Sen. Saxby Chambliss speaks during a visit Tuesday to The Times. The Republican from Moultrie called the controversial plan to build a superhighway that runs from Knoxville, Tenn., to Savannah a "quality of life" issue, and that he wants to wait until the feasibility study is complete before taking a position.

U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss called the plan to build an interstate from Savannah to Knoxville, Tenn., a "quality of life" issue Tuesday, saying he would wait to take a stance on it.

Chambliss, along with former Sen. Zell Miller, brought the idea for the proposed Interstate 3, which would run through Northeast Georgia, before the Senate in 2004.

He said he wanted to see the results of a feasibility study before he made a decision about I-3.

"Quality of life often revolves around jobs," said Chambliss, a Republican from Moultrie. "What we know as a fact is that 80 percent of the jobs in this country exist within 10 miles of our interstate system."

Proponents of the interstate, projected to cost about $50 billion, say it would ease traffic congestion, but its path through the mountains has drawn scorn from Northeast Georgians.

Opponents have said the road would bring air pollution, litter, noise and urban sprawl to an otherwise peaceful part of the state while hurting tourism.

Chambliss didn't take a firm position, saying that neither the superhighway's route nor construction were guaranteed.

"Nobody's saying it's going to be built," he said. "If the study shows that there's no merit in construction of the roadway, then obviously that's the end of it.

"The Department of Transportation is not going to build a highway where folks don't want one built."

President Bush signed legislation to study the I-3 corridor on Aug. 10.

Chambliss met with Times' staff and editorial board Tuesday, fresh off a trip to the Atlanta Falcons' training complex in Flowery Branch. Saturday, he visited U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Chambliss found potential for job creation in another recent government action, the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The agreement is a trade bill between the U.S. and five Latin American countries that will allow the U.S. to export goods there without facing tariffs.

Chambliss, chairman of the Senate's Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, originally came out against CAFTA because he said it was in conflict with part of the latest farm bill.

Chambliss said CAFTA would have hurt the sugar industry and destroyed the integrity of the farm bill by introducing legislation into CAFTA.

Ultimately, he said, he was able to guarantee protection of the sugar industry through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would shield it from all trade bills.

"Once we accomplished that my farmers were protected, the industry was protected and I was free then to support CAFTA," he said.

The bill has drawn heavy fire from opposition, which is plentiful (it passed the Senate 54-45).

Some groups maintain the bill will be detrimental to Latin American farmers, who must now compete with highly advanced American corporations.

Detractors claim it could cause farmers to journey north to the United States for better jobs.

But Chambliss dismissed that position.

"There are a number of arguments in opposition to CAFTA that I think just didn't have validity to them," he said.

"We now are going to be able to ship products into those countries tariff free, so there's going to be all the more incentive for expansion of industry both in the U.S. and those countries, which hopefully will create good-paying jobs here and good paying jobs in those countries.

"And if (workers) have an opportunity to get a good-paying job in their country, why would they come to the United States?"

He said the trade bill was "very good for my state and, I think, for the country."

For a more detailed story on the senator's visit, see Sunday's Times.

E-mail: mweeks@gainesvilletimes.com

Hosting donated by
Netspace Ads.com