[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 24 (Friday, March 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2084-S2085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Biden, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
  S. 530. A bill to amend section 691 of title 10, United States Code, 
to increase the end strengths of the Army and the Marine Corps for 
fiscal years after fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator 
Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the size of the United 
States Army by 30,000 troops and the United States Marine Corps by 
5,000 Marines.
  In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army 
Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker testified that the current Army 
endstrength of 502,400 troops is adequate to fight the Global War on 
Terrorism if the Army National Guard and Army Reserve can sustain the 
current active-duty force.
  Our current over-dependence on Army National Guard and Army Reserve 
mobilization is irresponsible policy. This policy threatens to break 
the United States Army and severely damage our national security.
  America should not leverage its security interests upon a Reserve and 
National Guard force that is already over-stressed and over-burdened. 
There are 100,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard mobilized and 
serving on active duty. An additional 50,000 Army Reserve soldiers have 
been mobilized. Many of these reservists are in critical specialty 
areas and are completing 2 years on active-duty.
  The Global War on Terrorism began almost 3\1/2\ years ago. Since 
then, the active-duty Army has grown 5 percent, while the demands 
placed on our soldiers have skyrocketed. LTG Richard Cody, Vice Chief 
of Staff of the Army, recently testified to Congress that almost 50 
percent of the Army's available manpower is deployed.
  The bulk of our active-duty combat soldiers are currently in a cycle 
of deployment that includes 1 year in Iraq or Afghanistan followed by 1 
year at home. The Marine Corps has shortened the cycle to 7 months 
deployed and 7 months at home. However, these soldiers and Marines are 
no longer spending time with their families. Instead, their time at 
home is spent training and preparing to redeploy.
  These deployment cycles are just as demanding for our National Guard 
and Reserve personnel. GEN James Helmly, Commander of the Army Reserve, 
has told the Pentagon leadership that current personnel and deployment 
policy threatens to permanently damage the Army Reserve's recruitment 
and retention.
  This policy is not sustainable. It must be changed. In order to 
effectively meet the global challenges of the 21st century, our efforts 
must assure Americans that the Army and Marines have a sufficient 
number of full time, highly trained and fully qualified personnel to do 
the job.
  The Army has over 500,000 soldiers on active duty today. By the end 
of this year the Army will have over 510,000 soldiers. Later this year 
the Marine Corps will have over 178,000 Marines on active duty. Yet the 
Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission only pays for 482,400 
soldiers and 175,000 Marines.
  The Department of Defense, DoD, has chosen not to fund known costs 
and instead has deferred an increase in Army endstrength to upcoming 
supplemental appropriations requests. The leaders of our Armed Forces 
must have realistic funding in order to conduct realistic wartime 
planning and execution. The Congress and the American people expect DoD 
to tell us what our real National Security costs are.
  In previous years, Senator Reed and I have introduced legislation to 
increase the size of the Army. In 2003, our first effort to increase 
Army endstrength by 10,000 troops was simply dismissed by the Pentagon.
  Last year, our second effort to increase the size of the Army by 
30,000 soldiers resulted in compromise legislation to add 20,000 
soldiers to the Army and 3,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. The 
Pentagon has essentially ignored this provision in last year's Defense 
Authorization Bill by not funding the increased personnel in the Fiscal 
Year 2006 budget.
  The legislation Senator Reed and I introduce today will establish a 
U.S. Army endstrength of 532,400, which is 30,000 soldiers higher than 
current levels. It will also establish a U.S. Marine Corps endstrength 
of 183,000 or an additional 5,000 Marines. Our legislation requires DoD 
to make these new endstrength levels permanent and requires DoD to pay 
for it in their annual budgets.
  Our effort to increase the endstrength of the Army and the Marines is 
not a choice between increased manpower versus critical 
recapitalization, modernization, research, and military construction 
needs. DoD must have both fully funded.
  Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress 
the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support 
Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws 
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing 
powers.'' The Congress must exercise its responsibility to ensure that 
our Army and Marine Corps remain the best led, best trained, best 
equipped and most professional fighting force in the world. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 531. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to exempt 
certain identified varieties of tomatoes from agricultural marketing 
orders; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania to introduce the Agricultural Marketing Success Act, 
legislation that would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act, AMAA, of 
1937 by permitting identified tomato varieties operating under an 
enhanced U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, inspection and audit 
program, the Identity Program, to be exempt from marketing order 
restrictions. Additionally, my House colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Representative Sherwood is submitting similar legislation.
  This legislation would terminate the restrictions imposed on the Ugly 
Ripe tomato, which is owned and produced by a Pennsylvania tomato 
company, by the Florida Tomato Committee, FTC. The FTC sets standards 
pertaining to the shape of round tomatoes grown South and East of the 
Suwannee River and shipped out of Florida from October 10 through June 
15 of each year.
  The impetus for this legislation began three years ago when the FTC 
granted the Ugly Ripe tomato an exemption from the grade standards, 
pertaining to size and shape, which resulted in robust sales 
nationwide. However, in the fourth year or growing season, the FTC 
denied an exemption claiming that the Ugly Ripe did not meet the 
appropriate shape.
  Once the FTC made its decision not to allow an additional exemption 
for the Ugly Ripe, I was surprised to see that Cherry tomatoes, Roma 
tomatoes, and Grape tomatoes did continue to receive their exemptions. 
Therefore, I, along with my colleagues from Pennsylvania, met with USDA 
Secretary Mike Johanns to discuss the matter and requested that he 
review the actions taken by the FTC and to use his

[[Page S2085]]

authority under the AMAA of 1937 to overrule the recommendation of the 
FTC and grant an additional exemption, which will permit the product to 
be shipped interstate during the growing season. We were assured by 
USDA a timely response and subsequently we are offering this 
legislation to expedite their focus on this important issue. We hope 
our congressional support assists the Secretary in making his decision.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which 
would allow the growers of the Ugly Ripe an opportunity to market their 
product without conforming to an unreasonable standard. It is my hope 
that this legislation will evoke necessary changes in shape 
requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 532. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid 
distillate; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the attached bill to reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid 
distillate be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 532

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON PALM FATTY ACID DISTILLATE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

``      9902.39.40       Monocarboxylic       1%         No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          fatty acids                                                       31/2007           ''
                          derived from palm                                                                    .
                          oil (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3823.19.2000).....

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 533. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
that a NADBank guarantee is not considered a Federal guarantee for 
purposes of determining the tax-exempt status of bonds; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill 
to improve the effectiveness of the North American Development Bank 
(NADBank), which supports water and other important environmental 
projects along the border region. My bill enhances the capabilities of 
the NADBank by clarifying IRS rules in order to expand the ways it can 
help our communities.
  The NADBank was created with a mandate to improve the quality of life 
along the border by financing environmental related projects, such as 
wastewater treatment. The tools it was given have been limited, and as 
a result has restricted its effectiveness. To address this issue, the 
NADBank has evolved over the years with a wider array of products to 
offer. Legislation I sponsored in the Senate during the last Congress 
and which became law, for example, allows the NADBank to offer a new 
combination of grants and loans.
  We can do more to reform the NADBank and increase its effectiveness. 
One tool the NADBank can offer is loan guarantees, which communities 
could use for debt they issue. The guarantee would increase the credit 
rating of the debt and result in lower interest rates the issuer would 
need to offer, thereby making a project more affordable. Under current 
law, however, the NADBank's guarantee is considered a Federal subsidy. 
A general principle of Federal tax law is that one cannot receive more 
than one Federal subsidy. Since communities will always prefer to 
receive the benefit of a tax-exempt municipal status for their bonds, 
they never take advantage of the NADBank's loan guarantee. Due to this 
situation, the NADBank has never used its ability to guarantee a bond.
  It does not make sense to consider a guarantee from the NADBank, 
which is an international institution, as a United States federal 
government guarantee. Not only does it not make sense, it also inhibits 
the NADBank's ability to help border communities. My bill addresses 
this issue by clarifying the tax code to ensure a NADBank guarantee is 
not considered a federal subsidy. The NADBank guarantees will be 
treated like those from the Federal Housing Administration, the 
Veterans' Administration, and the Federal National Mortgage Association 
and other government-sponsored entities. This will give our border 
communities an important new tool to use as they address their 
infrastructure and environmental needs.
  It is to everyone's benefit to develop ways to improve the quality of 
life for our citizens. This is particularly important along our 
southern border, which faces numerous challenges. I hope my colleagues 
will support this bill and continue our efforts to make the NADBank as 
effective as possible.

                          ____________________