutional authority to make a recess appointment of Judge Bill Pryor, the former attorney general of the State of Alabama. This recess appointment is temporary in nature, but President Bush has renominated Judge Pryor in the 109th Congress for a permanent position on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I know we need to review with great care the qualifications of judicial nominees to ensure that they have established a record of professional competence, integrity, and the proper temperament for judicial service. I intend to vote for confirmation of Judge Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit for the following reasons: Since his recess appointment, Judge Pryor has gained the respect of his colleagues on the Eleventh Circuit without regard to political persuasions. This is no surprise to me because Judge Pryor is a tremendously selfless public servant who has worked very hard to help others both within and outside the scope of his official duties. In private life, he established a program called Mentor Alabama which provides adult role models for at-risk children, and he has personally acted as such a mentor. In his service as attorney general for the State of Alabama, Bill Pryor established a record of evenhanded enforcement of the law. A noteworthy example of his fairminded treatment of his public duties is his enforcement of Alabama abortion laws. Bill Pryor is personally opposed to abortion based on his deeply held faith as a Roman Catholic. However, in 1997, the Alabama Legislature enacted a ban on partial birth abortion that did not comport with the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Alabama statute prohibited abortions prior to as well as following viability of the fetus. Attorney General Pryor ordered law enforcement officials to enforce the law only insofar as it was consistent with the Supreme Court's precedents which encompassed only postviability situations. In so doing, he adopted the narrowest possible construction of the Alabama statute. Moreover, in the wake of September 11, 2001, many abortion clinics were receiving letters with threats of anthrax exposure. In response, Attorney General Pryor held a press conference in which he asserted that the Alabama law ``provides stern felony penalties for those who now prey upon the public anxiety over fears of anthrax and other potential dangers. We warn anyone who is tempted to do so that their deeds are not a joke and will not be treated as mild misbehavior, but as a despicable crime against their fellow citizens that will not be tolerated.'' At this crucial time in history, Bill Pryor's statement sent a clear message that anthrax threats against abortion clinics would be prosecuted vigorously. Despite his personal religious convictions, Bill Pryor has a keen knowledge of the Constitution's requirement that the Government make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In Chandler v. Siegleman, as attorney general he persuaded the Eleventh Circuit to vacate a district court injunction that prohibited student-initiated prayers in school. Acknowledging the constitutional distinction between student-led prayers and teacher-led prayers, Bill Pryor refused to argue on appeal in favor of the constitutionality of teacher-led prayers as was the position of then Alabama Governor Fob James. In addition, General Pryor rejected Governor James' suggestion that the State of Alabama argue that the first amendment was never incorporated by the 14th amendment and thus does not apply to the States. In sum, Bill Pryor has established an impressive record as a fair, diligent, and competent public servant. His nomination to the Eleventh Circuit enjoys strong bipartisan support in his home State of Alabama, and in my home State, our attorney general, the Honorable Thurbert Baker, a Democrat, has written in support of Bill Pryor's nomination. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop holding up the confirmation of President Bush's only nominee to the Eleventh Circuit by voting to move forward with Judge Pryor's nomination when it reaches the floor. Now let us look at another circuit. I just explained what the situation is with the Eleventh Circuit. Opposition to some of President Bush's nominees in other areas of the country such as the Ninth Circuit strikes me as odd because it directly contradicts what some Democrats have said in the past about the concept of balance on the courts. My friend from the other side of the aisle, the senior Senator from New York, acknowledged a couple of years ago in a speech on the Senate floor that the Ninth Circuit was ``by far the most liberal court in the country.'' To quote from the Congressional Record of March 13, 2003, Senator Schumer stated: I believe there has to be balance, balance on the courts. And I have said this many times, but there is nothing wrong with a Justice Scalia on the court if he is balanced by a Justice Marshall. I wouldn't want five Scalias, but one might make a good and interesting and thoughtful court with one Brennan. A Rehnquist should be balanced by a Marshall. Four of President Bush's nominees to the Ninth Circuit--Richard Clifton, Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, and Carlos Bea--have been confirmed and are now sitting on the Ninth Circuit. That is the good news. But Democrats refused to give an up-or-down vote to two of President Bush's nominees to the Ninth Circuit, or one-third of the judges he has nominated. When one considers that 14 out of the 26 active sitting judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were appointed by President Clinton and 2 of them were confirmed in the last year of his Presidency, the Judiciary Committee and the Senate in general treated President Clinton fairly with respect to the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, of the 28 total seats on the Ninth Circuit, 17 were Democratic nominees, 14 by President Clinton and 3 by President Jimmy Carter. We now have two remaining seats on the Ninth Circuit to fill, and we have seen two nominees from President Bush to fill these seats. The fairness that the Senate showed President Clinton's nominees has not been applied to all of President Bush's nominees, as the two nominees, Carolyn Kuhl and Bill Myers, have been filibustered despite their tremendous qualifications. President Clinton had 8 years in office and was able to put in over half the active judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I might add that some of these active judges turned out to be activist judges. But with due respect to my colleagues on the other side, it is time to balance out 17 Clinton and Carter nominees with qualified individuals such as Carolyn Kuhl and Bill Myers. That is the kind of balance we need on the Ninth Circuit. One of the reasons the Ninth Circuit needs some balance is the outrageous nature of some of the decisions coming from that bench. For example, in the 1996-1997 term, Judge Reinhart, a Carter appointee, was overturned six times in cases where he was the author of the majority opinion. To cite specific examples of outrageous cases of judicial activism, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has, first, barred children in public schools from voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance--that was in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, a 2002 case; second, initially barred California from holding a gubernatorial recall election notwithstanding a clear State statutory scheme and widespread popular support, which was a 2003 decision in the case of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley; third, invented a constitutional right to commit suicide, a 1996 decision, Compassion in Dying v. Glucksberg; and fourth, made it far more difficult to prosecute those who give material support to foreign terrorist organizations, the case of Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Department of Justice, a 2003 case. Also, this court struck down California's three strikes criminal sentencing law in the case of Andrade v. California in 2001 and only implemented the Supreme Court's reversal of that decision by a divided panel with Judge Reinhardt upholding the defendant's sentence only under the Supreme Court's ``compulsion'' and Judge Pregerson stating that ``in good conscience'' he could not follow the Supreme Court's decision. Lastly, that court held that a foreign national criminal apprehended abroad pursuant to a legally valid indictment was entitled to sue the U.S. Government for money damages, a 2003 case, Alvarez-Machain v. United States. I could go on, but there is no small wonder, then, that even Senator Schumer has stated: The Ninth Circuit is by far the most liberal court in the country. Unless this is the kind of activist court that Democrats want to preserve, it's time to at least allow an up-or-down vote on nominees like Carolyn Kuhl and Bill Myers to restore some balance. There have been two issues that have been raised by the other side during the debate and the filibuster by the other side of the aisle relative to the judicial nominees sent up by the President. One of those is the fact that filibustering Federal judges is not something that is new, and it is a contention of the other side of the aisle that Republicans initiated a filibuster on the nomination of Judge Abe Fortas back in the Johnson administration. I will once again set the record straight relative to exactly what happened, and I will quote because I want to make sure that we get this exactly right. This is from a statement made by the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, in some remarks that were made on the Senate floor on March 1, 2005. Senator Hatch stated as follows: Some have said that the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice was filibustered. Hardly. I thought it was, too, until I was corrected by the man who led the fight against Abe Fortas, Senator Robert Griffin of Michigan, who then was the floor leader for the Republican side and, frankly, the Democratic side because the vote against Justice Fortas, preventing him from being Chief Justice, was a bipartisan vote, a vote with a hefty number of Democrats voting against him as well. Former Senator Griffin told me and our whole caucus there never was a real filibuster because a majority would have beaten Justice Fortas outright. Lyndon Johnson, knowing that Justice Fortas was going to be beaten, withdrew the nomination. So that was not a filibuster. There had never been a tradition of filibustering majority-supported judicial nominees on the floor of the Senate until President Bush became President. I think that factual statement by Senator Hatch says it all relative to any issue concerning the contention that this is not the first time we have seen filibusters on the floor of the Senate. As we move into the consideration of these judges for confirmation, I am not sure what is going to come out from the other side. I have great respect, first of all, for this institution in which we serve. I am very humbled by the fact, as is every one of the 100 Senators here, that our respective States have seen fit to send us here to represent them. But as I traveled around the country last year, campaigning for President Bush, as well as for Senate nominees, I continuously heard from individuals--whether it was in a formal gathering or whether it was in an informal gathering such as, on a lot of occasions, being in airports, or sometimes even walking down the street--it was unbelievable the number of Americans, and I emphasize that these were not Republicans or Democrats in every instance, they were just Americans who were very much concerned about what is happening with respect to the judicial nominees on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, having heard the words of the majority leader relative to the delegation that was in Rome last week for the burial of Pope John Paul II, I think all Americans, as well as every other individual around the world, were truly moved by the work of this man over the years he served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Having been to Rome a couple of years ago and been in a service that Pope John Paul II celebrated, I, too, was very moved by the presence of this man. Certainly during his term as Pope he had a tremendous impact on the world, and this man is truly going to be missed as a leader, not just of the religious world but as the world leader that he was.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to take up to 20 minutes of the majority time, and I respectfully ask the President pro tempore to notify me when I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor U.S. Army 1LT Dan Thomas Malcom, Jr., who was killed proudly fighting for his country in Fallujah, Iraq, on November 10, 2004. A marine and Citadel graduate from McDuffie and Miller County, GA, Dan was 24 years old. First Lieutenant Dan Thomas Malcom, Jr., the son of Dan and Cherrie Malcom, was born April 4, 1979, in Augusta, GA. His father, Dan Senior, was a Marine Corps veteran of combat in Vietnam who tragically was killed in a construction accident just prior to Dan junior's birth. From the earliest age, Dan junior wanted to ``be a Marine like my Daddy''. Raised in McDuffie, then later Miller County, GA, Dan attended Miller County High School where he was a star student. Dan graduated from the Citadel in Charleston, SC, in 2001 where he was Lima Company executive officer. Dan was well respected by his classmates and known for his attention to his academic and military duties. Dan was commissioned into the Marine Corps upon graduation. Dan was serving his second tour in Iraq when, on November 10, 2004, he was killed by a sniper in Fallujah, a town infested with insurgents. The details of his death include the following: As the marines of 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry were clearing Fallujah of the insurgents, Dan's platoon was sent to a rooftop to provide supporting fire to marines maneuvering on the enemy. Dan's marines quickly found themselves under sniper attack from a nearby mosque. Dan left his safe position and led his entire platoon down a stair case to safety. As the last one to clear the rooftop, Dan was hit by a deflected bullet which bounced off his helmet. As Dan jumped down the stairwell, he was hit in the lower back by a second shot which killed him instantly. Dan was buried at Arlington Cemetery on 23 November 2004, where he rested with our Nation's honored dead. Dan Thomas Malcom, Jr., was all that America stands for. By his short life and through his bravery at the end we are enriched. Dan is survived by his mother, Mrs. Cherrie Malcom, and sister, Mrs. Dana Killebrew. It is our hope that the memory of his life will serve as a beacon for others to honor and remember. Dan Thomas Malcom, Jr., was a great American, a great marine, a great leader, and an outstanding young man. He and his comrades in Iraq deserve out deepest gratitude and respect as they go about the extraordinarily challenging but extraordinarily important job of rebuilding a country which will result in freedom and prosperity for millions of Iraqis. I join with Dan's family, friends, and fellow soldiers in mourning his loss and want them to know that Dan's sacrifice will not be lost or forgotten, but will truly make a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. A Matter of Priorities

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel Antonio R. Baines, upon his retirement after more than 20 years of distinguished service. Throughout his career, Colonel Baines has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions the Army provides in defense of our Nation. As a Congressional Legislative Liaison Officer in the office of the Secretary of the Army, many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Lieutenant Colonel Baines on a wide variety of Army issues and programs, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments. I commend his superb service to the United States Army and this great Nation. Lieutenant Colonel Antonio R. Baines, the son of Mr. Albert and Yolanda Baines of Jonesboro, GA, attended high school in Hephzibah, GA, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Signal Corps after graduating from North Georgia College in 1984. His first assignment was as the Battalion Signal Officer for the 6th Battalion, 37th Field Artillery, 2nd Infantry Division in Korea. He has served in multiple assignments within the United States, including two tours at Ft. Gordon, GA, and notably as the Signal Officer for 1st Squadron, 9th U.S. Calvary Regiment at Fort Lewis, WA, and the 82nd Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. Lieutenant Colonel Baines served two tours in Europe as the Signal Officer for the 3rd Battalion, 34th Armor Regiment in Stuttgart, Germany, and deployed to South West Asia as part of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Later as the Assistant Division Signal Officer for the 1st Infantry Division in Wurzburg, he again deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina. As a signaler, Lieutenant Colonel Baines excelled in a wide variety of leadership and staff assignments to include Platoon Leader, Battalion Adjutant, Company Commander, Brigade Adjutant and Battalion Executive Officer. In 1999, Lieutenant Colonel Baines was selected to be a Force Development Officer with assignment to the Pentagon. He served on the G-3 and G-8 staff as the Army's Systems Integrator for all tactical radios systems. He was subsequently selected as a Congressional Legislative Liaison Officer in the office of the Secretary of the Army, Congressional Legislative Liaison, Programs Division from June 2001 through June 2005. Lieutenant Colonel Baines maintained constant liaison with the Professional Staff Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on issues relating to Army Procurement programs focusing on Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Information Technology, and Ammunition Procurement. In 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Baines was selected to be the team chief of the hardware section of the Programs Division. Throughout these assignments, Lieutenant Colonel Baines provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to both the Army and Congress. Antonio's actions and counsel were invaluable to Army leaders and Members of Congress as they considered the impact of important issues. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Baines, his wife Peggy, and his entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contribution that they have made throughout his honorable military career. Congratulations on completing an exceptional and extremely successful career.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is correct; that the cuts in agricultural spending now constitute 16 percent. That is another good reason why we should have supported Medicaid savings. We wouldn't be in this position now. What we committed to do relative to agriculture savings is, first of all, not to change the policy in the farm bill. We are not going to do that. We are simply not going to change policy. Lastly, let me just say that over the last 3 years, farmers themselves have saved $5 billion per year from the projected farm bill expenditures in 2002. If we cannot find $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, then something is wrong. We are going to find it. We are going to treat every commodity fairly and equitably, and every title of the farm bill fairly and equitably in achieving these savings. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to start out today by acknowledging the cooperation and thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee for working together with those of us who have real concerns about agriculture and, particularly, relative to, obviously, the numbers that are contained in the President's budget and the final number agreed upon between the Budget Committee, as well as the Agriculture Committee. I thank my friend, Senator Burns from Montana, for his outstanding input into this and his persuasive arguments. It is because of things like that that we have been able to negotiate this number down to something that we think is now fair and reasonable. Let me, first of all, say that I, too--like my Democratic colleagues on the other side alluded to earlier--came to the floor immediately after the President's budget was sent to the Hill. He was extremely critical of that budget relative to the requested deficit savings in agriculture. I, too, was at the table when we negotiated the 2002 farm bill. On the House side, we felt like we had a good farm bill, and we got together with folks on the Senate side and crafted a bill that provides a real safety net for our farmers across America. The fact is that that farm bill has worked exactly like those of us who crafted the farm bill wanted it to work--that is, philosophically. When times and yields are good and prices are up, there are very few Government payments going to our farmers. In tough times, when prices are low and yields are low, whether it be from drought or other circumstances, in agriculture country the Federal Government does extend a helping hand not to guarantee any farmer a profit, but it allows them to get through to the next year when times might get better. That having been said, I discussed not just on the floor of the Senate my displeasure with the administration relative to their budget proposals, but I went directly to the President. I told the President face to face that I was very disappointed in the numbers that had been sent down here and that, at the end of the day, I really did feel like America's farmers and ranchers would be willing to pay their fair share for deficit reduction, but we were simply not going to pay a disproportionate amount when times are difficult in agriculture country, and when we have farmers who have depended on that 6-year farm bill and have made financial plans, whether it is the purchase or lease of land, purchase of farm equipment, or planning for the growing and harvesting of crops, as they have done, depending on that 6-year farm bill being in place. Therefore, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I made a commitment to our farmers and ranchers that we are going to do everything possible to make sure that the policy of that farm bill is not changed. We can do that. The folks on the other side, frankly, have made my argument for me. That is this: They have said, correctly, that in 2002 when the farm bill was passed and signed into law, fiscal conservatives all across the country and the media really chastised those of us that crafted that farm bill for spending way too much of the American taxpayers' money on agriculture programs. We knew that if the farm bill worked right, we would never spend what was projected. In actuality, it was projected that we would spend $52 billion on commodity programs in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and because we have had good yields and good prices in those years, we have spent only $37 billion. That is just in one title of the farm bill. So we have achieved savings of $15 billion in 3 years. We also have the food stamp title, where no projected savings have been talked about at this point. Maybe some can be achieved. When I came to Congress in 1995, USDA reported that the Food Stamp Program error rate was 10 percent. Last week, USDA testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and said that the error rate has now been reduced to 6 percent. That is because of the hard work of everybody in this body on both sides of the aisle and everybody in the House on both sides of the aisle. We have squeezed that program down to where the error rate is still at 6 percent. That is too much. But still it is coming way down. We can probably achieve some additional savings there. Also, we have the conservation title, which has not been discussed. We are going to spend about $33 billion this year on the Food Stamp Program, about 2.5 on conservation, and projected about 18 on commodities. Now, if we have saved $15 billion on the commodity title alone in 3 years, am I hearing this right, that folks on the other side are saying we cannot achieve $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, not just from commodities but from all three titles in the farm bill? I think that is kind of a ludicrous argument for us to say that when we are in tough times--times have changed since we passed this farm bill in 2002, where we were in surplus times. Times have changed because we are now in a deficit situation and we must be fiscally responsible in this body, just as our colleagues on the House side must be fiscally responsible. I cannot imagine anybody saying that we cannot be treated fairly when we are going to be cutting and asked to be finding savings in Medicaid, in transportation, in education, and in other mandatory programs, that farmers and ranchers and their respective States are not going to be willing to participate when we have already saved an average of $5 billion per year, that we are now being asked to save $2.8 billion over 5 years, that our farmers and ranchers would not be willing to participate in their fair share, so long as, and I emphasize this, we do not change the policy in the farm bill. We have entered into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee that as he goes into conference he is going to do everything within his power to make sure we hold this $2.8 billion figure because we already know the House has come in with a number in excess of that. I would again say if the requested deficit savings on agriculture are disproportionate in any way, we need to look at it and we need to rethink where we are today. But when we look at the $2.8 billion and the fact that we have saved an average of $5 billion a year, I know and understand we have not been asked to share in an amount that requires that the deficit reduction requested by the President be taken out on the backs of farmers and ranchers. I would rather not have any, but being fiscally responsible is as important as writing a good farm bill. I close by saying that as I have gone around the country--and I have over the last 2 weeks. I have been in the far West, I have been in the Midwest, and I have been in the Southeast, talking to farmers and ranchers, and I am very pleased with the reaction that farmers and ranchers have given to me personally when we have explained to them how we are going to approach these deficit savings. What I have told them is we are going to be fair and equitable in each and every title, and that we are going to ask all of agriculture to share somewhat in the pain, but it is not going to be disproportionate, and we are going to keep the policy of the farm bill in place and we are going to find reductions in savings that will allow the greatest patriots in America--and that is farmers--to participate once again in deficit reduction, and when we do this we want to assure, in all probability, that farmers and ranchers will have this $2.8 billion returned to them in interest savings alone, because we all know if we continue down this trail of deficit spending, interest rates are going to rise. If we act responsibly in this body and also on the House side relative to this issue of deficit spending, we can either hold interest rates in line or maybe see them reduced again, which will be of tremendous benefit to our farmers and ranchers. I am proud to represent agriculture country. I come from the heart and soul of agriculture country in my State, and farmers and ranchers all across America are the salt-of-the-Earth people who make this country the great country it is. They have always been willing to do their fair share, and that is simply what we are asking for, nothing more. I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As I understand it, the budget resolution before us today assumes a total reduction in Agriculture Committee mandatory spending programs of $5.4 billion over the five-year period covering fiscal years 2006 through 2010. I further understand that $2.8 billion of this total is to be achieved by the Agriculture Committee by changing laws governing mandatory spending programs within its jurisdiction through the budget reconciliation process. Assuming the Agriculture Committee complies with its reconciliation instruction, this leaves an additional $2.6 billion in assumed, but un-reconciled, mandatory spending reductions in Agriculture Committee programs. My understanding is that the additional $2.6 billion in assumed reductions will not impact such programs if the Agriculture Committee chooses not to achieve them. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. This clarification is helpful. Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion on this point. Yesterday, all Senators were sent a letter that among other things suggested that the budget resolution's assumed additional, but un-reconciled, reductions in Agriculture Committee mandatory spending would generally allow a budget point of order to be raised against Agriculture Committee bills subsequent to the completion of the budget reconciliation process. Have you had an opportunity to read this letter?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. While I would prefer to not alter any programs under the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction this year to achieve mandatory spending reductions, our committee has been willing in the past to contribute its fair share to help restrain mandatory spending in previous efforts to reduce the budget deficit. I believe our committee will be willing to do that again this year. In my view, a $2.8 billion reduction over five years in Agriculture Committee mandatory programs is a reasonable contribution given the President's proposal to reduce overall mandatory spending by $61.6 billion. Unfortunately, the House budget resolution instructs the House Agriculture Committee to achieve $5.3 billion in mandatory spending reductions. I strongly request that you keep the Agriculture Committee's reconciliation instruction in the final budget resolution conference report from rising above the Senate's $2.8 billion figure during conference with the House. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the budget resolution and its impact on Agriculture Committee mandatory spending programs. Would the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee engage in a colloquy with me on this subject?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 149

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would like to explore this a little further because it is an important point. It is possible that subsequent to the completion of the budget reconciliation process, the Agriculture Committee may wish to move legislation that affects programs within its jurisdiction. My understanding is that no budget points of order will lie against such an Agriculture Committee bill as long as it is spending neutral. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to reverse the unilateral change by the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that threatens future sales of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba. Four years ago, Congress passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA), allowing sales of food and medicine to Cuba for the first time in nearly four decades. The Act did not signal an end to the embargo or efforts to do so but merely exempted food and medicine from unilateral sanctions that harm local populations. Cuba first purchased U.S. agricultural products under the new authorities in December 2001. Since that time, Cuba has contracted to purchase approximately $1.25 billion worth of U.S. agricultural goods. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. agriculture, fish and forest product exports to Cuba in fiscal year 2004 totaled $402 million, up 115 percent from a year earlier. The leading export items last year were rice, $65 million, poultry meat, $62 million, wheat, $57 million, corn, $51 million, and soybeans, $38 million, from more than 40 States in this country. Although U.S. agricultural trade with Cuba experienced tremendous growth in the past four years, the future is now in doubt. Late last year, OFAC and the State Department started considering actions to further tighten trade requirements on Cuba. At issue is the term ``cash in advance'' and the sale of licensed agricultural products. On February 22, 2005, after repeated urgings by Members of Congress to the contrary, OFAC amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to clarify the term whereby goods cannot leave the U.S. port at which they are loaded until payment is received by the seller or the seller's agent. The interpretation by OFAC runs counter to general trade practices and will likely shut down U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. Currently, U.S. exporters require payment before turning over title and control of the goods. The exporters routinely ship U.S. goods to Cuba where they remain under the custody of the seller until such time as the seller certifies full payment. Only then are the goods released to Cuba. At no time is credit extended in any form to Cuba. This standard method of doing business has been in practice since sales to Cuba began. TSREEA was meant to expand access for agricultural producers to the Cuban market. By taking into consideration the unique nature of agriculture trade with Cuba, my legislation intends to overturn OFAC's new definition of ``cash in advance''. We should not be making it harder to export agricultural products when the United States is experiencing a massive trade deficit. I am committed to helping expand opportunities at home and abroad for our nation's farmers and ranchers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to reverse the unilateral change by the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that threatens future sales of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba. Four years ago, Congress passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA), allowing sales of food and medicine to Cuba for the first time in nearly four decades. The Act did not signal an end to the embargo or efforts to do so but merely exempted food and medicine from unilateral sanctions that harm local populations. Cuba first purchased U.S. agricultural products under the new authorities in December 2001. Since that time, Cuba has contracted to purchase approximately $1.25 billion worth of U.S. agricultural goods. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. agriculture, fish and forest product exports to Cuba in fiscal year 2004 totaled $402 million, up 115 percent from a year earlier. The leading export items last year were rice, $65 million, poultry meat, $62 million, wheat, $57 million, corn, $51 million, and soybeans, $38 million, from more than 40 States in this country. Although U.S. agricultural trade with Cuba experienced tremendous growth in the past four years, the future is now in doubt. Late last year, OFAC and the State Department started considering actions to further tighten trade requirements on Cuba. At issue is the term ``cash in advance'' and the sale of licensed agricultural products. On February 22, 2005, after repeated urgings by Members of Congress to the contrary, OFAC amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to clarify the term whereby goods cannot leave the U.S. port at which they are loaded until payment is received by the seller or the seller's agent. The interpretation by OFAC runs counter to general trade practices and will likely shut down U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. Currently, U.S. exporters require payment before turning over title and control of the goods. The exporters routinely ship U.S. goods to Cuba where they remain under the custody of the seller until such time as the seller certifies full payment. Only then are the goods released to Cuba. At no time is credit extended in any form to Cuba. This standard method of doing business has been in practice since sales to Cuba began. TSREEA was meant to expand access for agricultural producers to the Cuban market. By taking into consideration the unique nature of agriculture trade with Cuba, my legislation intends to overturn OFAC's new definition of ``cash in advance''. We should not be making it harder to export agricultural products when the United States is experiencing a massive trade deficit. I am committed to helping expand opportunities at home and abroad for our nation's farmers and ranchers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a hearing to discuss school nutrition programs. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 10 a.m. in SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building. Senator Saxby Chambliss will preside. For further information, please contact the Committee at 224-2035.