Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time; and as did the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I too want to add my thanks and my appreciation to the Blue Dogs for coming forward with this budget. As I look across the aisle there and individually see the ones coming forward to speak in support of this, most of those Members are my close friends on that side of the aisle, and they are also the same individuals that talk like I do, who, with the exception of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), come from my part of the country. And I have a great appreciation for that fact also. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a couple of things in closing here. While the Blue Dog budget takes huge steps in the right direction, I think it is flawed in a couple of areas. The two primary areas that I have concerns about are: Number one, defense. We do spend more in both budget authority as well as budget outlay in defense. With our manager's amendment, it increases the defense spending from our original numbers. And, obviously, that is what we are talking about, the final numbers. Secondly, the thing that really concerned me when I ran for Congress in 1994, and the thing that concerns me today, and the thing that my good friends on the other side who are supporting this budget have continually said is, we have to pay down that debt. And what has caused that debt? What has caused that debt is too much Federal spending. The Blue Dog budget calls for 25 percent of the surplus to go to spending. I have a problem with that. My friend, the gentleman from Arkansas, was very critical of the Ag portion of the Republican budget. I have in my hands letters from eight national farming organizations, from the American Farm Bureau Federation, to the National Cotton Council, the Farm Credit Council, the American Soybean Association, the National Peanut Council, the Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, and several others, endorsing the Republican budget. All of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are Blue Dogs, particularly those on the Committee on the Budget, know that when the President came out with zero dollars for crop insurance reform, Republicans led the fight to put money in the budget. I am appreciative that they followed suit with that, but for those reasons, I respectfully say that we are going to have to vote against this budget. But I do thank them, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who are my friends, when it comes to agriculture issues, that we are talking about a 5-year budget that we are debating here today. So we fund agriculture for the 5 years of that budget. Next year we will have 5 more years. We will fund crop insurance for the additional out years as they come forward. When my colleagues talk about cuts, what we are looking at is cuts which include the supplemental on top of the budgeted baseline numbers for last year. When we look at real numbers, there are no cuts. But I would remind my colleagues that the President's budget makes cuts in agriculture to the tune of 15 percent.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to commend the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their long-standing work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the threat for ballistic missiles is clear and present. The current administration has finally admitted that the United States is facing a very current, very real threat. However, waiting too long to deploy a missile defense system poses a risk to the American people that is unacceptable. How many ballistic missiles, either with or without biological, chemical or nuclear warheads, have to be targeted at American cities or American forces overseas before we take action? I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill which commits the United States to deploying a national missile defense system. Given the demonstrated threat here and now, I do not believe that we should delay the deployment of a missile defense system any longer than necessary. We must do all we can to protect America from ballistic missile threat, and this bill puts us on the right track.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States for providing perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury and in a Federal civil rights action, for obstructing justice, and for abusing the Office of the Presidency by providing false and misleading statements to the Congress as the House of Representatives attempted to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of the President's actions. With the exception of voting to commit the nation to war, this is the most solemn and serious action which Members of the Congress must take. This action is not taken lightly. The rule of law and respect for the sanctity of our judicial system are two of the foundations upon which American society and our system of government depend. While I find the President's personal conduct offensive and disgusting, it is clear to me that on legal grounds, the President's campaign of lies, half- truths, and evasiveness have demonstrated a cavalier and flagrant disregard for the rule of law in our society. The President stands accused of serious offenses which he has failed to refute. Chairman Henry Hyde and the Judiciary Committee have gathered substantial evidence and presented a strong case for which the President must answer. It is the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to decide whether the body of evidence against the President merits a trial. Based on my 25 years of experience as an attorney, I firmly believe that the overwhelming evidence showing perjury and obstruction of justice provide sufficient grounds to support impeachment of the President. The President's actions certainly do not reflect the respect that the office deserves. Indeed, he must be held to a standard of conduct that is consistent with the rule of law. We must preserve the integrity of the Presidency and our judicial system by not allowing anyone, including the President, to subvert or destroy the rule of law in the greatest country on Earth. I believe that voting for impeachment of the President is the only reasonable course of action for the House to take in the current grave situation in which the President has placed us.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of my committee, along with the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution in the strongest terms. I rise to support the two-part resolution which supports our military men and women now engaged in the Gulf region. Once again, our military has been called upon to beat back an over-aggressive Hussein regime in Iraq, a regime that, against the will of the global community, has perpetrated the development of weapons of mass destruction. We have been down this road before. Time and again, we have threatened to use force against Hussein's indiscretions. Time and again, we have failed to send an adequate message of our resolve. This time, we must not fail to punctuate our interest in the region and our commitment to peace in the Middle East. I would like to highlight the participation of the many brave men and women deployed from Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia. One hundred forty representatives of the 5th Combat Communications group and another 15 from the 78th Security Forces Squadron have been deployed since our last buildup in the region. They will be joined by 150 members of the JOINTSTARS unit and a yet-to-be-determined number of our aircraft. May God go with them in this holiday season as they carry out their duties on behalf of every American to bring peace in the world. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: House of Representatives, February 26, 1998. The Honorable William J. Clinton, The President of the United States, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: In September, 1996, I wrote you with my thoughts and concerns about U.S. policy toward Iraq (see attached), particularly with regard to the Iraqi government's suppression of the Kurd rebels in the north. I write again to express my concerns about this nation's policy toward Iraq and to urge that you make the overthrow of the current Iraqi government a central element of U.S. policy. In late 1996, Saddam Hussein and his regime moved aggressively to ensure that anti-Hussein elements in northern Iraq would not pose a political challenge to his authority. In that effort, 2,500 were arrested or murdered by the government. At the same time, some 7,000 of the rebels were evacuated by the U.S. to Guam, and all financial and arms support that had been given to a group of exiled former Iraqi military and political figures (the Iraqi National Accord) was discontinued. The net effect of U.S. policy then was that nearly 10,000 members of the anti-Hussein movement were neutralized in Iraq and all financial backing dried up. As an indication of how concerned Hussein is about an internal revolution, intelligence indicates that when a U.S. attack became imminent some weeks ago, Hussein immediately moved to consolidate ground forces toward northern Iraq to deal with a possible uprising. Hussein is clearly concerned about the Kurds. Unfortunately, this nation has done little to promote that threat from within Iraqi borders. In my view, the anti-Hussein element represents the best opportunity for internal change in Iraq. Hussein's regime, which operates as a Republic in name only, is guilty of human rights violations, political oppression and crimes against other nations. This, together with a track record of developing weapons of mass destruction make the restoration of a true Republic in Iraq within the national security interests of the U.S. government. Rough parallels may be drawn to longstanding U.S. policy in Central America where this nation's anti-Communist policy not only prevented the spread of Communism in our hemisphere, but also promoted democracy to the extent that only one non- democratic government remains. Parallels may also be drawn to our policy late in the Cold War toward the Soviet Union and Poland. Your administration's policy that has recently placed little or no emphasis on internal Iraqi resistance has left the U.S. with very few options in the frequent cases when Hussein has sought to challenge the authority of the U.N. resolutions. Without a credible resistance force to support, the proposition of U.S. military strikes leaves the U.S. in the perceived position of ``global bully.'' On the other hand, if the U.S. does not move to enforce U.N. sanctions, we abandon a situation that is clearly in the national security interests of this nation. Neither position yields acceptable results. In light of the recent agreement negotiated by the United Nations, it seems that we may be averting our current course of conflict with Iraq. This offers you an opportunity to reassess your policy in the region. I have supported, and continue to support, American troops in the Middle Eastern theater as well as your authority as Commander-in-Chief. For this reason, I strongly encourage you to adopt a long-term policy that includes the following tenets: maintains as its ultimate priority the elimination from power of the Hussein regime, and the restoration of a true Iraqi republic, or even democracy; fosters internal resistance to the Hussein regime within Iraq to include financial, political, and physical support; if necessary in the short term, limited tactical airstrikes focusing on Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction; and institution of a comprehensive, nationwide no-fly/no-troop movement zone while the above initiatives are pursued. If the U.S. is truly the world leader you and I know it to be, we must act within the accepted rule of law and lead by example. I believe the above-described policy directive meets such a standard. As always, I stand ready to work with you to meet these very real global challenges. Very truly yours, Saxby Chambliss, Member of Congress. Enclosure. House of Representatives, September 5, 1996. The Honorable William J. Clinton, The President of the United States, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: I write to express my sincere concern over recent events in northern Iraq and to ask your consideration of potential policy changes. As a Member of the House Committee on National Security, let me make very clear at the outset that I will firmly and unconditionally support the troops of the United States when they are deployed anywhere in the world. The lessons of history have taught us that irrespective of the debate over policy priorities, our troops must be absolutely certain that they act with the support of our entire nation. In addition, let me make it clear that I support your authority as the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Services. Your recognition of strife in northern Iraq is well-founded, and U.S. action in response is entirely warranted. However, allow me to make several observations about subsequent military action you have taken. First, President Reagan's leadership in this nation's defeat of communism has left us a very different world than the one we faced for over 40 years. Today, we alone stand as the world's superpower, yet we are surrounded by countless areas of ethnic strife and political insurrection around the globe. Iraq is only the latest example. As a result, we have involved our military men and women in more places and more often than ever before. It is critical that while every situation has its individual circumstances, we must maintain a predictable and identifiable set of criteria that guides this nation's military intervention and involvement around the world. In Iraq, I am concerned that our strategic objectives have not clearly been delineated. As a result, it is impossible to determine whether Iraqi military movements satisfy the demands of the United States. Second, I am more concerned about the lack of international support for our current military operations in Iraq. While I do not assume international support to be required for this nation's military intervention abroad, I do believe it should be obtained when and if time and circumstances permit. Our efforts in Operation Desert Storm should serve as a blueprint for dealing with hostile aggressors. Consequently, I would like you to consider the following courses of action: Issue a short-term ultimatum to Saddam Hussein calling for the removal of all soldiers and tanks from the lands around and north of Irbil, Iraq--a ``no troop zone'' north of the 36 degree north parallel. In the event that the troops are not removed, Iraq will face the destruction of military targets selected from a predetermined list created by our intelligence sources. Extend the current ``no-reinforcement zone'' from the 32 degree north to the 33 degree north parallel in accordance with the ``no-fly zone'' extended earlier this week. In advance of the issuance of the ``no troop zone'' deadline, increased diplomatic efforts should be made to garner the support of the western powers and at the very least a sampling of the Arab world. As I am certain you are aware, this regional instability in Iraq has the potential for blossoming into a full-blown regional conflict involving friend and foe, alike. Reports today indicate the interest of Turkey and Iran to involve their militaries in the region. Clearly, this is a situation that must remain in the control of U.S. forces in the region. I appreciate your time and consideration of these concerns. I look forward to working with you as we attempt to resolve this very difficult situation in this very critical region of the world. If there is anything I can do to assist in your efforts to achieve success, please do not hesitate to call on me. Very truly yours, Saxby Chamblis.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, ``The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' I take these words directly from Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. Reading further, ``The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' (Article II, Section 4). It is this Constitution I swore an oath to uphold as Representative of the people of Georgia's 8th district, and it is the demands of this Constitution that I must interpret as I prepare to vote on this resolution to authorize a full inquiry to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach President William J. Clinton. Recently, the House of Representatives received the report of the Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, as his investigation relates to White House response to certain activities. While I condemn the President's decision to carry on a sexual relationship he has now come to admit, the substance of this relationship is irrelevant to the decision we face today. The independent Counsel has reported 11 separate counts that may serve as the basis for the impeachment of the President. Among them, they include obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering. Note that not one of the counts reported to the House addresses the right or wrong of the President's relationship with the former intern. The report contains allegations of activity that are inconsistent with the laws of this land, laws the President has sworn to uphold, laws the President and no man are above. The decision we face today is as follows: Based on the report of the Independent Counsel, should the House of Representatives direct its committee on the Judiciary to make such investigation as is necessary to determine whether the facts warrant the bringing of articles of impeachment to the full House. Having had the opportunity to review the report of the Independent Counsel, my answer must be `yes.' While I regret much of the detail associated with this inquiry, the responsibility for it may not be laid at the foot of the Congress or the Independent Counsel. I am confident that this House can and will pursue this inquiry with the import and dignity that will be demanded by the American people and the Constitution, itself. I do not take this action lightly, but if this Nation is to continue as the beacon of freedom, the seat of democracy, and if it is to continue to be in the words of Abraham Lincoln a ``Government of the people, by the people, and for the people,'' we must not shy away from our responsibility. Over its history this great Nation has many times offered the ultimate sacrifice of its sons and daughters to protect our constitutional form of government. If for no other reason, it is for those fallen Americans that we must enforce the rule of law today. Mr. Speaker, it is with a sad, yet resolved, heart that I support the resolution before us today to authorize the inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach President William J. Clinton.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, this body made a commitment to the American farmer. Like a majority of my colleagues, I stood on this very floor during that farm bill debate and promised my farmers that the Federal Government would walk hand in hand with them as our Nation began the transition to a 21st-century-based agricultural economy, such an economy that depends less on government and more on letting hard-working American farmers and ranchers do their best in producing the finest crops and produce in the world. Congress and the President must hold true to our pledge and remain committed to these free market principles. But, at the same time, the Federal Government must recognize that agriculture, more than any other sector of the economy, is constantly subject to conditions beyond its immediate control. Unfortunately, this has been evident in recent years as unprecedented weather conditions have pummeled America's farmers, and the effect of these conditions upon America's rural communities has been devastating. In my home State of Georgia, the most recent study done by the University of Georgia places the 1998 crop losses from forces of nature beyond the control of farmers in the State of Georgia alone at $767 million. From flood-soaked cotton last winter to frost-damaged peaches this spring to drought-stricken peanuts this summer, not a single crop has been spared, and the story is the same all across rural America. The deteriorating state of America's farm economy is a national priority, and I am pleased to see the leadership of this body stepping up to the plate and going to bat for America's farm families. In the absence of presidential leadership in addressing the crisis gripping our rural communities, the Republican majority has taken immediate action to protect our farmers. Our $4 billion disaster relief measure will place real money into our farmers' hands at a time of great need. This money can now be used to pay off past operating loans and help our family farms prepare for the future crop years, and this relief package accomplishes this without tearing apart the farm bill and its commitments made to farmers. Included in the Republican relief measure is 2.25 billion in direct payments to farmers whose crops have been damaged by weather-related disasters, including special funds targeted to farmers who have suffered multi-year crop losses and those suffering severe livestock feed losses. The relief package also contains over 1.5 billion in aid to assist farmers in dealing with the loss of markets and the Clinton administration's inability to keep foreign markets open for our farmers. This assistance will come in the form of one-time increases in the agricultural marketing transition payments under the 1996 farm bill. While the damage done by the administration's neglect of agricultural trade cannot be fully offset, this assistance will help farmers make it through this temporary market turndown. While the House and Senate Republicans have had their nose to the grindstone in putting together an agriculture relief package, our farmers have only received a cold shoulder and hot air from the Clinton administration on this crisis. Now all of a sudden it is the fourth quarter, and the administration wants to get up off the sidelines and into the game. While I do welcome the administration in getting off the bench and joining Congress on addressing this extremely important issue, I must ask the current administration, where have you been all year long with respect to our farmers? In fact, just where has this administration been on agriculture for the last 6\1/2\ years? When Congress passed the 1996 farm bill and sent it to President Clinton for signature into law, we joined American farmers in expecting more aggressive trade policies, reduced regulation, lower taxes and increased agriculture research funding. Well, what has President Clinton given the American farmer? No viable trade policy, increased regulations, resistance to tax relief and less funding for agricultural research. Furthermore, the President's travels have spanned the globe in recent months: China, Europe, Africa, Latin America and a number of other countries. But I have yet to see a single policy benefiting American agriculture resulting from his continuous globe trotting while, on the other hand, Chairman Bob Smith of the House Committee on Agriculture has been successful on several different trips abroad in selling American farm products to the country that he has visited. Our farmers need strong leadership in both good times and bad, and this administration has failed them miserably. Congress, the President and the Federal Government made a commitment to farmers just over 2 years ago. We can provide our farmers the help we need without turning our backs on that commitment. Only the Republican agricultural relief proposal accomplishes both, and I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing for American farmers and support this relief measure.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, America is in danger of losing its number one industry, agriculture. Mr. Speaker, 1998 has been a disastrous year for farmers all across this great country of ours. And after months of pressure from Congress, the answer of the current administration to this problem was to support a $500 million disaster package that originated across the way in the other body. The Republican response to this has been much more meaningful and much more sensible. It is a plan that puts money in the pockets of farmers immediately to provide short-term relief. There is also a package to provide long-term relief in the form of tax incentives and tax relief to farmers. This is a meaningful solution to the current problem in ag country. Now, the administration has come back with a plan that puts farmers and this country deeper in debt and will depress prices for the long- term. Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to cut out the political rhetoric and provide real, meaningful leadership in the arena of agriculture.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, American farmers are facing the hardest times they have had in years, and the President has shown a complete lack of leadership in helping them. With the Clinton administration sitting on the sidelines as our family farmers struggle, Congress is taking swift action to protect our family farmers for many years to come, also with respect to the current disaster situation. Yesterday, I was pleased to join members of the House leadership in announcing the $3.9 billion agriculture relief package to address crop disaster losses. Also on yesterday, the House Committee on Ways and Means passed a tax package that is going to be very beneficial from a long range perspective for all small business people including farmers. These relief measures will place real money into our farmers' hands in a time of great need. It is incumbent upon the Clinton administration to get off the sidelines and join Congress in swiftly approving this much needed disaster package.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, my friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has been a class act ever since I have known him. He has once again shown that this morning. Mr. Speaker, it should be no secret to the Members of this body that the American farmer produces the best food and fiber products in the world, but what is a secret to many inside Washington's Beltway is the crisis gripping America's rural economies. The deteriorating state of America's farm economy is a national priority and must be addressed. Yet the Clinton administration and particularly USDA only offer up inflammatory rhetoric instead of a substantive emergency aid plan. In Georgia alone, this year's crop losses from forces of nature approach $767 million. The story is the same all across rural America. Our farmers need strong leadership, not partisan politics as usual. I implore the Clinton administration once again to quit playing partisan politics with America's family farmers and to start making meaningful and appropriate decisions at the Department of Agriculture. Let us move on policies to help the American family farmer survive.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to commend the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture for moving this program forward. As my colleagues know, it sounds like a novel when we say times are tough in ag country, and it really is. It is certainly not fiction. Times are particularly difficult in ag country in Georgia this year. We are coming off one of the worst disasters in 1997 we have ever seen. 1998 has not been any better. This will significantly help our farmers and ranchers, and we appreciate the House Committee on Agriculture chairman championing this proposal.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, currently the project in Macon is virtually at a standstill as a result of bureaucratic delays, incurring additional costs to the taxpayer because of governmental agencies' inability to complete the approval process. Mr. Chairman, will the committee agree that unnecessary delays can result in additional costs that could be avoided if project approvals were completed in a timely manner.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to construct an additional crossing of the Ocmulgee River through the City of Macon, Georgia, Federal, State and local officials have been working together for over 20 years to extend the Eisenhower Parkway, but to no avail. This additional crossing will improve access to and for hospitals, firefighting, and other public safety organizations, as well as improve the circulation of traffic into and through Macon, aiding the economic revitalization of the community and the creation of even more jobs. In addition to the economic impact and easing Macon's traffic problems, this project could be used to link middle Georgia with a multi-lane Statewide corridor connecting Macon with the cities of Augusta and Columbus.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification of this matter, and I thank the gentleman for the leadership he provides to this committee.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this project in Macon and Bibb County, Georgia could serve as a model of interagency cooperation. As the gentleman is aware, Congress recently enacted legislation directing the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process whereby all reviews will be done concurrently rather than sequentially; thus, moving the process along in an expedient manner under the national Environmental Review Act.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just got up here and said this is simply a reduction of 10 percent. You know, we reduced the support price on peanuts 10 percent in 1996. You know what happened to the price of that jar of peanut butter you just referred to? The price went up. Explain that to me. Explain that to the farmer down there who gets less than 33 cents out of that jar of peanut butter for the peanuts that go into that jar of peanut butter. This whole thing makes absolutely no sense at all. The gentleman from Texas walked in here with M&M's that contain peanuts and M&M's that do not; M&M's bought on one side of the aisle and others bought on the other side of the aisle at different prices. Let the market control that, and that is what happens. The cost of peanuts is so minimal in the manufacturing industry that it is absolutely ridiculous to be standing up here arguing about this. But the real point is, this is not a 1934 program, as my friend from Wisconsin said. The current peanut program is a 1996 program. Real reforms were made in the program in 1996. It became more market- oriented, it became a no-net-cost program. There was a 10 percent reduction in the support price in 1996. Most of all, as the gentleman said, it eliminated these quota holders that do not live in the United States. That simply is no longer an argument on this issue. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, when you step up here to vote on this particular amendment, you are voting on whether or not you want to live up to a commitment that was made to the farmers in this country in 1996. A vote for this amendment is a vote to jerk that commitment out from under them. A vote against this amendment is a vote to support what we told the peanut farmers in this country in 1996 we would do, and that is that if they would agree to making real reforms in this program, we would agree to continue this program for 7 years, at $610 not $650 a ton.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a middle Georgia legend, Bill Powell, who will close out 40-plus years of service during tonight's 6:00 newscast on WMAZ TV in Macon, Georgia. Upon his arrival in Macon on WMAZ radio in 1958, Bill quickly became one of the community's most popular radio personalities, and it was only natural when Bill leaped into television weather at WMAZ in 1982 that he soon became one of central Georgia's best and most popular television personalities. Bill has given of his time to speak to local schools and community organizations concerning various weather topics. He has served with distinction on a number of boards within central Georgia, such as the Museum of Aviation, the Middle Georgia Air Force Association, and the South Side Lions Club. As Bill retires, he will take his sense of humor and fun-loving personality, but will leave a legacy of community service that will be difficult to surpass. Congratulations, Bill, on a job well done. As you told your listeners for so many years, keep on keeping on. God bless you, Bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. I would like to take a moment to congratulate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for the great job they did in putting this ag bill together. In 1996 we passed a farm bill that is a very historic farm bill, a farm bill that is a 7-year bill instead of the normal 5-year bill, a farm bill that participated in the balanced budget process, a farm bill that moves agriculture into the 21st century, and a farm bill that gets the Federal Government off the farm and allows our farmers to do what they do best and grow the very finest agriculture products of anybody in the world. In that farm bill we phase out commodity support prices over that 7-year period. The Federal Government has got to stay involved in agriculture in three areas: Number one, we have got to stay involved from a market standpoint. We have got to move forward to continue to open markets for our agriculture products. Secondly, we have to provide a safety net, a safety net in the form of a good substantive crop insurance program. Thirdly, the Federal Government has got to stay involved in the area of research. Why do we need crop insurance? The year 1997 was a disastrous one in my section of the country from an ag perspective. Going into July we had the most beautiful crops we had ever had and then the rain stopped. We had 60 days of drought, when yields started decreasing and the sun took its toll. Then the rain started again in September and El Nino brought rains into February and March, and our farmers were unable to get their crops out of the field. Crop insurance is extremely important to farmers who are faced with that problem. Why do we need research? My son-in-law is a farmer. Joe is living the American dream of coming back home and farming with his father. But Joe is only able to do that because through research we are now planting seeds in the ground every day that are more resistant from a disease standpoint than what his father planted, and we are also providing seeds that yield higher yields and better quality yields than what his father was able to produce. That is why we have to have research. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for this very positive bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Roscoe Allen, Jr., of Ocilla, Georgia. Mr. Allen has been selected by the Small Business Administration as Small Businessperson of the Year for the State of Georgia, and he will represent Georgia in the selection process for the National Small Businessperson of the Year. In just 2 years, Mr. Allen has made his mark in the competitive snack food industry. He broke into the peanut processing business by putting in long hours, traveling many miles and practicing his straightforward sales pitch to his wife and long-time friend. His company, known as the Roscoe Allen Company, is the first southern, African-American-owned peanuts and mixed nuts processor. His products are sold in grocery stores all across the southeast as well as in Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Allen's commitment to providing quality products and outstanding service at an economical price and for achieving success in a competitive market in such a short period of time. I congratulate Mr. Allen and wish him all the best at the Small Businessperson award ceremony and commend him for being an outstanding example of a small businessman and to let him know that all of Georgia is very proud of him.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate Chairman Spence and Ranking Member Skelton for bringing forward a good bill in a tough year. At a time when we are asking our armed services to do more with less, this bill represents the most balanced approach to our military priorities. I would like to take a few moments to highlight a few issues in this legislation that I have had the privilege to work on over the last several months.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to applaud H.R. 2400, Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA), and specifically the section that streamlines the environmental review process for highway construction projects. The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for any major federal undertaking that affects the environment. As various factors are considered, additional federal agencies become involved and additional reviews are proposed. Each review takes significant amounts of time, requires lengthy studies, and delays projects even further. While I support regulations which protect our environment, we must streamline the process to avoid the costly and timely delays that have affected so many projects. This bill will help keep projects in my district on track, streamlining this cumbersome approach and allow them to be completed in a timely, efficient manner. Since the 1970's, local, state, and federal officials have been working in my Congressional District to provide an additional crossing of the Ocmulgee River for the city of Macon, Georgia. While the environmental process has yet to determine the route for this project, this much-needed fifth crossing would relieve the current traffic congestion that exists on the four bridges currently in Macon. In addition to easing Macon's traffic problems, the crossing could be used to link up middle Georgia with a statewide corridor which would connect Macon with the cities of Augusta and Columbus. The bill before us today take great strides to remedy the bureaucratic problems we have encountered in my district and many others. This bill requires all involved federal agencies to be clearly identified at the outset and a reasonable time-line to be established and followed. All environmental reviews are then conducted concurrently rather than sequentially, moving the process along in an expedient manner without reinventing the wheel over or compromising important concerns. This legislative provision will help streamline one of the most exhaustive and burdensome processes in the country and I applaud its inclusion in BESTEA.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, March 20, 1998 is National Agriculture Day across this country. It is fitting on such a day to thank the farming families who work hard every day to produce the finest food and fiber in the world. Our country's entire farming community deserves a pat on the back for a job well done. Despite highly unusual weather patterns that adversely impacted farming communities around the country, our farmers remain optimistic, and the American Farm Bureau reports that supermarket prices have fallen for the second consecutive quarter. Georgia's farmers have stood up to the worst El Nino had to offer. It is now imperative that the Federal Government extend relief to those folks in disaster areas. In addition to this natural disaster, crop insurance has failed to honor the commitment to provide a safety net to our Nation's farmers facing extreme conditions and crop losses. Georgia's farmers not only help the U.S. produce the highest quality, most affordable food in the world, but their contribution to our local communities is overwhelming. Let us acknowledge the farmer on National Ag Day by recognizing that they deserve as much as they provide. Finally, as you sit down to supper tonight, take a moment to thank the folks that made it possible, the American farmer. They deserve it.