Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle today to mark the 100th birthday of former President Ronald Reagan. It is fitting that this is a bipartisan tribute. After all, Reagan had been a Democrat, then a Republican, in his political career, and he transformed the political landscape for both parties by appealing to a broad cross-section of Americans. Much has been written about President Reagan's life. His story is well-known, and is a classic tale of the American dream--a boy from the Nation's heartland makes good. And Ronald Reagan was a surprising man, a man of paradoxes: An actor affectionately remembered by a generation of Americans for his authenticity, a former union leader who fired striking union members, and the oldest president who was most popular among young Americans, many of whom are in leadership positions today, and some of whom are in this very Chamber. But what I would like to focus on in my time here today is the part of Reagan that is still with us today: his legacy. One of the most frequently cited achievements of Ronald Reagan is ending the Cold War. Behind his eloquence and warmth was a steeliness that sent a clear message to Moscow: You cannot hope to compete with us. We will beat you. And so we did. Thanks to Reagan's steadfastness and the rise of a Soviet leader who recognized America's toughness under Reagan's leadership, the Iron Curtain ultimately clanged into a pile of rubble. Reagan also gave birth to the Republican Party that those of us on this side of the aisle belong to today. Thanks to Reagan's efforts to broaden the tent of the Republican Party, for the first time in many years, scores of religious, socially conservative Americans finally found a political home. His became a party of pro-military, pro-business, pro-small- government, anti-tax, anti-Communist Americans. And while communism worldwide has been largely designated to oblivion, Reagan's legacy of tax-cutting, smaller government, personal responsibility and fewer onerous regulations from Washington have stood the test of time and approval from the American people. Reagan's most lasting legacy, however, may be his innate optimism. When he took office, America had suffered the indignity of Watergate, high gas prices and long lines at the pumps, a 21-percent inflation rate and the taking of 52 of our citizens from America's own embassy in Tehran, Iran. We were a deflated Nation. But Reagan, in many ways through the sheer force of his personality, gave Americans hope, gave us the urge to dare to dream, and the confidence to be great again. When he told us it was morning again in America, we believed him. And it was. When Reagan was born on February 6, 1911, the airplane had only been invented 8 years earlier. The horrors of World War I, the Great War that helped spawn the modern Soviet Union, were still several years away and Teddy Roosevelt had been out of the White House for just 2 years. How fitting that Reagan's lifetime and legacy would book-end such advances in technology, foreign policy and even his own Republican Party. That includes the space flight that helped America surpass its Soviet rivals and his words of consolation to a grieving Nation when the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated. And outlasting the Soviet Union after a lifetime of opposition. And becoming a worthy successor to Roosevelt as an optimistic Republican leader who left a lasting imprint on a changing Nation. As usual, Reagan put it best when he told us, ``America's best days lie ahead. You ain't seen nothing yet.''

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to repeal this highly unpopular health care law. Here is what repealing this health care bill will mean to Georgians. First of all, the Federal Government will not be required to spend $8,470 on health care for every single Georgian every year; 176,000 Georgia seniors who are today enrolled in Medicare Advantage will not have their benefits reduced; and the $500 billion in Medicare cuts will not be used to pay for new programs under this law; around 2.1 million Georgia households making less than $200,000 will not have to pay higher taxes to fund this monstrous bill; 70 percent of small employer purchasers will not face higher premiums; small businesses employing 50 or more people and 8,000 Georgia construction companies with five or more employees will not have to pay higher health care costs or be subjected to new penalties due to government mandates. Under this law, hundreds of thousands of additional low-income Georgians will become eligible for Medicaid in 2014. That is going to result in an estimated $1 billion in new expenses for my State to fund that program. How are we going to fund that $1 billion? We are a State that has to have a balanced budget every year, and we are struggling right now. Our Governor and the legislature are making tough and hard decisions cutting expenses to balance the budget this year. Under this bill, they are going to have to come up with another $1 billion. They are going to have to raise taxes, raise tuition costs at our universities. Where are we going to get it? We do not know the answer to that, but that is what this bill would require. While States work to prepare balanced budgets in anticipation of Medicaid expansion, they will not be given the flexibility to make prudent market-based decisions to improve their fiscal outlook. The Governor of Georgia has put forward proposals such as ending Medicaid coverage of dental, vision, and podiatry treatment for adults. These are painful decisions that States are being forced to make, but the health care law requires States to maintain eligibility levels for beneficiaries in order to keep their Federal Medicaid dollars. Reimbursement from Medicaid is already so low that a majority of doctors will not see Medicaid patients. States are left with little options other than further reducing payments to providers or raising copayments for beneficiaries. The Federal Government should not be hindering States' flexibility in dealing with their individual budget issues. This is not an area where the Federal Government should be impeding on the sovereignty of our States. America's deficit is the single biggest issue facing our country today. Repealing the health care bill means that our deficit will not increase by an estimated $2.6 trillion when this bill is fully implemented over a 10-year period, and it would also prevent that same $500 million in cuts coming from Medicare to pay for entitlements that would do nothing but exacerbate our budgetary woes. My constituents in Georgia, and citizens all across this country, have made it clear that they want Congress to repeal this legislation and work to lower health care costs and insure Americans through commonsense solutions that are not negotiated behind closed doors. We need a law that replaces this law and that actually reduces health care costs and enacts insurance reforms immediately. Americans should be allowed to buy insurance policies across State lines; small businesses should be allowed to pool resources and offer more affordable insurance to workers; we need to limit baseless lawsuits against doctors; and we should expand health savings accounts. Furthermore, in light of recent judicial decisions in Virginia and Florida, it appears the law may not be upheld in the courts. I applaud the decisions reached by Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson that Congress does not have the authority to force Americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty for not doing so. That provision of law, obviously, is ultimately going to be decided by the Supreme Court. I plan to vote on repealing this law and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start the process over, to make sure the next time we do it in the open and not behind closed doors and that we get it right. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl and Senator McCain, I respectfully object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on a provision in the fiscal year 2011 NDAA which the Senate passed today. Section 635 of H.R. 6523, The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011, contains a sense of Congress concerning age and service requirements for retired pay for nonregular service. The sense of Congress serves to clarify a provision which I authored and which is contained in section 647 of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate the committee's desire to clarify the intent of that provision and ensure proper credit is given to members of the Reserve. As can be inferred from the title of the provision in the fiscal year 2008 NDAA, the intent of the provision is to provide earlier retired pay to members of the Ready Reserve who serve in active Federal status or perform active duty for significant periods. The sense of Congress in the fiscal year 2011 NDAA notes that the intent of the original provision was for reservists to begin receiving retired pay according to time spent deployed, by 3 months for every 90-day period spent on active duty over the course of a career, rather than limiting qualifying time to such periods wholly served within the same fiscal year. I agree with this sense of the Congress to the extent that reservists should receive credit for each 90-day period of continuous duty even though that duty may span 2 different fiscal years. However, the original intent of the provision, as I authored it, was not to give credit for any 90 days of duty served anytime in one's career, regardless of whether or not that duty was served consecutively. This would not be ``active Federal status or active duty for significant periods,'' it would just be the normal accumulation of days served over the course of a reservists career. My intent in the original provision was to reward reservists who were deploying or serving an active duty tour for a significant period of time. It was not to allow for early receipt of retired pay simply because, over the course of a reservist's career, the number of days served added up to 90. I would like to yield to the honorable ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Arizona, and solicit his perspective on this matter.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the ranking member for his comments and I appreciate his willingness to clarify this issue. Land Transfer

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Department of Justice is well aware of some issues that have been raised by the intelligence community, particularly the Senate Intelligence Committee, with respect to this nominee; therefore, I must object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Risch amendment. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts just helped make the case as to why this amendment is so important. In every hearing we have had in Armed Services and Intelligence, every conversation I have had in person, by telephone, with every administration official and everybody in support of this, I raised the issue of not what is in the treaty as being the most significant issue but what is not in there--the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. I hear what the Senator is saying. What he has reinforced to me is, we have been talking to the Russians about tactical weapons for over two decades, and we have not yet been able to get them to sit down at the table with us. If we don't get them now, when? I understand what the President said, which is that he will make a real effort to get them to the table. You should get them to the table when you have leverage. The Russians want this treaty bad. We had the opportunity, in my opinion, to discuss tactical weapons with them, to get them to the table for this treaty, but we didn't take the opportunity to do that. So I rise to talk about the issue of tactical nuclear weapons with respect to New START and the two amendments filed on this issue, the Risch amendment, as well as one filed by Senator LeMieux. We all know tactical nuclear weapons is one of the issues the treaty doesn't address and also an area where there is a huge disparity between the United States and the Russians relative to the numbers of weapons. Perhaps, most important, the intent of arms control treaties is to control and limit arms in order to create predictability and security. By not addressing tactical nuclear weapons in this treaty, we have left the least predictable and the least secure weapons in our nuclear inventories out of the discussion. Russia has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 weapons. There have been numbers bantered around here. But the estimates of exactly how many vary widely. The point is, we don't know. That is part of the real problem with tactical weapons. Many of these nuclear weapons are near Eastern Europe and in proximity to U.S. troops as well as to our allies. These weapons are different, not primarily in terms of how powerful they are, because the warheads are, in some cases, similar in size to strategic nuclear weapons. Instead, they are different primarily in terms of the range of the delivery systems. The Russian advantage in tactical nuclear weapons is at least 5 to 1, but could be as high as 10 to 1. Again, we don't know because they will not tell us. It is also the case that the United States and Russia both agreed in the 1990s to reduce tactical nukes. The United States has, but we don't know that the Russians have. They said they have. But do we truly trust the Russians? We should not. In fact, they have cited the expansion of NATO as a change in the strategic landscape since the 1990's. Tactical weapons are the least secure nuclear weapons in our nuclear inventories. They are deliverable by a variety of means, and for these reasons are more of a threat of being stolen, misplaced or mishandled than strategic nukes. It is a mistake and unfortunate that this treaty doesn't address tactical nuclear weapons because an agreement to reduce and control these weapons is exactly where we need to be focusing and, relative to the overall security of the United States and the world, it is, frankly, more important than reducing and controlling strategic nuclear weapons. On Senator Risch's amendment, it would add a statement to the preamble of the treaty which addresses the interrelationship between nonstrategic and strategic offensive arms; that is, the relationship between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Senator Risch's amendment is correct in that ``as the number of strategic offensive arms is reduced, this relationship becomes more pronounced and requires an even greater need for transparency and accountability, and that the disparity between the Parties' arsenals could undermine predictability and stability.'' We are reducing strategic nuclear weapons under this treaty. By doing so, we are making tactical nuclear weapons much more important and much more relevant and, therefore, we should seek to achieve greater transparency and accountability on both our side as well as on the Russian side. That brings me to the second amendment, which is not pending but is filed and of which I am a cosponsor; that is, Senator LeMieux's amendment. That amendment would require the United States and the Russians to enter into negotiations within 1 year of ratification to address the disparity in tactical nuclear weapons. Both these amendments address what I believe is one of the most crucial issues and one of the issues the treaty should have addressed but didn't. I urge my colleagues to support both these amendments but particularly today the Risch amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order I have 5 minutes of Senator McCain's time. I would like to take a minute to speak on this issue of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I wish to start by talking about the process. Here we are, once again, at the end of the year, 1 week before Christmas, dealing with a very sensitive, a very emotional issue that is of critical importance to our men and women in the military, as well as every other American, but most significantly those men and women who are willing to put their lives in harm's way to protect America and protect Americans--and they do such a good job of that. What we have seen is the House took up a bill, passed a bill, it comes to the Senate, direct to the floor, no opportunity for amendments, limited opportunity for debate--which we will have today--and then we are going to vote. I see the assistant majority leader is here. I wish to say that as we move into next year, get ready--get ready--because this game can be played by both sides. There will be a number of bills that are passed in the House next year that the majority is not going to want to vote on. But they better believe those bills are going to be coming to the floor of the Senate in the same way this bill is coming, and we are going to insist on that. Second, let me just say we are in the middle of two military conflicts, where men and women are getting shot at, injured, killed, doing heroic acts, and providing for freedom in a part of the world that is of critical importance to all Americans and, at the same time, making sure, as they fight that battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, those individuals who would seek to do harm to America and Americans are not allowed to do so. We have a policy in place called don't ask, don't tell that has been in place for 18 years now and it has worked. Admiral Mullen, in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that as a commander he had to terminate individuals who decided to let it be known they were a member of the gay or lesbian community, and he did. I said in an additional question to him when he responded to that: Did you have a morale issue when you had to terminate those people? He said: No; morale remained high. Morale today, in every branch of our service, is probably as high as it has ever been in the last several decades. Recruiting and retention are at all-time highs. But what does this survey that was sent out on this issue to military personnel and military families show? First of all, it does not address the issue of: Do you support repeal of don't ask, don't tell? They did not ask the question. The survey assumes the repeal and talks about implementation. What is interesting about the survey is that the individuals who conducted it, in addition to sending out pieces of paper, also had personal interviews, they had online, back-and-forth chats with individual members of the military, and a majority of the individuals who wear the uniform of the United States who had personal interaction with the individuals who did the survey were opposed to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. The survey does show that nearly 60 percent of the respondents from the Marine Corps and the Army combat arms said they believe repeal would cause a negative impact on their unit's effectiveness. Among marine combat arms, the percentage was 67 percent. And we think this is a good idea? We think it is a good idea when 67 percent of those marines who are in foxholes and are dodging bullets around corners in Afghanistan as we speak today, who say that this is going to have an impact on them, we think it is a good idea to repeal this policy? And, by the way, this has nothing to do with the valiant service that gays and lesbians have provided to the United States of America. That is a given. We all agree with that. But what the Marine Corps and what the Army, as well as what the Air Force Chief said is this is not the time to repeal this. In the middle of a military conflict is not the time to repeal a policy that is working, that has the potential for affecting morale, it has the potential for affecting unit cohesiveness, and it also, most significantly in my mind, according to both General Casey and General Amos, does have the potential for increasing the risk of harm and death to our men and women who are serving in combat today. If for no other reason, we ought not to repeal this today. Should it be done at some point in time? Maybe so. But in the middle of a military conflict is not the time to do it. So as we think about this, and we think about the men and women who are serving, and the fact that, as Senator Inhofe alluded to earlier--I will not repeat all of those numbers--but the fact is that if the percentages in response to the survey turn out to be true, then we are going to have about 30 percent of marine combat forces who are going to get out early and not reenlist, and we are going to have to replace them. We have got about 25 percent of those combat troops in the Army who are not going to reenlist and who would like to get out early. If that happens, we are going to have 250,000 soldiers and marines that need to be replaced in short order. When I asked Secretary Gates about it, he said: Well, that is not going to happen. Well, if it does happen, we are going to have serious consequences. I do hope common sense will prevail here and that we will not get cloture, and we can move on to something that is extremely important to the men and women of America at this time in our calendar year. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes about the START treaty. Before I do, there is another issue that has been debated on this floor that we are going to continue debating over the next several days, and that is the issue of the funding of the Federal Government. There is an omnibus bill that has been laid out there now, which is something that happens from time to time that is simply not the way business ought to be done in this body. As we move into the debate on the omnibus bill, there are a lot of us who want to see, obviously, the government remaining open and running at full speed. All of us within this body want to make sure as we do that, we do it the right way. Frankly, to run in an omnibus bill at the last minute out here that has thousands of earmarks--some of which folks like me requested months and months ago, and until 2 or 3 days ago had no idea those requests would be honored and are now included in there, amounting to billions of dollars. With the issues we have now, including the election that took place on November 2 where the American people spoke loudly and clearly about the way Washington spends money, this is not the way to do business. I intend to vote against the omnibus bill. I will speak more about that at a later date. The New START Treaty I want to speak for a minute on the START treaty, and I want to start off by commending both Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar who, as the chairman and ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, have worked long and hard on this particular measure. This treaty was signed by the President after negotiations were completed back in the spring. By the time we got the text, and then the additions to the text, I would say it was probably into April or May, whenever it was. Since that time, I know both Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar have worked very hard. They have been open for discussion. I have had several discussions with Senator Lugar about it and have explained my problems with it early on to him. He has been very receptive. I received another letter from him today further explaining some of the issues that are out there. But that is an indication of how complex this issue is. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, I have had the opportunity to have any number of briefings. I have been in hearing after hearing. I have been in meeting after meeting with members of the administration as well as outside experts who believe this is right, and those who believe it is wrong. I have been involved in phone calls. I have traveled abroad to visit with our friends in both France and Great Britain to learn about what they are doing with respect to their nuclear inventory. It is not like folks like me who have to make a decision whether to support this have not been working on it and trying to understand the complexities of this treaty. Gosh, those Members of the Senate who do not serve on Foreign Relations, Armed Services, or Intelligence do not have the benefit of the extensive briefings those who serve on those committees have had, and they have been trying to understand the operatives that are involved in this treaty also. My concerns were laid out to Senator Lugar early on in a letter. I have been very clear in conversations and hearings, including in an extensive conversation that I had with my longtime good friend, Senator Sam Nunn, who, along with Senator Lugar, in my mind are the two godfathers of the Russia-United States nuclear issue. The issues that are out there are in the process of being dealt with and resolved--but we are not there, in my mind. I cannot speak for the other 59 folks here, but I can tell you this: There are five major issues I have been concerned with from day one. First is missile defense and what impact this treaty is going to have on missile defense. I will be honest, I expressed concern about it, including in a hearing in the Armed Services Committee with Secretary Gates, who is an individual for whom I have such great admiration and respect--we can have a difference of opinion on policy from time to time, but I know where Secretary Gates stands when it comes to the national security interests of the United States. In response to a question I asked him in an Armed Services hearing, he satisfied me with respect to the missile defense issue. Then, like happens with so many other issues when there is a complex treaty like this, we have comments that were made in Portugal in recent weeks about phase 4 of our missile defense plan that all of a sudden raises another issue, or at least a potential issue, that has to be addressed and has to be resolved, in my mind, before I can vote for a treaty I want to support. I continue to work through that particular issue. The second issue is the issue of modernization of the weapons in the United States. We can look ourselves in the eye, Members of this body and Members of the House, and take part of the blame. We have not funded a modernization program for the updating of nuclear weapons of the United States. Now we have called on the administration to make a commitment, and that commitment is going to have to be a financial commitment as well as a policy commitment. To the credit of the administration, they have worked in a very diligent way--I know with the prodding of Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar--to address this issue both from a budgetary standpoint as well as a policy standpoint. Again, it is not just this administration that has to be involved. It is future administrations as well as future Congresses that are going to have to address that issue. As we decide whether to vote for or against this treaty, we have to satisfy ourselves that future Congresses, future administrations are going to do that. How do we resolve that? I do not yet know. But it is another issue that we have to go through in our minds and satisfy ourselves on the issue of modernization before we can vote for it. Third is an issue of verification. This is probably the major issue, at least in my mind. The Senator from Illinois just spoke about the fact that we have gone for a year or so now without having the opportunity, under the treaty that expired in 2009, to look at what the Russians are doing and likewise to give the Russians the opportunity to look at what we are doing. It is important when there is a complex issue like this, and an issue where you have to trust the other side to do certain things, that you have the opportunity to verify after you enter into that trusting relationship with them. The verification process that is set forth in this New START treaty is frankly significantly different from the verification process that was in the treaty that just expired. There are reasons it needed to be different, and I understand that. But there still is an issue relative to: Do we have the right kind of verification measures in place in this treaty to be able to satisfy our community, both the defense community and the intelligence community, that this treaty gives us everything we need to have to be sure that the Russians are doing what they are supposed to do? In that vein, one way we are going about the issue of making sure the verification requirements that are set forth in here are adequate is to look at the National Intelligence Estimate that was put out 2 months ago, 6 weeks ago--whenever it was. When it did come out, I sat down and read through it. It is a rather detailed document that sets forth each of the issues in the minds of the intelligence community. And those concerns are dealt with in an appropriate way. There are still some questions in my mind with the classified portion of this treaty that I have to be satisfied with. I started going through the NIE again, and over the weekend, when it looks like we are going to have plenty of hours to sit down with not much going on, I am going to do that. Hopefully, I am going to satisfy myself on the classified portions. Last, what is not in this treaty is just as much of concern to me as what is in the treaty; that is, a total lack of addressing the issue of tactical weapons. I understand, because I have asked the question to the State Department, to the intelligence community, the Defense Department--about this issue of tactical weapons. Their rationale is, look, we cannot deal with tactical weapons until we get this treaty agreed to and signed and deal with the strategic side. Then we can deal with the tactical side. I don't buy that. I think there was an opportunity that was missed. We are dealing with a country that has fewer strategic weapons than we have. They are going to be huge beneficiaries under this bill from the standpoint of the sheer numbers. On the other hand, they have hundreds and hundreds, perhaps even thousands--we really don't know--more tactical weapons than what we have. It is the tactical weapons that bother me just as much as the strategic weapons because the tactical weapon can be put in a suitcase and delivered to a location that could destroy something domestically, or U.S. assets somewhere else around the world, or people. The lack of addressing the tactical weapons issue is a problem. Is it enough to say we should not do this? Maybe not. But there are those of us who are wrestling with the issue and trying to do it in the right way. I will have to say that in concluding my eighth year here, I have never had to vote in favor of a treaty that was this complex, this important, and had this much influence on what is going to happen with respect to the safety and security of our country for my children and grandchildren. I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar and their staffs for a tremendous amount of work and their openness. We have never asked a question they have not attempted to respond to. I am hopeful, over the next couple days, a week, however long we are going to be here, if we conclude it or if we conclude it next year, that we will be able to ultimately come together as a body and address this issue in a right and positive way. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by my good friend from Oklahoma. America is today at a crossroads--a crossroads where we have the opportunity as policymakers to go in the direction that the people of America said we should go in on November 2 or to have the opportunity to go down the road of continuing to spend money by this body and the body across the Capitol, without paying for the money we are spending. These amendments are pretty simple and straightforward. What they say is that we as policymakers have an obligation to listen to the people who sent us here, listen to the people who said, by golly, we don't like the way you are running the financial resources that we send to Washington. And here we are, the minority leader, Senator McConnell just sat down from saying and talking about an omnibus bill that goes in the wrong direction--a direction that is totally opposite of what the people of America said they wanted on November 2. Now we are going to have a vote today on the tax package that, in my opinion, is a good package. Only in Washington is a package which says that if you continue to tax people at the rate they are being taxed today, it adds to the deficit. There is another part to that. There are additions to that tax package that do provide for additional spending-- spending that can be paid for, without any feeling on the part of the offsets, or the people who are going to be affected by the offsets, as Senator Coburn has proposed. These amendments make common sense, they make business sense, and they certainly make the kind of sense that the people in America want us to start reacting to and providing for. Mr. President, America's finances are on an unsustainable path, and we cannot ignore this fact by continuing to pass legislation that we have not paid for. The amendments offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, are an opportunity for this body to act responsibly so that America's future prosperity is not stifled by insurmountable debt. All of us in this Chamber believe some portion of this bill should be paid for. Here is a chance to show we mean just that. These amendments provide billions of dollars of savings by eliminating wasteful spending, and by consolidating duplicative programs. Moreover, these proposals are bipartisan, having been recommended by the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. In addition, the amendments include ideas put forth by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to terminate certain Federal programs. We are all aware of the tepid, seemingly unstable economic recovery from the financial crisis of the past few years. Raising taxes in the face of high unemployment and volatile economic times would injure what slow growth our economy has, in fact, achieved. However, despite almost unanimous support for extending the emergency unemployment insurance benefits, they are still unpaid for in this legislation. If we cannot figure out a way to pay for something that nearly everyone in this body supports, how will we ever truly address our current spending and debt levels? When will we turn and face the unavoidable hard choices? There is no better time than now. These amendments provide $46 billion in savings this year, and $156 billion 5 years. Much of the savings can be accomplished by cleaning up our own house. Specifically, this amendment proposes a congressional pay freeze and a 15-percent reduction in Congress's budget; a freeze on how much can be spent on the salaries for Federal employees and a reduction in the number of government bureaucrats; limiting the amount that the government can spend on printing, travel and new vehicles; selling unneeded and excess Federal property. In the interests of strengthening America's financial future, we have to make the tough choices. These amendments do just that. We must show the American people that we have the good faith, the courage, and the will to confront the challenges before us by working toward sound fiscal decisionmaking, by managing our debts and paying our bills just as millions of American families have to do month after month. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter with my colleague Senator Warner. I understood Senator Warner and I had the time from 4:15 to 5 o'clock which was generously given to us by Senator Sanders who had the time before 5 o'clock. Unfortunately, Senator Harkin has gone over and used some of Senator Sanders' time. I know Senator Kirk is coming down to give his maiden speech at 5 o'clock, and I hope he will bear with us. We have a number of folks who are going to speak very quickly today on an issue that is of major importance to America. America's fiscal house is in disarray. Our budget process is broken, and future generations will end up paying the price if we continue to ignore the difficult decisions required to fix this grave threat to our country's fiscal stability. Recently, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has worked in a bipartisan manner to produce recommendations on how to best address our current levels of debt. While these recommendations may not reflect the beliefs of all Members of this body, I commend the Commission's members for having the courage and the open minds to tackle the problem. At the very least, their recommendations can serve as a starting point for a serious debate on how we can ensure a better life for our children and our grandchildren. Today, spending has reached almost 24 percent of America's gross domestic product, while our revenues were at their lowest levels last year in 60 years. Not too long ago, the debt ceiling was increased by the largest amount in history: $1.9 trillion--nearly twice as large as the previous record of $984 billion. Our current statutory limit on the public debt is now set at $14.294 trillion and is expected to require an increase again sometime this spring. With that backdrop, Senator Warner and I began talking this summer about this grave issue facing America and about the fact that if we don't address it now, then it is going to be too late, and that it was incumbent upon us to try to educate ourselves as well as educate other Members of this body about the seriousness of this issue and what is the way forward. So we began talking among ourselves. We expanded our group and expanded and expanded, and we now have a significant number of Senators who are prepared to come forth and say we have to address this and we have to address it next year. Some of the members of that group are going to be here today to give their thoughts on it. We are going to be joined by several Republicans and Democrats to pledge our commitment to addressing this issue and addressing it in the right way. I wish to thank my friend Senator Warner for his leadership, for his commitment to do this. It has been a pleasure to work with him. As we move forward next year, this group is going to provide the momentum to carry the ball to make sure we address the issue of reductions in spending as well as major tax reform to get the fiscal house of the United States back in order. With that, I yield to Senator Warner.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded and I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of S. 510, I am very disappointed that I cannot support tonight's cloture vote or the final passage of this bill. Since the bill's introduction and throughout the HELP Committee mark- up process, there has been strong bipartisan cooperation to craft legislation that strikes the right balance between industry practices and FDA oversight to ensure the safest food supply possible. Unfortunately, the Senate will not have the opportunity to vote for S. 510 as it passed the HELP Committee, nor will Senators have the opportunity to offer amendments to improve the bill. Compounding my concerns is the uncertainty about the opportunity to-have an open, transparent conference with our colleagues in the House of Representatives at this late hour of the legislative session. Instead, we are faced with voting for S. 510 with new language that was added at the llth hour which creates a loophole in the Federal food safety system. The newly added language, referred to as the ``Tester amendment,'' creates an exemption for small farms and business operations through an arbitrary size and distance threshold--neither of which have any basis in science or risk. For example, this new language would exempt a food facility or farm if it has sales of $500,000 or less, or sells half of its food to retailers, restaurants, or consumers in the same state or within 275 miles. It is extremely important to note that S. 510 as originally introduced and passed by the HELP Committee includes many provisions to protect the rights of farmers and in particular the needs of small farmers. These small farm protections were essential in my decision to be an original cosponsor of the bill, and I fully support them. Specifically, the original S.510 does not subject small entities that produce food for their own consumption or market the majority of their food directly to consumers to new recordkeeping requirements. Also, the original bill makes no change in definition of ``facility'' under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 which requires certain facilities to register with FDA, thus farms and restaurants remain exempted in S. 510. Additionally, small businesses are given regulatory flexibility throughout the original version of S. 510. For example, small processors are given additional time to comply with new food safety practices and guidelines created by the bill, and the FDA may modify or exempt small processors based on risk. Finally, regarding risk-based traceability, farms and small businesses that are not food facilities are not expected to create new records in the original version of S. 510. Only during an active investigation of a food- borne illness outbreak, in consultation with State and local officials, the FDA may ask a farm to identify potential immediate recipients of food if it is necessary to protect public health or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak. Unfortunately, the new language before us tonight goes beyond small farm protections. My concern with the ``Tester language'' is that it creates a loophole for small processing facilities by exempting them from HAACP and traceability requirements or products entering the food supply in ways other than direct sales to consumers. I am concerned that these arbitrarily exempted products would comingle with items that must follow risk-based preventive controls--such as bagged salads. In the case of a foodborne illness outbreak, this exemption will make FDA's job much harder to identify and remove the tainted source from the food chain. To state it bluntly, this new language goes far beyond protecting small farms and establishes arbitrary factors in determining the safety of food--none of which are based on risk or science. I am opposing cloture and final passage of this bill because I have been denied the opportunity to offer any amendments, especially to strike or improve the Tester language. I would have liked my colleagues to have had the opportunity to consider an amendment which would have limited the exemption only for products sold to qualified end users as defined in the Tester language, such as direct sales to consumers, restaurants, or retail food establishments. Without this limit, there is a significant chance that exempted products will be commingled with regulated products, thus rendering the protections created by S. 510 useless. The full implications of the Tester amendment are unknown. I think it would be wise for the Senate to take a closer look at the potential impact before we pass this legislation. The Senate should have had the opportunity to vote on S. 510 as it was passed by the HELP Committee without this loophole. All Senators should have the opportunity to offer and consider amendments, but we do not. Again, I also want to voice my concern regarding the opportunity to have an open, transparent conference with our colleagues in the House of Representatives at this late hour of the legislative session. For these reasons, I am voting no on cloture and no on final passage of S. 510. I would also add, for the reasons I have expressed, virtually every processor, food processor in the country has now come out and changed their opinion regarding their support of this bill, and they are opposing the bill because of the extended loopholes that are provided by the Tester amendment that are going to take the safest food supply in the world, which we have in the United States of America, and we are now going to offer loopholes and exceptions in the chain from the farm to the restaurant, from the farm to the grocery store, from the farm to the consumer's table, and we are going to render the potential for unsafe products to enter the market, and FDA is going to have no opportunity to regulate those. That is wrong. That is not what we started out to do with S. 510. Senator Durbin and I talked about this, now, it is almost years ago, when we initially started the process of reforming the food safety system in this country. Unfortunately, we have gotten way away now from the original intention of this bill, to a point where it is not going to accomplish the results we started seeking to accomplish. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Enzi for allowing me a couple of seconds here as we move toward a cloture vote on S. 510. I am an original cosponsor of S. 510, the food safety bill. I certainly had hoped that we would be able to come together in a bipartisan way in support of that bill. Unfortunately, the bill, with the substitute that has now been filed, is not the same bill I originally cosponsored. I will speak more about this after the vote, but it is my intent to vote against cloture on this bill. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of S. 510, the bill we just invoked cloture on, and as I said before the vote, I was going to actually have to vote against cloture and I would speak after the vote as to why because we were up against a timeline. I wish to take a minute to say I regret to have had to vote against cloture. Now that cloture has been invoked, I guess we will go to the bill, and, hopefully, we can make the necessary changes in it to improve this bill. But, frankly, the bill I originally cosponsored is not the bill that is coming to the floor today. It has been changed in some material ways. As late as this morning there were changes being made, and I understand there are discussions going on right now that may even change it again. First, let me say that the issue of food safety is an issue that is of primary importance. We need to make sure the food that is put in the retail stores as well as in restaurants and every other location in America is absolutely the safest, highest quality food product anywhere in the world. That has always been our reputation. But there are some gaps in the food safety inspection program in the United States today that have allowed some things to happen. We had a situation in Georgia 2 years ago where we found salmonella in some peanut butter in a location in south Georgia--a manufacturing location. And while FDA had the authority to go in and make an inspection, the way they actually inspected it was on a contract basis through the Georgia Department of Agriculture. They didn't have the resources to do the real oversight that needed to be done. Here we had a company that had found salmonella in peanut butter with their own inspections and their own product had been sent to their contractor and salmonella was found to be positive, and yet they didn't have to report that to FDA. That has been changed in this bill, but those are the types of gaps it is important to see changed. What is a problem to me right now is a number of things, not the least of which is the definition of what is a small farmer. Small farmers have been granted an exemption, but that provision was changed as recently as this morning. I understand, also, that it is up for discussion again now. But the definition currently in the bill is that a small farmer is determined to be a farmer with gross receipts smaller than $500,000. Well, unfortunately, or fortunately, in my part of the world, cotton today is selling at $1.50 a pound. A bale is 500 pounds. It doesn't take many bales to reach $500,000 in gross receipts from the sale of cotton, and that doesn't count peanuts and wheat and corn and whatever else may go along with it. So trying to put an arbitrary number such as that, and saying if you have gross receipts in excess of that number the FDA has the authority to come on your farm, but if you have less than that they do not have the authority, I think it is not the proper way to go. Secondly, with respect to that issue, even if they are exempt as a small farmer, they still have a mandate of a huge amount of paperwork that has to go along with their production on an annual basis. So I don't know what is going to happen with respect to the amendment process. We have heard there may be a filling of the tree and there will be no amendments. I hope that is not the case. I hope we have the opportunity to have an unlimited amount of amendments and that we can get the bill corrected and can then make it, at the end of the day, a good bill that will generate a significant vote on this floor. We have also heard there may be no amendments that are going to be allowed and, obviously, without a definite understanding on that, I had to be opposed to the bill. Let me say one other issue that concerns me is an amendment that was filed by Senator Tester. I know his heart is in the right place, but no less than about 30 national agricultural groups wrote a letter to Chairman Harkin, as well as to Ranking Member Enzi, on Monday saying they were opposed to that amendment and, if it is included in the bill, they are going to be opposed to the bill. That again is one of these eleventh-hour issues that remains undecided. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter to which I just referred.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I hope that at the end of the day amendments will be allowed; that we can come up with a bill that is positive and that closes these gaps we have in the food safety inspection program in this country. Senator Klobuchar and I have worked very hard on a provision that is included in the base bill that will improve the inspection process and make it easier and give more authority and, more importantly, more teeth to the folks who are charged with doing the inspections. If that is the case, and we can get the right amendments done, then perhaps we can get a true bipartisan bill passed and one we can all feel good about supporting. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and commitment of Senator Ted Stevens to the State of Alaska and to our Nation. As we all know, Ted joined the military at a young age and served his country with honor in World War II. He earned his Army Air Corps wings in 1944 and served in World War II as a member of the Flying Tigers, for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross. Two friends of mine from Georgia who served with the Flying Tigers knew Ted during those days. When they shared with me stories of those times, they always spoke fondly of Ted. Several years ago, I attended a funeral of a family member of one of our Senate colleagues on the west coast. A few other Senators were in attendance, but not many. One of those nights we stayed up late and started talking about life, and Ted told us he always attended the funerals of colleagues and their loved ones because when his first wife was tragically killed in a plane crash, those colleagues who took the effort to make the trip up to Alaska to attend her funeral meant so much to him. That is the type of person Ted was--he was loyal to the State of Alaska, his Nation, and to his colleagues. Ted and I also worked closely on defense issues and he was a good ally to have in those battles. He was a good friend and an esteemed colleague who served with distinction in the Senate. Ted will be remembered for his passion and his many, many years of service to his constituents.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, first of all, I thank my colleague from Georgia for allowing me to come over to speak on this issue, and I rise to concur with the resolution introduced by my friend and my colleague, Senator Isakson. For more than 75 years, our labor laws governing airline and railway employees have been upheld under both Democratic and Republican administrations and in two Supreme Court decisions. Recently, however, the National Mediation Board acted unilaterally to change a longstanding statute without seeking the consent of Congress. Unfortunately, this change is based more on politics than on the merits of the law. Historically, if you had 100 employees who wanted to vote to form a union, you would need a majority of those employees--or 51--to vote in favor of unionizing. Now, in accordance with the new rule change from the National Mediation Board, if 10 members choose to vote on whether to organize, a majority of 6 members voting yes would bring all 100 members under union control. That is not the way the law was ever intended to operate, and it should not be changed by an arbitrary action on the part of this Board. Not only would a minority of workers have a tremendous influence over other employees in such a workplace, but when a union is formed, employees would not have the same right to decertify the union under the new minority rule. While the Obama administration is attempting to amend our labor laws in order to facilitate the unionization process, the old majority rule was anything but anti-union because today an average of 72 percent of railway and airline employees are unionized, compared to only 8 percent of all workers in the remainder of the private sector. Not only is the new rule change flawed, but the procedure by which it came about was dreadfully biased. The National Mediation Board is made up of three members and has existed since 1934 to coordinate labor- management relations within the railroad and airline industries. The two Democratic appointees decided to move forward with this rule change without input or participation from the Republican-appointed Chairman. What the National Mediation Board has implemented goes beyond the scope of its capacity as well as its jurisdiction, and it is going to result in a rather lengthy court battle if this rule does come about. There is no need for this rule change when 72 percent of the airline and railroad industry is already unionized and has had the opportunity to unionize under this law. The responsibility of a change in labor laws of this magnitude and affecting this many workers should ultimately rest with Congress, not with a small board of political appointees. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the resolution of my colleague from Georgia. I urge my colleagues to follow his lead on this issue and to agree to this resolution. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chas Cannon, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of S. 3454.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I came over to speak on this bill and in opposition to the motion to proceed. I sit here and I listen to the distinguished chairman of the committee talk about the fact that this is an open process and that we have to get to this bill and everybody can file amendments. Well, when it comes to filing amendments to the Defense authorization bill, the majority leader is just like me. He is a Member of the Senate. He has the right to file amendments. I have the right to file amendments. That is not the case here. That is not what we are arguing about. What has happened is the majority leader, for political purposes, has come down and he has called up the Defense authorization bill and he has done what we call filling the tree. He has filed three Democratic amendments for his benefit and then he has filled the tree and he has not allowed me to file an amendment. He has not allowed the Senator from Florida to file an amendment. So when the chairman stands and says: We have to get to the bill. Well, we are on the bill. Is it right for the majority leader to be able to file amendments and nobody else to file amendments? I do not think so. That is what we are arguing about today. If you believe that is a fair process and that is an open process, then you vote for the motion to proceed. But if you believe the process ought to be that every Member of the Senate has the right to come down, whether you are a member of the Armed Services Committee or not, and file an amendment and call up your amendment and have a debate on it and a vote on it, then you need to vote against this motion to proceed. This is not the process that the Senate is used to following. It is the process this majority leader has seen fit to follow time and time again, and it is not right. It is not the way the Senate is supposed to work. I intend to vote against the motion to proceed.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. I am supportive of the final product before us to reauthorize these important child nutrition programs. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry had three goals in mind as we drafted the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010: expand access to existing programs to better reach children in need, improve the nutritional quality of meals, and simplify program rules to improve operations. I am extremely pleased that all three of these goals are met with this legislation. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 makes a significant investment of over $3 billion to improve the nutritional quality of school meals. The performance-based increase to the reimbursement rate should entice more schools to meet higher standards faster than an across-the-board increase. This legislation also gives USDA the authority to regulate all foods sold on school campuses, far beyond the existing authority to regulate only meals served through the National School Lunch Program. I have been impressed with industry efforts to work with schools to create consistent voluntary guidelines to reduce caloric intake of food and beverages sold on school campuses. I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to look closely at the success of existing voluntary agreements and use them as a model for future regulations. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 also provides greater access to nutrition programs for low-income children across the country. By expanding afterschool meals, promoting direct certification, and expanding community eligibility for universal meal service, this legislation will ensure that more children who need nutrition assistance will be able to participate in the programs. I would like to thank all the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their efforts and support of this legislation, as well as thank chairman Lincoln for her leadership throughout the process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a colleague whose devotion to this body, and to this Nation, was personal, heartfelt and legendary. I am talking about none other than the senior senator from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd's time on Earth was a life characterized by commitment. He exemplified this rare quality through his 70-year marriage to his high school sweetheart Erma James Byrd. But this was far from the only deep commitment in Senator Byrd's life. His dedication to the U.S. Senate was proved by his actions and his storied career. His life in the Senate began in 1958 with a victory that included 59 percent of the vote, the smallest margin of victory in Senator Byrd's half century- plus career. During his 57 years in Congress, Byrd worked with 12 future Presidents. He was known for telling his colleagues that he did not serve under any Presidents, but alongside them. In Senator Byrd's portrait in the Old Senate Chamber, his image is surrounded by his wife, the Bible, and the U.S. Constitution. This is only fitting, considering that Senator Byrd used references from the Bible and the U.S. Constitution in many of his speeches and in his everyday dealings with fellow lawmakers. In a speech by Senator Byrd on October 13, 1989, he said, ``The Constitution is the old landmark which they have set. And if we do not rise to the call of the moment and take a stand, take a strong stand, against our own personal interests or against party interests, and stand for the Constitution, then how might we face our children and grandchildren when they ask of us as Caesar did to the centurion, `How do we fare today?' and the centurion replied, You will be victorious. As for myself, whether I live or die, tonight I shall have earned the praise of Caesar.' '' I can say that Senator Byrd is deserving of the praise of West Virginians, and, indeed, all Americans, for his devotion to the Senate and to our Nation. He will be missed by his colleagues, and we are grateful for his life's work.