Support for Arkansas Week provided by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette The Arkansas Times at Little Rock Public Radio Hello again, everyone.

Thanks very much for being with us.

The Congressional Christmas recess is fast approaching, but the issues won't observe the holiday, and they don't provide much good cheer.

Abroad, there are two wars, each involving US allies.

At home, there's the little matter of a farm bill that's yet to be nailed down and the even larger question of overall government operations.

And each instance money is as much or more the issue than the very nuts and bolts of the policy itself.

Joining us now for what's become an end of the year tradition.

Senator John Bozeman.

Senator, thank you for joining us from Washington.

We hope you're well.

No, thank you so much.

It's always good to be with the Dean of Arkansas broadcasters.

Well, let's start with the farm bill, if we may.

You're the ranking Republican on on Senate AG.

You've essentially given you the chamber has given itself, given the farm bill, it's it's own CR.

You've got until what I think next autumn to cook a farm bill.

What's the status of it now?

Well, we're working really hard to get it done, Steve.

The problem is, is that like so many other things with inflation starting really in earnest in March of 2021, we just have a whole different world.

And so in order to get the safety Nets, the things that the risk management tools that our farmers have to be able to go to the bank, borrow the money that they need, we have to reset those.

The other problem that we've got is that that 53% of our counties in America lost population, over 50% of of the counties in Arkansas lost population.

The only thing that's left is agriculture.

And so because of that, this not only is about farmers, it's about rural America.

And then most importantly Steve, it's about continuing to have the cheapest, safest food supply of any place in the world.

And So what the, what this continuing resolution does is it just gives us a cushion so that we can go ahead and and continue to work.

The other thing is our farmers need to have the certainty that that there is a farm bill in place.

So as they start making planning decisions, talking to their bankers early in the year, those those safety Nets will be in place so they can borrow the money that they need.

How, how big a problem, Senator, you'll be, You'll be working on this, this cushion that you're talking about.

Yeah, but the cushion comes in an election year.

How is that?

To what extent is that going to complicate negotiations?

You know, that's that's really an interesting question, Steve.

And and to be honest, I I think almost every congressman, almost every senator wants to get a farm bill done.

They've got different ideas, exactly what that's going to look like.

But they understand how important this is to their states, how important it is to to rural America.

So Democrats and Republicans traditionally, and certainly it's true in this case, I've got a great relationship with the chair chairwoman from Michigan Center Stabenow.

This is farm bills are about regions of the country.

They're about crops.

It's not Democrats and Republicans.

So no, I I think both sides really want to get this done.

I was really pleased that we were able to pass the extension as easy as we were that that's just everybody jumped in and said, yeah, this is important, let's get it done.

You as you mentioned Senator, regional differences have been as big a factor or a larger factor in many cases then you know individual crop allotments or or or compensation.

Do you see that continuing with this farm bill?

Yes, we're very much so and and the reason for that is southern agriculture is distinct in itself.

You've got the eyes Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, the again the eye states that are very different.

We are able to irrigate.

We got a lot of water, so we can produce a crop when the fertilizer, we worry about the price going down as it grows.

In the Midwest, they don't have as much water, they don't irrigate as much.

They worry about just not having a crop.

Then you've got the Great Plains, you've got California, all of those those regions are very different.

The key is, is listening to all the stakeholders and then coming up with a solution that's not A1 size fits all, but that is able to work for everybody.

Yeah, Senator, you just used the word irrigation.

That's been much in the news in the last couple of weeks because of some studies which indicate that the ag community is using an enormous amount of groundwater.

And that is a real concern not only to the farm community but to the environmental segment as well.

Do you see the Farm Bill addressing that at all?

Is a farm bill the way to address that?

No, the Farm Bill certainly is a is a big part of that.

When you listen to the futurist, the people that forecast what's going to happen, what are the going to be the the the things that are most important, all of them have energy and water is number one or two, one might have one over the other.

But you're right, we're seeing this in aquifers and things like that.

The good news is, and the Farm Bill is a big part about trying to provide more technology for our farmers.

How you can measure and make sure that you're using just the right amount of water at the most efficient rate since you're not watering too much or too low, All of those kind of things that depends on broadband.

We're working really hard to get broadband throughout our state.

That's actually a good story.

There's lots of money in the pipeline to do that.

It's just a matter of the build out, but no the the certainly that is a huge issue and the further out West you go the the worst many of our states right now are in drought.

The Mississippi River is at one of its lowest times ever, but to the point that they're actually having to make it such that only they limit the amount of barges.

So you've got all this crop that's being harvested and now we're seeing this first hand how it's affecting the Mississippi and and moving that most of that that grain and and food food stuff feed stuff moves down the river and it is things like that are very, very important.

The the Senator, the farm any farm bill of over 70% probably close to 80%.

I haven't seen the latest statistic is is devoted to to nutrition programs.

There is some reluctance apparently on on the House side anyway, to continue funding nutrition programs at the level they have in the in the past.

Can looking ahead to the Farm bill, are those programs going to be held harmless?

Well, about 85% of the of the Farm Bill now is nutrition, only 15% farmers.

About 300 billion of the $1.5 trillion is for farmers, 1.2 trillion for, you know, for nutrition.

So no, I don't see, I don't see any cut back.

You know, I'm in food banks all the time, Steve.

And again, that's another area that's very bipartisan.

You know, hungry people aren't about Democrats or Republicans.

And sadly, if you're making twelve $1400 on Social Security, if you've got a minimum wage job or a little bit above, you simply can't make it.

And when you look, you know, the greatest people on food stamps are the elderly, the people that I just talked about and then also and the people that are working poor, they're in the situation where they're underemployed.

So I'm, I'm not interested at all in in kicking people off the food stamps.

What I am interested in is doing a better job of the work training programs that we have.

And we're spending a lot of money on those making sure that they're talking to the people that are, you know, underemployed.

So that next farm bill cycle we'll see that that there's fewer people on food stamps not because again anybody throw them off or or the program was underfunded because they they were able to make a living wage.

Well, well you have on the on the House side there is a new speaker.

He's quite conservative but he is having to walk it would appear the same tightrope that his that his predecessors have already.

There is some anger on the far side of the of of his chamber.

Are we headed for another budget shutdown in the new year government shutdown?

I I think that's a very legitimate question and and a good question Steve that I hope not And the reason I hope that's not the case, we're talking about a full government shutdown.

If that's the case that then the military wouldn't get paid all of the people that work for the government.

You know people that that say you're a person that maybe you're you're a flight instructor and you need to to redo your your certification for that.

None of those things are going to be processed.

I mean the list goes on and on.

This is going to affect real people.

What it does is hold the American people hostage.

On the other hand, we're $33 trillion in debt.

We need to do something about that and so we need to do all we can to get our spending under control.

But the problem that you've got in the House, you probably got 20 or 30 people that just simply are not going to vote for anything on.

So with a just a two or three vote majority, which is what they have, you've got to get Democrats to make up for that.

And so again, there has to be some compromise in the House to produce a bill that the Senate will pass and the president will sign.

So it's it's it's complicated it's it's so important that continuing resolutions or a government shutdown ultimately wind up costing the taxpayers a lot more money.

So there's all kinds of reasons why it's a bad idea and we're going to work really hard to to make sure that that doesn't happen.

As I understand it Senator, under the previous rule, the previous agreement anyway there is good at some point a nine if you don't reach an agreement there'd be like a 9% sequester of non of all spending or at least non defense spending in a domestic programs that are non defense.

Am I correct there and what's the likely it's it's it's a little bit complicated.

You know the law is 1% but it affects things in a different way and we're actually learning more and more about that as we as as we've gone on.

So and I'm very much opposed to just across the board cuts.

We've got programs that need to be increased because they work very well.

They save the taxpayers money.

They help people.

We've got other programs that need to be eliminated.

So just you know a percent cut whatever that percent is and we're trying to figure that out is not is simply not a good way to to function on to foreign affairs if we can Senator.

It's a blend of foreign and domestic affairs there is great.

And I I should tell the audience that we're taping this broadcast a few days prior to it's it's airing because of your schedule and also Arkansas PBS but there is evidently some significant resistance in the Senate to continued funding for the Ukrainian forces absent some sort of border security measure.

Where do you come down on that Senator and do you see a breakthrough anytime soon.

No I and again you can throw Israel in that also and certainly I'm a strong supporter of Israel.

Israel we'll get to that.

OK. Well, again, we'll wait for that then.

But but regarding Ukraine and and the border, the border, we have a situation now.

And I used to be chair of the Homeland subcommittee on Appropriations and that's the group that that actually controls the border funding.

So I was down there on countless occasions visiting with the Border Patrol.

They're wonderful people.

They're just getting work to death.

I mean that they are the the morale is terrible.

We have 11,000 people coming across the border now a day.

And so 8 million people have crossed the border since the Biden administration started.

Now we're on course to have several million just this year.

Our major cities, Democrats, Democrat, Republican, both.

But you hearing these, these these Democrat mayors speaking out and saying, hey, you're destroying our cities.

So simply something simply has to be done.

And so there's a lot of people that want support for Ukraine.

All of us on the Republican side say you just simply can't keep doing this.

You know, this is, this is such an important situation on the border.

This is the time to address it and put some things in that would would actually stem the flow of people crossing illegally.

The other thing, Steve, is regarding the borders.

It's a national security issue, Director Ray Christopher Ray, the head of the FBI, testified this week.

He said that since 9:11 he's never seen that that you know the metrics for concerned about security in this country higher and and so you've got all of these people crossing the border and and and this the the numbers I'm talking about are the ones that were caught.

You've got 10s of thousands crossing that also you know again, you know not work.

We don't know who they are.

So for those reasons, you know we we need to get this done given.

Yes, Sir.

But given the stakes overseas is it prudent to tie the two together AD Ukraine and and border security why not address them separately?

Well, I think, I think given the home, you know, that's every bit as important as as as Ukraine.

On to Israel.

One of your colleagues in the Senate says that a blank check.

There's been criticism of the so-called blank check for Ukraine.

Some of your colleagues are wondering Now at least one particular I have in mind is wondering whether a blank check to Israel without any conditions on that assistance is imprudent.

Your thoughts?

Well, let me let me address Ukraine very quickly for sure as I think I don't want there to be.

I I'm a Ukraine supporter.

I think that that Afghanistan birthed Ukraine.

Afghanistan was a debacle.

Both sides agree with that.

And so as a result of us just, you know, unilaterally pulling out of Afghanistan and then what happened afterwards, Russia.

That was the the main reason that Russia felt like they could invade Ukraine without consequence.

Ukraine has stood up and done a tremendous job.

If we don't, if we don't support them in their effort, China is looking.

And I think you see the same thing happening with Taiwan regarding Israel.

You know, Israel has the right to defend itself.

We can imagine if we were, you know, as Americans if if we had a country that somehow, you know, invaded us by carrying off women, shelter, ****** women and children, killing, killing, putting babies in orphans, all of those things.

And if you if you translate that percentage wise of population, that would be equivalent to many thousands of Americans.

We would act in the same way that Israel's acted.

Hamas is a terrorist organization.

They need to be destroyed.

And so I'm, I'm all forgiving Israel what they need to do to defend themselves.

We are making sure you know putting pressure that that they act in the appropriate way.

The the the reality though is it's so difficult because Hamas they hide their stuff they they put their people they put their materials in populated areas because they know that that you know ourselves in Israel do worry about civilian casualties.

They have no regard for that at all.

So Senator you would favor then a continuation of or or aid that is unconditional with without any conditions on his on Israeli behavior.

Well I I assume that the Israelis are going to behave behave like they should and to be honest I haven't seen any indication that they haven't.

Well I but behavior was the wrong word Senator.

I shouldn't have said behavior but conduct in terms of executing their their campaign in Gaza.

Yeah.

No, I I think, again, I think they've they've acted appropriately.

Right now we're in the process of trying to provide, you know make sure we can get some humanitarian aid.

But they're in a difficult position.

You know these these people when you're when you're dealing with an enemy that had reacted the way they did to start this thing and that they there's one essentially what they're all about Hamas is is to wipe Israel off the, you know, off the planet, off the earth.

That's a tough situation, and because of that requires tough measures.

Are we risking, as Israel would seem to be, Are are the two countries Israel in the US are?

Are we risking a great deal of bad will globally because of what's happening now in Gaza?

No one disputes Israel's right to retaliate, or even certainly not to defend itself.

But is the price in the future going to be terribly high?

No, I understand Steve and I I think that's a good point but I I don't think so.

I I think that you know you've got, you've got a you know a vocal group that is upset and and that's fine.

You know that's what America is all about.

You get to express yourselves that's all you get to do though you don't get to you know riot and things like that.

But no, I I think that, I think that that if if this provides Israel's security and it desperately needs that, then I think it's the correct action and and you know I think in the long run it will be a better situation than not.

On to another issue if we may, Senator, and that is one of your colleague from Alabama, gentleman from Alabama has lifted his hold on a majority anyway of the military promotions that he had placed on hold.

I think he still has about a dozen four-star proposed promotions that that he is still holding on to.

Is there any movement in the Senate, particularly in your conference to get the gentleman to change his mind and free those others?

No, I I understand, Steve and and I agree that the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for abortion travel within the military.

On the other hand, the people that he was was holding hostage, they don't have anything to do with that decision making process.

I'm very supportive of the military, very supportive veterans.

My dad did 23 years in in the Air Force.

I know how difficult it is.

You know, you're getting ready to move.

Your family's trying to figure out, you know, where they're going to stay, Schools, all of those things.

And and then all of a sudden you can't do that because the promotion doesn't go through.

Also we're talking about individuals that aren't getting rich and so the promotion means a little bit more money.

We also were in a situation where where most of our leadership positions were being run by by, you know, designated commanders that didn't have the authority as if they, you know, we're in the position with the full to the full ranks.

So good news is that was lifted and and again, Republicans worked really hard to get that done.

There's about I think 8 to 10 generals, 4 stars that he didn't hold.

What we can do with those, Steve, is that's very workable.

The problem in the Senate when you start working through nominations individually, it takes a couple days.

And so with that amount, we can, you know, we can, we can get those knocked out pretty quickly.

And so I think that we're on a good path right now.

Well, I mean, are you and some of your colleagues in the conference though reports of many discussions, many approaches to to the senator from Alabama to get him to stop this.

The Secretary of Defense says these four stars are absolutely crucial and that already some damage has been done.

By the way, do you agree with the secretary that can we recover from this?

No, we certainly can recover from it.

But I agree with him totally.

And I I have, I'm the ranking member of the head Republic on military construction projects and and veterans.

But so I visit with these people all the time.

I know how important this is.

So yeah, you're absolutely right.

It was critical.

We we just in the last day or two confirmed 400 promotions.

So I'm committed to to you know doing whatever we need to do to get these 8 or 10 promoted.

I think they'll actually go very quickly.

But yeah, this this is was a very, very serious problem.

I'm glad it was resolved and I certainly would not have handled it in the same way.

Senator, I'd like to get into Veterans Affairs, but we have just run out of time.

Would you give us a Christmas promise to come back soon?

You know what I'd love to come back and and what I'd like to be is on the set with you and just visiting.

And we appreciate you.

We appreciate your show that that I guess is unmatched in the sense of its longevity.

And you know, all of the the great programming that you do to to get these important events that we're talking about to let people here and make up their own mind as to what's going on.

Well, you're always welcome, Mr. Bozeman.

Thank you very much.

We hope you have a good holiday.

Thank you, Steve, very much.

All right, Thank you.

You bet.

And this is our final edition of Arkansas Week for the Year.

As is our custom, we now conclude the year with a nod to the men and women who left the public arena in the previous dozen months.

They were players in politics or policy.

Business, perhaps.

Education, perhaps.

All of the above, and others among them, helped cover the news.

For any omissions, we apologize they were inadvertent.

As always, thanks for being with us.

We'll see you next year.

The, the, the.

The.

The.

The.

The.

The support for Arkansas Week provided by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Arkansas Times and Little Rock Public Radio.