Saxby Chambliss

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to LTG Ronald L. Burgess, Jr., the current Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and one of the Nation's premier leaders in the intelligence community and in the United States military. Lieutenant General Burgess retires this summer after a distinguished 38-year career. During his career, Lieutenant General Burgess has been recognized with numerous awards and decorations, which include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, United States Special Operations Command Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, NATO Medal--Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Parachutist Badge, Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, and the Army Staff Identification Badge. As a driving force in the intelligence community, General Burgess will soon conclude a career marked by exceptional leadership and strategic vision, both of which have significantly advanced U.S. national security interests while also strengthening our national intelligence and military intelligence capabilities during a very challenging period in our Nation's history. Throughout his time in uniform, Lieutenant General Burgess has demonstrated an unyielding dedication to duty and an innate ability to inspire enthusiasm and commitment to serve those he leads. Lieutenant General Burgess's selfless service to country and his unparalleled personal drive have been instrumental in transforming defense intelligence into a more capable and cooperative enterprise, providing the critical intelligence required by military commanders and policymakers both at the defense and national levels. Commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Auburn University ROTC Program in 1974, Lieutenant General Burgess began his career with a series of assignments in armor and military intelligence units in Germany and Ft. Stewart, GA, where he was directly responsible for planning multiple highly successful National Training Center rotations, numerous command post exercises, and an Army training and evaluation program. Lieutenant General Burgess was recognized for his meticulous planning and forceful execution of operational procedures which contributed significantly to combat readiness. Later Lieutenant General Burgess held a variety of key staff and command positions, including Assistant Executive Officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Washington, DC in 1990, and as the battalion commander, 25th Infantry Division, from May 1993 to May 1994, at Schofield Barracks, HI. From July 1995 to May 1997, Lieutenant General Burgess commanded the 470th Military Intelligence Brigade where he served with great distinction. As commander, he provided outstanding leadership which led to the unit's operational success in support of the Commanding General of the United State's Army South and the Commander U.S. Southern Command. During this period, LTG Burgess skillfully integrated a multi- disciplined intelligence force into an extremely innovative war- fighting asset while also expanding the brigade's regional focus through more than 150 operational deployments across Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Korea. While commanding the 470th, LTG Burgess also served as acting vice director of intelligence, and subsequently the acting director of intelligence for U.S. Southern Command. During this period LTG Burgess guided a continuous flow of intelligence analysis in support of the year-long Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement hostage crisis at the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima. LTG Burgess's support was key to developing the detailed analysis required by U.S. military commanders, our ambassador to Peru and the President to make timely and informed decisions leading to the safe withdrawal of American hostages. Following his assignment at U.S. Southern Command, LTG Burgess served as the Director of Intelligence (J-2) for the Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, from May 1997 to May 1999. During this assignment, Ron's leadership was instrumental in supporting continuous global deployments as well as major exercises and highly complex joint-service training events. Mr. President, in June 1999, Ron returned to the Southern Command as the Director of Intelligence, J-2. Among his achievements while serving in that position, LTG Burgess led an interagency intelligence effort to create a fused Colombian intelligence capability that enhanced military and police cooperation against illegal global drug networks. LTG Burgess led Southern Command's intelligence response to many challenges including potential migrant operations, tracking of Cuban exiles, hurricane and earthquake disaster relief, and sustained counterdrug operations in both the area of responsibility and throughout transit zones. From June 2003 to July 2005, LTG Burgess served as the Director for Intelligence (J-2) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, JCS. As the J-2, Ron directed all-source intelligence analysis and reporting for the Chairman JCS, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and Unified Commands. LTG Burgess served as the focal point for crisis intelligence support to military operations, indications and warning intelligence in the Department of Defense, and Unified Command intelligence requirements. Assuming control of intelligence operations only months after the United States and coalition forces invaded Iraq, LTG Burgess was at the forefront of providing timely and insightful intelligence for operational requirements in Iraq, Afghanistan, transnational terrorism, and all developing global issues affecting U.S. interests abroad. In August 2005, LTG Burgess reported to the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, ODNI, where he served as the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Customer Outcomes, Director of the Intelligence Staff, Acting Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and acting Director of National Intelligence. During this period, LTG Burgess played a key role in developing and reforming the Intelligence Community during an unprecedented period of global change. During Ron's tenure at ODNI, his leadership was key during the revision of Executive Order 12333, which governs all intelligence activities, the development of the first-ever joint manning document for military personnel assigned to organizations outside of the Department of Defense, critical Intelligence Community managerial operations were overhauled, and innovative human capital practices were implemented under his watch. After completing his ODNI assignment, LTG Burgess was appointed the 17th director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, in March 2009. As the Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence I have personally witnessed Ron's thoughtful and ambitious program to strengthen DIA's ability to address the ever-changing requirements of military commanders and policymakers at the defense and national levels. LTG Burgess has focused DIA on our nation's greatest challenges including Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, transnational terrorism, and preventing strategic surprise elsewhere around the globe. In doing so, Ron has reinforced DIA's ability to surge in support of contingency operations and crises, successfully launching a 24/7 crisis analysis cell at the start of the Libyan crisis and establishing an Afghanistan- Pakistan Task Force that refined the agency's ability to support ongoing combat operations As DIA was celebrating its 50th anniversary, LTG Burgess charted an innovative, five-year strategy to strengthen and unite the agency's core defense capabilities while also focusing the agency on warning, core mission areas, partnership, and performance. DIA's new strategy emphasizes best practices to support our warfighters and policy makers in an era of persistent conflict and enduring U.S. fiscal challenges and sets the path toward achieving the strategy's major theme of ``One Mission--One Team--One Agency.'' As Director of DIA, LTG Burgess has worked to strengthen and improve the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, JWICS, the secure backbone for much of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the White House, U.S. combatant commanders, and allies. Additionally, he has led the effort to establish the Defense Clandestine Service, DCS, which provides enhanced collection capabilities in support of the highest priority intelligence requirements of the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and the Combatant Commanders. No matter the range or complexity of the issues, Ron always kept himself, his colleagues and subordinates focused on the fundamental obligations and responsibilities borne by those entrusted with some of the Nation's most important and sensitive missions. He frequently reminded DIA employees, ``While much of what we do is secret, our work is a public trust.'' And consistent with that view, Ron emphasized at every opportunity the non-negotiable need for intelligence professionals to always demonstrate the highest degree of integrity, both personal and professional. He often counseled new employees, senior managers and military attaches headed to new postings that ``integrity is needed most when it is hardest to maintain.'' Mr. President, while much of what is said behind closed doors at the Senate Intelligence Committee is classified, I can tell you, my colleagues and the American people, that DIA is held in high esteem by the Senate Intelligence Committee, due in no small part to Ron's leadership. DIA is an indispensable, principal member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and has strengthened its performance as the functional intersection between defense and national intelligence. LTG Burgess leaves behind a more flexible and adaptive agency, one that is much more capable of meeting our national security challenges. Under his leadership, DIA has earned even greater respect within the Intelligence Community and continues to warrant Congress' strong support and trust. Mr. President, while the Army and Intelligence Community will be losing a leader who has answered the call time and again at such critical points in our Nation's history, I know that Ron will be happy to reclaim his Saturday afternoons in the fall to root for his Auburn Tigers, and that the Burgess family will cherish more time with a husband and father. Mr. President, I wish Ron and his wife Marta the very best as he enters retirement. On behalf of a grateful Nation and my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, I thank Ron and his family for his many years of faithful service and a job well done. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 3240, legislation to reauthorize the farm bill. It is important to reflect on the process and the debate we just had, as well as consider the final product. First, I wish to commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts for their diligent efforts in bringing this bill to the Senate floor for consideration and debate. It is no small achievement and there have been countless hours expended by Members and staff on this very important effort. However, in spite of this, as I weigh the bill and its impact on the State of Georgia and the Southeast, I am truly disappointed that I am not able to support it. This bill does include significant reform with the elimination of direct payments and it makes several improvements to crop insurance. I have always been an advocate of risk management delivered through the private sector. However, the bill establishs a one-size-fits-all program rather than recognizing the limitations of crop insurance for certain regions of the country, namely, the Southeast, and whether the new commodity title program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage, ARC, program can work as a safety net for crops other than corn and soybeans. Leaving producers without an effective safety net provides very little protection and certainty for those outside of the Midwest. A good idea often stumbles by asking it to do too much. Crop insurance is a tool that addresses risk in an individual crop year. It does not work as a safety net by insuring against multiple-year price declines. This is simply beyond its design and capabilities. Crop insurance is a critical part of a producer's risk management program, but it is not a cure-all to a commodity market that can expand and contract based on the vagaries of weather, disease, and international events. That is why farm policy in the past encouraged programs such as the marketing loan and the countercyclical program to work with, not in competition, to crop insurance. This week we have had the opportunity to debate and improve the bill. We made some important changes, but it still lacks the balance I have advocated for the past several weeks. It is still my hope to support the bill at the end of the legislative process. Perhaps after action by the House of Representatives and a conference of the two Chambers, we will see the changes necessary to gain my support. Chairwoman Stabenow has assured me on several occasions that my concerns will be addressed and I know she will keep her commitment. I would rather have dealt with the issues during the Senate debate, but that was not possible. We must remember that the farm bill should help farmers and ranchers manage a combination of challenges--much out of their own control. We must also remember that the farm bill is not an entitlement for any one region or any one commodity. Policymakers must remember that the bill needs to serve all producers in all parts of the country equitably and effectively. To fail in this endeavor means we as legislators have failed to produce a bill worthy of the people we represent. I am proud of the work we did on the 2008 farm bill and its ability to provide a strong safety net program for producers. I am confident that the next farm bill will adhere and honor that same commitment we made 4 years ago. While I could not support the bill in front of us, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up Chambliss amendment No. 2438.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment would require those who receive crop insurance protection from the Federal Government to now follow conservation compliance laws. Conservation compliance was enacted as part of the 1985 farm bill and has contributed almost singlehandedly to almost three decades of progress in limiting erosion, cleaning up waterways, and protecting wetlands. For those of us who love to fish and hunt, that has been of critical importance. No other program has done more for protecting our farmland and topsoil than conservation compliance. In 1996 Congress exempted crop insurance from the conservation requirement. Back then, the reason for doing so was to increase participation in the Crop Insurance Program. And that is exactly what we have seen. We have seen premium subsidies increase by 500 percent. The farm bill we are debating now will incentivize farmers to move from title I programs to crop insurance, and as a result soil and wetland conservation will not be a policy priority. And it should be. This shift will likely adversely impact soil and conservation without this amendment. If crop insurance is going to be the preferred safety net for farmers, then we also need to make sure the program does not incentivize farmers to eliminate the gains we have made in the last 25 years.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I urge adoption of the amendment. Who yields time? The Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up Chambliss amendment No. 2340.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering has a very focused and modest reform objective--specifically, to accelerate by 60 days the date on which USDA may increase the import quota, if in the agency's judgment such action is needed to adequately supply the Nation's demand for sugar. The current farm bill prohibits the USDA from adjusting the minimum sugar quota imports until April 1 of the crop year unless there is an emergency shortage of sugar that is caused by war, flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster, or other similar event as determined by the Secretary. Experience with the April 1 date has been very unsatisfactory to independent domestic sugar refiners and their refined sugar customers who have annually experienced shortfalls in the supply of sugar and endured the elevated prices that ensue from inadequacy of timely supply. The April 1 date leaves precious little time in the balance of the sugar crop year for USDA's complex bureaucratic process. I ask support for this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment No. 2432 be called up.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment simply strikes $20 million annually in mandatory funds from the Farmers Market Promotion Program. The program will still retain its authorization for annual appropriations at $20 million per year. I understand the important role that farmers markets play in connecting consumers with the farmers who grow their food. However, this is a grant program that should be funded with discretionary appropriations. We can't give every program in the farm bill mandatory money at a time of fiscal crisis. The number of farmers markets in the United States has grown exponentially over the last 5 years. The Agriculture Marketing Service reports that in mid-2011, there were 7,175 farmers markets in the United States. This was a 17-percent increase over 2010. This amendment will save the government $200 million over the next 10 years while still allowing the program to retain its integrity. I ask for consideration and for an affirmative vote.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my comments, which will not be more than about 10 minutes, Senator Brown of Ohio follow me for 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I stood in this Chamber and joined with Senator McCain calling for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the recent series of leaks of classified information that are so damaging to our national security. Despite the bipartisan support for a Special Counsel, the Attorney General chose instead to appoint 2 United States Attorneys who will act under his supervision and conduct separate investigations of just two of these leaks. I believe the American people, our Intelligence Community, and our allies deserve a better response from the Attorney General and from this Administration. These leaks have violated the public trust and potentially damaged vital liaison relationships we can ill afford to lose in our fight against ongoing threats from terrorism and hostile nations. As I understand it, one prosecutor will investigate the leak on the AQAP bomb plot; the other, the leak on STUXNET. That's a real problem. This means other leaks, including the ``kill list'' story, will not be investigated. Yesterday, the Washington Post published a story that attributed information about apparent joint U.S.-Israeli cyber efforts to a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official. It would sure be helpful if a Special Counsel had jurisdiction to look at all of these cases. The timing, substance, and sourcing of these stories have also raised questions about whether they came from the White House and whether there is a pattern of leaks. It's hard to imagine how two U.S. Attorneys who work for this administration will be able to investigate this aspect of the case without being perceived as biased by those who are unhappy with what they ultimately find. We need a Special Counsel who will be trusted, no matter what he finds. I am not questioning in any way the qualifications of these U.S. Attorneys to do the jobs for which they were confirmed by this Senate. I know questions have been raised about the prior political activities of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and whether he might be too deferential to the White House. I have no specific reason to question the capabilities or integrity of either of these men. But the very serious nature of these leaks demands an investigation that is conducted in a manner totally above reproach and without any possible inference of bias. Unfortunately, because these U.S. Attorneys must answer to the Attorney General, they cannot conduct independent investigations. With each key decision they make--whether to subpoena a journalist, what investigative techniques should be used, what charges can be brought-- they will be subject to the Attorney General and his direction. That is hardly independent. Last week, the Attorney General testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that appointing a U.S. Attorney was the same thing that was done in the Valerie Plame case. I submit that was an entirely different scenario because in that case, Mr. Fitzgerald, who was a special counsel appointed, insisted on getting written confirmation that he would be truly independent from the then-acting Attorney General. He got that confirmation in writing from then-Acting Attorney General Comey. Significantly, the Plame case involved a single leak of classified information, and was deemed serious enough to warrant an independent investigation. The former President also ordered his staff to come forward with any information they had about the source of the leak. In this case, there have been a series of incredibly damaging leaks in articles citing ``senior Administration officials'' and White House ``aides.'' We have seen no clear instructions from this Administration for officials to come forward. This situation seems to create a greater appearance of a conflict of interest for the Attorney General than was presented in the Plame investigation and calls out for the appointment of Special Counsel. The Attorney General also testified that he could always appoint these U.S. Attorneys as Special Counsel if they needed to investigate acts outside their jurisdictions. Others have made the argument that we have to wait to see if these U.S. Attorneys do their jobs well before appointing a Special Counsel. Neither argument makes sense to me. Why on earth would we wait? All of these leaks should be investigated together--not separately-- and they must be investigated now. The leaks are relatively recent and the trail is still somewhat fresh. But if we have to wait to see how these men measure up, or if the trail takes us to a district outside their specific jurisdiction, we run the risk of losing evidence or memories fading. Those aren't risks anyone should be willing to take. This is not, and must not become, political. It's about finding these criminals who have jeopardized our national security and ensuring that they are brought to justice in an independent, objective, apolitical investigation. Again, I call on the Attorney General to do now what should have been done 2 weeks ago. This series of leaks should not be treated as business as usual. As Congress considers legislative solutions to put a stop to these leaks, the administration needs to step up its response. Appointing a special counsel who can independently and comprehensively investigate all of these leaks and find who is responsible for any and all of them is the best way to restore the public trust in our government and our government officials. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, and I would ask the Chair to let me know when I have utilized 4 minutes, please.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak out against the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards--known as Utility MACT--and in support of the resolution disapproving this rule introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. This set of standards--one of the most expensive of its kind ever issued by EPA--will cause a rise in electric bills for my constituents in Georgia and for Americans all across this country. As our economy continues to stagnate, we can hardly afford to increase the cost of electricity, which will be an economic burden for individuals and businesses and will hamper economic recovery. Higher electric bills are especially unwarranted when the regulations that will cause the electricity cost increase are expected to provide negligible benefits for the American public. The poor and individuals on fixed incomes, such as the elderly, can hardly afford higher electricity bills. These are precisely the groups disproportionately affected by Utility MACT. EPA estimates that compliance with this rule will cost $9.6 billion annually in 2015, which is more conservative than many industry figures. One electric company in my home State estimates that by 2014 Utility MACT could cost them up to $250 million annually to implement. This does not take into account the hundreds of millions of additional dollars the company expects to spend on complying with existing environmental statutes and regulations. Even going by EPA's own conservative $9.6 billion cost estimate, studies have shown that the costs will lead to job loss, both directly at utilities and indirectly through industries and manufacturers affected. I hear every day from businesses of every size in my home State that say the regulatory overreach of this administration threatens the very well-being of their particular business. Utility MACT is yet another example of this overreach. Instead of promulgating a limited rule to regulate mercury and air toxics--known as hazardous air pollutants--as the title ``Mercury and Air Toxics Standards'' implies, EPA has extended its reach by focusing a great deal of attention on particulate matter in these standards. Particulate matter emissions, not characterized as hazardous air pollutants, are already subject to other EPA regulations, so with Utility MACT, EPA is going beyond what Congress directed the Agency to do. The extra regulations tacked on to the mercury standard add significantly to the expected cost of this rule. Furthermore, the standards for new facilities, as set forth by Utility MACT, might very well prove to be unattainable. Due to the methodology employed by EPA to gather the data used to set the standards, even certain manufacturers of the emissions control equipment say they cannot guarantee their technology will be able to achieve the standards in practice. How can we require utilities to reduce emissions to such a level that cannot even be guaranteed achievable with current technology? It makes no sense. That will spell the end of any new coal-fired plants in the United States, drastically reducing our ability to use one of our most abundant domestic energy resources, even in more environmentally friendly ways. The cumulative impact of these EPA rules coming down the pipeline, one after another, causes further concern. Aptly called a ``train wreck'' by many, by forcing the retirement of one coal-fired plant after another, these rules will put at risk the reliability of our electric supply system. Some state that a delay in implementation, enacted through legislation or otherwise, will be a sufficient remedy. However, a delay will not address the substantive concerns with this rule as written, including the significant issue of certain standards being unattainable. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for introducing this disapproval resolution and showing leadership on this issue. Over 200 companies and associations have joined the Senator from Oklahoma in calling for Utility MACT to be overturned. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution disapproving the EPA's Utility MACT rule. By doing so, we take a step toward preventing higher electricity prices and grid unreliability while preserving clean air. The point of supporting this Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval is to force EPA to go back to the drawing board to craft a narrower rule that properly protects human health in a manner that is not outweighed by its cost, that is actually attainable, and one that will not threaten the reliability of our electrical grid. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Limiting MLGs and LDPs is disruptive to orderly marketing because USDA lacks the ability in real time to track eligibility. Consequently, a producer may exceed his loan limit under this amendment and USDA have no idea he has exceeded his loan limit, so he is going to have to come back later on and obviously repay that in very difficult times. Most farming operations secure financing for annual production costs as well as incur long-term debt for equipment and land. Introducing limits on marketing loan benefits makes this financing more difficult to obtain and more difficult to administer from a farmer's standpoint as well as a banking standpoint. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on S. 3240, the legislation to reauthorize the farm bill. As a former chairman and former ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate, I recognize how difficult it is to combine all of the diverse interests into legislation that meets the needs of all crops, regions, and rural and urban communities that the farm bill impacts. This bill before us is no exception. I am disappointed that at this time I am not able to support this bill because of its current form. I wish to take a moment to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in putting a farm bill together in the very difficult budget time we are in. We all understand that agriculture has to pay its fair share of deficit reduction. Frankly, for what it is worth, it is going to be at the lead of the pack when it comes to participating in deficit reduction. We are one of the first agencies out of the box to make a commitment to do so. That being said, it is my hope that at the end of the day, I will be able to support this bill as we complete the legislative process. However, as of today, the bill is filled with inequities and is unbalanced. Contrary to statements made on this floor over the last several days, the bill under consideration seeks to place a one-size- fits-all policy on every region of the country. It works for some regions, but it does not work for other regions. Because the distribution of benefits is skewed to one particular region, it fails the basic test of fairness that we all seek in legislation that moves through this Chamber. I believe the farm bill needs to provide an effective safety net for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities in times of deep and sustained price decline. It should also responsibly provide nutrition assistance to those in need in all parts of the country, urban and rural alike. The farm bill initially, and remains, focused on farmers and ranchers, helping them manage a combination of challenges, much out of their own individual control, such as unpredictable weather, variable input costs, and market volatility. All combined determine profit or loss in any given year. The 2008 farm bill continues today to provide a strong safety net for producers, and any follow-on legislation must adhere to and honor the same commitment we made to our farmers and ranchers across America 4 years ago. At the same time, I believe the agriculture sector can contribute to deficit reduction, and the bill before us provides savings and mandatory spending programs. The key, though, is to do this in an equitable and fair manner throughout all titles and areas of the bill. The nutrition benefits in this bill, which are already inflated by the President's failed stimulus package, are reduced by only one-half of 1 percent, while the commodity title is cut by roughly 15 percent. By this account, it is clear that the Agriculture Committee carefully determined how best to contribute to deficit reduction to ensure an undue burden was not placed on those truly in need. This farm bill will be my fourth as a Member of Congress, and each has had its own unique challenges and opportunities. Balancing the needs and interests of all agriculture requires patience and an open ear. It is very important that we recognize the unique differences between commodities as well as different parts of the country. As agricultural markets become more complex, we must be mindful that a one-size-fits-all program no longer works for U.S. agriculture. Regions are much more diverse than they ever were, and we need to recognize this diversity by providing producers with different options that best match their cropping and growing decisions. My greatest concern with this bill is that the commodity title redistributes resources from one region to another not based on market forces or cropping decisions, but based on how the underlying program-- the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program--was designed. After deducting a share for deficit reduction, certain commodities receive more resources than others, and crops such as peanuts and rice are left without any safety net whatsoever. There are many reports illustrating the lopsidedness of this bill. Among the biggest losers in budget baseline are wheat, barley, grain, grain sorghum, rice, cotton, and peanuts. We should not convince ourselves that this is not going to have an enormous negative consequence for many regions of the country. Put simply, by making the bill too rich for a few at the expense of many it lacks balance. Some will say planting shifts are responsible for much of the change in the budget baseline, and that is partly true. But it does not take away the injury that would be inflicted on regions of the country nor does it tell the whole story. By squeezing all crops into a program specially designed for one or two crops, this bill will force many growers to switch to those crops in order to have an effective safety net. This is the very planting distortion caused by farm policy that we seek to avoid in any farm bill. But there is another very serious problem with this bill: It is not going to be there when farmers really need it. Whether offered on an on-farm or area-wide basis, offering farmers a narrow 10-percent band of revenue protection will not provide a safety net if crop prices collapse--and we know they will. Under this bill, a farmer has an 11- percent deductible, then the next 10 percent of losses is covered, but then farmers are left totally exposed to a plunge in crop prices all the way down to the loan rate. If that happens, Congress will be asked to pass ad hoc disaster programs again. We should seek to avoid such disaster packages, and farm bills give us the opportunity to do that, not create ad hoc disaster opportunities. Crop insurance can cover the production side of the risk if you can afford to buy higher coverage, but it does not cover year-on-year low prices. Even the 10-percent revenue band the bill does cover has problems. Because the revenue guarantee is based on the previous 5 years' price and production, the guarantee is only as good as those previous 5 years. If they were bad or they become bad, the guarantee is also bad. This is not an effective safety net. Just last week, my staff and I traveled throughout south Georgia, and we witnessed crop damages and in some cases total losses of crops which were the result of a hailstorm that occurred across a 40-mile stretch of Georgia. It is estimated that well over 10,000 acres have been damaged or totally lost. I do not see how a small band of revenue protection, provided for in this bill, that is limited to $50,000, is helpful to some farmers who lost over $1 million in one field. The ARC proposal in this bill is simply not an effective safety net. Members have come to the floor championing the commodity and crop insurance programs included in the bill, as well as stating that we were solving the problem with commodity programs by eliminating direct payments. I have seen quotes in the press criticizing southern commodities, stating we are too closely tied to direct payments. Well, let me be very clear. I have never been a fan of direct payments, and back in 1996, as a Member of the House, I supported a much different proposal. Let me also state clearly that from my point of view, direct payments were always difficult to defend and we needed to find a different way to provide a safety net, while doing it in a fiscally responsible way. Southern growers have not asked for direct payments at any time during the current discussions. My criticism stems entirely from the fact that this farm bill shoehorns all producers into a one-size-fits-all policy. Producer choice based on a producer's inherent risk is the better course to follow. The University of Georgia's National Center for Peanut Competitiveness evaluated the ARC Program, which is the fundamental safety net that is provided for in this farm bill, and they determined that it is of little utility to peanut producers. The center has a database of 22 representative farms spread throughout Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Based on the analysis provided, this farm bill does not provide the same level of protection as for midwestern growers who will be growing corn and soybeans. That is a fact. I want to work with the chair and ranking member with respect to trying to make the bill more balanced and more equitable, but, frankly, all of our offers to this point in time have been rejected. Peanut producers have offered no proposal that includes direct payments, yet they are labeled as ``unwilling to change from the status quo.'' The ARC Program is not new; it is a derivative of a program in the 2008 farm bill that experienced low participation. In fact, when producers had a choice, they chose something other than this type of program. In spite of all this, I should point out that this bill includes a new program for cotton that complies with our international commitments and will show our trading partners that we will abide by our international agreements. As chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I committed to finding a solution to the WTO Brazil case. I authored legislation in 2005 and again in 2008 that made significant changes in the cotton and export programs to bring us into compliance with our international commitments. We eliminated the Step 2 program, we reformed the cotton marketing loan program, and reduced the cotton countercyclical program unilaterally and in good faith. We find ourselves again reforming the cotton safety net with what is called the Stacked Income Protection Plan for users of upland cotton, or the STAX program. The program in this bill is a significant departure from what is available to other covered commodities and puts us down the path of resolving the WTO dispute with Brazil. My hope now is that our Brazilian friends engage in a real and meaningful way and we can put this issue behind us. At the end of the day, let's remember, the reason we are here is to represent the hard-working men and women who work the land each day to provide the highest quality of agricultural products in the world. I believe we have the opportunity to pass a bill that can be equal to their commitment in providing food, feed, and fiber that allow us to continue to be the greatest producer on the Earth. Right now, this bill lacks the commitment and strength of those it was designed to support. I do not intend to impede the movement of the farm bill that, if repaired through an open amendment process--of which we have been assured at this point--has the potential of providing for all of America. Farm bills are complex. They always consume a lot of floor time. But the farm policy is also very important. I look forward to the forthcoming debate over the next several days and weeks and, at the end of the day, to hopefully having a true, meaningful, and balanced farm bill that will provide producers an equitable opportunity of a safety net and at the same time continue to provide the world with the safest, most productive, and highest quality agricultural products there are today. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Arizona for his very direct comments on this very sensitive issue. As vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can say without a doubt that these ongoing leaks of classified information are extraordinarily harmful to our intelligence operations. Every day we ask our intelligence officers and agents to be out there on the frontlines, putting their life in harm's way, gathering information, meeting sources, and using a variety of highly sensitive collection techniques. Depending on where these officers are around the world, the operating environment can be both dangerous and downright hostile. This means they have to be as much or more on guard to ensure that operations don't get blown and their own lives and the lives of our sources are not jeopardized. But each time classified information shows up in the media, the intelligence community's ability to do these dangerous assignments becomes that much more difficult. Not only do these leaks tell our enemies how we do our jobs and therefore how they can block or impede our efforts, but with each leak our friends and allies are left to wonder how much they can trust us with their own secrets. These are not hypothetical concerns. Senator McCain alluded to a couple of anecdotes. Also, a few weeks ago, in the middle of an ongoing operation, we all--friends and enemies alike--learned the details of efforts to disrupt an al-Qaida plot to bomb a civilian aircraft. Up to that point, most Members of Congress knew nothing about this operation. That is how sensitive we were told it was. Unfortunately, rather than quietly recognize our--and, frankly, our partners'--successes and move on with the business of protecting the American people, some in the administration apparently decided that scoring political points in an election year outweighed protecting our intelligence operations as well as our liaison relationship with our intelligence partners around the world. Whether we could have learned more from an operation that was cut short by this leak will now never be known, but we have been warned by some of our allies they will think twice before they share highly classified information with us. Unfortunately, the leak of the airline plot was no isolated incident. From kill lists and bin Laden movies to cyber warfare, it appears nothing is off-limits, nothing is too secret, no operation is too sensitive, and no source is too valuable to be used as a prop in this election year posturing. The doctor associated with the bin Laden operation appears to be paying the price for this posturing. Following public disclosures of his involvement, he has been sentenced to 33 years in prison--a true life sentence of 33 years in prison in Pakistan. This hardly provides incentive for anyone else to help us. These disclosures--whether quietly sanctioned or not--are simply unacceptable, and they are against the law. This administration reminds us repeatedly that they are prosecuting more people for leaking classified information than ever before, and I support that effort. But just as we hold ordinary government employees accountable for violating their oaths to protect our Nation's secrets, we must also hold the most senior administration officials accountable. Recently, the FBI began an investigation into the scenario surrounding this latest bomb plot, and I applaud the FBI's efforts. Following the public disclosure in the press reports on comments made by senior administration officials, I sent a letter to Director Mueller and asked him to please include this aspect of these leaks in his investigation. I received a letter back today that he is indeed going to do that, and I applaud that. I don't know whether the reports are true. I have no idea. But if they are, they are serious violations of the law having been conducted by senior administration officials. Beyond that, we still have to do more. So today I join with my good friend Senator McCain from Arizona in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate this pattern of recent leaks. Leaks should never be tolerated, but leaking for political advantage is especially troubling. There must be swift and clear accountability for those responsible for playing this dangerous game with our national security. The Senator from Arizona has been around here a lot longer than me. He has been involved in the world of national security for many years, both on the frontline himself as well as a Member of this body. Has the Senator from Arizona ever seen anything as egregious as the purported leaks that are coming from this administration on these highly classified and sensitive number of programs that we have seen in the last few days and weeks?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I think my friend from Arizona is exactly right. There have been rumors of the drone program for actually a couple years now, maybe back almost into some period back into the Bush administration. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, we were always told--and rightfully so--this is a covert program and we simply cannot discuss it. So we never have. Now we pick up the newspaper, and over the last several weeks we have seen the President of the United States discussing the drone program. We have seen the Attorney General of the United States discussing the drone program. We have seen the National Security Adviser discussing the drone program. Yet, technically, we as Members of Congress--particularly members of the Intelligence Committee--cannot talk about this because they are covert programs. So there is simply no question but that our enemy is better prepared today because of these various leaks and public disclosures. Let me move to the other issue the Senator has talked about, though, the issue of the nuclear weaponization of Iran. There is no more important national security issue in the world today. It is a daily discussion at the United Nations, it is a daily discussion at the Pentagon, it is a daily discussion in Israel and in virtually every part of the Middle East that we cannot allow for the country of Iran to become nuclear weaponized. Here, all of a sudden, we see public disclosure, whether all of it is true or not, in a newspaper article on the front page of an American newspaper, detailing a purported program of attack against that Iranian program. What are our friends in the intelligence community to think? What are our friends in Israel to think? How much cooperation are they going to now give us from the standpoint of disclosing information to the U.S. Intelligence community on any program if they can expect that--if this is, in fact, true--what they tell us is going to be on the front page of the New York Times? Not only that, but it is not coming from some private who went on the Internet and found a bunch of classified documents. It is coming from statements made, supposedly, by high-level administration officials. It puts us in a real--not a quandary. This is not a quandary. It puts us in a position of having to defend ourselves with our allies over certain statements that purportedly are made by high senior administration officials. I simply can never remember a scenario of information being leaked where we have the level of administration officials that now supposedly have made these comments, and they are quoted by name in some instances.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, January 14, 2012, marked Taiwan's fifth direct Presidential election, and on May 20, President Ma Ying- jeou will be sworn in for his second and final term as the leader of our friend and ally Taiwan. I would like to congratulate President Ma on his reelection, and I would also like to congratulate Taiwan for its commitment to democracy. Since the island's first Presidential elections in 1996, the people and Government of Taiwan have enthusiastically embraced democratic values and ideals. From extremely high rates of voter participation in elections to public and open political discourse and debate, signs of a vibrant democracy can be seen throughout Taiwan's society. The January elections proved a continuation of Taiwan's commitment to a democratic form of government, and President Ma's reelection demonstrates the faith the people of Taiwan have in his leadership. I therefore close by urging all my colleagues to join me in congratulating President Ma on his second inauguration and Taiwan's people for their embrace of democracy. I look forward to continuing to work to advance the strong relationship between Taiwan and the United States and our common goals and interests.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Wayne R. Gracie upon his retirement after an outstanding career of 37 years of distinguished civil service to our great Nation. Since 1975, through seven Presidential administrations, Wayne has worked with Congress and directly supported the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, as well as the Chief of the Air Force Reserve. He has worked on logistics, budgets, and legislative interactions-- turning words into programming actions--that resulted in new Department of Defense policies and programs. Wayne excelled at providing both Houses of Congress with new insight and understanding of the Air Force Reserve's need to transition from a Cold War force to the modern force operating around the world today. His efforts resulted in new funding and development of both a ``strategic reserve'' for surge operations, as well as a cost-effective ``operational reserve'' for use in daily military missions. In 1997, backed by his credibility and good will on Capitol Hill, Wayne led the preparation, messaging, and testimony for congressional hearings that resulted in the formation of Air Force Reserve Command, the ninth major command in the Air Force. This authorized a three-star commander and energized new Reserve component personnel benefits. After conducting more than 20 years of continual combat operations in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, Libya, and many other locations around the globe, the Air Force Reserve's success is evident today. Wayne's efforts were critical to presenting, justifying, and enacting new legislation supporting Air Force reservists, their civilian employers, and their families who were impacted by increased Reserve operations. Thanks to his continuous dialogue with Congress, reservists now get improved health care, new credits toward retirement, inactive duty training travel pay, and post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. Also, Wayne was pivotal to facilitating Air Force Reserve testimonies before the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Appropriation Committee that resulted in additional funding for equipment modernization. His efforts directly led to increased combat effectiveness as well as improved humanitarian and disaster response operations. These updated capabilities were essential to successful relief missions in Japan and Haiti, as well as in the United States for Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan, for aerial firefighting in the Southwest, and for containing the gulf oil spill. Because of Wayne's visionary leadership, planning, and foresight, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the Nation will long reap the benefits of his tenure at the Pentagon and his work with us here on Capitol Hill. It is experienced, dedicated, professional people like Wayne who make the Department of Defense and Air Force Reserve the outstanding institutions that they are today. I thank Wayne for his many years of dedicated service and wish him and his wife Candace the very best as they enter retirement.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, next week the annual Masters Tournament will begin in Augusta, GA. It is a beautiful time of the year in our part of the world, and certainly Augusta is a little piece of Heaven, particularly this time of year. As that tournament begins next week, there is going to be a sad note in the air because of the fact that Furman Bisher, a giant in the world of journalism, a man who has covered the Masters for the last 50 or so years, died last week at his home in Atlanta. He died at the age of 93 and passed away peacefully in his home after a storied career as one of the Nation's foremost sports writers. It was a career that lasted an astonishing 60 years. After nearly six decades of elegant observations of the sports world for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Furman pecked out his final column before his October 2009 retirement on the thinning keys of his trusty Royal typewriter. His choice of instrument to convey his thoughts in this age of instantaneous, inane chatter says a lot about why newspaper readers after so many years continued to seek out Furman's Bisher's column in the AJC's sports pages. It all came down to this: Furman's graceful prose, courtly voice and sharp observations were unfailingly backed up by old-fashioned shoe- leather reporting. He gloried in doing his homework, making that extra call, interviewing one more player or assistant coach or trainer, in order to breathe even more life into the game or the race or the fight for his readers. It's also why Furman became a Georgia--and an American--institution. Simply put, Furman loved sports. And he loved journalism. At age 90, he was still driving out on summer nights to cover minor-league ballgames. In his career, Furman scored many journalistic knockouts, including a 1949 interview with Shoeless Joe Jackson--the only one Jackson ever gave--regarding his involvement in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. He got stock tips from Ty Cobb and watched Jack Nicklaus' 1986 Masters victory. He sat in the press box at countless Falcons games at Atlanta- Fulton County Stadium and covered the Olympics, both winter and summer. He even had a hand in bringing professional sports teams to Atlanta. He wrote 11 books, including co-authoring two editions of a Hank Aaron autobiography. And at The Masters Tournament in Augusta every April, Furman reigned among the azaleas and oaks as the dean of the sports press corps. In a testament to his longevity in a tough business, until his retirement, Furman covered every Kentucky Derby since 1950, and every Super Bowl but the first one. He even branched out into TV. Although I did not grow up in Atlanta, I have heard from many people that preachers across the city would cut sermons short so that their congregations could be home for Furman's kickoff on ``Football Review.'' Along the way, he earned the respect of his colleagues and the loyalty of his readers, garnering writing awards too numerous to mention. He served as president of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association from 1974 1976, and of the Football Writers Association of America from 1959 1960. His features appeared in The Saturday Evening Post, Golf Digest and Sports Illustrated, to name but a few. In 1961, Time magazine named him one of the five best columnists in the Nation. I would argue that that honor fit until the very end. No less than the great Jack Nicklaus said of Furman's retirement: He might be turning in his last column for the newspaper, but Furman will never stop writing or giving his opinion. I guess you could say that when it comes to the last writings of Furman Bisher, I will believe it when I don't see it. Furman would close every column with a single valediction--the word ``selah''--a Hebrew word that ends many Psalms and that exhorts the reader to reflect. It is appropriate, then, to reflect on Furman's long, fruitful life and career, one that began in Atlanta as the Korean War was starting, when Joe Louis was still boxing, when the Minneapolis Lakers were the NBA champs, before Willie Mays had joined the major leagues and before Sports Illustrated magazine even existed. In all the ensuing years, Furman chronicled the triumphs and the travails of the sports world and its often-all-too-human heroes. As Furman would say, ``Selah.'' I am thankful for Furman Bisher. I am pleased to have been the recipient of reading many of his articles through the years and also very proud to have called him a very good friend over the years. He was a gentleman who will be missed for his professional career as well as just being a great person and a great individual.