Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding to me, but especially I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

We have had experience with base realignment and closure rounds in my State over a period of years, and not ad infinitum but ad nauseam.

Economically, these have been disasters for the communities and the States because they required the hiring of consultants and advisers to try to come in and prepare the defense for the bases that are located there. It is a flawed process. It has not worked well. It needs to be changed.

Senator Lott has pointed to a very real and important concern; that is, the enormous expenditures we are making overseas for bases and facilities, many of which are outdated, many of which were placed there because of cold-war concerns and NATO responsibilities which no longer exist.

We are seeing troops shifted from European facilities to new facilities in Italy because that is closer to where the action is in the Persian Gulf area or the Middle East.

We see changes being made, and the Congress has a role to play annually to authorize expenditures and to appropriate the funds for these changes. At any time, if the Congress believes we need to change those policies, we can make those changes legislatively. If the President believes that is inappropriate, he has the veto power. We do not need to turn this over to an unelected commission with no direction from the Congress.

This amendment gives some direction. First, look at our bases overseas, and let's make decisions about how we can improve and make more proficient our deployments there, and then consider proceeding to a base closure and realignment in the United States.

This amendment makes good sense. I compliment my friend, and I urge Senators to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a meeting on May 19, 2004 in SH-216 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark up legislation to reauthorize child nutrition programs.

Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I announce that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on May 11, 2004, in SD-628 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine conservation programs of the 2002 Farm Bill.

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on May 13, 2004, in SD-106 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to conduct a review of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulatory issues. Dr. James E. Newsome, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, will testify before the committee.

Mr. President, on April 14, 2004, a distinguished attorney and outstanding individual from my State died suddenly in New Orleans, LA. At the age of 56, Frank D. Stimley leaves behind a legacy of accomplishments and contributions to the State and people of Mississippi.

Frank was a native of Jackson, MI. Early in life, he turned down an opportunity to play major league baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals to attend Columbia University, where he received a bachelors degree in electrical engineering. He later joined his sister and older brother at Harvard Law School, where the Stimleys became the first family to ever have three siblings attend that law school at the same time. In addition to his law degree, Frank concurrently obtained a masters in business administration from Harvard Business School.

After graduation, Frank Stimley became the first African-American lawyer to be hired by a large majority white firm in Mississippi. He also became the first African-American lawyer at Wise Carter Child Stein and Caraway to make partner.

Frank was also a member of the 100 Black Men of Jackson, Deacon at the Progressive Morningstar Baptist Church, and involved in providing legal assistance to Stewpot Community Services, Catholic Charities, the Farish Street Redevelopment Project, and the Friends and Children of United Way. Additionally, Frank Stimley helped secure financing for many churches, Head Start programs, medical clinics, the Jackson Redevelopment Authority, and various Mississippi development projects.

Frank Stimley was a successful lawyer and community leader whose contributions were considerable. We extend to his wife Cynthia and the entire Stimley family our sincerest condolences.

Mr. President, it has come to my attention that the family of former Congressman John Rhodes of Arizona has established a special Web site: www.johnrhodesmemories.org for the purpose of collecting memories from friends and former colleagues of this outstanding statesman.

When I was elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972 one of the first House leaders I came to know was John Rhodes, who was serving as chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. Together with Congressman Gerald Ford, who was the Republican leader, he helped shape our legislative priorities and worked closely with President Nixon to formulate Republican Party policies.

The memories I have of John Rhodes include his impeccable manners, his courtesy, his warm, big smile, his good judgement and his honesty. He was well liked by all Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats.

It was foregone conclusion when Gerald Ford was selected by President Nixon to be his Vice President that John Rhodes would be elected by House Republicans to be the Republican leader. He was unopposed and elected unanimously.

He served as leader with distinction during a very challenging time. The Watergate experience decimated House Republicans, but he helped put us on the road to political recovery and eventual majority status. Even though he and I left the House about the same time--he to retirement and I to election to the Senate--we would get together occasionally at meetings of SOS, a group that meets every week to discuss mutual interests and ideas for the improvement of the country and beyond.

In summary, all my memories of the Honorable John Rhodes were good ones. His death on August 24, 2003, saddened all who knew him. He was a true friend and a great Congressman.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on May 6, 2004 in SD-106 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss Biomass Use in Energy Production: New Opportunities for Agriculture.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Daniel T. Branton of Leland, MS, for his distinguished service as president of Delta Council this year.

Delta Council is an economic development organization representing the 18 Delta and part-Delta counties of Northwest Mississippi. Organized in 1935, Delta Council has worked to bring together the agriculture and business leadership of the region to focus on the challenges which face the economy and the people of the Mississippi delta.

Ad president of Delta Council and a farm leader, Dan has been a strong proponent of maintaining the agricultural policies which were adopted in the 2002 Farm Law. As a representative voice of farmers from the Delta region which produces more than $3 billion of agricultural goods annually, Dan's advice on matters affecting agriculture has been invaluable to me and my staff as we attempt to address those issues which will ensure the future viability of American agriculture.

Dan has been a strong proponent of Delta Council's programs in education and health care. During Dan's year as president, the teacher shortage programs which evolved from earlier Delta Council policies have expanded in a way that is having a meaningful impact on the problem of attracting school teachers to rural areas.

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Dan and Delta Council to make certain that special health care needs in areas such as the Mississippi Delta, where there is a large underserved population, have been enhanced. Through Delta Council's efforts to establish the Delta Health Alliance, a new Federal and local partnership is now producing extraordinary outcomes. In the area of transportation and water resource improvement, Dan has coordinated the activities of Delta Council in a manner which has brought local consensus to very touch issues facing the Delta's economic future. Dan has been a leader in all aspects of Delta Council's work while maintaining a successful family farming operation.

Dan has also been a leader in his community. He currently serves as president of Burdette Gin Company and is a director of Leland Compress. He is also a delegate and has served as a director of the National Cotton Council. Dan serves on the Black Bayou Drainage Commission and is a former member of the Advisory Board for the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce.

I congratulate Dan Branton for his contributions to the Delta region, the State of Mississippi, and the Nation. I look forward to his future contributions in improving the quality of life for our citizens.

Mr. President, I announce that the Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a field hearing on April 13, 2004 in Smithfield North Carolina at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the necessity of a tobacco quota buyout.

Mr. President, one of the serious problems facing the Senate is the passage of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength, or JOBS, bill. The Senate needs to pass this bill now.

Since the World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States over our foreign sales corporation and extraterritorial income tax rules, we have had ample time to address this issue. The Senate Finance Committee reported legislation which would bring the United States into compliance with our trade obligations on October 1, 2003.

Today, the European Union's 5-percent tariff will increase to 6 percent, and every month it will increase another percent. This will make American agricultural and manufactured products increasingly less competitive in international markets.

Exports of U.S. agricultural products will approach $60 billion this year. If we allow the EU to continue with these tariffs, we will continue to lose market share and export opportunities. When our farm exports are pressured, the truckers, rail lines, and shippers feel the ill effects.

The EU retaliation list includes about 400 agricultural, food, and forest product tariff lines of imports from the United States.

These are very serious threats to our American agricultural economy, and this is why. The values of our annual exports to the EU are live animals, $23.7 million; meat and meat products, $44.4 million; vegetables, $35.6 million; oil seeds, $64.6 million; rawhides and skins, $41.3 million; wood products, $140 million; sugar and confectionery products, $21.2 million. The annual total of all these and other agricultural products amounts to more than $691 million a year.

Let me also remind everyone that much of the food industry operates on very small profit margins. So the initial tariff increase of 5 percent, plus the additional 1 percent per month, can have a serious effect.

Also, the EU currency has been very strong against the U.S. dollar. This means it has been comparatively easier for our trading partners in Europe to buy our products, but the import tariff erodes that advantage and makes it easier for competitors--other countries--to take away our markets in the European area.

It is my hope that the Senate will complete action on the JOBS bill without any further delay so we can send that bill to the President, which he is prepared to sign immediately, so we can avert the lost sales, regain lost jobs in the agricultural sector, and restore hope in America's farms and factories.

Mr. President, in response to the suggestion of the Senator from Maryland, I point out that this amendment not only increases spending but it raises taxes. It is a specific assumption that tax levels will be increased and spending will be directed with those funds to a homeland security function involving first responders, firefighters.

The budget resolution submitted by the President to the Congress asks for $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2005 for first responders. During the appropriations process, the Congress is going to determine the exact level of funding for each program within that general broad category in the budget resolution, but this resolution before the Senate approves and suggests the President's requested level is appropriate and that ought to be the level the Senate approves.

Since the events of 9/11, Congress has responded with significant and generous support for our Nation's firefighters and other first responders. Over $1 billion has been specifically appropriated for direct assistance to firefighters since fiscal year 2002. In addition to specific Federal assistance, States and local communities can use the funds available through the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support the needs of firefighters at the local level. Over $5.7 billion has been appropriated to the State and local grant program through the Office of Domestic Preparedness since fiscal year 2002.

For our most threatened communities, the funds available through the high-threat, high-density urban grant program can also be used to assist firefighters. Over $1.4 billion has been appropriated to this account since fiscal year 2003.

I do not think Congress has ignored the interests of the first responders, nor has this administration. I know of numerous announcements that have been made in my State, as there have been in many other States, of specific grant allocations throughout the States to the local communities that have applied for funds, that have tried to upgrade equipment, and improve training opportunities. This is all for the purpose of making sure our homeland will be protected in the best possible way by those who are on the front lines; that they will have what they need to do their jobs, and that they will have the training to do it safely.

This is a very important matter, and I think not only has the Appropriations Committee responded through the new Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, but so have the authorizing committees that have made available these new programs, specifically authorizing them for the benefit of those at the local level who are firefighters and who are called upon to be the first person on the scene in the case of a disaster, whether it is a natural disaster or whether it is a disaster that is occasioned by the attack of terrorists.

Like all programs, we are going to continue to listen to those who have the obligation of meeting these responsibilities to be sure they have what they need to do their jobs and to carry out their mission successfully. We are working hard to assist them to the best of our ability.

Any Senator has the opportunity to offer an amendment to a budget resolution to increase spending for any popular program, but at some point we have to recognize that the committee of jurisdiction has a responsibility, too. That is the responsibility to make the tough decision that it is going to be $1 billion for this program, or $2 billion for that program.

These are not easy decisions. But this committee has gone through the process of reviewing the request from the administration, listening to all of the suggestions made in the committee, weighing our responsibilities to provide the moneys we would like to provide and then providing the moneys available to us through the tax process that we can expect to be available for allocation.

This is a tough job. It is not a fun job. I respect the work that has been done by the Budget Committee. As chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the funding of the activities of the Department of Homeland Security, we try to bring to the process the same kind of diligence and sensitivity to the needs of those who will receive the funds but also to the budget process and to the integrity of the process so we do not undermine our capacity to get our economy moving again and to continue to grow.

Working within the current fiscal constraints and trying to exercise good judgment, we must set priorities. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment and make the choice to support the Budget Committee.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendment?

One other point I should have made when I was responding to the remarks of my good friend from Maryland was he suggested the administration has somehow failed to fund the so-called SAFER Act. This is legislation that was adopted and signed into law last year, at the end of the year, almost, November 25, 2003, by the President. The budget process for fiscal year 2005 had already begun. The budget submissions were on their way, in fact, through the pipeline. Given there will be an opportunity to review the new authorization that was contained in the SAFER Act, which was actually a part of the Defense authorization bill, it will be reviewed as we go through the next budget cycle and it may be reflected as a specific request for funding next year. I don't want to make the presumption as to what the administration's decision will be regarding specific amounts for this purpose. It was simply premature, I think, to suggest the administration has failed to fund the SAFER Act. That is the point.

I mentioned all the other authorizations the Congress has approved and the requests for funding the administration has made for additional programs. I don't think anyone who has been reading the papers or following the progress of the financial commitments that have been made by the Federal Government to State and local communities for first responders can ignore the fact that there has been a gigantic infusion of funding for these purposes. Local volunteer fire departments, communities that have training facilities and those who do not, have been able to get money to send people for specialized training. Some communities have been able to obtain equipment they had never had an opportunity to purchase, and wouldn't, under the tax structures of these towns and cities, have a chance to obtain. The response has been enormous.

You can say: Well, more needs to be done.

My answer is: More will be done. We are continuing to look for ways to support the activities that are important at the local level to equip our first responders. Firefighters are certainly included. I am proud of the aggressive way the administration has moved to respond and to act in a generous way, and to provide the requests and the support for these training and equipment activities. We have special funds allocated to high-threat urban areas. I mentioned that over $1.4 billion that has been appropriated to that grant program since fiscal year 2003.

I am hopeful we can continue to see the Government respond in a thoughtful way to make sure we continue to set the priorities that need to be set and support those who are responding to save lives and protect the citizens of this country. I am proud of the work we are doing, too, here in the Congress to support these efforts. There is not enough money to satisfy some people, and there never will be. But working together with local communities and State governments to identify the highest priorities, to make sure we allocate the funds in a fair and reasonable way is our obligation. I think the Budget Committee has done a good job sorting through all the requests and the suggestions that have been made by the Senate for this resolution. I think we should applaud them.

I support the committee and hope the Senate will reject this amendment.

Mr. President, further responding to the amendment, I urge Senators to reject the amendment. The administration has requested substantial increases in funding for homeland security. Although it is a new Department, the Department of Homeland Security was funded at a very generous level, about $30 billion of funding, during the current fiscal year.

States and localities are submitting plans to the Office for Domestic Preparedness on their priorities in terms of equipping and training first responders and equipping the States to modernize their emergency management agencies. A tremendous amount of money is being spent this year, and a request is made for even more money next year.

The Budget Committee has analyzed the needs and the ways these funds can be utilized and has come up with a very thoughtful and, in my judgment, responsible recommendation to the Senate on this subject.

I support the Budget Committee's conclusions and their recommendations. It is always easy to say we can use more money, we can add more money for every good-sounding program in Government, and this is certainly one that is very important. None is more important than our national security and homeland security. But we do have the funds that we need, that we can spend in an efficient way and in a responsive way to the threats that exist to try to help us do a better job of protecting the homeland.

The President has given strong leadership on this issue. The Congress has responded in a very generous way, both bodies of Congress working together to accommodate the needs we have in these areas.

I hope we can support the Budget Committee chairman and reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I want to express my opposition to the provision in the budget resolution that shifts $1.221 billion over the next 5 years from farm programs to other programs under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.

This provision assumes reducing statutory payment limitations for farm program payments to producers of wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton and rice from $40,000 to $20,000 for direct payments and from $65,000 to $30,000 for counter-cyclical payments. In addition, the proposal would include certificate transactions and loan forfeitures under the marketing loan program's payment limitation.

I oppose this provision for a number of reasons. First, the 2002 farm bill, enacted less than 2 years ago, has already reduced payment limitations compared to the 1996 farm bill by establishing a means test for farm program benefits in which individuals with over $2.5 million in adjusted gross income are ineligible for payments unless at least 75 percent of that income comes from agriculture. Moreover, the 2002 farm bill's limit of $105,000 for the sum of direct and counter cyclical payments is 12 percent less than the 1977 farm bill's limit on comparable purpose deficiency payments after adjustment for inflation. Senators should remember that these payments do not necessarily represent profit to the farmer, but rather this shows that in real terms, we already have reduced farm program supports in two separate ways.

Second, the 2002 farm bill established a Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations to analyze and to make recommendations regarding these issues in a report to the President and to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The Commission, which is composed of 10 individuals who possess a tremendous amount of experience in, and knowledge about, U.S. agriculture, released its report in August of last year. The Commission's first and primary consensus recommendation was that no substantial changes should be made to the 2002 farm bill's system of farm program payment limitations until the farm bill is reauthorized for the 2008 and later crops. The Commission reasoned that the multiyear nature of farm bills provides stability for production agriculture and that producers, their lenders, and other agribusiness firms make long-term investment decisions based on this multiyear legislation. The Senate should follow the Commission's recommendation and should not make changes in farm program payment limitations.

Third, southern cotton and rice farms tend to be larger, and the costs of production are much greater, than wheat, corn, and soybean farms in other regions. The Grassley provision would reduce government payments to cotton and rice producers. Moreover, the provision would severely complicate crop farmers' ability to use the marketing loan program, particularly during periods of low market prices when producers need it most. The marketing loan program, as its name implies, helps farmers market their crops by providing them with benefits when market prices fall below government established loan rates. In such situations, program benefits offset the impact of low prices with a minimum of government involvement in the marketplace. This provision would, for the first time, require that loan program certificate transactions and loan forfeitures be included under the program's payment limitation. The provision, if implemented, would mean that once a producer reaches the limit, marketing loan benefits would be cut off regardless of the market situation.

Fourth, the budget resolution should provide us with a broad plan for Federal revenues and expenditures but leave policy decisions within that budget framework to the authorizing committees. This proposal violates that principle by attempting to dictate policy to the Agriculture Committee without having any impact on the overall level of Federal expenditures. It simply shifts over $1 billion in payments from one group of farmers to another. That is a decision that should be made by the Agriculture Committee--not the Budget Committee.

Fourteen major agriculture and commodity organizations have written to the Budget Committee opposing changes in the farm bill. The budget resolution, as adopted, would make changes in the commitments that were made to farmers and ranchers in the Farm Bill.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters from farm groups and producers who oppose the Grassley provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 404 from the budget resolution, and provide for the release of the reserve funds originally intended for Bioshield in addition to appropriations provided for

the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2005.

The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution established a $5.593 billion ``reserve'' for Project Bioshield, outside the fiscal years 2004 and 2005 discretionary caps.

This fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, as reported, assumes that the $2.5 billion advance appropriations for Project Bioshield will now be scored against the fiscal year 2005 cap.

At the same time, it imposes in section 404(b) a new procedural barrier to prohibit the Senate Appropriations Committee from getting credit for reducing Bioshield funds to live within the cap.

The effect is that the Senate Appropriations Committee, unlike the House, will have to find an additional $2.5 billion in spending reductions. This will likely have an adverse impact on ongoing programs, including essential homeland security activities.

Advance appropriations were provided to ensure that a stable source of funding would be available for this initiative.

No new scorekeeping precedent needs to be established to protect this program.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, on February 16, 2004, a good friend of mine and a distinguished farm leader from my State was a victim of heart failure. At the age of 56, Richard Lynn ``Rick'' Parsons died at his home in Vance, MS, where he managed a family farming operation and served in numerous capacities of leadership for his community and the State.

Rick was a native of Water Valley, MS. He was an elder at the Sumner Presbyterian Church and a member of the local Rotary Club. In 2001, he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served with distinction as a member of the State Farm Service Agency Committee, which oversees the implementation of Federal farm programs in Mississippi. Rick was also a leader in Delta Council and the National Cotton Council, in addition to being on the Board of Directors of Delta Wildlife and Delta F.A.R.M., which are local organizations that promote wildlife conservation on the farm.

Additionally, Rick Parsons was selected to represent Mississippi as a finalist in the Southeastern Farmer of Year competition, and he was elected by his peers to serve on the board of directors for the successful Mississippi Boll Weevil Management Program and the Cotton Leadership Program for the National Cotton Council.

Rick was an unselfish and dedicated leader on behalf of agriculture in Mississippi. My office always relied on his sound judgment and good counsel in matters which affected farmers. We extend to his wife Carlisle, his son Scott, and the entire Parsons family our sincerest condolences.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend Mr. Jim Wanamaker of Greenville, MS, for his distinguished public service as the chief engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners. Jim graduated from Mississippi State University in 1963 and moved to the Mississippi Delta after serving in the Navy for 2 years. For the past 40 years, he has been a key advocate and one of the most knowledgeable experts in flood control in the Yazoo basin.

Flood control in the Mississippi Delta is fundamental to the quality of life and economic viability of the region. The Mississippi Levee Board has been the local sponsor and a leader in bringing improved flood protection to the citizens, property owners, and communities throughout the region. The Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project, the Upper Steele Bayou Project, the Big Sunflower River Maintenance Project, and the Yazoo Backwater Project have all benefited from the professional and wise counsel of Jim Wanamaker in his capacity as chief engineer of the Mississippi Levee Board.

Jim has set an excellent example for future generations who aspire to excel in public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jim Wanamaker upon his retirement, which is scheduled later this year, and to thank him for the valuable contributions which he has made toward the quality of life of the citizens in this very important part of our Nation.