Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, this bill does many of the things very necessary for the modernization of our Nation's military. I would like to personally thank my friend, Chairman Spence, and my friend, ranking member Dellums, the subcommittee chairman and the other ranking members that have worked together to prioritize and lead the committee into the authorization of these programs that will protect this country as we enter a new century. I am very encouraged by what I see in this bill. Chairman Spence's consultation with priorities outlined by the individual services has resulted in the creation of a good bill that has America's national security interests at its very heart. I have heard the concern expressed by a few Members that balancing the budget must come first. Nobody in this body wants to balance the budget of this country more than I do, and I would remind those Members that this bill fits within the balanced budget plan that this House passed last year by some $600 million. In fact, this authorization represents a real decline in spending of 1.5 percent. To roll spending back even further would do a serious disservice to the brave Americans that pledge their lives to the defense of this Nation. There are two other issues extremely important to me. One is the issue of quality of life. We compete in the services every day with the private sector for the highest quality of young men and women that we produce in our high schools and our colleges. We need that 3-percent pay raise. We need to upgrade the quality of living in dorms and housing. We need to upgrade the medical and dental service treatment that we give our men and women, in order to attract those men and women and to keep those men and women once we get them in the services. The second thing I wanted to address is the two MRC scenario we constantly hear about. We have talked and we have heard folks complain that we are upping the President's budget by $13 billion. If we are going to be able to put our troops in harm's way to defend two MRC's, we have to do that. I urge support of this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to salute a remarkable man who is the subject of a remarkable story. Harold Cohen is a native of Spartanburg, SC. He is the son of a Russian immigrant. In 1942 Harold Cohen entered the Army of the United States of America as a private. Two and a half years later Harold Cohen was a major in the U.S. Army and a battalion commander. Ultimately Harold Cohen received the rank of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. Colonel Cohen was a close personal friend and a colleague of Creighton Abrams. He and General Abrams served together as a part of General Patton's 3d Army. General Abrams was commander of the 37th Tank Battalion while Colonel Cohen commanded the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion. It has been said of Harold Cohen as follows: Often in the advance, Cohen's infantrymen would ride on Abrams' tanks. Cohen himself, remembered his men, was in constant motion. He sped up and down the column in a mud- splattered Jeep, pleading, coaxing and cursing. His high- pitched voice with his rich southern accent could be heard from great distances. Abrams as a tanker was impressed that infantry leaders like Cohen could motivate their men to move forward under fire with nothing but their OD shirts for protection and he often did so. Harold Cohen became a real World War II hero. For the exemplary service that Harold Cohen rendered to his country, Harold Cohen received four Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, three Purple Hearts, the Legion of Merit, the French Croix de Guerre, and awards from Poland, England, Czechoslovakia, and Luxembourg. But the highest recognition of Harold Cohen was yet to come. Harold Cohen mustered out of the Army after the war and became a successful businessman in Tifton, GA. Creighton Abrams went on to become Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. Dr. Lewis Sorley, who is a resident of Potomac, MD, wrote a book called ``Thunderbolt.'' ``Thunderbolt'' included a long history of the life of Creighton Abrams. During the course of writing that book, Dr. Sorley discovered that during the latter part of World War II, Harold Cohen was recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross by his men for bravery performed by Harold Cohen during an event that took place on February 25, 1945. The paperwork on this particular recommendation for the award of the Distinguished Service Cross for Harold Cohen unfortunately became lost during the process of the end of World War II. Dr. Sorley pursued the matter after he discovered this. He went to the U.S. Army, told them what had happened and thanks to his diligence, Harold Cohen today received the Distinguished Service Cross from Gen. Dennis Reimer, who is the current Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. The receipt today was very special, because Harold's wife Bettye; Harold's children Marty and Peggy; their grandchildren, Anna, Rachel, Michael, and Alan were also present. I would like to take just a minute to read the citation that was presented to Harold Cohen today. The President of the United States, authorized by an act of Congress dated July 9, 1918, has awarded the Distinguished Service Cross to Lieutenant Colonel Harold Cohen, United States Army Retired, for extraordinary heroism in action. Lieutenant Colonel Harold Cohen distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism on February 25, 1945, when the situation became untenable during his battalion's attack upon Brake, Germany. Small arms, artillery and direct fire came from all directions. Colonel Cohen took a position of high ground in plain view of the enemy. Oblivious to all danger and constant fire that fell all about him, directed tank fire and lifted friendly artillery fire that was falling too close. His personal bravery, inspiring leadership and tactical skill retained the initiative and gained the important objective. Lieutenant Colonel Harold Cohen's quick heroic actions and personal courage reflect great credit on him and the United States Army. Harold Cohen heads up my military academy appointment committee. I am very proud that Harold Cohen and his wife Bettye are my good friends. There are two people who tonight are not with us, Gen. George Patton and Gen. Abe Abrams, who are very proud of Harold Cohen. They rolled over tonight and smiled as Harold Cohen received the Distinguished Service Cross from General Reimer. They are proud of you, Harold, as am I.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2535.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today and urge my colleagues to support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, which establishes a pilot program for temporary agricultural workers in this country. This amendment would allow farmers all over the country to harvest their crops using a workable program. The farm labor shortage is not a California problem, it is not a Georgia problem, it is a nationwide problem. In the Southeast alone we have seen increased production of fruits and vegetables in the last 10 years. This has greatly impacted the farm labor situation in my State. These seasonal crops are handpicked crops: Peaches, tomatoes, other vegetables, tobacco. In the past, the farm labor consisted of generations of family members living on the farm and working on the farm. Those family farms are disappearing. Therefore, the labor pools are disappearing. Farmers desperately need workers who are willing to work seasonally. But to use this program, this legislation requires that the farmer first look to the American people for those workers. If they can find American workers to do the work, they must hire Americans. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. They are simply not able to find those workers. This amendment solves other problems, too. No. 1, it is temporary. They can work for no more than 10 months at a time. Second, it circumvents a crop disaster by allowing farmers to plant and harvest their crops in a timely manner. Third, and most importantly, it requires that the guest workers that are allowed in legally, that are now coming in illegally, to return home in order to get the 25 percent of their paycheck that is withheld. We do this with the understanding that those workers must go home. Why is this amendment needed? The reason is very simple: The current system simply does not work, and that is why we need a new system put in place that will allow our farmers a strong supply of workers to harvest their crops. Now, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] hit this on the head a little bit earlier. Folks, this is 1996. We have talked about old programs that do not work anymore or old programs that cause problems. This is 1996. If those folks who have gotten up here and have read these figures that some bureaucrat in Washington put together, and I am sure I am fixing to hear in my home county there is an unemployment in the rural areas of x percent, let me tell you, if those same folks that believe those figures will go home and talk to their farmers, like I do every weekend when I go to Colquitt County or Bacon County or Berrien County or Bleckley County, those farmers are the ones that I care about and they are the ones that tell me I cannot get my crops harvested without using these workers. Now, if as the opponents of this bill suggest, that there is a large pool of workers out there to draw from, then the provisions of this bill will not take effect, and I do not understand why they oppose it on that basis. If there are American workers that want to go to work, the farmers must put them to work. But first of all, in my State the Georgia Department of Labor must certify that there is a shortage of workers in the rural areas where the application for the provisions of this bill are asked to take effect. If there is a shortage declared, only then may this bill come into effect. And even then there must be a notice posted that this bill, there are workers coming in to perform this certain agricultural work. If there are farmers that come in and say hey, I see where in the case that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] referred to, that the farmer is willing to pay me $9 an hour to pick onions, that job must go to an American worker. But I can tell you, folks, you are sticking your head in the sand if you think that American workers are out there to do the work. Please pass this bill. It is a good bill. It is going to make this program workable.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today on National Agriculture Day, I would like to express my appreciation for all the hard work that the American farmer does each year. Our Nation's food system is envied throughout the world. No where else is food produced and delivered with such remarkable quality and consistency, yet available at such a low price. And in spite of the criticism leveled on the American farmer I am proud to say that this Congress, with the help of farmers across the Nation, worked within the new Republican framework and took a long hard look at the existing farm programs. We put in place a system that works effectively and efficiently, for our farmers, for our taxpayers, and for America. The result: A farm bill that costs the taxpayers less money and at the same time gives our farmers a safety net. A farm bill that is more flexible and market oriented than ever before and a farm bill that is the most environmentally friendly agriculture legislation in our history. The road has not been easy. Farmers across the Nation struggle each year doing the most difficult work in the world. For this reason, on National Agriculture Day, it is important that we recognize the work they do and thank them greatly.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes the use of binding production flexibility contracts between the United States and owners and operators of farmland to ensure farming certainty and flexibility while ensuring continued compliance with farm conservation compliance plans and wetland protection requirements. Is this guarantee of payment?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Steve Johnson who is celebrating 30 years of faithful service to the Baptist Church. Having served as the pastor of Mabel White Memorial Baptist Church, in Macon, GA, since 1984, Steve Johnson is a man who is loved by the members of his church and all those who know him. Through his commitment to serving God and the church, Steve has touched and changed the lives of many special people. Steve Johnson also deserves to be recognized for his outstanding service to the community of Macon. Serving on the board of directors for the Cherry Blossom Festival and the First Presbyterian Day School, Steve is working with others to make our communities happier and safer places to live and raise our families. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to know Steve and his wife Connie for many years, and I am proud to call them friends. I hope you will join me in congratulating Steve during this special time in his life and for 30 years of unparalleled service to the Baptist Church.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Shays- Lowey amendment. For over a year now, we have been working very hard and very closely with the different segments of the peanut industry. We have crafted reforms that transfer the peanut industry into the 21st century and prepare our farmers to compete in a global market, save American jobs, and do not destroy an industry. That is the simple message that I bring to the well today. Do we want to reform the peanut industry in America or do we want to destroy it? That is where we are with this amendment. The reforms we made over the last year, the byproduct of tough negotiations and real compromise, in good faith we have tried to satisfy the critics. I want to take a minute to satisfy some of those critics today. They have gotten up here and have complained about out-of-state quota holders owning peanuts. We have done away with that in our reform bill. You have complained about the cost of the Peanut Program to the taxpayer. We have done away with that in our program. My colleagues have talked about artificial costs to the housewife. As the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] has just said, we had testimony under oath by Ben Smith, who is a vice president, a man that I respect, of Tom's Peanut Industry in Columbus, GA. In Albany, GA, on April 25, Mr. Smith under direct examination said, if you lower the cost of the peanuts to the farmer, it will not lower the cost of the product to the housewife. That Snickers bar that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] held up a while ago has less than 2 cents [Mrs. Lowey] held up a while ago has less than 2 cents' worth of peanuts in it, albeit Chinese peanuts, I might add. If you gave them the peanuts, would they lower the cost of that Snickers bar? Absolutely not. That jar of peanut butter that we have has less than 48 cents' worth of peanuts in it to the farmer. If we gave them the peanuts, would they lower the cost of that? I tell my colleagues, Mr. Smith says no, they would not. Now, that is not GAO. That is not GEE. That is the guy that sells the peanut butter, the guy that sells the crackers in the store. If my colleagues want a reform program, this is it. If they want to destroy an industry, vote ``yes.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture how much I appreciate his leadership through what has been a very difficult year with ag policy. We have stepped into a situation where we have had to meet budget constraints and agriculture has always been called on, even in years when we were not trying to balance the budget, to make cuts in our programs. The chairman of the committee has been a very valued asset to me personally, and I thank him for that leadership. Also to my subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who have just done a super job in bringing us forward. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for their valued friendship and leadership. I cannot leave out the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. He has just worked so diligently, the particularly in the area of dairy. To my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], we on the other side of the aisle have had our disagreements certainly, but it has always been in a very professional and a very courteous manner, and I commend him for his leadership over there. Agriculture has always been the backbone of the economy of this country. I come from the largest agriculture county in the State of Georgia. Agriculture drives our State, and certainly agriculture drives my home county and the people there. Less than 2 percent of the people of this country feed 100 percent of the people of this country. We provide the safest, finest quality of food products on the shelves of our grocery stores of anybody in the world. We spend less than 10 cents out of every dollar on food products, whereas other industrialized countries like Japan spend over 20 cents out of every single dollar for food products. We are able to do that because of strong agriculture programs that we have in this country that provided those safe, high- quality products and we have been able to stabilize the retail cost of agricultural products over the years. But times are changing. We are moving into the 21st century. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act moves us in the direction. I commend the chairman, and I urge the support of that bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of cotton farmers throughout the country and urge my colleagues to oppose the Chabot-Kennedy amendment. I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] that we ought to be moving towards market-oriented farm programs, and that is what we absolutely have with the current marketing loan program in the cotton industry. Quite simply, farmers took the risk during the 1980's to set up the marketing loan program, despite comments from critics that it would not work. But it has worked, and every other commodity is now seeking to emulate the marketing loan program of the cotton industry, because when prices are high, there is no marketing loan program. There is no need for it. But in times when cotton industry prices are low, there is a need for this loan program, and that is when it is activated. I really do not understand why we are picking on cotton today. Cotton has created some 350,000 clean, good jobs in the United States. The retail value of the end products exceed $122 billion annually. It is the cornerstone of one of the great industries in this country, the textile industry. We contribute generously to the export of this country. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly commend the gentlewoman from California for her kind words about Congressman Mfume. Members on both sides of the aisle are going to miss him. He spoke with a lot of emotion and from his heart and spoke with a lot of reason in a House that does not always exercise reasonableness, and he will be missed. I have with me tonight my colleague and agriculture friend from Iowa, Tom Latham. We come here tonight out of a sense of terrible frustration for what is going on in the agriculture business in this House. We made an attempt today to bring the 1995, and here we are in 1996, farm bill to the floor for a vote. The Committee on Agriculture has worked very diligently and very hard over the last 13 months trying to formulate and change the agricultural policy in this country to ensure that we have strong and viable agricultural programs moving into the 21st century. We met all day on Tuesday to discuss what is now the new form of the farm bill that is the second bill that has been passed by that committee, the first one having been a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 that unfortunately was vetoed by President Clinton. Had that bill not been vetoed, our farmers would have had back in December the ability to plan and determine what they were going to be able to do with their farm operation for 1996. But that did not happen. So we came back to the table on Tuesday of this week. We again brought forth the bill that was contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, debated it thoroughly in the Committee on Agriculture on Tuesday and were in great hopes that it would come to the floor today. But, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle would not agree with us to bring this bill up today. Tom, I know you share that same frustration and I know your folks in Iowa are as upset as I am and you are and as my farmers in Georgia are.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We are leaving here today. We voted on and passed a bill to adjourn this House until the 26th day of February. So we know it is going to be then. You are going to have the same problem in going home to your farmers and saying, ``Folks, you know, we're not even going to be able to take this bill up until the 26th of February,'' and it really will not make any difference whether we took it up in advance of that or not because the Senate is out until the 26th of February, they have already said that, and we are sort of going to be in limbo until then. I am very frustrated, I am very upset about this, and I certainly hope that during these next 3 weeks as we are out of this House, that all Members on both sides of the aisle are going to take the opportunity to sit back and reflect on the fact that 2 percent of the population of this country feed 100 percent of the population of this country, as well as many, many other hundreds of thousands and millions of folks all across this world, because we grow not only the finest quality and most abundant agricultural products in the world but the cheapest agricultural products in the world. Our farmers need good, solid farm programs to ensure that they are able to get some sort of return on their investment to keep them going. That has been our goal in this farm bill from January 4, 1995, when we started last year. It is still our goal.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the gentleman for joining me tonight. I know you have the same deep regret that I do that we do not right now have a farm bill in place that we could have had tonight. We will continue to work over the next 3 weeks and hopefully on February 26 we will come back in the frame of mind to get it done and get it done soon.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Did the gentleman ask for an amendment to the bill in the meeting the other day? I missed it. Did the gentleman offer an amendment the other day?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Administration and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], both of which are located in the Department of Health and Human Services, have proposed tobacco regulations. FDA has just begun its regulatory process by issuing proposed regulations last August, while SAMHSA's final regulations are set to take effect this February. SAMHSA's regulations implement the so-called Synar amendment, which Congress passed with bipartisan support in 1992 to address the problem of underage tobacco use. The SAMHSA regulations are superior to FDA's more extreme approach. The SAMHSA regulations implement a clear congressional mandate. They will do a better job in a shorter time, with much less Federal involvement and much greater respect for the proper role of the States in our constitutional system. The Synar amendment conditions substance abuse grant assistance to the States on their taking steps to reduce youth access to tobacco and directs SAMSHA to issue implementing regulations. Today every State prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors and imposes penalties for violations. In fact, as a result of the Synar amendment, since 1992 some 30 States have taken additional legislative steps to reduce youth access to tobacco. While the SAMHSA regulations were still pending within HHS, FDA--an agency with no jurisdiction over tobacco and no authorization from Congress to act on youth tobacco issues--published its own extreme proposal to regulate tobacco products as medical devices. FDA is engaged in a blatant attempt to circumvent Congress and override the States. FDA's rules would nullify or supplant dozens of State youth access laws, in favor of an extremist, one-size-fits-all regulatory straightjacket imposed by Washington bureaucrats. FDA's proposed rules are an end-run around Congress and the States. Mr. Speaker, in contrast to FDA's extreme proposal, SAMHSA's approach allows flexible responses by the States to reduce underage smoking. FDA's proposed regulations should be withdrawn in favor SAMHSA's final regulations, which directly implement Congress's will show proper respect for the constitutional authority of the States.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor and a privilege to serve the people of Georgia in Congress this past year. I truly feel that we have changed the way Congress and Washington operate. It is no longer business as usual and status quo. This past year has been long. It has been arduous, and obviously the work continues as we try to make sure the President honors his commitment to balance the budget in 7 years. But I am proud to say that we are winning. This 104th Congress has totally changed the terms of political debate. It is no longer should we balance the budget, it is now a matter of how soon we get the President to keep his word to balance the budget. It is no longer should we make government smaller, it is now a matter of how small. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are making a difference. We have stood firm for real change, and we will not back out of our commitment to do the right thing and balance the budget.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the situation the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] had reference to there, but I commend him for taking the floor to recognize this young man and all our best wishes for this holiday season go out to his family. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk on a couple of things here. First of all, I had a very special point of pride today when I received a phone call from my hometown advising me that in spite of all the lambasting of Republicans by folks on the other side, that this morning the sheriff of my county, the Honorable Billy Howell, a two-term Democratic incumbent, switched to the Republican Party. I commend Sheriff Howell on what I think is a very wise decision for him. I welcome him to the party. He is a good friend, and I know will continue to serve the people of my county in a Republican manner the same as he did in a Democratic manner. I cannot help but make one quick comment about my good friend, and he is truly my good friend, who serves on the Committee on Agriculture with me, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], who was critical of the Republican budget, saying that our budget is not a balanced budget because it does not balance the budget now. Well, by golly, we could balance the budget now but the best way to do that is to cut out all congressional pay and send all of us home. That would certainly go a long way toward balancing the budget now. Everybody understands we cannot balance the budget now. We presented a budget that will balance the budget of this country in the year 2002. Everybody knows and understands that, I hope, and I hope the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] will better understand that. He said he has been here since 1981 and frankly that is part of the problem. We have had too many people who have been here too long, who have spent too much money over the years and, by golly, it is just time we stopped spending so much money. I really got up here, though, to talk about another matter that I am extremely excited about and something that took place on the floor of this House several days ago, and that is the passage of the national Defense authorization conference report. The report passed in the House, it also passed in the Senate yesterday, and it is headed to the White House as we speak. The President has given every indication that he is going to use the same veto pen that he used on several other authorization bills and veto this bill. I hope he changes his mind. I want to encourage him to change his mind, because in my opinion the national Defense authorization conference report that we passed in the House, has been passed in the Senate, is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. There are a lot of ways that perhaps we could improve it. But it is a good bill, and it does a lot of things that are absolutely necessary from the standpoint of the national security of this country that have needed to be done for many years. First of all, one thing this bill does is give all of our active military personnel a pay raise. Admittedly, it is only 2.4 percent, I wish it could have been 24 percent, but it does give the military personnel of this country an immediate pay raise. I am very pleased, when I go on the three military bases that are located in my district and have an opportunity to talk to the young men and women, all of whom are volunteers in the military, when I talk to those young men and women and find out that without question they are absolutely the finest young men and women that America has to offer. It gives me a real sense of pride, and I am extremely proud of those young men and women. If anybody deserves a pay raise at this very difficult time in our budget process, it is the men and women in military service. Right now here we are at Christmastime. Here we are dealing with a very serious crisis in a very cold and distant land called Bosnia, a country which a lot of folks in this country had never heard of before 30 or 60 days ago. We are sending 20,000 of our finest to Bosnia at this time of year. The President has an opportunity to give those folks a very special Christmas present, to say thank you for a job well done. That Christmas present will be a 2.4-percent increase in their pay. Another thing that this bill does is it provides a 5.2-percent increase in what we call BAQ housing allowance. What BAQ housing allowance is, it is a provision which pays to military personnel a certain amount of money to allow them to rent an apartment or rent a home that is off the military base where they are serving. If we do not have military housing on base, a lot of times our personnel are required to go off base, and we provide them some money to do that with. It is never enough to fully fund what it costs for an apartment or a house but it does help out. We provide an increase in that. Mr. President, that increase is needed. I urge you to sign it. Another thing we do is we equalize the retired military COLA's to retired civilian COLA's. That is something that is an extremely important aspect of this bill. Mr. President, I urge you to look at this bill. If for no other reason than from these standpoints, please sign the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, it has been 29 days since the President agreed to enact a 7-year balanced budget, and Congress is still waiting for President Clinton to produce a serious budget. I am led to believe that the President would rather see the shutdown of the government continue than to submit a balanced budget. Congress, a I emphasize that word, ``Congress'', because in a bipartisan effort, a bipartisan effort of Republicans, and Democrats kept our end of the bargain. We submitted a balanced budget in 7 years that met the CBO standards, but the President vetoed that. Since that veto, the President has failed to present a legitimate alternative. His only attempt at a balanced budget is $365 billion out of balance. $115 billion of that comes in the last year and higher amounts in between. Mr. Speaker, it is all very simple. If the President wants to avoid the continuing shutdown, let him submit a balanced budget that we can lay on the table, talk about, and it will pass in this Congress if it meets CBO numbers.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, today's authorization bill represents a recommitment of this Congress to the men and women who bravely serve and defend this Nation. This bill contains the funding necessary to assure that when we ask our troops to defend our national interest abroad, they go with the very best we can give them. Here and now, C-17's and C-130's will safely and efficiently airlift our troops to Bosnia. For the future, the F-22 air superiority aircraft continues through the development stages. The bill expresses the Congress' continued commitment to the B-2 program, notwithstanding the delay on funding until the end of March. In light of this situation, it is incumbent on Secretary Perry to bridge this time period and ensure that industrial activity can continue by freeing up $25 million yet to be obligated from the 1995 budget. The Congress spoke clearly in this authorization bill and in its appropriation measure: The B-2 is a vital part of our bomber modernization program. And until a final disposition is made on the future procurement of additional bombers, we must preserve the industrial base with short-term funding action, action most appropriately taken by the Secretary of Defense. It is important to note that all of the procurement priorities authorized in this legislation fit within the balanced budget the new majority has sent to the President. If this President will continue to expect so much from our military men and women, he must be prepared to give them the very best we can afford and sign this authorization when presented. As leaders, we owe them that.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, this country is at war. Everyone in this Congress and people throughout America recognize that this country is at war. Mr. Speaker, this country it is at war with an issue that has the potential of wreaking more destruction on this great Nation and more hurt on the American people than any war in our history. This issue, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the budget deficit, a fact of life for every American over the last quarter century that has made products more expensive, created higher interest rates, and depressed an economy and a nation that is poised for economic boom. Last November, the American people elected a new leadership in Washington. In doing so the American people sent to battle the troops they believed would carry the flag of responsibility and reason. The war over our economic future is a fight we cannot afford to lose--the stakes are too high. Mr. Speaker, there are very close parallels between this Nation's national security and this budget war. Just as Americans have asked our brave sons and daughters to spend the holidays in a cold and distant land in Europe, now is the time to ask our Nation's political leaders to join the battle and balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, it has been said before that ``It is Morning in America.'' And I firmly believe that this week we are on the threshold of greatness once again. There will be no brighter dawn than the hopes and dreams made possible by a sound economy. We have an opportunity at this time to balance the budget for the first time in a quarter century and preserve the future for every American--a new dawn, indeed. Mr. Speaker, this is the President's call to arms. Now is the time for the President to join the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body who are willing to do all it takes to balance the budget of this great Nation. Certainly, it will require sacrifice. Certainly, it will require tough decisions. But Mr. Speaker we must win this very important battle today if we are to balance the people's books tomorrow. Oppose the latest Clinton unbalanced budget plan and support a serious plan to reach a balanced budget by 2002.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill. I have been excited to see over the last several weeks the level of interest and education the Bosnian deployment has generated among Members as it relates to our military. Bosnia has reminded Members on all committees of the importance of a military robust enough to assure that our military men and women can go about the business of protecting this Nation in the safest way possible. The bill before you does just that. The bill also contains the critical quality of life provisions for our troops, and that will impact those who have traveled to Bosnia this Christmas. We have assured our troops the very necessary new housing, new child care facilities, and a pay raise, all quality-of-life issues that give back to those troops we expect so much from. The authorizing bill before you is a good piece of legislation that would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of the chairman of our Committee on National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and also my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. Support our troops, support this rule, support the authorization bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult decision that we have had to deal with, the deployment of troops to Bosnia. I, along with the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], have sat in the Committee on National Security over the last several weeks and we have asked very serious questions of the administration. Those are the same questions that have been alluded to by Mr. Skelton earlier. Those questions simply have not been answered. I voted in favor of the Dornan amendment earlier. That vote by me in favor of the Dornan amendment was a statement. It was a statement that, Mr. President, you have not provided the information satisfactory to this Congress to authorize this Congress to vote in favor of deploying troops to Bosnia. In spite of that, that decision has been made. That decision is behind us now, as the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Burton], just said. It is time now to move on. When we move on, we must leave this House, leaving nothing unturned, but giving our unconditional support to the troops, the brave men and women in Bosnia. The Buyer-Skelton resolution does that. I urge support of that resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, while I have some reluctance about overriding the authority of the President given by this body, we have no choice in this case. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern about the vote we are about to make tonight. Scenes of the fighting in Bosnia have torn this country apart. The bloodshed is real, and the death is overwhelming. At this very hour, peace talks continue between the leaders of the warring parties, and there is reason to believe that a preliminary agreement is in the works. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to this Congress with a commitment to the people I represent to seek a seat on the House National Security Committee. It is a responsibility I take very seriously because the decisions we make will impact the lives of every brave American who volunteers to defend this great Nation. The threshold decision we must make, Mr. Speaker, is whether the war in Bosnia invokes a vital national security interest for the people of the United States. If such interest exists, we must act and act decisively. However, a vital national interest does not exist. This Nation, together with NATO, has made a firm commitment over the past several months in the form of air strikes in defense of United Nations safe havens. It is a humanitarian commitment that is worthy of our involvement. But the introduction of U.S. ground troops, American sons and daughters, is another matter, entirely. Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I must also express my grave reservations over the soundness of judgment exercised to this point by this particular President. His indecisiveness and lack of vision could prove lethal to the many men and women who would serve as the ground force. I also find it to the height of hypocracy for this President to send to Congress inadequate defense budgets in light of this newfound commitment to the projection of American power. It seems that this sentiment is shared widely among my colleagues in this Congress. In my judgment, it is better that the negotiations in Ohio proceed with this fact in mind, rather than congressional action of disapproval after a peace accord is signed. While I have difficulty casting this vote in light of the powers specifically enumerated this President as Commander in Chief, the safety of the men and women in our Armed Services demand me to cast a vote in support of this binding action.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to be joined by two of my distinguished colleagues on the Committee on National Security, my good friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]. We want to discuss an issue that is of great importance to our constituents. It is also an issue that ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we view to be an issue of importance to every American, because it concerns the ability of our U.S. Air Force to protect this great Nation. The issue is privatization in place, and it refers to a plan that has been hatched by the current administration in the White House, that makes military effectiveness and efficiency take a back seat to political gamesmanship. We will use the next hour to discuss the President's plan and offer our thoughts about the future of our military maintenance system. Privatization in place is an issue that has come out of the White House recently because of the closing of two military bases, one in San Antonio, TX, Kelly Air Force Base, and one in California, McClellan Air Force Base. These two Air Force bases are two of the five air logistics centers that are currently operated by the U.S. Air Force. What is the problem with the depot system? Why are we here tonight talking about the issue of privatization in place? We are talking about that issue because of the fact that the Air Force has determined, and the Department of Defense has agreed, that we have excess capacity within the U.S. Air Force depot system from a maintenance standpoint. We have too much capacity out there to do the work that we have to do. Therefore, certain bases need to be considered from a downsizing standpoint or possibly from a closure standpoint. The U.S. Congress has a mechanism in place called the BRAC process to deal with this specific issue. The BRAC process is not a very well thought of issue within this body. The reason is because it has a very drastic effect on areas where it is determined that bases are no longer needed and must be closed. But the BRAC process is a nonpolitical process that was established by this body and by the U.S. Senate several years ago, and is a process that is designed to take politics out of making decisions on whether or not military bases should remain open or whether or not military bases should be closed. As everyone knows, since the end of the cold war we have been downsizing the size of the force structure of our various militaries. We have downsized the Air Force, we have cut back on the number of people that we have in that blue uniform. We have downsized the Army, the number that we have in that green uniform; and the Navy, the Coast Guard and so forth and so on. As we continue to downsize our military, it is necessary that we look at other areas that serve that force structure. For example, with respect to the Air Force, we now have less airplanes than we had flying 10 years ago. We have less pilots to fly those airplanes. Therefore, we have less maintenance work to be done on those airplanes. That is why we have the excess capacity that has led to this issue of privatization in place. The BRAC process, as I say, was not a very popular item within this House, but the BRAC Commission was established several years ago to review all of the military bases all across this country from the standpoint of can we afford to operate without those military bases due to the fact that we have begun to downsize the force structure. We do not have as many people in uniform. We need to look to see whether or not we can make savings in the amount of money that the Government spends, no only from the standpoint of paying the salary of those personnel but from the standpoint of maintaining the airplanes, of maintaining the trucks, for maintaining tanks, for maintaining ships, whatever it may be with respect to each particular branch of the service. That is why BRAC was established. During the past 6 years, we have had three BRAC Commissions to take action with respect to military bases all across this country. Those BRAC Commissions have taken into consideration the fact that we have downsized our force structure, and they have made decisions regarding certain military bases, be they depots or be they nondepots. Those FRAC Commissions have made decisions that are not popular decisions within this body, to close military bases, but those decisions needed to be made. They were good judgment decisions that have been made to make certain base closures. In this particular instance, the BRAC Commission came to consider certain bases to determine whether or not they should be closed during the 1994 year and 1995 year. They considered the Air Force depots, of which there are five, [[Page H 11821]] that maintain all of the Air Force equipment that is used by the personnel in this country. Those five bases are Hill Air Force Base, which is located in Utah, represented by my friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], who has joined us; Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma, represented by our friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]; Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, GA; McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, CA; and Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX. Those were the five U.S. Air Force depots that were in existence that were under consideration by the BRAC Commission. At this time, I am going to ask my friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] if he will to step in and tell us a little bit about this, and explain a chart that he has there concerning the excess capacity issue that I have alluded to, why that issue was important and what the BRAC Commission decided with respect to that excess capacity.