Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman hits the core of that issue, too, is that we do not drive those prices down by Government controls; we do not drive those prices down by the Federal Government doing anything other than allowing for competition, promoting competition. That should be the sole function of the Federal Government. We tend to go in the other direction sometimes, and that just ought not to happen.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. And will make the best decisions. I want to thank all of my colleagues for participating today. We look forward to continuing to dialogue with our folks on the other side and the White House to, hopefully, get our 90/10 debt pay-down bill signed into law by the President. It is the right thing to do, and it needs to happen. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for his comments. Looking at what debt reduction has meant to this country and can mean to this country in very simple terms is this, you know, here we are in the midst of a political campaign, and we just heard a lot of demagogue and rhetoric from the folks on the other side about a prescription drug plan. We are going to pay this year in interest payments alone in excess of some $230 billion to $235 billion in American tax dollars just for that interest payment. What in the world could we do with $240 billion? We could be fighting over just how that money ought to be spent if we were not paying that interest payment. What has balancing the budget done for the dynamics in this House that we are looking at today? What it has done is we are now arguing over a prescription drug benefit program and what is the best way to approach that program and what is in the best interests of our seniors. Do we think for 1 minute that if the budget submitted by the Clinton- Gore administration in 1995 that calls for a $194 billion deficit this year had come to pass that we would be here today arguing over how to go further and further into debt? No, we simply would not be. We are here today having a debate over viable programs, viable programs that benefit citizens all up and down the line in this country simply because we balance the budget of this country, we acted fiscally responsible under a Republican leadership, and we are now moving in a direction where we have this excess cash flow. The debate simply is over how are we going to approach the allocation of this excess cash flow. Well, I know this, when we sit around my family kitchen table, and we talk about any excess money that we have got left at the end of the month, and there is never usually much there, the first thing we talk about is we look at how much debt we have got outstanding and what we can do about that debt to lower our interest payments knowing that, once we do that, there will be more money there at the end of the next month. We have got to be fiscally responsible. A way we can be fiscally responsible in that regard is making sure we continue to grow the rate of government at a slow rate and continue to pay down this debt. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), my friend on the Committee on the Budget, has said so many times, that it is very important that we remind the people all across this country that, for the first time in modern history, the growth of the Federal budget this year is going to be less than the growth of the average family household budget. Mr. Speaker, that is amazing. It is significant; but it is very, very amazing. What has balancing the budget and the fact that we have excess money on hand now done for Social Security? It has done something that we have not been able to do in the past 35 years. I was home in August and had a chance to get around my district to celebrate during August the 65th anniversary of the Social Security program, without question, probably the most valuable program that we have ever implemented in this country with respect to our senior citizens. I just do not think there is any question about that. Unfortunately, for the last 35 years, we have not been taking tax money received from Social Security taxpayers and doing anything with it other than paying our bills every month. That is wrong. We should never have let that happen. But it happened 35 years ago. We have now reversed that trend. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) just stated a little bit earlier, last year, 1 year ago almost to the day today, September 30, 1999, was the first year in 35 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that this Congress did not spend one dime of the Social Security surplus. We stuck it in a lockbox to keep it there for our senior citizens, and we are going to continue to do that with both Social Security and Medicare. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) also talked about the plan that we passed in the House last week, the plan whereby we are going to take 90 percent of the surpluses, the excess cash flow that we are going to have on hand next year, and we are going to apply 90 percent of that money to pay down the debt. Well, I could not be happier about that, because what that does is that amounts to paying off $240 billion of the national debt last year. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) alluded to earlier, when we include the last 2 years, this year and next year, we will have paid down a half a trillion dollars on the public debt.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I did not come here tonight to talk about prescription drugs, but after listening to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I guess we are going to have to title the Democratic plan the Sugar Ray Leonard Prescription Drug Plan, because they are bobbing and weaving all over the place with their prescription drug plan, saying whatever makes people feel good without having any substance to it, when the fact of the matter is that there is only one voluntary prescription drug benefit plan out there, and it is a Republican plan. The Democratic plan is not a voluntary plan. It is not a plan that makes real sense for seniors. And, as I say, I did not come here to talk about that tonight. But I get so disappointed when I hear people stand up here and demagogue a plan that is fair, instead of entering into real dialogue over the differences that are out there and trying to come to some conclusion. Hopefully over the next couple of weeks, we will come to some conclusion on that, but not as long as we have the demagogue going on and the bobbing and weaving going on and the changing going on and trying to stroke senior citizens instead of being honest, straightforward and trying to work out a plan, if that type of conversation takes place, then we are not moving in the right direction, and I hope they will change their direction, they will come together and work with us to provide a plan that is meaningful and that has real substance to it. There is one real, fundamental difference in the Democratic prescription drug plan and the Republican plan, and that is this: Under the Republican plan, the decision-making process on what drugs are needed and what drugs will be provided is going to be determined by the Medicare beneficiary, their pharmacist and their doctor. Under the Democratic plan, that decision is going to be dictated by the Federal Government, and that is not what seniors want. Mr. Speaker, what I really came here tonight to talk about is something that is just as crucial as that particular issue, and it is the issue of debt reduction. I want to go back and review for just a minute where we have been, where we are, and what direction we are heading in. I was elected to Congress in November of 1994, and at that point in time, our country had been operating for some 25 years plus under a deficit budget situation. My class that came in in 1995 was committed to the fact that the American people were insistent that we balance the budget of this country. The Clinton administration had proposed deficit budgets as far as the eye could see, and that was wrong; the American people simply did not want that. They wanted us to get our financial house in order. Beginning in January of 1995, we started making those tough decisions right in this very Chamber that have not only led us out of the deficits, as far as the eye can see, we have balanced the budget of this country, and now we are looking at excess cash flow coming into Washington in the form of tax revenues as far as the eye could see. In 1995, I went back and I looked at the position of the Clinton administration with respect to balancing the budget. The Clinton-Gore administration was not in favor of balancing the budget in January of 1995. In fact, the budget that the Clinton-Gore administration presented to this body in February of 1995 called for a deficit this year, the year that ends next year of $194 billion. That means we would have spent $194 billion more than we took in this year, and I think everyone across America knows and understands that we are now in an excess cash flow, that is sometimes referred to as a surplus, but as long as we have a significant debt staring us in the face, I do not think we can really call it a surplus. Mr. Speaker, in testimony before the House Committee on the Budget in February of 1995, the Clinton-Gore budget director who at that time was Alice Rivlin stated as follows, ``I do not think that adhering to a firm path for balance by 2002 is a sensible thing to do.'' She also said ``it is not always good policy to have a balanced budget.'' We ask the American people to sit around their kitchen table every single month and balance their budget, and yet the Clinton-Gore administration has consistently made statements exactly like this that it is not always good policy to have a balanced budget. Well, where we have come, we fought for a balanced budget for a couple of years before we finally achieved balance. But under the strong leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, we did reach agreement between the House, the Senate and the White House to balance this budget of this country over a 5-year period, beginning in 1997, and the only way we were able to convince the Clinton-Gore administration that we needed to balance the budget was that the American people were on our side. They finally realized that due to their poll-taking that they do every single day, and once they realized that they had to come to our way of thinking and we can achieve a balance, although we brought the Clinton-Gore administration kicking and screaming here in Washington to reach balance. Well, what does reaching balance mean with respect to deficit reduction? We do have excess cash flow now in the form of both on- budget, as well as off-budget surpluses that are going to be available for any number of different types of allocations, and one of those allocations, and the strongest of those allocations, has got to be debt reduction. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from the 11th District of Georgia (Mr. Linder), my good friend and colleague, is here, and I want him now, if he will, to talk a little bit about this excess cash flow that we have as a result of having achieved the balanced budget and what the gentleman's thoughts are on where we ought to go with respect to allocation of these funds.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. We have been joined by our friend from California (Mr. Horn) who also has some comments on these issues.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, not only is there not going to be any surplus left under the Gore budget plan that he has proposed, but under the very best scenario, over the next 10 years, we are going to be $27 billion in debt. Under the worst scenario, we are going to be $906 billion in debt. That does not include but $27 billion additional monies being spent over the next 10 years for defense. We are spending $29 billion in this next fiscal year alone, trying to restore the military of this country to what it should be because of the demise under the current administration. It does not include one additional dime of increased expenditures in the area of agriculture, for example. So what the current proposed budget of the Clinton administration does is to head us, not upwards from a surplus standpoint, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) just showed on his chart, but it takes us back down that same trail that this administration had us headed down before this Congress took over in 1995. Mr. Speaker, paying off the national debt is simply the right thing to do. It will protect our children from a crippling burden in the future. By locking away money in the Social Security and Medicare lockbox, it is simply the right thing to do, not just for our children, but for our parents. The 90/10 bill that we passed last week changed budget law so that Congress can proactively pay off debt because current law permits debt relief to occur if and only if there are surplus funds left over from that year's discretionary spending. The bill is the latest highlight of a Republican record on debt relief that is unmatched in the history of the United States of America. Since Republicans gained control of Congress, we have paid down over $350 billion in debt, and we are on the road to paying off at least another $200 billion. Now we propose to continue this effort by paying down that additional $240 billion in debt the next fiscal year. This bill also contains the Social Security and Medicare lockbox legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), my colleague from the Committee on the Budget, which is critical, not just to our senior citizens who are receiving Medicare and Social Security benefits today, but for the future of those two programs. This, unfortunately, has been stalled by the Democrats in the Senate for most of the 2000 calendar year even though this House has passed both of those, has passed that lockbox bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious that they want to take that money and continue to spend it like they have been doing for the last 35 years. We simply cannot let that happen. We have got a great opportunity with the excess money that we have on hand now to save and protect Social Security, to save, reform and protect Medicare, to provide a prescription drug benefit and include some other reforms in there to make sure that those two valuable programs are protected and maintained and, at the same time, not spend that money on other social programs and other programs that our children and grandchildren are going to have to wind up paying for years and years down the road.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I think that is probably one fundamental difference in the demagoguery that goes on and what we have heard tonight and what we have been talking about here. I think when one is honest with the American people and one sets the facts straightforward to them, they have a greater appreciation for that and they see through that demagoguery. What we are talking about now are the real facts. We have got to save for that rainy day. We have got an opportunity to save for that rainy day. We should not squander that opportunity by spending the excess money that we have now on more and more social programs that are not going to improve those programs one iota. We have got to be able to take programs like Social Security and Medicare and ensure because we know they are going to be here forever and ever and make sure that they are saved and protected. I am impressed with the allowance of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). I still remember mine. It was 50 cents, and I had to give 15 cents to the church. So I had 35 cents a week.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to honor Mr. Albert August ``Gus'' Karle. Mr. Karle, who has served the Waycross-Ware County community for forty-five years, has decided to step down from his position as president of the Waycross-Ware County Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Karle has been a dedicated member of the Waycross-Ware County community for many years. He has worked in the private sector for forty-one years, thirty-six years for the railroad, before retiring and dedicating his time to the Waycross civic arena. Mr. Karle has unselfishly assisted the YMCA, the Downtown Waycross Development Authority, and the Waycross-Ware County Chamber of Commerce, where he served as President for five years before retiring in June of 2000. The Waycross-Ware county community and myself are proud of Mr. Karle's service and dedication. His leadership and prior activity in both the local civic and church affairs will be greatly missed but certainly not forgotten.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to honor Mr. Dick Walden of Warner Robins, GA. Mr. Walden is retiring from his position as president of the Warner Robins Chamber of Commerce after devotedly serving the local business community for 16 years. Mr. Walden's retirement will bring a close to 30 years of accomplished service in Chamber of Commerce Management. He has served five chambers in Georgia and Florida, as well as serving on the board of directors of both the Georgia and Florida chamber of commerce executive associations. Mr. Walden's achievement has been appreciated by many as the Georgia Chamber of Commerce Executives Association named him Chamber Professional of the Year in 1991. His accomplishment is apparent through the growth and economic progression that Warner Robins has experienced under his leadership. The number of member businesses in Warner Robins has more than grown from 310 to 1,336 under his direction. Warner Robins has benefited immensely from the contributions of service and devotion that Mr. Walden has made to the area. The economic health experienced over the past years is a reflection of Mr. Walden's hard work and dedication. I appreciate all of his accomplishment and hope for his continued success in future endeavors.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for their kind comments regarding Henry McNeal Turner and for bringing this bill to the floor today. Madam Speaker, last year I introduced H.R. 3454 to designate the United States Post Office located at 451 College Street in Macon, Georgia, as the Henry McNeal Turner Post Office. Today we have the opportunity to honor a great man by passing this bill. Bishop Henry McNeal Turner was one of Georgia's most dynamic African American men in the 1800s. He was a missionary, an evangelist, a theologian and church administrator, an Army chaplain, a postmaster, an author, a politician, and a staunch supporter of equal rights in America. Bishop Turner was born in South Carolina in 1834. He taught himself to read and, at the age of 19, became a pastor in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As he helped to build the membership of the church, Turner was appointed a deacon, then elder, and eventually bishop of the AME Church. By 1880, Bishop Turner was responsible for churches from Nova Scotia to Louisiana. Additionally, Turner traveled extensively in Africa as a missionary and established churches in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and South Africa. In the United States, Turner strove for equality amongst blacks and whites. In 1863, he helped organize the first United States regiment of African American troops and became the first African American Army chaplain appointed by President Abraham Lincoln. During Reconstruction, he worked to make life in 19th century Georgia a better place for blacks. Turner helped organize the Republican Party in Georgia in 1867 and was first elected to the Georgia State Senate in 1868 as a Republican. During his political career, Turner introduced bills for higher education for blacks, to protect black people from the Ku Klux Klan, and to give women the right to vote. Turner was an ardent supporter of public schools in Georgia and championed equal rights by founding the Georgia Equal Rights League. In 1869, after all the black legislators were expelled from the legislature because of their race, Turner was appointed postmaster in Macon, Georgia. But he was then returned to the Georgia legislature in the following year. Bishop Henry McNeal Turner is remembered as a man of many accomplishments. His influence spread far and wide, and his power was felt from rural towns in Georgia to churches in Africa. In the United States Army, in the postal service, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and in government Bishop Turner fought fiercely to improve the lives of the minorities and to defend their rights. Turner College and Turner Theological Seminary in Atlanta are named for him, as are many churches across Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Bishop Turner stood for freedom, justice, and equality and left an endearing mark on our society. In reference to Bishop Turner, the Reverend Augusta Hall, Jr., senior pastor of the Saint Paul AME Church in Covington, Georgia, stated as follows: ``Georgia stands as your living testament. Churches you have built throughout her realm, ordaining those who would serve the Church of Allen, true servants of God you placed at her helm. ``Bishop Turner, even when your days drew nigh, look upwards you taught us, for inspiration comes from on high. Bishop Turner, may you dwell forever in God's heavenly sky. God bless the name of Henry Turner, may your legacy never die.'' Bishop Turner's commitment to education, service, missionary work, the improvement of people, and racial equality deserve our recognition. Naming the post office in Macon, Georgia, of which he was postmaster at one time, is certainly a fitting tribute to this great man. All 11 members of the Georgia congressional delegation are cosponsors and supporters of this bill to honor Bishop Henry Turner. I would encourage my colleagues to join me in passing this bill to recognize Bishop Turner's contributions to Georgia and America. I give special thanks to Elder Ben Ridley and current Macon Mayor Jack Ellis for their assistance and cooperation in researching Bishop Turner and for helping to bring this post office naming to a reality.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this and for his cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which fixes a loophole in the law and is critical to enforcing justice and assisting America's military leaders in maintaining order and discipline among our Armed Forces. In many cases, when a crime is committed by an American civilian who accompanies our military overseas, they may be subject to prosecution by the foreign government, or subject to provisions of an international agreement which governs how these cases are handled. However, too many times there are instances where American civilians attached to a military unit commit crimes outside the United States but cannot be prosecuted because the foreign governments decline to take any action and U.S. military or civilian law enforcement agencies lack the appropriate authority to prosecute these criminals. As a result, military commanders can only issue minor administrative sanctions as a punishment for serious crimes like rape, arson, or murder. Let me give you just a couple of examples of the problem our military faces. In one instance, a Department of Defense teacher raped a minor and videotaped the event. The host country chose not to prosecute, and our government did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the teacher. In another case, the son of a contract employee in Italy committed various crimes, including rape, arson, assault and drug trafficking. Again, because of a lack of jurisdiction to prosecute, as a punishment for these criminal acts the son could only be barred from the base. Finally, an Air Force employee molested 24 children ages 9 to 14. However, because the host country refused to prosecute, the only recourse was again to bar this individual from the base. Certainly these flimsy punishments do not match the seriousness of the crimes these individuals committed. For several decades, Congress has been urged to close this jurisdictional gap. In fact, 20 years ago the General Accounting Office reported that in 1977, foreign countries hosting American troops and civilians refused to prosecute 59 cases of serious crimes such as rape, manslaughter, arson, robbery and burglary. Today we have almost a quarter of a million civilian employees and dependents deployed with our military overseas. As we have drawn down our military services, civilian employees and contractors have played increasingly important roles in supporting our contingency operations. As this trend continues unabated, crimes that fall into this jurisdictional gap continue to go unpunished. In 1995, Congress directed the Departments of Defense and Justice to review this issue and make recommendations on the appropriate way to extend criminal jurisdiction to civilians accompanying the Armed Forces overseas. Our bill is built on the hard work and efforts of the advisory committee established by the Departments of Defense and Justice which studied this issue very thoroughly. We have worked on a bipartisan basis with the Departments in drafting this important legislation to ensure that crimes are punished. Furthermore, the courts have encouraged Congress to close the jurisdictional gap in the law. In one case an enlisted soldier was accompanied by her husband and stepdaughter on a tour of duty in Germany. Upon returning to the United States, the daughter gave birth to a child and revealed that the stepfather was in fact the baby's father. The man was charged with sexual abuse of a minor, but the case was ultimately dismissed because the Court of Appeals found that the statute could only be applied to a crime committed within the United States. A lack of jurisdiction allowed this crime to go unpunished and justice to be avoided. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we give our government the ability to hold citizens accountable for all criminal offenses. H.R. 3380 will finally close this legal loophole, that allows some criminals outside the United States to avoid prosecution and prevents justice from being served. This bill will create a new Federal law that would apply Federal criminal statutes to crimes which are committed overseas by employees or dependents of members of the Armed Forces, persons employed by the Department of Defense, or contractors or subcontractors of the Armed Forces. The bill would preclude prosecution against a person if a foreign government prosecutes the defendant or if the defendant is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Department of Defense law enforcement personnel would be authorized to arrest alleged criminals and would deliver them as soon as practicable to United States civilian law enforcement officials or to law enforcement personnel of a foreign country. Finally, the bill places limits on the power of law enforcement personnel to remove arrested persons from the country in which they are arrested or found and ensure that the due process rights of the accused are protected. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Jeff Sessions of the great State of Alabama, who sponsored the original bill and brought this issue to the forefront. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the coauthor of this bill with me, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), in working together to craft a thorough and comprehensive approach to address this problem. As I said earlier, this has been a true bipartisan effort and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has been very helpful in coming together with us on the language and I want to thank him on the floor tonight and commend him for his very dedicated service here. We must continue our commitment to enforcing the law and reducing crime. I strongly believe that now is the time for Congress to act to close the loophole that allows civilian criminals to escape prosecution of their crimes, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3380, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Act.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) very much as the dean of our delegation for bringing this resolution to the floor. Normally, we come down here to the well of the House to debate bills; and while we are sometimes loud and in heated debate, we are always having fun down here. This is one of those times where we are not necessarily here having fun, although I cannot help but think about Paul Coverdell and some of the fun times we had together and some of his traits that have been coming back to me over the last couple of days. I am reminded particularly about the fact that, I do not care where you saw Paul, he always had that same white shirt and tie on. I have the great pleasure of representing the Okefenokee Swamp. We were down at the Okefenokee a couple years ago, and some of my colleagues were down there, and we were doing a press event. It was as hot as blazes. We were out there in the middle of the swamp, and all of us were dressed in our golf shirts and our khaki pants. Just as the news conference starts, here comes Paul driving up with his white shirt, his suit pants, and his tie on. What a classy guy. Two years ago I was doing an event for him, and I remember it was a farm event and we were over in Terrell County. And again, it was in August. August in Georgia, my colleagues, particularly south Georgia, is hot. We were out in the middle of a field looking at some peanuts out there. And again I am in my golf shirt and my khakis, and Paul is out there just as cool as he can be in that white shirt and that tie. As we sat under the shade tree that day talking to a group of farmers, he was just so impressive, not just in what he was saying but in the way he looked and in the way he carried himself. That is the Paul Coverdell that I am going to remember. Paul and I had a habit of talking to each other about once a week over the last couple years just about things in general. We did not always get a chance to sit down face to face. Sometimes we missed a phone call. But the guy had more political insight, not just partisan political insight, but political insight about things in this country. I will always remember the fact that if I called him and talked to him about an ag issue, which I did on a regular basis, we talked about whatever it was; but then Paul with get off and he would, Saxby, let me tell you what we are doing with the Straight A's bill, this education bill that is going to mean so much to the children that your wife teaches and to other children all across this country. And you would be talking to him about a defense issue, again which we do on a regular basis; and we talk about our 130s or our F-22 problem, whatever it was, and Paul would say, Well, let me tell you about one other thing that I am working on, this drug issue with the Colombian drug bill that we are working on. Let me tell you what that is going to do for America. Let me tell you what a difference that is going to make to people all across this country. That is the Paul Coverdell that I am going to remember. He was a very unique individual, a person who had the ability to take difficult issues, to deal with difficult people with difficult issues and bring common sense and political responsibility to the forefront. Paul Coverdell was truly a unique Member of the United States Senate. He was a great colleague of all of ours, whether you are Republican or Democrat; and that is evidenced by the fact that this is being done in a bipartisan way. Yesterday, on the floor of this House, it was evidenced in a bipartisan way that there was tremendous respect for Paul Coverdell. We will miss him very much. We certainly wish the best for him and his family. His staff are just great people that my staff has had the pleasure of working with every single day that I have been a Member of this House. Paul Coverdell had gotten so political in his thoughts that he probably designed his death to take place on the day of the Georgia primary, which happened to be yesterday. And I am betting you when he got to the pearly gates last night, the first thing he asked St. Peter was for a copy of the Republican election results from yesterday. That is the kind of guy that he was. He was a great friend, a great individual. This country will miss Paul Coverdell.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I, too, would just like to echo the sentiment of all of my colleagues. Paul Coverdell is a great American. Nobody does more for his country or loves this country more than Paul Coverdell. He is simply a great American and great individual to work with us. Our prayers go out to Paul and Nancy as he goes through this very difficult time. We just look forward to a very speedy recovery for Paul and return to the United States Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I fully support H.R. 4461, because it provides funding for programs that will help assure the vitality of agriculture in Georgia. This bill allocates funding for essential programs, which allow further development and progress in food production. In addition, H.R. 4461 provides financial support for agricultural research that is crucial for finding solutions that will allow and promote more cost-effective production methods and higher quality results. By allocating funding for research, this bill will help resolve problems inhibiting productivity and development. More specifically, research in pest and disease control, such as nematode and tomato spotted wilt disease research, will enhance strategies used to combat crop yield losses. Funding is also included for the development of more efficient agricultural water usage that is critical to locations in south Georgia where agricultural water usage comprises 50% of all water consumed. Furthermore, the bill includes funding for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness for research directed toward guaranteeing competitiveness for U.S. peanuts in the world market. Funding for poultry disease research is also important to explore diseases that limit and inhibit poultry production. Support for these research efforts, coupled with funding for promotional and marketing efforts, will help enable farmers to practice more efficient methods and minimize the devastating losses with which they have become all too familiar. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and support America's farmers.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 10, 2000, I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather and therefore unable to be present and to cast votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 373, ``no'' on rollcall vote 374, ``yea'' on rollcall 375, ``no'' on rollcall vote 376, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 377, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 378.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Agriculture is the number one industry in our great country, always has been and it always will be, because our folks depend on a good quality supply of food to feed themselves and their family, and we are very blessed and we are very lucky here. Agriculture all across the United States today is in some very, very difficult times. Particularly from a commodity price standpoint and from a weather standpoint, we have been through some tough years; but we have survived, and we have survived in part because we have had some policies in part that have been adopted here and some policies that have been carried out of USDA that have been beneficial to agriculture. There is a current mindset at USDA that in my opinion is anti- agriculture, and that mindset has been no more appropriately displayed than has been the case with the issuance of the TMDL ruling and the failure on the part of the United States Department of Agriculture to stand up for farmers and forestry landowners in opposition to this unfair, capricious, and arbitrary rule that was promulgated by EPA. This amendment strikes at the heart of establishing common sense at USDA because what it does is remove some people at USDA who very honestly do not have common sense. I do not care whether one talks to them in a hearing setting that we had yesterday or whether one talks to them just standing on the side of the road discussing agriculture with them. This amendment, in my opinion, is a very important amendment; and it does more than send a message. This amendment helps to establish the fact that we in Congress are going to continue to work to establish common sense in this town, and the folks in the various agencies around better get the message because we are going to do it.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is exactly what plaintiffs' lawyers do. Income is not necessarily a requirement for plaintiffs' lawyers to handle those cases. I understand it may be subject to a point of order, but I think that Legal Services Corporation needs to understand that if we are legislating here, that if they continue with this pattern, we are going to come after them in the legislative role, we will have the necessary hearings, and we are going to proceed with this legislation in the proper forum if this is subject to a point of order.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I will accept the ruling of the Chair, whatever it may be.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute for the gentleman to respond.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand the gentleman's point. Let me see if the gentleman agrees with me, in situations somewhere H-2A workers come into this country legally, and we all know they have certain rights under that particular law, would the gentleman agree that there are plaintiff's bars in this country that are very capable of representing those folks as opposed to Legal Services Corporation actively soliciting individuals who are here under the H-2A program to file suits for them and which they are doing on a daily basis in my State, where folks are simply trying to do the right thing, as opposed to the plaintiff's bar representing those folks in cases where there really are harms being done?