Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, which Chairman Spence introduced along with Chairman Clinger and a number of other distinguished Members, will revamp the current regulatory morass which passes for an acquisition system. A significant part of the reform in H.R. 1670 concerns the consolidation of title IV of the 11 different agency administrative tribunals which currently resolve contract disputes and the two bid protests into two boards--one in the Department of Defense to handle DOD protests and disputes and one in the General Services Administration to handle civilian agency protests and disputes. A single set of efficient procedures will govern both. The House National Security Committee amendment I propose will further refine and streamline the procedures of the two boards with a special emphasis on the efficient, fair, and cost-effective resolution of protests. Complaints about the current bid protest process have come from the administration and from some segments of industry. The detractors of the current protest system attack it as too complex, too intrusive, and too prudently intensive. Others argue that the current protest resolution process is an essential feature of the acquisition system and must be maintained with court-like procedures. H.R. 1670 creates a new consolidated protest resolution process that achieves a better balance between the need to ensure the fundamental fairness of the Government's acquisition system and the need to acquire the goods and services needed by the Government in an efficient manner. The main point of the committee amendment is to inject further refinement into the new protest resolution system created by H.R. 1670. Among other things, it would simplify the standard of review to be used for the resolution of protest cases, ensure that board judges permit the use of discovery only where necessary to minimize costly litigation, increase the use of special simplified procedures for the speedy resolution of protests in appropriate cases, provide for the selection of judges by the Secretary of Defense for the defense board and by the Administrator of General Services for the civilian board, and simplify and clarify the process of transitioning from the current administrative tribunals to the two new consolidated boards. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again commend Chairmen Spence and Clinger for their hard work on bringing this legislation to the floor. It represents a responsible, long-overdue approach to Government procurement. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment which will strengthen the reforms already in H.R. 1670 by ensuring a robust, cost-effective, and efficient process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe what I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the other day. They were saying that the Republicans are wrecking education and destroying millions of Americans' future. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart. Both my wife and daughter are public school teachers, my children grew up in public schools, and I know how important education is to future generations. The problem is that President Clinton does not want to balance the budget. If he did, he would stop coming to Congress with his plans that only increase Government taking and Government spending. President Clinton believes in big government. In fact, he thinks the solution to our student loan problems is to convert the Department of Education into one of America's largest banks and the IRS into a loan collection agency. One thing I have come to learn in my short time in Washington is that the Federal Government has failed miserably as a lender of money. The Republicans balanced budget proposal does not cut a single student loan. In fact, more loans will be available next year than ever in the history of the program. This can be accomplished, not in the public, but the private sector. What is the Democrat alternative? Well, as usual, big Government.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, the Clinger-Spence acquisition reform bill before you will finish the job begun by the Congress last year. Consider the changes proposed by the bill: Changing competition requirements so that they are reasonable in light of the need; establishing commercial-like procedures for Government procurement; reforming procurement integrity so that it no longer stifles the process; making American companies more competitive on the international market; streamlining the burdensome certification process; consolidating the many dispute resolution mechanisms into a single review board. These are all commonsense answers to the very real problem of redtape and an overly bureaucratic procurement process. This Congress is finally applying real-world family and business practices to our budgets and our administration of Federal programs. Why not apply these standards to Federal purchasers? When this bill was first put forward as an amendment to the Defense authorization, many business groups voiced their concern over the new approach to the process. They were concerned that this legislation would in some way limit their ability to freely and openly pursue contracts. Since that time, Chairmen Clinger and Spence have worked very hard to address these concerns. They have made very important changes that protect the rights of business while maintaining the commonsense approach that serves as the basis of the legislation. I commend Chairmen Spence and Clinger for working so hard to bring these needed changes to Government. The changes will be good for business, and ultimately they will be good for the taxpayers. Support the Clinger-Spence procurement reform bill and reject this amendment. However well-intentioned, the amendment of my colleague from Illinois would embrace the status quo and prevent the kind of reform that will get to the heart of this unruly process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, my children are in public schools and my wife teaches public school. Mr. Speaker, this week the new majority of this body will unveil its plan for reforming the Medicare system--a plan that is long overdue for a system that will soon pay out more than it takes in. Meanwhile the President and Members of the other side of the aisle crisscross the country with their deficit spending, big government message. Over the years they failed the American people by not giving them a responsible Government that operates within its means. Now that the new majority is about the business of bringing to Washington responsible Government, the other side has resorted to generational warfare, scaring seniors into believing they are the targets of our balanced budget when in fact they are not. Our message is simple: We are committed to Medicare's continued viability for the future of seniors and our children. We are committed to positive changes that will balance our budget and encourage individual responsibility--the same goals of any American family.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, August 22, 1995, is a day etched in the minds of those who flew on board ASA Commuter Flight 529 from Atlanta, GA, Gulfport, MS. Flight 529 was forced to crash land in a small field near Carrollton, GA, resulting in the death of four passengers and its captain, Ed Gannaway of Dublin, GA. However, due to the sheer heroics of Captain Gannaway, 26 passengers survived the crash landing. Landing a plane with a blown engine took a level head and all the outstanding skills available to Captain Gannaway. Flight attendant Robin Fech, of Warner Robins, has similarly earned our praise for her calm and efficient preparation of the passengers for the crash landing that awaited them. Fortunately, Robin Fech survived the ill-fated flight. Today, I would like to take this time to recognize Captain Ed Gannaway for the manner in which he guided his crippled plane over houses, power lines, and trees to finally find the hayfield near Carrollton. Because of Ed Gannaway, 24 others are still alive today. Ed Gannaway was a great American, and many lives are touched by his passing. Whether it be the kids from Boy Scout Troop 66 or those that knew him from First United Methodist church in Dublin, Ed Gannaway wlll be missed. Our hearts go out to his wife, Jackie, and three sons, Craig, Russell, and Rob. It will always be hard to face this loss, but I pray that it be reassuring to know that Ed Gannaway died for the sake of other lives. Without Ed Gannaway as pilot on this particular day, the news of this crash might have been far graver. The best way to sum up Ed Gannaway's feat is as Rev. Jack Key said, ``Ed Gannaway truly flew on wings of eagles.''

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Members of the House recognize the importance of supporting and preserving the integrity of the BRAC process. In it, Congress has created the most politically neutral means possible of reducing our military's excessive infrastructure. Although we may not agree with individual decisions, we must support the process. With respect to the process, however, I would like to address a situation that has arisen from the recommendations of this most recent Commission. Specifically, I refer to the President's plans for the future of our air logistics depot structure. As my colleagues are aware, the Commission determined the Air Force maintains excess capacity in its air depots. As a result, commissioners voted to close two depots based on the objective base closure criteria. As with all individual base closure decisions before, the two depots slated for closure would be phased out over a 5-year period. This would solve the two primary problems the BRAC was created to eliminate: excess capacity and infrastructure. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon has come to inform Congress that under direction of this administration and the President, another plan is in the works for the two air force depots to be closed. Mr. Speaker, it seems the President has concluded that the loss of over 10,000 jobs in each of the very electoral-vote-rich States of California and Texas demands special attention. In order to save those jobs, and presumably those votes, the President has instructed the Secretary of Defense to devise a plan to privatize in place, in effect maintaining all depot jobs in San Antonio and Sacramento. What the President is saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that the BRAC process is political, that an otherwise objective process is necessary until it affects his chances of reelection. The deliberate end-run this President is making around the process should offend each and every Member of this Congress that has worked within the limits of the process and every Member that has accepted the four rounds of BRAC recommendations. You know, it is not very often that this Congress agrees on a politics-free solution to the problems we face, but in this case the process must be preserved and defended. Mr. Speaker, this President's decision to privatize in place the work performed at Sacramento and San Antonio air logistics centers nullifies the very difficult decisions made by the BRAC. The BRAC took its charge very seriously: to assess and repair a military scheme that maintained excess depot capacity and infrastructure that was out of proportion with the force structure demanded in this post-cold war world. The commissioners accomplished their task, and by privatizing in place, the Pentagon will be overriding the commissioners' decision and embracing our status quo of excess capacity. Let me make one point perfectly clear, to my colleagues, but more important to the President and this administration. The President's acceptance of this Commission's recommendations is just that: ``acceptance.'' The Commission has not recommended privatization in place, or any other concoction designed to save political hides, regardless of how desperate the President is to amend the recommendations. The President's acceptance is unconditional, and our rejection here today of the resolution before us will signal our support for this very difficult process. I ask my colleagues to reject the joint resolution before you. The BRAC process has been many things, but it has not been political.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin. By slowing the development of the F-22 we unnecessarily put this Nation's national security at risk. We send the wrong message to the men and women who will be protected by this system in the future, and we will add significant costs to the taxpayer. As a Member of this body and a first term member of the Committee on National Security, I have taken on a responsibility to this Chamber to assess and respond to the risks posed to the people of this country. To that end, I have come to learn in vivid detail the threats that remain, even in the wake of the cold war. In this critical year when we reevaluate our defense priorities, Members are asked to consider our present state of readiness and to put in place the systems that will ensure our future dominance. Mr. Chairman, the future is the F-22. Mr. Chairman, I ask that our colleagues send a message to the American people that we will protect your freedom at a price that we can afford. Send the message to our brave servicemembers that ``We are committed to your safety, and we will equip you with the most advanced weapons available.'' I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. And there were some reasons why that should happen. As the cold war with Russia has come to an end, it is time to downsize the military, to get it down to a more manageable figure and something that we can afford. That has been true over the last several years. That is one reason the Defense Department budget has been reduced.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Too many pockets full of money out there and too many strange-looking expenditures of tax money. But we have done things like today, I was extremely proud that we passed a defense appropriation bill today. I am a member of the Committee on national Security. We have worked extremely hard over the last 7 months, 8 months to put together a defense bill that ensures that we will always be the world's strongest military power. We are the world's greatest country because we are the world's strongest military power. I was very pleased today that that defense appropriations bill passed by a large bipartisan margin. I think we are going to get the military in this country back on the right track because we have cut the defense budget every year for the last 7 years. We have now restored the money. More importantly, we are spending the money from a defense standpoint where the money needs to be spent.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Spending has been out of control in Congress for too many years now. We have not had a balanced budget in 25 years. We run the largest business in the world right here in this Chamber. And if any member of the business community across the United States ran their business like Congress has been running the business of this country, they would not last 60 days. It is time we put responsibility back in government. That is one thing that November 8 was all about.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I will continue my dialogue with my friend from the First District of Georgia, Mr. Kingston. We want to talk for a minute about the process we have been going through here in Congress for the last couple of weeks before the recess and a couple days since we have been back, and that is the appropriations process. We have been taking the money that is received by the government from the taxpayers and deciding exactly how that money ought to be spent, which departments ought to receive what amount of money, what programs ought to be funded, and what programs ought not to be funded. One thing that we have done, we have made severe cuts in Federal spending. We are going to continue to make severe cuts in Federal spending. We are [[Page H 8670]] not going to accomplish all of the cuts that need to be made in this session of Congress, but we have made a giant step in the right direction. The gentleman from the First District of course is on the Committee on Appropriations, and he may want to address some specific items we have dealt with over the last couple of years.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. It was interesting too that the previous speaker stated that we as Republicans are providing tax cuts to middle class America, and those tax cuts are being given at the expense of Medicare recipients. That is absolutely not true. What he did not tell the folks is that Medicare is a trust fund. Payments that are received by the Federal Government from taxpayers for Medicare go into a trust fund. Those funds can be used only for Medicare beneficiaries. Tax cuts have no relationship to Medicare trust funds. The tax cuts being given to middle class America are being given to those folks you just talked about, the folks who are hard working, scraping by day-to- day to make a decent living for their families. Those are the folks that are going to receive the benefit of the tax cuts that are going to be put in place. That has absolutely no relationship to Medicare.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I too am just somewhat flabbergasted by the comments made by the previous speaker from the other side of the aisle regarding the cuts in Medicare. He made one statement that Medicare is more solvent today than it has been in a long time. We had problems with it in the past and the reaction of this Congress was to make minor adjustments in the Medicare program. Well, what the Democrats consider as ``minor adjustments'' is raising taxes. That is not what the American people want. The American people want a solid program with solid funding, not a program that is a runaway program that requires raising taxes to fix it. Congress must act responsibly. We are charged by the American people to take a program like Medicare, to reform, revise, and improve that program to where we take money from the taxpayers and we spend it wisely. When it comes time for folks to receive the benefits of Medicare, they ought to be able to receive those benefits without the necessity of raising taxes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I come up here and I find out that the gentleman from North Carolina says 60 percent of his district is; and Illinois has severe wetland problems; Idaho, North Dakota, all over this country folks have wetland problems, and it is a very expensive issue to deal with. It is one issue that we have got to provide relief to the agriculture community. It is one area that we can provide relief that will make them more efficient farmers and allow them to produce a crop at less cost, because we know that we are going to have less money to deal with as far as farm programs are concerned. It is one thing that we can do to make the agricultural community a better place to make a living. We have numerous situations down in my area regarding fields where we have center pivot irrigations. When they go to make their complete circle, they have one area out here that the folks have come in from the Soil Conservation Service or the Corps of Engineers and said this is a wetlands and you cannot run your irrigation system over that area. What they have to do is to run that system for the 199 acres to this point, and bring it back around the other way to that point, and bring it back around, instead of going all the way through an area that is really just a low spot in a field, but yet it has been designated as wetlands. It is just as frustrating as it can be to the American farmer to have to deal with those types of regulations. That is the type of regulations that we dealt with in our Contract With America, and that I am hoping will get through the Senate side over there so we will have something positive to take back home and say, folks, we know we have to change these programs. We know we have less money to deal with, but this is what we are doing to offset that and to make you a more efficient farmer and allow you to continue to make the same money you are making even though you will not have as much money from the Federal programs as what you may have had in the past.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me. It has been a real pleasure to serve on the House Committee on Agriculture since I have been here from January 4 forward, and probably the greatest pleasure that I have in serving on that Committee on Agriculture is the fact that I get to sit next to you in our full committee hearings, and I so much enjoy the gentleman's comments on the side about what is going on in the hearings, and it is thoroughly enlightening to hear the gentleman from Illinois make hear the gentleman from Illinois make his comments about what the witnesses say and particularly what they do not say. It has been a real pleasure. You are correct, I do come from a peanut-producing district. My State of Georgia produces 42 percent of the peanuts that are grown in the United States. The United States is the third largest peanut-producing country in the world right now, and my district, the Eighth district of Georgia, is the second largest peanut-producing district in the United States, the district that adjoins me, the second district, being the largest district. I come from a very strong agricultural background. I come from Colquitt County, Georgia, the most diversified agricultural county east of the Mississippi River. We not only grow peanuts, we grow an awful lot of cotton, tobacco, corn, livestock, cattle, all sorts of product. In fact, my son-in-law is a farmer in Colquitt County. He grows a little bit of peanuts, a little bit of tobacco, primarily produce. We grow a lot of squash, peppers, cabbage, eggplant, about any kind of produce you can imagine. I do come from a very strong agricultural background. I talked a lot on the campaign trail last year about the fact that the agricultural economy of this country is still the backbone of this Nation's economy, and without a good strong agricultural economy, this country is in real trouble. You know, what makes it so interesting for the four of us to sit here and talk about this, I mean we have got somebody from Illinois, we have got somebody from Washington, somebody from North Carolina, somebody from Georgia. All of us, really, from an agricultural standpoint, we come from varied backgrounds, but we all believe in the same thing, and that is a good strong agricultural economy, and I believe in the corn program just as much as you do, and you have been a strong supporter of the programs in my district and Walter and George likewise. I think that is what makes this House such a great institution that we can bring those kinds of ideas from all over the country together. Let me just dwell for just a minute on the peanut program, because as you mentioned, it came under fire a little bit last week. It has every year in this House of Representatives for the last several years. Some people in leadership positions have come out strongly in opposition to the peanut program. Let me just tell you, those folks really have never been out to south Georgia to see peanuts grown in the field or see the farmers that are growing those peanuts, or else they would have a much greater appreciation for that program than what they have. We have an awful lot of folks who sit up here in their ivory towers in Washington and New York and other think tanks in this country and criticize not only the peanut program, but all other agriculture programs as being bad for the economy of this country and something that we need to do away with. Mr. Speaker, those folks that sit in those ivory towers have never gone out and grown a garden, they do not know whether those peanuts grow on a tree or underground, much less how a cornfield looks or how a cotton field looks. The folks who are out there on a day-to-day basis and driving tractors and planters and harvesters, those are the folks that make America go, and those are the folks that we in this House need to concentrate on, and those are the folks that we are concentrating on. I got carried away and I apologize. But the peanut program is a very complex and complicated program. It is concentrated on a small area, from Texas basically, although there is a little bit grown in New Mexico. It moves eastward all the way to the coast, with the peanuts primarily being concentrated in the Georgia and Alabama area, the largest number of them. Mr. Speaker, the peanut program that we have in place now is a supply side managed system, as are all farm programs. First of all, let me dispel one myth; that is, the peanut program is not an expensive program. People that are critics of the program talk about how much money it costs and if we did away with it, how much money we would save. That is a real myth. The peanut program itself has cost the American taxpayer an average of $15 million a year over the last 10 years. That pales in comparison, not only to other farm programs, but other programs. That is not a large amount of money. The myth that the peanut program costs the consumer money at the grocery store is something else that I want to dispel. We have had testimony by two people, one who is a manufacturer, and one who is the current Secretary of Agriculture, over the last several months who have been asked the specific question, if the peanut price were reduced, would that decrease the price of peanut products to the housewife at the grocery store. Both of them have been directly and emphatically said no, it would not. We get a lot of criticism about the fact that the peanut program costs the taxpayer or the housewife $500 million a year, and that is simply wrong. Again, it is those folks that are sitting in those ivory towers that are making those off-the-wall statements that have no idea about what they are talking about. The program is more complex because of the fact that it is a quota- type system. You will hear people stand on the floor of this House during our debate over the peanut program in September and they will tell you that the only way that you can grow peanuts and get the highest price for them is to have a Federal license. Well, being a supply-side program, it is controlled by the Federal Government. The Federal Government decides who has quota peanuts and who does not. Anybody can grow peanuts. There is simply no restriction on anybody from growing peanuts. There is a restriction on those folks who are allowed to participate in the program, the same way as there are limitations on folks going out and building a radio station and operating a radio station, operating a TV station, building a hospital, operating anything where you are required to get a license. There are controls that come out of the Federal Government. So the peanut program is something that has received unfair criticism because of the myths that are outstanding out there. Be that as it may, the folks who are involved from a grower, manufacturing and a sheller standpoint have been working on reforms in the peanut program for the last eight or nine months since I have been elected to Congress and we have been working very hard on it. We have met on a regular basis time and time again to make reforms in the peanut program that number one, are going to move it to a no-net cost program so that it would no longer cost the American taxpayer one dime. Second, we are going to make it more market-oriented. We are going to do things such as allow for the sale and the transfer of peanut quota across county lines, so that anybody who wants to get involved in the peanut growing business with quota peanuts can do so. They simply make the same investment that those folks who now own quota have made over the years. We are also going to move the peanut program into the 21st century where we will have to comply with the terms of NAFTA and GATT. We know that all farm programs have got to transition to that point, and we are going to be able to do that through the implementation of a more market-oriented system. The third thing we are going to do is we are going to continue to provide a safety net to the farmers of this country who grow peanuts to ensure that they are able to continue to grow them and to make some sort of return on the investment that they have made. Those are the types of things that we are doing, and it is a very complicated program, as are all farm programs. Mr. Speaker, we have a great leader in the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pat Roberts, who is moving all of us on the Agriculture Committee towards designing farm programs all across the agricultural spectrum to allow us to move into that 21st century with a good, solid farm bill over the next 5 years. I am kind of excited about it. It has given the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] and myself an opportunity to be a part of what I think is implementing the most important farm bill that we have ever had to deal with in this country, because it is a farm bill that is going to dictate how our children and our grandchildren are able to farm for the next generation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, one thing that was somewhat surprising to me when I got up here, I thought that by being from Georgia, we are pretty close to sea level, we have the Okefinokee Swamp not too far from my district. I thought we were the only ones that had wetlands problems.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention one thing we have not really touched on, and I know there are a lot of folks out there looking tonight that really are like so many Members of Congress, and they have no concept of why you need farm programs. All they hear about are these farm subsidies. Let me just say that they are not really farm subsidies, they are investments in the economy of this country. The farm programs are investments in the U.S. agricultural industry. For example, in the peanut industry, we have over 150,000 U.S. jobs that are directly related to the peanut industry. It generates over $6 billion a year in the economy of this country. It generates some $200 million in exports. That is just one small segment of the agricultural community. Why we have these programs is that in order for our farmers to be able to compete on the world market against countries like France and like Spain, who so heavily subsidize their farmers, we have to put our farmers on somewhat of a level playing field. Even though our programs do not put them there, we are still way below the subsidies that are paid in France and in Spain, but we are putting our farmers in a position where they can compete in the global market. As we move into the post NAFTA and post GATT era, we have to do a better job of that, and I just wanted to mention that because I know there are a lot of people out there that just think that subsidies are bad and they ought not be paid to farmers and they do not understand why farm programs even exist, and I wanted to mention that.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the gentleman from Illinois yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the MPP has been a tremendous success in helping U.S. agriculture, including farmers and ranchers in my district and in my State, compete more effectively in the international marketplace. It has opened up markets in Eastern Europe for the sale of more United States cotton, opened markets in Japan for the sale of United States structured wood panels and beams, and opened up markets in Mexico for additional apples to be sold. We need this program. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends who are world and free market traders, this ought to be right down their alley. This is their opportunity to support free trade by U.S. agricultural product. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose what I call the Durbin harass-the-tobacco-farmer amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill. Having lived in Georgia's farm belt all my adult life, I understand farm programs. Representing the 10th largest tobacco producing district in the country, I understand the importance of the tobacco program to family farmers in my State and across this country. Now there is a big difference between improving farm programs and harassing farm families. The Durbin amendment is clearly downright harassment of tobacco farm families. It does not improve the program, it strangles the farmers who participate. For example, if the Durbin amendment passes, the farmer would not have information on the safest use of chemicals and he would not benefit from his required participation in the crop insurance program. But the Durbin amendment goes farther. In fact, it would not just affect the farmer, it would affect us all. This provision has the potential to prevent a buy-out of the program which could cost the taxpayers of this country an unbelievable $1 billion. If you do not want to throw a blindsided knockout punch to family farmers and to rural districts of America then I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Durbin amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose what I call ``the harass the tobacco farmer'' amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill. Having lived in Georgia's farm belt all my adult life, I understand farm programs. I live in the most diversified agricultural county east of the Mississippi River. I have had the privilege of working with farmers on a daily basis for the last 26 years. I understand how farm programs work. I understand that there is a big difference in improving farm programs and harassing farm families. Let me tell the Members what the difference is, why we are talking about corporate farmers versus small farmers. A corporate farmer does not depend on crop insurance to pay his bills. He does not depend on crop insurance to educate his children or pay his operating loan. The small farmer does. The corporate farmer does not depend on the extension service agent. The corporate farmer can afford to go to Athens or Tifton or Lexington and hire a specialist to come in and check his field. The small farmer depends on that extension agents who comes to his field and work tireless hours, day and night. If Members do not want to throw a blindsided knockout punch to the family farmer of this country and to the rural district of America, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Durbin amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last night my colleagues from New York, Ms. Lowey withdrew her amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill which pertains to the peanut program. I commend the gentlelady for withdrawing her amendment and would state that I appreciate the fact that the gentlelady now agrees that the farm bill needs to be written in the Agriculture Committee as opposed to the appropriations process. We members of the Agriculture Committee have been working very diligently to reform all agriculture programs. I have been particularly involved in working on a reform of the peanut program that will be a more market oriented program and will still provide a safety net for peanut growers. That bill will address the concerns of the gentlelady and I think will satisfy the vast majority of those that have objections to agriculture programs. Again, I thank the gentlelady for allowing the authorizing committee to do its job.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, having lived in the middle of Georgia's farm belt all my adult life, I want to make sure the facts are on the table as we debate this year's agriculture appropriations bill. It concerns me that big city representatives think that cutting farm programs is the simple solution to budget problems. For example, Mrs. Lowey of New York plans to offer an amendment which would lower the support price of peanuts from $678 per ton to $550 per ton. Now, she thinks that a cut like this will produce savings, but according to USDA it would cost taxpayers around $100 million. That's right, a cut that would cost taxpayers millions. But that is not all. She also believes that this cut will spell out savings for consumers. Wrong again. Reduction in the farm price for peanuts will not be passed on to the consumers. In fact, 74 percent of the consumer's cost for peanut butter is added on by food processors after peanuts are sold by farmers. This amendment would actually increase profits for multinational commodity traders and food companies by paying farmers less for their peanuts. Oppose the antifarmer Lowey amendment. It will not lower Government costs, it will not lower consumer prices, but it will devastate small, family farmers across the country.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. One interesting thing about agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is that our farmers are generally conservative individuals. They fully believe the main thing we need to do in this country is balance the budget. I have not met a single farmer in my district who does not give that a high priority. At the same time, as the gentleman says, we simply cannot single out the agricultural community to balance the budget. One thing that our chairman of the Committee on Agriculture is committed to do is to ensure that all cuts that are made are taken in a proportionate, on an equal basis with other programs, and agriculture is not singled out. Let me just address one other point that is very crucial, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that folks who are opposed to the farm programs continually point out. That is that there is a myth out there if agriculture programs are cut out, that the housewife will see a difference in the price at the retail store. That simply is not true. We have had testimony after testimony in the Committee on Agriculture from individuals who are involved in manufacturing who will tell us that even if we take a price cut, or even if there is a price cut in the support price, there will not be a reflection of that cut in the retail price. They will use that money either to add to their bottom line, to show their stockholders that they have made more money, or they will take that money and put it in promotion to advertise their products. Therefore, there is not going to be a change in the price at the retail store if there are cuts in price supports. That myth simply does not exist.