Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the career of Dr. Michael F. Adams, who stepped down as president of the University of Georgia on June 30 after 16 years of dedicated service to our State university. Dr. Adams became president on June 11, 1997, and he immediately began his work to make the University of Georgia one of the Nation's top public research universities. Under his leadership, UGA has excelled tremendously and student quality has risen steadily. He is one of America's best known and longest serving university presidents. Dr. Adams' dedication to improving the university's facilities and infrastructure is evident upon visiting the campus. He secured over $1 billion in new construction programs through his foundation of the UGA Real Estate Foundation. The university has undergone incredible renovations and now boasts the nation's most state-of-the-art facilities. Adams has overseen the construction of the East Campus Village, the Georgia Museum of Art, the Tate Student Center and the Richard B. Russell Special Collections Library. His commitment to providing students with the best learning environment is apparent throughout the highly impressive and ever-improving campus. Under Adams' leadership, the University of Georgia has achieved the highest rankings in its history, with the U.S. News and World Report ranking UGA in its top 20 public research universities for 8 out of the past 10 years. Student enrollment has grown from 29,000 to 35,000 students. UGA has become more selective and student quality is at its best. Adams oversaw the establishment of five new colleges and schools, increasing the diversity of academic programs and fields of study. While the university continued to excel academically, the Georgia Bulldogs' rich tradition of athletics flourished as well, with 27 national championship titles, 58 SEC Titles, and 125 individual titles. It comes as no surprise Adams has received over 50 awards in higher education throughout his time with the university, including the Knight Foundation Award for Presidential Leadership, the Pioneer Award for Leadership in Civil Rights, and the James T. Rogers Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. He has also been listed as one of Georgia Trend magazine's Most Influential Georgians for 11 years in a row. I am honored to have attended the University of Georgia and grateful for all that President Adams has done to make it the educational standard that it is today. I thank him for his service to the University of Georgia and to our great State.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has been an invaluable member of my team for 6 unforgettable years, my friend and chief of staff, Charlie Harman. Charlie first came to Washington in 1970. He took an internship with Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, to be near his then-girlfriend Carol, now his wife of 40 years. This internship sparked a passion for public policy, politics, and the United States Senate Charlie could never extinguish. After his internship with Senator Russell, the Atlanta, GA native graduated from my alma mater UGA, and took a job as a savings and loan officer with Fulton Federal Savings. However by 1980, Charlie longed to return to politics and began working for Senator Sam Nunn in Georgia. He finally fulfilled his dream of returning to Washington, D.C. when he was asked to serve as Senator Nunn's chief of staff in 1987. He did so until 1992. He then returned to the private sector as president of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. In 1996, he left the Chamber and was named vice president of public affairs for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Georgia. Seven years later, after Senator Paul Coverdell died tragically and unexpectedly, Zell Miller was appointed to fill the unexpired seat. Charlie stepped in to be his chief of staff--organizing his office and hiring his staff. Miller ran for the seat in November 2000 and was elected to serve the final 4 years of Coverdell's term. Charlie returned to Georgia and his job at Blue Cross/Blue Shield. As you can see, Charlie has been an integral part of Georgia's U.S. Senate history, and his was a name that came up often when I found myself in need of a chief of staff in 2007. When I interviewed Charlie, I remember asking him what his hobbies were. He replied, `I don't have a hobby, I just like to work.' That turned out to be true. I remember telling him my personal policy is to hire good people and then leave them alone to do their job. In this respect, there are never days when I worry my chief of staff would not be in the office, or a task will not be done. He is passionate and dedicated, and I am better able to focus on my tasks knowing he is there. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that ``Big jobs usually go to the men who prove their ability to outgrow small ones.'' I do not see that in Charlie. He places emphasis on all aspects of the job--big and small. He walks away from a room full of CEOs to answer the front office phones, so the staff assistants can have a break. He makes constituent mail a number one priority, ensuring all Georgians receive a quality response by week's end. And he is never too busy to talk to folks visiting from Georgia, or staffers who are having personal troubles. Anyone would be amazed to see how he manages such a high-pressure environment with efficiency, focus, and vision. Charlie inspires confidence in the staff and he inspires loyalty. In my 19 years in Congress, I have had the good fortune of having many talented staffers. You never forget the work they have done for you. On August 5, Charlie will be leaving my office to join Emory University as its Vice President for Government Relations. I congratulate Charlie and wish him well in his new position. Charlie has made a difference in thousands of lives around the Hill, around this town, and around Georgia. I will never forget all he has accomplished, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my concerns with the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. I do not take issue with the bill's specific spending provisions, and I believe my home State of Georgia needs a strong bill that recognizes the importance of ongoing infrastructure and housing and development projects. As some of my colleagues have already noted, this bill includes many taxpayer protection provisions, specifically that extravagant conferences will be curtailed, an issue many of our constituents as well as Members of Congress were shocked to learn about. But my concern is with the overall spending level and the decision of the majority to write this and other appropriations bills to levels that exceed the Budget Control Act. In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act which placed caps on what the Federal Government could spend. I voted against that bill in August of 2011. Over the years I have served in both the House and the Senate and there have been too many times when I have seen both bodies come together to bust spending caps. For us to have no checks and balances on the ability of either the House or the Senate to bust the spending caps that were set in 2011, I thought, was wrong because they were going to get busted. Well, guess what. Here we are, and this is not the first time since 2011 we have had a vote in the Senate that will ultimately bust those spending caps. The THUD appropriations bill the Senate is now debating completely disregards the 2011 Budget Control Act. THUD is the first of 12 appropriations bills the Senate will consider on the Senate floor. So my question to my colleagues is, What kind of precedent are we setting for the remaining spending bills? While all Americans deserve for Congress to pass appropriations bills, we simply cannot afford to pass bills that spend more than our government can fund. This Senate bill alone costs $5 billion more than is allowed under the Budget Control Act. How can we demand a cure to our fiscal woes if we cannot take our own medicine of fiscal restraint? We should focus our efforts on legislation that can pass both Chambers of Congress and be signed into law by the President, not create another political nightmare that negatively affects the country as well as our constituencies. Right now, the Senate can correct this mistake and allocate spending in a manner that is consistent with the law we passed. Shortly, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Pat Toomey, will come to the floor and offer a motion that would require the Appropriations Committee to change the spending levels of this bill to comply with the Budget Control Act or, in other words, to comply with current law. I urge my colleagues to follow Senator Toomey's lead and vote to recommit. We should work toward a bill that adheres to the budget guidelines set by the Budget Control Act and provides the needed appropriations for the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the independent agencies. While I would like to see the Senate pass a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, the bill before us now does more harm than it does good. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am going to begin my comments, but I am told by the majority leader he may want to come in and do wrapup, and I am perfectly comfortable with him coming in and interrupting me if he does get to the floor to do that. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Certainly.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the bill before the Senate and more extensively on a section of this bill I have been working on diligently to improve. First of all, I wish to commend the authors of this bill. I have been through complex legislation before and this is a very complex issue. I know how hard the so-called Gang of 8 has worked. We can't please everybody with any complex piece of legislation, but I think they have done a very credible job of putting together a piece of legislation that at least we could get to the floor for debate. I think having this bill on the floor is causing us to have a very important debate that is long overdue. We all know our immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. However, I am disappointed we have not been able to have a full and open debate on potential solutions to fix the system. I have stated publicly that I have serious concerns with several provisions in the bill, including some related to border security triggers, interior enforcement, and the program designed to address our agricultural labor workforce. That last topic-- agricultural labor--is what I wish to spend the majority of my time discussing tonight. But before I focus on the ag piece of this bill, I just have to say that I am terribly disappointed and frustrated at the way this bill has played out. I am about to talk for several minutes or so on straightforward, commonsense amendments to the agriculture portion of the bill. I have been working on ag immigration reform for nearly all of my time in Congress, both in the House and in the Senate. That is a total of going on 19 years. This is an issue I care deeply about because I come from the heart of ag country in south Georgia. But guess what. I am not going to have a chance to vote on any of my amendments, not because they are poison pill amendments--they are not--not because many of my colleagues do not agree with the changes I am suggesting--many actually do. It is because the sanctity of a deal has been given precedence over sound policy. Let me say that again: The sanctity of a deal is being given higher priority over sound policy. Now, I am not on the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was down here a little earlier talking about everybody had the opportunity in committee to file amendments. They had over 300 or so. That is well and good, and I am glad this bill went through regular order. I wish every bill that came to the floor of this Senate would go through that same regular order. But I am also not a Member of the Gang of 8, so I have not had the opportunity to have input on this bill. Nevertheless, I reached out in a constructive way to various folks to try to make some changes to the bill. I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Senator Graham, Senator Rubio, Senator Bennet, and Senator Schumer and their staffs for working tirelessly and in good faith with me to try to make some improvements to the bill. I thought we were making progress, and I think actually we did. But now I understand that one or two Members want to prevent this bill from happening, and so I am not going to be given the opportunity to have my amendments called up. What I can do, and what I will do, is highlight to my colleagues here and to my friends in the House of Representatives who may or may not take up this issue the problems I see with the ag portion of this bill. The agricultural portion of this bill has not been discussed extensively on the Senate floor, but it is vitally important to all Americans. Farmers and ranchers in the United States produce the highest quality food and fiber in the world. The continued safety of the agricultural goods produced in the United States is an issue not just of convenience but of national security. Due to the importance of food safety, it is critical to know who is handling our Nation's food supply and who is working on our Nation's farms and ranches. Additionally, if our farmers and ranchers cannot access a stable and legal workforce, they will be forced to downsize or eliminate their U.S. operations, and that is happening today. This leads to more of the food we eat being imported from other countries. I want to make sure we do everything we can from a policy standpoint to keep that food and fiber production right here in the United States. Today the majority of immigrant agricultural workers are undocumented. We need both secure borders and put in place an immigration system that allows those who seek to come to the United States to work in the diverse sectors of the agricultural industry to do so legally. H-2A is the current ag guest worker program in force in the United States today. I have been working on H-2A reform since I came to Congress not only because Georgia's farmers are among the largest users of the program, but because it is clear to me that the current program is cumbersome and difficult to use, as well as expensive. My colleagues who drafted this bill have included many reforms to the agricultural guest worker program, and several of these reforms do take a needed step in the right direction. However, there are several areas that remain troublesome to me, and so I am proposing amendments to address some specific areas. Mr. President, I know the section of this bill focused on agriculture represents a delicate political balance, but we have a responsibility to enact smart policy, and we also have a rare opportunity to replace the cumbersome and largely unworkable H-2A program with something that will truly address the needs of those in agriculture all across the country while ensuring that no American workers are displaced. We also need to ensure that we do not give those undocumented aliens working in one sector of our economy a vast preference over the rest of the illegal population in terms of the pathway to citizenship. Before I talk about my amendments, I want to give Members of the Senate an understanding of how the agriculture piece of this bill is set up. The ag portion of this bill puts in place a blue card program to transition illegal aliens who have worked in agriculture to lawful permanent resident status. It also creates a new agriculture guest worker program to replace the current H-2A Program. The blue card program is open to anyone who has worked in agriculture for 575 hours or 100 workdays over the 2-year period of 2010 to 2012. Let me say that again. If you worked for 575 hours or 100 workdays out of the 730-day period of 2010 to 2012, you qualify for a blue card provided you had that work in agriculture. Frankly, to me, that is a very low threshold. The general undocumented population covered by our RPI program which is in the base bill has to prove they meet the requirements to gain RPI status by a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. However, for the blue card program, that undocumented alien only has to prove they worked that very minimal amount in agriculture by the standard of proof called just and reasonable inference. There is no interview required, and no way to verify the person applying for the blue card status actually worked in agriculture. Someone who lives in an area where agricultural work is performed and has evidence of their residence in that area could get a blue card by showing proof of residence and saying they were paid in cash in their agricultural job. I am afraid the lax standards set out by the bill to qualify for the blue card program will lead to an influx of illegal aliens who worked a minimal amount in agriculture or never even worked in agriculture, to qualify for the program, sending more folks than we need in the agriculture sector to those jobs. You might say, Why in the world would anyone choose to qualify for the blue card program, since agricultural work is widely viewed as some of the toughest work around and the most demanding work? Well, the answer is pretty simple. It is because the blue card program is a faster, cheaper, easier way to a green card than the RPI program for other undocumented aliens in the base bill. While the RPI program doesn't allow illegal aliens to get a green card for at least 10 years, under the blue card program, if you are an agricultural worker, you can get a green card in 5 years. While the RPI program doesn't allow green cards to be issued until certain border triggers are met, the blue card program doesn't require those aliens to wait on that border security piece. Thirdly, while the RPI program costs a $2,000 fine in addition to processing fees, the blue card program has a cost of $500. The theory behind the blue card program is to incentivize this undocumented population to work in agriculture because it is a critical industry that traditionally has not attracted many American workers. However, the way the bill is written, there are very minimal agricultural work requirements. You have to keep in mind that once an alien gets a blue card, they are authorized to work in any job in the United States. They have to meet the minimum work requirements in an agricultural occupation, but otherwise they are free to take any other job in America and are treated as a U.S. worker for hiring purposes. So what are these work requirements to go through the blue card program and to get a green card? Well, there are two tracks: The illegal alien can work at least 100 days a year in an agricultural operation for 5 years or the alien can work 150 days per year for 3 years. Either way, the alien gets that green card in 5 years. Even the accelerated track requires the alien to work less than half the year in agriculture. While the alien can work in any other job in the United States, he or she doesn't have to. So, in theory, a blue card holder could work 100 days per year for 5 years in agriculture and be totally unemployed the remainder of the year, and still get a green card in 5 years and still have legal residence inside the United States. Likewise, the alien could work 150 days per year for 3 years and be totally unemployed the remainder of the time and still get a green card in 5 years. That doesn't seem right--especially when the RPI population is not allowed to be without a job for more than 60 consecutive days. Clearly, the agricultural worker is getting a vast preference over the RPI undocumented workers. Because of the way the blue card program is set up, I am afraid we are providing too strong an incentive for people who did very minimal or even no work in agriculture to access the program, and that we will end up with more agriculture workers than we need. Then because the work requirements are so low, once folks get the blue card, they will perform the minimal amount of work required and move on to a different job and we will leave those farmers and ranchers in the lurch with an unstable workforce--because, remember, these blue card folks are treated as U.S. citizens for hiring purposes. The other aspect of this that concerns me--and we know this to be a fact because we saw it happen after the 1986 amnesty program under Ronald Reagan. That is, once these individuals who are working in agriculture get that green card, which allows them to permanently stay in the United States, they are out of agriculture. They are going to leave the farm, and they are going to go to work in construction or some other industry someplace in America where the working conditions are better and maybe even the pay is better. It is going to happen, because history tells us it is going to happen. Some of my amendments are aimed at tightening the blue card program to ensure that only those folks who truly work in agriculture are using the program. The fact is I want those experienced agricultural workers to stay in agriculture, and I am also providing them some incentives to do so. The base bill here went way too far in the other direction. The first amendment I will discuss tightens requirements to obtain the blue card. It raises a standard of proof to verify that you actually worked those very minimal qualifying hours in agriculture to qualify for the blue card program to what it is for the RPI population, i.e., a preponderance of the evidence. As I mentioned before, the standard in the base bill is just and reasonable inference. Someone has to be able to prove by a just and reasonable inference that they performed over 2 months of agricultural work over a 2-year period of time in order to get into the blue card program. I think that standard leaves the program susceptible to all kinds of fraud. However, I understand there are concerns by some that due to the nature of undocumented work in agriculture, it will be difficult for them to garner the necessary evidence of work history to access the program even though the bill protects employers from liability for having employed illegal workers. At any rate, because there is that concern, my amendment provides that for those who truly worked in agriculture but cannot meet that standard, because of the nature of an undocumented workforce, they don't have that evidence, those folks have the opportunity to sit down and do an interview with the appropriate agency officials and prove to them face to face that they did work in agriculture as a matter of just and reasonable inference. If they can do that through the interview process, then they can get into the blue card program. This amendment will eliminate most of the potential for fraud for the blue card program and is simply a very commonsense amendment. The second amendment I will mention tightens the work requirements to maintain the blue card and eventually transition to a green card. Instead of allowing 100 workdays for 5 years or 150 workdays for 3 years to get a green card, my amendment says you must work 180 days for each of the 5 years in order to qualify for the green card. If you are going to be put on this preferential pathway to a green card, I think you ought to be able to work at least half the year in agriculture. I don't think that is too onerous--6 months of work per year for 5 years. Some will argue that some agricultural work is only a few weeks per year, and so 6 months of work per year is too much to require. To that I would say if a worker is only performing 3 or 4 weeks of agricultural work per year, then maybe this blue card path is not the best path for them. Perhaps they are better off seeking the RPI pathway to citizenship. We are talking about a preferential pathway to citizenship for a half a year of agricultural work per year under my amendment, with no other work requirement. I don't think this is too much to ask, and I think many people will still be able to maintain their blue card status with no problem. The third amendment I filed has to do with how preferential that pathway to citizenship is for the blue card workers. The current bill says regardless of any border security triggers being met, an unlimited number of blue card workers will be issued green cards in 5 years. Those folks who qualify under the RPI section of the bill can't start the green card process until 10 years after enactment and certain border triggers are met. I think stretching that timeline for the blue card workers--who, remember, are authorized to work in any job in the United States--to 7 years rather than 5 years is more than reasonable and is still a preferential pathway to citizenship. The fourth amendment dealing with the blue card program deals with the fines for the blue card program. Again, this goes to how much more attractive the blue card program is as compared to the RPI program. The bill, as written, requires folks on the RPI program to pay fines totaling $2,000 in order to get a pathway to citizenship. However, those on the blue card program are only required to pay fines totaling $500--just $500 for this faster and easier pathway to citizenship. That is not right. I understand these agricultural workers don't have a lot of money, and so I am not asking to raise it to the same level as the RPI group. However, I think the fine should be significant. My amendment would increase that total blue card fine to $1,000, which is double what it is in the underlying bill but still half of what it costs the RPI folks. The final amendment I have filed relative to the blue card program should be totally noncontroversial. It has to do with previous H-2A workers who want to participate in the blue card program. There is a provision in the underlying bill which I agree with that allows those former H-2A workers who meet the blue card work requirements to apply for a blue card and participate in the blue card program even if they are not currently in the country. I think this is the right policy, because many H-2A employers have been using the same workers for many years through this legal guest worker program, and I don't think we should punish them for having done the right thing in the past. What this amendment does is simply add language that clarifies that the agencies involved in administering the blue card program need to promulgate regulations that will allow those former H-2A workers to make their application from outside the country. In summary, I have five amendments to this bill relative to the blue card program and several of these are smell-test amendments, because without them I think it is difficult for this blue card program to pass the smell test. I also have a series of amendments aimed at improving the new agricultural guest worker program set up by this bill, which is called the W-2/W-3 program. It is imperative that we as policymakers get this program right. If history is any indication, we make reforms to our immigration laws once every 20 to 30 years. We have to make sure the guest worker program put in place by this bill is practical in its implementation and can be used by our farmers and ranchers, because as these blue card workers leave agriculture--and we know they will--we have to make sure there is a stable and legal workforce available in those instances when U.S. workers cannot be found. I have said it before and I will say it again, that I think this new guest worker program takes a step in the right direction. But I do have a few amendments to improve it that I will talk about now briefly. The first amendment has to do with wages. The underlying bill sets a national minimum wage for each of six different agricultural job categories for the years 2014 to 2016. The wages for each category will automatically increase anywhere from 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent each year forever. I have several issues with this wage section, such as the fact that a national wage does not reflect very real regional differences in cost of living or the fact that the wages do not seem to be based on any survey data. But I know how hot an issue this wage section is, so in an effort to be abundantly reasonable in how I propose to alter the bill, the main fix I am looking to make is to the number of wage categories. I think we can all agree some agricultural jobs require a more skilled or experienced worker than others, and my amendment protects that fact. What I am trying to avoid is the bookkeeping nightmare created by these six wage categories. Under the categories presented in the base bill, a worker in a packing shed is in a different category than a field worker and is paid at a different rate; and a worker driving a tractor is in a different category and paid at a different rate from the field worker and the packing shed worker. But all of my friends familiar with the day-to-day operation of a farm will agree, the reality is that on any given day on a diversified crop farm, workers will be doing any combination of those three jobs. So my amendment collapses those six wage categories into two: a skilled wage and an unskilled wage. To get to those numbers, I simply averaged the wage data the Gang of 8 proposed in the underlying bill and used the same job categories the Gang proposed in the bill. My aim is to prevent an employer from having to determine how many hours a guest worker spent in the field versus the packing shed each day, as he would have to do under the current bill. The second amendment deals with the issue of liability. If you ask my H-2A users in Georgia what their biggest complaint is with the H-2A program, I will guarantee that all of them will tell you it is liability. Let me be clear upfront. I do not want to take away any protections that exist for workers. They need that. They deserve it. Nor do I want to prevent a worker with a legitimate grievance to be allowed to pursue that grievance. What I do want to protect against, though, is frivolous lawsuits that can cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time. There are several areas in the bill that I think can be tightened as they relate to liability. The first area of liability that I think needs to be dealt with and is addressed in my amendment has to do with mediation. The bill rightly sets up alternative dispute resolution to try to keep some of the complaints outside the Federal courtroom. However, the mediation setup under the bill is not binding. What is the point of providing this alternative dispute resolution if you do not want to make it binding? My amendment would do just that. The second area of liability that is addressed by my amendment has to do with the Legal Services Corporation. Current law provides that Legal Services cannot represent an undocumented alien who is not present inside the United States at the time representation occurs. I think that is a good law. The underlying bill, however, eliminates that law and specifically says that Legal Services can represent a W-2 or W-3 ag guest worker, even if they reside outside the United States. We are not talking about U.S. citizens. We are not even talking about blue card workers. We are talking about future guest workers. I think it leaves open the possibility of frivolous lawsuits being filed from a foreign country, and I simply do not think that is sound policy. There is a final area of liability I am concerned about that has to do with housing. The bill treats those agricultural employers who provide housing under the W-2/W-3 program, as they are required to do if they cannot or do not provide a housing allowance, as housing providers under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, MSPA, as it is referred to. Let me tell you what that means. It means that any guest worker who alleges a housing violation such as a broken screen door or a nonworking microwave will be allowed to pursue that grievance through a lawsuit filed in Federal court, and believe you me it happens today. That doesn't make sense to me. There should be a right to cure a defect before they have that right to file suit in Federal court. There should be a right for the employer to fix any minor or incidental issues with housing, but that is not allowed under the base bill. Initially, my amendment had language to address this, but at the request of the bill's sponsors who told me that was too controversial, I eliminated that piece of my liability amendment. It is strange to me this would be controversial, but to some it is, so that is a problem in the bill I am not even addressing by this amendment, but I do want to highlight it for my colleagues because I am telling you, this is going to be a real issue if that provision in this bill ever becomes law. I am hopeful that as this process moves forward there may be another opportunity to do something to address this in a reasonable way. The third amendment to the guest worker program has to do with the allocation of visas. The current bill allocates the 112,000 W-2 and W-3 visas among the four quarters of the year. I understand the intent of the drafters. They didn't want all of the visas to get used by all of those who seek visas early in the calendar year and not have any visas available for those who do not need workers until later in the year. However, I think a more efficient distribution of visas would be to issue them to all allotments; one on January 1 to accommodate year-round users such as dairy and those with a spring crop and then one on July 1 to accommodate the fall crop. My amendment does just that and it weights the January 1 allotment to have 70 percent of the visas because there are those year-round users such as poultry processors who will be needing those visas early on. Any unused visas from the January 1 allotment will roll over to the July 1 allotment. The fact is crop seasons do not fit squarely into calendar quarters, and I think by changing the timing of the visa allotments it simply makes more sense. The fourth amendment to the guest worker program I have filed has to do with the wages of former H-2A workers. I can commend the drafters for recognizing that we do not need to punish those employers who, to their economic disadvantage, have been using the current H-2A program to ensure they have a legal workforce. They did this by saying that even though blue card workers are treated as U.S. workers under the bill, and therefore have to be hired before any guest worker, if you have used a H-2A worker for 3 out of the past 4 years and want that H- 2A worker to continue to work for you under the new guest worker program, you can. That former H-2A worker will not be displaced by a blue card worker. However--and this is where I have the problem--if you hire that former H-2A worker under the new guest worker program, you do not pay that worker the wage rate established under the W-2/W-3 program. The bill requires that you pay that former H-2A worker a separate and higher wage rate called the AEWR. This is the wage rate that exists under the current H-2A program and it is part of the reason that law is so flawed. This just doesn't make sense. It seems to, once again, punish those who have been playing by the rules and the punishment is exacerbated because there is a provision in the bill that says you cannot give any preference to guest workers. On its face that makes sense. But what it actually means is that you have to pay all the workers you hire that AEWR rate and that is just not right. This is a fairly technical concept, so let me give an example. Say you have farmer Joe who has been using the H-2A programs even though his neighbors have not and they have hired undocumented illegal aliens and paid a much lower rate. This means all these years Farmer Joe has been providing free housing to his workers, paying their transportation costs to his farm, and paying the higher AEWR wage rate, which in Georgia this year is $9.78; meanwhile, those who use a questionably legal workforce have not had to provide housing, have not had to provide transportation, and have only paid minimum wage to their workers. If Farmer Joe uses 100 H-2A workers every year and has 10 critical workers he wants to make sure he rehired under the new W-2/W-3 program, he can do that. He can hire these 10 guys before he hires any blue card workers. He still has to hire Americans first, but after that he can hire those 10 workers. The rest of his workforce, in all likelihood, will be filled with blue card workers because there will be so many of them legalized and needing to meet a work requirement. So Farmer Joe will have 10 former H-2A workers and 90 blue card workers. However, under this bill, he will be forced to pay those former H-2A workers the higher wage rate of the AEWR, rather than the wage rate set up by the W-2/W-3 program in the underlying bill. Because he can't treat guest workers any better than U.S. workers and because blue card workers are considered U.S. workers, he will also have to pay all 90 of the blue card workers the AEWR rate. So my amendment would simply strike that provision so Farmer Joe will pay the wage rate set up by the W-2/W-3 program. He will still have to pay all the blue card workers at the W program wage rate but not the AEWR rate. The final amendment I will discuss is very straightforward. It simply extends the H-2A program for 3 years. The current bill extends H-2A for 1 year, but my amendment would add 3 years to that. While the H-2A program is far from perfect, it does allow employers who need legal workers to get them in a timely manner. Standing up a new program and moving it to a new agency and issuing new regulations to govern the program is a big undertaking, and it is all mandated to be done within this 1 year--within 1 year in the bill. I think H-2A can serve as a safety net in the off chance there is a bump in the road in getting these new programs propped up. As I said earlier, I will not have the opportunity to have any of these amendments voted on or even accepted by unanimous consent. I cannot tell you how much that disappoints me. Any of these changes will take this bill in the right direction, from my perspective. The ag portion of this bill is a critical piece of the legislation, and I am afraid it has been overshadowed by some of the other issues. But we are doing a great disservice to our agriculture community and to all Americans who put food on their tables every night if we do not get this right--and we are not getting it right in this underlying bill. There is going to be fraud and abuse like we have never seen in the ag guest worker program. We are going to have folks getting green cards ahead of those who have been standing in line and doing the right thing for years and years and years and all of a sudden these workers who now hold a blue card and say: Yes, I worked in agriculture for 3 months out of the year for Farmer Mack over here--and there is nobody to dispute that--and he says: I worked a definitive period of time for 3 years, all of a sudden at the end of a total of 5 years he is going to get a green card and an automatic pathway to citizenship. That is just not right. I came to my colleagues in good faith to try to make positive changes to this bill. I come to the floor now to talk about some of those changes. Ultimately, I want what is best for American agriculture. I want to be a constructive part of this debate and, unfortunately, a relatively few of my colleagues are preventing that from happening and none of these amendments are ever going to see the light of day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and legacy of Congressman John Robert Lewis of Georgia, and recognize the 50th anniversary of his chairmanship of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. John Lewis grew up during the heart of segregation, born as the son of sharecroppers and attending segregated schools in Pike County, AL. At a young age, he became inspired by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, and decided that he too, would fight for equal rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution of the United States. John attended Fisk University, where he began his civil rights activism by organizing a sit-in at segregated lunch counters in Nashville, TN. He later became one of the original 13 Freedom Riders, bravely challenging segregation at interstate bus terminals throughout the South. In 1963, John Lewis was elected as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which we are here to recognize today. He helped found this organization, which encouraged students to get involved in the civil rights movement and played a key role in the struggle to end legalized racial discrimination and segregation. By the age of 23, he was recognized as one of the ``Big Six'' leaders of the civil rights movement, planning and participating as the youngest speaker at the historic March on Washington in August 1963. He remains the last remaining speaker from this march. He continued his work, organizing the Mississippi Freedom Summer, a campaign to register black voters and expose students around the country to the perils and conditions in the South. Knowing what lay ahead, he risked his life to lead over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, only to be brutally attacked by Selma police officers. This massacre became known as Bloody Sunday, during which John's skull was fractured. He still bears the scars today. John remained chairman of the SNCC until 1966, and then continued his commitment to the civil rights movement as associate director of the Field Foundation and in various voter registration programs. Even after more than 40 arrests during his peaceful protests, John Lewis never gave up on his cause. He still remains devoted to non-violence and equality for all. In 1986, John was elected to serve as the U.S. Representative for Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, where he continues to serve his constituency and do remarkable work for the State of Georgia. He has been a loyal colleague and friend, and an invaluable member of the Georgia Congressional Delegation. John Lewis's unwavering ethical and moral principles have garnered admiration and respect from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am honored to have known him. Today, let us honor Mr. Lewis, who stood boldly against those who resisted racial equality. John's legacy will be remembered as one of great importance in American history. Like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, John continues to inspire those of us around him to fight for what we believe in. I hope we can all learn from the remarkable life of Congressman John Robert Lewis of Georgia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, would the Senator allow me to propound a unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business following the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to speak on S. 954, the legislation to reauthorize agricultural programs. As a former chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I recognize how difficult it is to combine all the diverse interests into a single piece of legislation that meets the needs of all crops, all regions, and all rural and urban communities the farm bill impacts. I thank Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran for the work they have done to craft a reform-minded bill that not only saves $24 billion with sequestration cuts included but also provides an effective safety net for farmers and ranchers all across the country to rely on in times of need. This bill embodies reforms, streamlining, and consolidation, and with the biggest issue facing our country today being our growing debt and deficit, I commend the members of the Agriculture Committee for stepping up and doing the work necessary to find savings. While we take these essential steps, we must also do it in an equitable and a fair manner. Agricultural producers face a combination of challenges such as unpredictable weather, variable input costs, and market volatility that all combine to determine profit or loss in any given year. The 2008 farm bill provided a strong safety net for producers, and successor legislation must adhere to and honor the same commitment we made 5 years ago. It is also important to note that this bill must not only work to protect producers in times of need, but it must responsibly serve as the Nation's safety net for the nutritional well-being of low- income Americans. Last year, when we went through this process, I was unable to support the bill. However, I appreciate the chairwoman and ranking member for making improvements to last year's bill. While the bill before us is not perfect, I believe everyone who is involved in agriculture understands that it addresses the needs of U.S. agriculture, which is what the policy coming out of this body should address. While I understand there are different ideas about what safety net is best, I urge my colleagues to recognize that one program does not work for all crops. The bill before us attempts to provide producers with options to find what works best for them, and that is a step in the right direction. A new program known as Adverse Market Protection seeks to serve the needs of those who are not protected by the Agriculture Risk Coverage-- ARC--and Crop Insurance Programs. It is imperative that the farm safety net provide protection for multiyear declines, especially for southern crops such as rice and peanuts, since the protection provided by ARC and crop insurance is not sufficient. Also, I would like to recognize that the upland cotton policies contained in the chairwoman's mark represent fundamental reform in the support provided to cotton farmers--reforms that contribute $2.8 billion toward savings in the committee's budget target. The legislation eliminates or changes all title I programs providing direct support to those involved in cotton production and puts us down the path to resolving our WTO dispute with Brazil. Further, I would like to express my support for a provision in this bill that ties conservation compliance to crop insurance. My amendment last year on the floor relinked the two, and since then 32 leading agricultural, conservation, and crop insurance groups have come to support this provision and have come together with ideas to form a compromise on details of this linkage. The compromise will provide a strong safety net for our farmers and natural resources, while allowing them to be wise stewards of the taxpayer resources. For those of us who enjoy hunting and fishing and the outdoors, this provision will provide for future generations of Americans the same opportunity we have to hunt and fish today. There is another provision that did not come up in the discussion in the Agriculture Committee that I would like to briefly comment on, and that is the dairy program. The dairy program is always an integral part of every farm bill, and I am not anywhere near an expert on the dairy program. In fact, I kind of leave that to States where it has a more significant impact. But in my State, when I came to Congress almost 20 years ago, we had in excess of 700 dairies in Georgia. Today we have less than 300. In fact, it is closer to 250. I do not know what the problem is, but I do think, as we move this bill off the floor and into conference--particularly with what has been going on in the House relative to dairy and the discussion over there-- we need to be mindful of the fact that we need to address this program long term. If the way it is designed now is the best we can do, so be it. But I do think it is going to merit a significant discussion on dairy once we get to conference and have our ideas shared with the House and the House ideas shared with us. This will be my fourth and final farm bill as a Member of Congress. As a member of the Agriculture Committee and as a strong supporter of Georgia agriculture for my nearly 20 years in Congress, I have witnessed several disputes, especially regional disputes. However, I am confident we can balance the needs and interests between commodities and regions to reach our common goal of getting a farm bill across the line. Ultimately, the reason we are here is to represent those who work the land each and every day to provide the highest quality agricultural products and the safest agricultural products of any country in the world. We have the opportunity to write a bill that is equal to their commitment to provide the food, feed, and fiber that allow America to be the greatest Nation on Earth. Madam President, I thank you, and I look forward to the forthcoming debate on the remaining amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as did my colleague from Georgia Senator Isakson, I wish to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this issue. He is right. We have been to the facility a number of times to examine what is going on there. There is great work being done by highly trained, highly educated individuals to deal with one of the most sensitive products we have in this country. The Senator is exactly right that there are significant consequences from an international standpoint if the numbers in the President's budget are allowed to stand. That is why we have had conversations with a number of individuals currently at the Department of Energy and why we had a conversation with Dr. Moniz in preparation for his confirmation by this body. Those discussions have led to the fact that, as the Senator from Georgia says, we are willing--and we have their agreement that they are willing--to sit down with a contractor to talk about the money. That is the real issue because we are talking about a budget item and whether we can afford to do this. If we don't involve the contractor, then obviously we can't get that number down to a manageable number. So, again, with the leadership of the Senator from South Carolina, we look forward to working with Dr. Moniz and others with respect to sitting down with the contractor and coming to some resolution of the ultimate budget number that is going to be needed. With respect to Russia, the President met with President Medvedev in 2010, and the two of them, in a press conference, talked about the MOX facility and the agreement on MOX. Here we are 3 years later with this President submitting a budget number that, in fact, in effect starves this program and would have the obvious intended result of eliminating this program, thus breaking his word with President Medvedev in 2010 as well as breaking the U.S. agreement with Russia. That has the potential to have very serious consequences on the international stage. Also, abandoning the project would have severe economic impact to both the State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina because of the individuals who have been working there for now, as Senator Isakson said, 50 years. It is also going to strand up to 64 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. Where else is it going to go? There is no place else for it to go. There is no State jumping up and down saying: Please bring your uranium and your plutonium to my State and we will deal with it. You can transport it to my State. In fact, the exact opposite is happening. It was intended that we would process this plutonium and it would ultimately ship to Yucca Mountain, as Senator Graham alluded to. Now the State of Nevada is saying no. They are throwing up their hands and saying: We don't want that processed material in our State because it is hazardous waste. Well, what we are saying is, we are happy doing what we are doing because we have those trained, sophisticated professionals who know how to deal with this hazardous material. They do an outstanding job of it. We have spent billions of dollars constructing the facilities to the point where they are 40 percent away from being completed now. If we just accept the President's budget, then we will have wasted all of that money and the construction phase of the buildings that are there. Also, we are not going to have anywhere to put this 64 metric tons of hazardous material and weapons-grade plutonium. So this stands to have economic impacts to our part of the country. It stands to certainly create international issues with the Russians if we break our agreement with them. Also, just as significantly, it leaves 64 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium outstanding, with nowhere to go, nowhere to store it. The MOX project was designed to deal with a very sophisticated issue years and years and years ago, and it just makes no sense whatsoever to stop in the middle of it now and say, well, we just don't have the money to take care of something that is as hazardous and potentially as life-threatening as what this weapons-grade plutonium is. We do need to spend our money wisely. We have to be careful. But there are agreements we need to honor. There are certain aspects of governing that need to be done and need to be done in the right way, and this is simply one of those. So with the continued leadership of Senator Graham and Senator Isakson and Senator Scott, I look forward to us sitting down with Dr. Moniz once he is confirmed--and we are all going to vote to confirm him today--because he has so much knowledge about this. One thing we failed to mention is the fact that he is the guy who negotiated the agreement. He is the guy the President is saying, well, we know you went through some very difficult times in negotiating this with the Russians, but the heck with your agreement, the heck with all the work you did. Thank goodness his attitude is that he wants to work with us. We want to find a way forward. We look forward to his confirmation being completed, to sitting down with us and the contractor, and let's figure out a way we can make this project the continued success it has been thus far, as well as moving forward. With that, I yield to Senator Graham.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. The request by President Obama and Mr. Miller's resignation is too little too late. This is just another example of the President continuing to search for a scapegoat for his own administration's misdeeds. The American people deserve trust, and this egregious abuse of power demonstrates the worst fears of the American people that they cannot trust their government. It has been 2 years since these incidents were first reported, and while Members of Congress were led to believe no malfeasance occurred, the details of the IG report were more shocking than we could have realized, as many conservative groups were not only targeted for additional reviews but were harassed as well. Moreover, in some cases, information was purposefully leaked by the Internal Revenue Service. These actions are unacceptable, and while President Obama's reactions seem to be sincere, he has not yet demonstrated to the American people that all of those responsible will be brought to justice. Above all, we have to make sure this never happens again.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Air Force Reserve, created by President Harry S. Truman on April 14, 1948. Since the founding of the United States, citizens have answered the call to arms, accomplished their mission with professionalism and honor, and returned to their civilian lives to await the next call to serve. Truman envisioned a new Reserve component to continue this tradition of service--being ready when called upon--that was founded by the Army Air Service reservists of the First World War who flew wood and canvas bi-planes. The forerunner of our modern Air Force Reserve was authorized by the National Defense Act of 1916. Today, Air Force reservists, known as citizen airmen, perform leading roles in military operations, humanitarian crises, and disaster relief around the globe. The Air Force Reserve consists of officers, enlisted, and civil servants who are tasked by law to fill the needs of the Armed Forces wherever necessary. More than 860,000 people make up the Ready, Standby, Retired, and Active-Duty Retired Reserve. This includes 70,000 selected reservists who are ready now and serve on the frontlines of daily military operations around the globe. The creation of the Air Force Reserve followed the birth of the Air Force itself by about 7 months earlier on September 18, 1947. The newly created Air Force had gained its independence from the Army, tracing its roots back to the Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army's Office of the Chief Signal Officer, which took charge of military balloons and air machines in 1907. Ten years later the first two Air Reserve units were mobilized, and one of them, the first Aero Reserve Squadron from Mineola, NY, deployed to France as the United States entered World War I in 1917. The new Air Service Reserve program provided the war effort with about 10,000 pilots who had graduated from civilian and military flying schools. Later, reservists played a critical role in World War II when 1,500 Reserve pilots, along with 1,300 nonrated officers and 400 enlisted airmen, augmented the Army Air Corps in the war's early days. This included the legendary Jimmy Doolittle, who was ordered to Active Duty to work in Detroit to convert automobile manufacturing plants into aircraft factories and later went on to lead Doolittle's Raiders, the first American bombing attack on the Japanese mainland. After World War II ended, the young Air Force Reserve was barely 2 years old when it mobilized nearly 147,000 reservists for the Korean War. In the 1960s five Air Force Reserve C-124 aircraft units, along with 5,613 reservists, were mobilized for a year to support the Berlin crisis. By 1962 an additional mobilization of 14,220 reservists and 422 aircraft were supporting operations during the Cuban missile crisis. During the Vietnam War, the Air Force Reserve provided strategic airlift as well as counterinsurgency, close air support, tactical mobility, interdiction, rescue and recovery, intelligence, medical, maintenance, aerial port and air superiority until U.S. involvement ended in 1973. As our Nation entered a period of peace for the next few years, the Air Force Reserve periodically engaged in emergency response missions. This included the rescue of American students from Grenada in 1983, aerial refueling of strike aircraft conducting the raid on Libya in 1986, and operations to oust Panamanian dictator Manual Noriega in 1989 through 1990. Air Force reservists also supported humanitarian and disaster relief efforts, including resupply and evacuation missions in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. All the while, they stood ready to answer the call to arms as our Nation entered the final days of the Cold War. More than 23 years of continuous combat operations began with Operation Desert Shield in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In the aftermath of coalition victory, Air Force reservists continued to enforce no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq while also performing humanitarian relief missions to assist displaced Iraqi Kurds. In 1993 Air Force Reserve tanker, mobility, and fighter units began operations in Bosnia, and in 1999 they were also supporting Operation Allied Force over Serbia and Kosovo. When terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, Air Force reservists responded in full force. Air Force Reserve F-16 fighter airplanes flew combat air patrols to protect American cities, while KC-135 tankers and AWACS aircraft supported security efforts. In October 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom began as U.S. military forces entered Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and terrorist sanctuaries. In March 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom began in order to end Saddam Hussein's regime. Air Force Reserve units and reservists played key roles in all combat operations as Air Force Reserve MC-130 Combat Talon aircraft became the first fixed-wing aircraft to penetrate Afghan airspace while Air Force Reserve F-16 crews performed the first combat missions. In recent years citizen airmen have supported every Air Force core function and every combatant commander around the world. Air Force reservists were engaged in surge operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They supported combat and humanitarian missions in Haiti, Libya, Japan, Mali, and the Horn of Africa. Also, they provided national disaster relief at home in the United States after Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the gulf oil spill, and the wildfires in the Western States. Throughout their history, citizen airmen have volunteered unconditionally, demonstrating without fail that they were ready when needed. Since inception in 1948, the Air Force Reserve has evolved from a unit-mobilization-only force into an operational reserve that participates in missions around the globe. From its headquarters at Robins Air Force Base in my home State of Georgia, the Air Force Reserve serves with distinction to provide for our national security on a daily basis. Spanning 6\1/2\ decades--with the last 2 decades of continuous combat--the Air Force Reserve has fulfilled the promise of early air pioneers and exceeded the potential foretold by the visionaries who created it. Congratulations to all citizen airmen, past, present, and future, on the 65th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to George ``Chip'' Walter, Jr. Chip, a career veteran of the Navy, currently serves as the Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. As the vice chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, I have had the pleasure to work with Chip in this position and have greatly appreciated his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication, which has benefited not only me but also numerous other Members and staff here in Congress. He is an exemplar of public service to our country. Prior to his position at the CIA, he held numerous legislative affairs positions within the Department of Defense, including director of Legislative Affairs for Central Command, which included a year tour in Kabul, Afghanistan, as the legislative adviser to the commander of Central Command. It was in Kabul where I and many other Members met Chip as we traveled on codels to Afghanistan at the height of the war. His professionalism and affable nature made a great impression on me and others. His work with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began with the nomination and confirmation of GEN David Petraeus to be Director of the CIA. Soon after, he was named director of the Office of Congressional Affairs at the CIA, where he managed the day-to-day relationship between Congress and the Agency. The Congressional Affairs position at the CIA is always a difficult job, but these last few months have been particularly challenging with the confirmation of a new CIA Director, along with implementing lessons learned in the aftermath of the September 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks. Chip showed a resolute trustworthiness through these difficult times that many Members of Congress appreciated. Chip has given much to this Nation through his dedicated and selfless service. Let me take a minute to recount some of his other accomplishments which include a long and distinguished career as a naval aviator, from which he retired as a captain in 2011. Chip, a native of Sudbury, MA, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in May 1983. He was designated a naval aviator in 1985. His first assignment was in Brunswick, ME, where he served as an instructor pilot, mission commander, and formation instructor. During that assignment he completed three deployments to the Mediterranean and North Atlantic. In the summer of 1989, he reported to Fleet Replacement Squadron, FRS, THIRTY in Jacksonville, FL, where he earned the designations of FRS instructor pilot, advanced training instructor, formation instructor, and alternate naval aviation training and operations procedures standardization, NATOPS, evaluator for Naval Air Forces Atlantic. He served as the flag secretary of Carrier Group TWO in 1991, and in October 1992, he deployed in the USS John F. Kennedy Battle Group to the Mediterranean in support of OPERATIONS PROVIDE PROMISE and PROVIDE COMFORT. In August 1993, he attended the Naval War College, Newport, RI, and graduated with distinction in June 1994. In November 1994, he reported to Patrol Squadron TEN while deployed to Naval Air Station Signorelli, Sicily and later completed a tri-site deployment to Keflavik, Iceland; Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; and Howard Air Force Base in Panama, serving as the operations officer. In November 1996, Captain Walter began work in the Bureau of Naval Personnel as the assistant Washington placement officer. Following his tour in the Bureau, he was assigned as the executive assistant to the Chief of Navy Legislative Affairs. In the spring of 2000, Captain Walter reported to Patrol Squadron ONE as the executive officer. He assumed command of the ``Screaming Eagles'' Squadron in February 2001 and completed a Western Pacific deployment. After his command tour, he reported to the Joint Staff and served in the Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate, J8, and later as the Chairman's deputy director of Legislative Affairs. In September 2005, he was assigned as the executive assistant for director of Air Warfare, N88. In June 2006, he assumed duties as commander TASK FORCE SIX SEVEN. In addition to traditional duties of the commander TASK FORCE SIX SEVEN, he was designated commander of the Black and Caspian Sea for Naval Forces Europe. In July 2008, he assumed the duties as the director, CENTCOM Legislative Affairs. He deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, in July 2010, for a year tour as the legislative adviser to the commander, General Petraeus. Captain Walter became director of Congressional Affairs for the Central Intelligence Agency on September 26, 2011. Over the course of his career, Chip has consistently served in highly selective and challenging assignments, demonstrating the quality of his character and abilities. Because of men like Chip, we have an able and ready military that truly is a global force for good. Throughout his distinguished career he has represented our country and Navy with dignity and honor, and this is why I am so privileged to pay tribute to this fine sailor and American. In a few weeks, Chip will be moving on to another assignment. I speak for many of us who have worked with him when I say he will be missed and not easily replaced. I want to thank his wife, Kim, along with his three children, Kristyn, Bethany, and Griffin, who have lovingly supported him throughout his career in the military and government. Chip, thank you for your distinguished service to our country. I wish you and your family Godspeed and continued happiness as you start a new chapter in your lives.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on what almost qualifies as a historic event: For the first time in 4 years, the Senate will try to complete a budget resolution. Since 2009--the last year the Senate passed a budget--the government has run deficits in excess of $1 trillion every year. The Democrats' budget resolution that we are currently debating will, in fact, only reduce net deficits by $279 billion. I have spoken on the Senate floor and around the country for the past 2 years in favor of a budget that will end excessive spending, provide a platform for tax reform, and rid ourselves of oppressive debt and deficits. But I am afraid that even after the Senate has completed its work, I will still be advocating for those changes. Senate Democrats have not used their proposed budget resolution to make government better. Their proposal does little in the way of reform, and actually grows the government instead of the economy. It is discouraging to anyone concerned about excessive government debt, and it is discouraging to the job seekers who are, unfortunately, so abundant right now. What the Democrats have proposed is not a budget at all. It is merely a spending plan to further stunt economic growth and job creation, while condoning increasing the deficit and growing the government. I believe the American people expect a budget that provides a platform for our economy to grow. A budget that increases government spending, increases debt, and further endangers our Medicare and Social Security is not what Georgians or people across America want. We have a real opportunity now to correct a lot of missteps. We need a budget that will reform our Tax Code, grow the economy, reduce poverty, and fix our entitlements. Yet here, in the middle of a global economic crisis, we are going to vote on a budget that does none of that. Mr. President, tonight the Senate voted on a budget that will balance in 10 years the--budget proposed by House budget chairman Paul Ryan. I can't think of better way to show the American people and the world that our government is serious about getting back on track and reclaiming our country's financial dominance. Simply put, Mr. President, even with all the provisions combined, the Murray budget doesn't get us out of debt. The Ryan Budget does. A budget that balances in 10 years should be the starting point for discussions, and we need to make that budget a reality now to secure America's future. Economists, budget experts, and analysts across the country have come to the conclusion that the debt we have already accumulated is having a negative effect on our economy. We have known for a long time--and have been told many times by economists--that when a country's gross debts reach 90 percent of GDP, its economy will contract substantially. We have seen in places such as Japan and Europe that when debt gets out of control, the government's response to control debts must be tougher. Unfortunately, as my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, noted yesterday, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, and the European Central Bank have all analyzed our debt and found that we are now at 103 percent of GDP. That is a staggering and shocking number. It is a hopeless number. We haven't balanced our budgets in so long that we have ended up harming America's economic engine--and the Democrats' proposal doesn't fix anything. It merely continues our unsustainable spending. We voted on a spending measure yesterday that lowered our discretionary spending down to 2008 levels. With some hard work, we can keep our discretionary spending at sustainable levels. However, what we haven't addressed is the continued rise in mandatory spending which has increased substantially since 2008. We simply cannot continue to let mandatory spending go unchecked. This budget's approach to restraint is half-hearted, at best. President Obama likes to remind us that he is in favor of entitlement reform. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt about that--but is this the best his party can come up with? We are a nation that believes in caring for the most vulnerable among us, but if we continue to operate our programs this way, on a path toward bankruptcy, we will never be able to keep our promises. We can no longer allow the American people to suffer by not providing the economic basis for recovery and growth. The equation is simple: A balanced Federal budget that is free of excessive debt leads to a healthy economy and sustainable job creation. Community Health Centers

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Let me, Mr. President, if could, ask the Senator again a little different question to make sure I understand exactly what the Senator has asked for. The Senator's position, as I understand it, has been all along that if we have bad guys flying airplanes into a tower or if we have folks who are firing missiles or tanks or weapons of any sort in the United States, seeking to carry out an act of war, an act of terrorism, taking those guys out is not a problem.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. First of all, let me say, I appreciate the Senator's passion. I appreciate the fact that, as he knows--and he and I have had some discussions about this issue over the last several days and weeks--the Senator is bringing this to the forefront, as he has done. We have talked about the Senator's question that he submitted to Mr. Brennan for answering. This is not a rocket science question. This is a question that is perfectly reasonable, perfectly rational, and a question that ought to be able to be addressed by the administration in a very quick, simple, direct response. I have been dumbfounded, as the Senator from Kentucky knows, about the fact that he did not get a straightforward, simple answer immediately. But the fact of whether a drone attack--and I am one of those who thinks we need to detain and interrogate folks as opposed to just firing drones at everybody because we are losing a lot of valuable information from folks whom we take shots at versus folks whom we are able to detain and interrogate--but still, I know the Senator from Kentucky agrees with me that at the end of the day, we need to take out bad guys, guys who seek to do us harm. The Senator's position all along has been that with due process that ought to happen. My question to the Senator is, with the administration not giving him a straightforward answer--and I understand the Attorney General, in response to some questions today in the Judiciary Committee, again was very evasive on the question, in spite of having given the Senator a letter just yesterday on this issue--that there still is not a straightforward, black-or-white, as it appears to me they could give you, answer to this question; am I correct about that?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Again, Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the Senator: The fact is that from a pure oversight standpoint--Armed Services, Intel--these committees that have jurisdiction over the issue of fighting the war on terrorism need to have the right kind of information so we can ask the right questions. Getting the right kind of information out of this administration has been worse than having a root canal and more difficult than having a root canal. I again am appreciative of the Senator being forceful in asking the question, and I think at the end of the day, again, he has had no issue relative to ultimately having a vote on Mr. Brennan. I am not supportive of the nomination of Mr. Brennan, but I think he ought to have a vote, and I intend to express myself in much greater detail on it a little later. But from the standpoint of simply moving the issue forward, if the administration had come to the Senator with a direct answer days or weeks ago, when he asked the question, we probably would not be here now. Again, I thank the Senator for his comments on this issue.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me, if I may, direct a question to the majority leader through the Chair. As I understand what the Senator is asking, for 90 more minutes--30 minutes to Senator Feinstein and 30 minutes for me, and Senator Paul would have 30 minutes-- it would start right now, basically?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Continuing to reserve the right to object, I guess, then, I would direct a question to the Senator from Kentucky since he has the floor. What amount of time does the Senator think he wants to utilize?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as a Member of this body representing the State of Georgia, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize a Georgia resident and my good personal friend, Davis Love, III, on being named the recipient of the 2013 Bob Jones Award. The award, named in honor of another great Georgia golfer, Robert Tyre Jones, Jr.--better known as Bobby Jones--is the U.S. Golf Association's highest honor and recognizes individuals for their distinguished sportsmanship in golf. Since 1955, the Bob Jones Award has been presented annually to an individual who ``emulates Jones' spirit, his personal qualities, and his attitude toward the game and its players.'' Past recipients include some of golf's alltime greats, such as Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and Tom Watson. And it comes as no surprise to see Davis Love's name added to this distinguished list. Davis and his wife Robin are longtime residents of Georgia, and Davis is receiving an award that embodies much of our State's rich golfing history. He has long been a champion of the game and embraced many of golf's finest traditions. Throughout his impressive career, Davis has represented our country with dignity and honor. In the 1985 Walker Cup match, Davis helped lead the USA team to a narrow 13-to-11 victory over Great Britain and Ireland by winning two matches on the final day of play. He is also a six-time member of the President's Cup team and has been a member of the U.S. Ryder Cup team seven times and was captain of last year's Ryder Cup team. Since he earned his PGA Tour card in 1985, Davis Love, III, has won 20 events, including a major, the 1997 PGA Championship. He is also a two-time winner of the prestigious Players Championship and has finished at the top of the leader board in many of golf's other major tournaments. His respect and love for the game is admired by fellow players and golf fans around the world. I can think of no other professional golfer who is more deserving of this award than is Davis Love, III, and I congratulate him and Robin on being named the recipient of USGA's 2013 Bob Jones Award. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.