Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an invaluable member of my staff on the Select Committee on Intelligence, Andrew Kerr. Andrew has been a familiar face around the committee for the last 7 years, but he will leave us shortly to return to the State Department. I am

honored to have the opportunity to thank Andrew for his service on the committee, and I want to publicly note my appreciation for his outstanding work.

Since becoming the vice chairman of the committee in 2011, I have often looked to Andrew for guidance and counsel on intelligence and counterterrorism matters. Despite the successes or shortcomings of the intelligence community, Andrew has always provided grounded and dependable advice. He has also done extensive oversight work designed to reduce excessive spending and encourage efficiency in the intelligence community.

Andrew is a dedicated public servant and I am sure the State Department is happy to have him return. His presence will be missed on the committee and in the Senate, but I want to wish him well as he returns to the Executive branch. Thanks Andrew, for a job well done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to

CMSAF Samuel L. Johnson on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force.

Chief Johnson has given much to this Nation through his dedicated and selfless service. His Air Force career started in the great State of Georgia on December 21, 1984, following his graduation from Echols County High School near Statenville. When Chief Johnson began his career, he got exactly what he asked for--the ability to see the world. His first assignment took him to the United Kingdom, where he laid the foundation for a tremendous career as a security policeman. His career would take him to the ICBM fields of Wyoming, followed by his first tour in the Republic of Korea. Chief Johnson would end up in the United Kingdom once again, then to the Emerald Coast of Florida, followed by his first tour in Texas. He would spend a couple of years in our Nation's Capital before heading back to Korea. He would then return to the States, landing himself his first tour in south Georgia. Long from ending his travels, Chief Johnson would take one more assignment to Texas, followed by a year in Qatar. Finally, Chief Johnson landed back in south Georgia for his second assignment there, which would be his last assignment in the Air Force. During his career, along with all of the aforementioned permanent duty station changes, Chief Johnson deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. Chief Johnson sewed on his final stripe, earning him a spot in the top 1 percent of all enlisted members of the military allowed by law, on September 1, 2009.

Chief Johnson is the recipient of the following major medals and decorations for his service and accomplishments: two Bronze Star Medals, five Meritorious Service Medals, four Air Force Commendation Medals, four Air Force Achievement Medals, the Air Force Combat Action Medal, the Air Force Combat Readiness Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, and the NATO Medal.

Throughout his distinguished career he has represented our country and the Air Force with dignity and honor. On behalf of the Senate and the United States of America, I thank CMSAF Samuel L. Johnson for his service and sacrifices over the past 30 years. I wish him Godspeed and continued happiness as he starts a new chapter in his life.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise somewhat reluctantly today to speak about an intelligence committee matter.

Allegations in the past 24 hours have been discussed rampantly in the halls of Congress and in the press. Based on press reports today, yesterday, and even last week, allegations have been made regarding the Central Intelligence Agency's actions toward the committee, as well as staff and Members' actions on the Senate intelligence committee toward the CIA.

The reason I feel compelled to speak on this matter is the following: Although people speak as though we know all of the pertinent facts surrounding this matter, the truth is we do not. The Republican committee members on the Senate intelligence committee and staff were not involved in the underlying investigation of the detainee and interrogation report. We do not know the actual facts concerning the CIA's alleged actions or all of the specific details about the actions by the committee staff regarding the draft of what is now referred to as the ``Panetta internal review document.''

Both parties involved have made allegations against one another and have even speculated as to each other's actions, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions that must be addressed. No forensics have been run on the CIA computers--or, as my colleagues refer to them, ``the SSCI computers''--at the CIA facility to know what actually happened regarding the alleged CIA search or the circumstances under which the committee came into possession of the Panetta internal review document.

Given that both of these matters have now been referred to the Department of Justice, it may take us a while before any accurate factual findings can be reached and a satisfactory resolution of these matters can be achieved. It may even call for a special investigator to be named to review the entire factual situation. Eventually, we will get to the bottom of this, but today I cannot make a statement that will reflect what actually occurred and therefore what recommendations we ought to make as we move forward.

Right now our committee members are conducting an internal assessment of the facts and circumstances involved in both of these matters. This will be an ongoing process which should not be described or discussed in the public domain but, like all other intelligence committee matters, should remain within the purview of the confines of the intelligence committee.

Today I simply wanted everyone to know where I stand on this matter and how we need to get to the ground truth of these very important matters.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss promises made and promises broken, of hypocrisy and politics, of the difference between the photo op speeches, press releases, and real action.

Let me start at the beginning, for those who are just joining us in this decade-and-a-half battle. The Panama Canal is about halfway through a $5.25 billion expansion which will accommodate the larger post-Panamax vessels that are too large to transit the current Panama Canal. These new post-Panamax ships are the length of aircraft carriers. From the waterline they are 190 feet tall, or nearly twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial. The ships can carry as many as 12,000 containers, or translated into TVs, a million flat screen TVs.

Thus, the United States must be prepared to accept these larger vessels by 2015, when the Panama Canal expansion is complete. The Port of Savannah in Savannah, Georgia, is the second busiest U.S. container exporter, handling 13.2 million tons in exports in 2012 alone. It is the busiest port on the East Coast. In order to accommodate the new larger ships at the Port of Savannah, the Savannah river must be deepened from its current depth of 42 feet to 47 feet.

Georgia has been working on the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project for well in excess of a dozen years. Environmental studies have been completed, permits have been issued, and state funding has been secured for 40 percent of the project. It has the support of every Member of the Georgia congressional delegation and every single leader in our State, Republican as well as Democrat. This is a unifying bipartisan project for us, one that will support hundreds of thousands of jobs each year while generating billions of dollars in revenue for the entire southeastern United States.

Until recently we had the support of the Obama administration as well. After all, this is exactly the type of project the President has been touting as the secret to our economic recovery. He even included the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project as one of the four port projects in his 2012 ``We Can't Wait'' initiative.

Vice President Biden visited the Port of Savannah along with Senator Isakson, myself, and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx last year, and in comments while at the Port of Savannah to the public that was gathered, he stated: ``We are going to get this done, come hell or high water.''

Acting U.S. Deputy Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank visited the port in 2012, calling SHEP a national bipartisan priority for this administration. Former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood visited the Port of Savannah in 2011 promising to find funding for the port expansion. In fact, in every conversation I have had with various administration officials since this project started in 1997, I have been assured that we would find a way to get this project done.

So you can see how confused I was to learn this week that the administration is now stonewalling us on this project by not including the project in its 2015 budget. It is baffling to see this administration choose to ignore a congressional statute passed just 6 weeks ago that cleared all remaining obstructions to moving forward with this project.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 gave clear direction to the administration to begin construction on the SHEP project and to request the necessary funding. The administration's position as evidenced by the Office of Management and Budget is that they will ignore the clear guidance from Congress and will instead request more funding for unnecessary additional studies this year. Apparently the administration would rather pay lip service to Georgians than deliver on their promises. The State of Georgia has done its part, and I commend Governor Deal and the Georgia legislature, who have committed $265 million to start construction. We just need the Federal Government to get out of our way so Georgia can begin construction on this very vital project.

The administration can repair some of the damage that has been done by finalizing the agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Georgia Ports Authority so that they can begin construction with State money that under the leadership of Governor Deal is now going to be available. Without any Federal funding at this point in time, the State is willing to move forward.

I urge the administration to move ahead with the securing of that agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Ports Authority, and let's begin construction.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address the significant and persistent national security threat stemming from Iran's unchecked nuclear program. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to S. 1982 from the senior Senator from North Carolina which includes provisions to strengthen our sanctions against Iran should they fail to comply with their obligations under the joint plan of action.

Last November the Obama administration, without sufficient consultation with Congress, committed to an interim nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Under this agreement we are granting to Iran over $7 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for their commitments to decelerate their nuclear program--commitments which will be difficult, if not impossible, to verify or enforce.

In effect, we are delivering billions of dollars in repatriated oil sales proceeds, additional foreign trade, and currency--all in exchange for hollow promises of compliance with laws and U.N. Security Council resolutions they should already be following.

The stated U.S. policy, which American Presidents have repeated for decades, is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. However, this agreement maintains Iran's nuclear weapons capability, and it allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium.

Moreover, Iran will not be required to destroy any centrifuges and will be permitted to replace centrifuges that become inoperable. The pact does little to reverse Iran's nuclear ambitions and sets a precedent for further sanctions relief in exchange for cosmetic concessions.

Rather than easing effective sanctions, we should be tightening existing sanctions until a better long-term deal can be reached. The United States must take a strong stance to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If they do not agree to roll back their nuclear program, then they should face stronger sanctions.

That is why I strongly support provisions in the amendment from Senator Burr that would incorporate key provisions of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act into the pending veterans legislation.

Mr. President, 58 of my Senate colleagues have already signed on to this important freestanding legislation. They and I agree that the Government of Iran continues to expand its nuclear and missile programs in direct violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions. Iran has a

demonstrated record of defiance and will continue to work toward stockpiling weapons grade nuclear material, sponsoring terrorism, and disregarding basic human rights.

Given these facts, it only makes sense that we take our own national security and commitment to our allies' security seriously by passing expanded sanction authorities, should Iran fail to uphold its end of the interim agreement.

Equally important, this legislation would give Congress the opportunity to review and--if necessary--disapprove of any final agreement with Iran.

I am hopeful Iran will come to the table with real, verifiable concessions in a final agreement on their nuclear program. However, hope is a poor national security strategy.

The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act would set the proper framework for ensuring Iran dismantles its illicit nuclear infrastructure, complies with all Security Council resolutions, cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency, respects human rights, and ceases to promote global terrorism.

Furthermore, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act implements President Obama's own policy. In his recent State of the Union Address, he stated that he will ``be the first to call for more sanctions'' should Iran fail to uphold the interim agreement.

By passing this legislation, we are ensuring that the United States has the ability to further penalize Iran for its continued noncompliance.

Nevertheless, President Obama has threatened to veto this legislation, further indicating his willingness to blindly concede to Iranian rhetoric.

Now is not the time for this Nation to exhibit weakness. Now is our chance to demonstrate to Iran and to the world that we are serious about nuclear nonproliferation and compliance with international laws and obligations.

For these reasons, I strongly support the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act as presented in this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to act swiftly to pass this important measure.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to Kathleen B. Rice, a key member of my staff on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Kathleen will leave us shortly to join Boveri Murphy Rice, LLP, a boutique trial and litigation firm in South Bend, IN, which represents clients nationwide, ranging from Fortune 500 companies to smaller businesses and individuals. Kathleen has had a distinguished career in her 19.5 years of service to the Senate, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. I am honored to have the opportunity to publicly thank her and note my appreciation for her outstanding service to the Select Committee on Intelligence during the past 7.5 years.

Since becoming the vice chairman of the committee in 2011, I have routinely relied upon her impressive legal acumen and excellent advice on matters large and small. Kathleen is well known on the Hill and by the private sector as one of the leading congressional staff experts on cybersecurity legislative issues. During the 111th Congress, she distinguished herself as an authority in the field with her work on S. 3538, the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection bill, on behalf of Senators Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch. Based upon that experience, I selected Kathleen to serve as the lead counsel for all of my cybersecurity legislative efforts. Since then, she has worked tirelessly to develop and negotiate legislative proposals consistent with my strong desire to get an effective cybersecurity information sharing bill enacted into law. During the last Congress, Kathleen was a crucial participant in the negotiations that led the ranking members of eight Senate committees to co-sponsor S. 2151 and S. 3342, the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012, more commonly known as ``SECURE IT.'' During this Congress, Senator Feinstein and I have been working very hard to develop a bipartisan cybersecurity information sharing bill that we believe will be well-received by the private sector and our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We are finally quite close to being able to mark up our cybersecurity information sharing bill and Kathleen played an integral role every step of the way.

Kathleen is a recognized legislative wizard. When negotiations have stalled, it is usually Kathleen who comes up with the textual solution that provides the basis for a practical and effective bipartisan compromise--a valuable skill that unfortunately has been in short supply on the Hill in recent memory. In addition to cyber, she has been a key staff contributor to the process of passing and enacting the committee's annual intelligence authorization bills. Her expertise on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was invaluable during the negotiation and enactment of the Protect America Act of 2007, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Public Laws 111-141 and 112-14, extension of certain expiring FISA sunsets, and the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012. She routinely monitors the legislative calendar to ensure that pending legislation does not negatively impact intelligence community activities and operations. She also works closely with the Members and staff of other committees on all issues related to national security.

Kathleen's mastery of criminal and national security law, coupled with her inexhaustible work ethic and sound judgment, have made her an indispensable member of the committee staff and an invaluable resource to other congressional committees. Her quick wit and good humor make her a pleasure to work with--less so, if you unwisely choose to work against the interests of her ``client''. Kathleen is a team player who makes everyone around her perform better. She has been an astute mentor and guide to the senior staff responsible for assisting the vice chairman and members of the committee with formulating and implementing the committee's legislative and oversight priorities. She also has done a terrific job interfacing and collaborating with my personal staff to ensure that my office is accurately transmitting my views on current national security issues and events.

My colleagues and I trust Kathleen's judgment implicitly. Her example of dedicated public service and exceptional day-to-day performance on the job has earned our respect and admiration, and it inspired a generation of staff who had the privilege to work alongside her. There is no doubt that Kathleen has a bright future in the private sector; however, should the right opportunity present itself, I would strongly encourage my Senate colleagues to entice her back into public service. We will miss Kathleen dearly, but her legacy will remain a part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years to come.

Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to Richard S. Girven, a key member of my staff on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Rich has a total of 33 years of distinguished service to the Senate and the U.S. Army. He will leave us shortly to join the Washington office of the Rand Corporation where he will serve as an associate director for the Intelligence Policy Center within the National Security Research Division. I am honored to have the opportunity to publicly thank Rich and note my appreciation for his outstanding service to the Select Committee on Intelligence during the past 5\1/2\ years.

Since becoming the vice chairman of the committee in 2011, I have often relied upon Rich's impressive analytical skills and teamwork on a wide range of intelligence issues. As the committee's director of analysis, he has routinely mentored our senior staff members in the execution of their substantive and regional portfolios. Rich is well known on the Hill and throughout the intelligence community as a leading expert on issues related to Asia and the Middle East, with special emphasis on South and Southeast Asia. He has also

done superlative oversight work on issues related to analytic quality, linguists in the intelligence community, human intelligence, technology, education and training, and intelligence authorities and reform. He has conducted and participated in many committee studies involving analysis, analytic tradecraft, and analyst technologies.

Rich even has a ``superpower''--he reads faster than anyone I have ever met. I have been told by reliable sources that he can read at least 1,600 words per minute. This sometimes worked to his personal disadvantage, because he was frequently tasked with reading very large bills, some in excess of 1,000 pages, to assess whether any provisions could negatively impact intelligence authorities and operations. Rich's inexhaustible work ethic and sound judgment have made him an indispensable member of the committee staff and an invaluable resource to other congressional committees. His quick wit and good humor make him a pleasure to work with. He is the consummate team player who improves the performance of everyone around him.

My colleagues and I trust Rich's judgment implicitly. His example of dedicated public service and exceptional day-to-day performance on the job has earned our respect, admiration, and it inspired a generation of staff who had the privilege to work alongside him. There is no doubt that Rich has a bright future at the Rand Corporation; however, should the right opportunity present itself, I would hope that he will consider another stint in public service. We will miss Rich deeply, but his legacy will remain a part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years to come.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the Agricultural Act of 2014, which is commonly known as the farm bill. It has been quite a journey over the past 3 years, and the bill before us is the result of many long hours of hard work. This bill, I understand, will be on the floor come Monday, and hopefully we will have a vote on final passage on this bill on Tuesday.

I believe this bill achieves the promise of reform while tackling the single largest domestic issue facing our country: The debt and the deficit. I commend Chairwoman Stabenow, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Members Cochran and Peterson, as well as my fellow conferees for finishing what has been a very difficult and complex task.

It is my sincere hope the Senate will adopt this bipartisan conference report, a bill that reforms critical farm programs, strengthens the Nation's food security, protects the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers and preserves our efforts to remain good stewards of the environment.

The bill not only works to protect producers in a time of need, but it also serves as a safety net for the nutritional well-being of low- income Americans. Our nutrition assistance programs play a key role in ensuring that needy Americans have access to the food they need to lead healthy, productive lives.

We have worked to find savings while still ensuring those in greatest need are provided a helping hand. I commend the important reinvestments made in this bill to local food banks which provide support for so many of our communities.

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 I believe the farm bill before us adheres to and honors the same commitment we made 5 years ago in that farm bill.

Notably, Congress has taken a fresh look at our commodity programs. Maintaining an effective safety net is critical to America's farmers, and the bill before us eliminates direct payments while enhancing options for farmers to manage their risk. We do so in a way that doesn't disadvantage one region over another, a formula I thought was lacking in versions of this bill in the last Congress. Since then, I have stressed to my colleagues the importance of producer choice, and I am truly pleased with the options that are built into this piece of legislation.

One part of this bill I am uniquely proud of concerns cotton, a crop that is particularly close to my heart and close to my home. More than any other part of this bill, the Upland cotton program represents fundamental reform. It meets our commitments in the World Trade Organization and will resolve our dispute with Brazil.

Moreover, our Nation's farmers and landowners deserve to have long- term conservation programs that have certainty to effectively and efficiently manage their land and resources for the years ahead. Locally led conservation is critical in supporting America's long-term environmental and economic stability. Not only do farm bill conservation programs play a key role in supporting clean air, clean water, and productive soils, they also help producers avoid unnecessary regulation and support our Nation's long-term economic and food security.

I also want to highlight language in this bill that links conservation compliance to crop insurance. My amendment led many leading agricultural, conservation, and crop insurance groups to come together and forge a compromise, ensuring crop insurance doesn't compromise our natural resources for generations to come. It also provides an opportunity for wildlife habitat to flourish and, thus, this farm bill is supported by virtually every hunting and fishing organization in the country.

While all of the regulatory issues I supported were not able to be included in the final conference report, I am happy that language was included to clarify forest roads are not point sources and are not subject to permit requirements under the Clean Water Act.

We must do what we can to protect producers, businesses, and all of our constituents from over-burdensome regulations coming out of EPA. After all, I am confident we have balanced the needs and interests between commodities and regions. Ultimately, the reason we are here is to represent those who work the land each and every day to ensure that Americans continue to have the highest quality agricultural products in the world.

Contrary to popular belief, food does not come from the grocery store. For every piece of fresh produce purchased, every pound of meat, every cotton t-shirt, and for every jar of peanut butter there is a farmer or a rancher somewhere in America working each and every day-- and working very hard--to get it there. I hope that we never take for granted the ability to get safe quality food to stores across America for consumers to purchase.

This will be my fourth and final farm bill as a Member of Congress. As a former chairman and ranking member

of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I am very proud of this bill and of all previous farm bills of which I have had the privilege to be a part.

As I have said, I have been around the country as a Member of Congress over the last 20 years. When I leave Congress, as I will at the end of this year, I want to make sure we have strong agricultural policies in place so that young people, such as my grandson John and my grandson Jay, if they make a decision to come back to the farm, will have an incentive to do so, and they will be able to provide a quality of life for their family very much like the quality of life they have today. Good agricultural policy will incentivize those young people to stay in rural America and on the farm, and I think this Farm bill does that.

There is no single piece of legislation that impacts as many people in my State as this one. I believe it is vitally important to the farmers, ranchers, and consumers of Georgia, as well as to those across this great Nation that we support this legislation.

In closing, let me say it has been my distinct honor to represent and work with the people, farmers, and ranchers of Georgia for 20 years. You provide the highest quality food, feed, and fiber in the world. Thanks for the opportunity to represent you in Congress and to be a member of what I think is an outstanding agricultural committee.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to three gentlemen who, as a result of a vote taken by the baseball writers of America a couple of weeks ago, are going to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. These three men are former Atlanta manager Bobby Cox and former pitchers Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux. These incredible athletes have left their imprint not only on Georgians but on the entire baseball community around the world. These three gentlemen are among baseball's most accomplished coaches and players and will deservedly be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in July of this year.

So far as I know, there has never been three individuals who spent most of their time with the same team, inducted into the Hall of Fame in the same year--truly remarkable.

First, let me mention and honor Bobby Cox, a baseball legend and one of Major League Baseball's winningest managers. With a record of 2,504 wins, he ranks fourth on baseball's all-time managers win list. Bobby Cox started his career with the Braves in 1978. He left briefly in 1982 to manage the Toronto Blue Jays, only to return to the Braves in 1985, where he would spend the remainder of his career until his retirement following the 2010 season.

In 1995 he led the Braves to the World Series Championship, where they faced the Cleveland Indians. The Braves won the series in game 6 in Atlanta, claiming the team's third championship in franchise history. Aside from Bobby's remarkable .556 percent winning percentage, he is also remembered for his all-time record for ejections in Major League Baseball with 158. For those of us who know Bobby well and know he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet--and he is a big teddy bear--it is fair to say that if Bobby did not agree with a call on the field, he was quick to express his dissatisfaction and his disgust with it, and nobody could protect their players as a manager better than Bobby could.

It was no surprise when he would sometimes find himself watching the game ultimately from the locker room. No one can question Bobby's sheer passion and love for the game of baseball. Both the city of Atlanta and the State of Georgia are in his debt.

I would also like to acknowledge the impressive careers of Tom Glavine and Gregg Maddox and highlight a few of their accomplishments.

As Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine combined for over 400 wins, they will be the first players in 40 years who spent the majority of their careers together to become Hall of Farmers in the same year. The last to do so were New York Yankee players Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford.

The Braves drafted Tom Glavine in the second round in 1984. He was such a talented athlete that the very same year the Los Angeles Kings drafted him in the fourth round to play professional hockey. Luckily for the Braves and for baseball, he chose baseball.

He went on to spend 17 of his 22 decorated seasons in Atlanta. The famous lefthander ended his distinguished professional career with 305 wins, 2,607 strikeouts, and two Cy Young Awards, which he received in 1991 and 1998, both as a Brave.

In the Brave's 1995 World Series victory, Glavine was named the most valuable player. When the lefty pitcher grabbed the bat and stepped up to the plate, we saw something not often seen in today's game. He came out swinging and he could hit.

Glavine was the recipient of four Silver Slugger Awards, an award given to the best offensive player at each position each year.

His teammate Greg Maddux was known as a right-handed control pitcher with great precision and accuracy, not missing his targets often. He wouldn't beat you with a 100-mile-per-hour fastball, but he would embarrass you with placement and movement rarely seen before or since.

Maddux started his career in 1986 with the Chicago Cubs. Following his seventh season with the Cubs, and with the Cy Young Award under his belt, the Braves signed Maddux as a free agent in 1993, in what is widely described as one of baseball's best free agent deals.

He then went on to win five more consecutive Cy Young Awards in a Braves uniform. Maddux ended his career with 335 wins, a 3.13 ERA, 3,371 strikeouts, an impressive four Cy Young Awards, and a record 18 Gold Gloves in 23 seasons.

Together these individuals led the Braves to 14 straight division championships--an unparalleled accomplishment in any sport. I daresay that record will likely never be broken.

It comes as no surprise that the Braves have retired the numbers 6, 31, and 47 to celebrate and recognize the distinguished careers of these three men.

I am pleased to join Georgians in congratulating Bobby Cox, Tom Glavine, and Greg Maddux on their tremendous accomplishment of being inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Murray and Senator Isakson regarding our concern about the military retirement pay provisions in this budget proposal. As I mentioned yesterday on this floor, any pursuit of debt reduction should not come at the expense of our service men, women, and veterans.

As we have discovered, these cuts will not only apply to working military men and women but also to military widows and soldiers who have been medically retired from wounds received in the line of duty.

I recognize that in order to truly tackle our debt and deficit it will take all Americans making sacrifices, including our military. What we cannot do is ask those who have been injured defending our Nation to bear a disproportionate burden.

I thank Chairman Murray again for the leadership she has shown, along with Chairman Ryan, on these complex and divisive budget issues, and I stand with Senator Isakson and Chairman Murray in making the necessary changes to this legislation to ensure our disabled retirees and survivors are taken care of.

I thank the Chair.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Senators Chambliss and Isakson pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 323 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address the dire national security situation and the responsibility of this body to pass a national defense authorization bill this year.

Congress has passed this legislation for each of the last 51 years, always with broad bipartisan support. This year should be no different. Our service men and women are deployed around the globe in defense of our Nation. They put themselves in harm's way to further the American principles of freedom and democracy, yet we have failed to provide these men and women and our senior military leaders the fiscal certainty and legal authorities they need to complete their vital missions.

Instead, we have a Senate majority intent on fundamentally altering the way the Senate conducts business by pushing through bills without a full and open process. This is not the way the Senate was designed to function.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 20 of this year. Since that time it has been delayed time and again by the Senate majority leader as our Defense leaders struggle to implement our national security strategy. General Dempsey recently transmitted to congressional leadership an itemized list of 26 authorities that will expire at the end of this year or shortly thereafter. We are not talking about legislating ancillary programs or nonessential functions, we are talking about military special pay and bonuses for deployed servicemembers, funds to transition security responsibilities to our Afghan partners, and critical counterinsurgency programs in the Middle East, as well as funding for our intelligence community.

While I support the underlying bill, I am deeply disappointed with the process that got us to this point and thus why I did not vote to invoke cloture. Frankly, I had several amendments I would like to have added to this bill addressing such issues as a technical correction giving Reservists and National Guardsmen proper credit toward retirement for time spent deployed, and an important land transfer of Camp Merrill in Georgia between the Army and the U.S. Forest Service.

I have seen many changes during my years in the Senate, but among those is a disturbing trend regarding the NDAA. We seem to be operating on the premise of fewer, faster, and later. By fewer, I mean fewer amendments. All Senators deserve the opportunity to amend this important piece of legislation. The 20-year average is 140 amendments per year. Last year we were only able to pass 106 amendments. This year we debated one.

As we have seen time and time again, the majority uses the amendment tree to shut down debate and move the bill quicker through the Senate. My colleagues and I have filed over 500 amendments to this year's NDAA. Through hard work and bipartisan support, the two Armed Services Committee staffs have striven to accommodate the concerns of the Senate. But even so, there are pressing issues that require full and deliberative debate in the Senate. These include military sexual assault, counterterrorism and detention policy, and sanctions against those regimes that would do America harm, including Iran.

By faster, I mean the bill spends less time on the Senate floor. The 20-year average is over 9 days, with a maximum of 19 days for the fiscal year 2008 bill. The 1 day we spent on this bill in November is insufficient time to debate the critical security issues confronting our Nation.

The Senate majority has gone to great lengths to keep the bill off the floor. When they could no longer avoid it, they have compressed the timeline for consideration or recommitted it to the Armed Services Committee. This is unprecedented and it is totally unacceptable.

By later, I mean a lack of urgency to take up the bill after committee action. Looking back over the last 40 years, the Senate has gone from passing the NDAA consistently before August to later and later in the year. Last year, it was December. This year we are running up against the end of the year.

I am deeply disappointed at the recent turn of events in the Senate.

Under the guise of streamlining the legislative process, the Senate majority has effectively blocked critical legislative priorities such as the National Defense Authorization Act. I urge my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to discharge the fundamental duties our constituents, servicemembers, and veterans demand of us. We should dispose of the fewer, faster, and later mentality and return Congress to regular order.

Leadership matters. No one knows this better than our men and women in uniform. The Constitution of the United States tasks us with providing for the common defense. I fear we have failed in our constitutional obligation, and this failure is a failure of leadership, plain and simple.

With that being said, I want to pay a particular compliment to Chairman Levin as well as to Ranking Member Inhofe for their leadership, which has not failed the country nor has it failed this body. They got together and produced a bill that came out of our committee in due course after a full and open debate on many critical issues, with the understanding we would have the opportunity on the floor of the Senate to file amendments, debate those amendments, and have up-or-down votes.

Chairman Levin has been more than accommodating throughout the process, before and after the time the bill came out of the Armed Services Committee. Likewise, Senator Inhofe has been more than accommodating in making sure Members on this side of the aisle had free and open access to the debate process. They have provided the kind of leadership we expect.

Unfortunately, the majority leader has made a decision to cram this down the throats of the Senate, and from a national security standpoint that is simply not the way this body is designed to work or should work.

I will support the passage of this bill, because I think the end product, amazingly enough, has turned out to be a pretty good product. Could it have been better? You bet. Could the process have been better? Without question. I just wish we had had the opportunity to debate the serious issues that are on the minds of a number of Members of the Senate when it comes to national security, and that we had had the opportunity to present amendments that would have made this strong bill even stronger and to provide our men and women in uniform and the leadership at the Pentagon with the tools they need to be sure we remain the world's strongest military power and that we are able to not only defend America and Americans but to provide for freedom and democracy around the world.

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