Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the minority leader would yield for a question, as the Senator well knows, the intelligence community depends upon the Defense authorization bill for the authorization to operate in the intelligence community. Whether it is the budget or policy, all of that is compromised in the majority leader's refusal to bring this bill to the floor. Without the authorities in the respective intelligence bills that are passed by the House and the Senate, then our Intelligence Committee is handicapped and hamstrung in policies that are needed as we move forward in this ever-changing war on terrorism. I would ask the Senator from Kentucky if he has ever, in his long experience in the Senate, seen any bill of this nature held up and not allowed to come to the floor because of any single Senator's refusal to accept the provisions that are in the bill by an overwhelming vote such as this?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the greatest job-creation measures this body has considered in a long time. The three long-awaited trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia that the Senate will soon receive will create more real, long- term jobs than any stimulus approach advocated by the President. While many of us are concerned about the role of government in job creation--an issue that will continue to be debated by this body--we can all agree that it is imperative to create a fair and efficient platform on which businesses can grow. The trade agreements before us will do just that. Some economists believe that we are doing perpetual harm to our manufacturing, agricultural and export sectors by not passing these agreements. For instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has previously calculated that delaying the passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement alone may have resulted in the direct loss of more than 20,000 jobs in the United States. Our trading partners have looked elsewhere for goods and services to power their growing economies. When Canada and Colombia completed their trade agreement in August, within 15 days there was an 18-percent increase in wheat exports from Canada to Colombia. The U.S. Trade Representative completed negotiations in 2006 with Colombia for the agreement we will soon have before us. Nearly 5 years of delays on this agreement alone have caused us irreparable damage. While America was once the envy of the world for our trade agreements, we are now losing ground. According to some estimates, the South Korean Free Trade Agreement has the potential to create 280,000 jobs in America alone. South Korea once called the United States its largest trading partner. We have since lost that distinction to China. We are not simply creating jobs by passing these agreements, we are invigorating America's economy. The Panama agreement will pack a significant economic punch for the United States. While it is a smaller country than South Korea or Colombia, the International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. grain and meat exports to Panama will increase 60 percent. In the past several years, my State of Georgia has experienced a 327- percent increase in exports to Panama. While these exports have increased despite the tariffs exporters are burdened with, a fair and free trade agreement will allow these firms to export duty-free, increasing the capital available to them and giving them more opportunity to grow. This agreement will have major implications for Georgia's agricultural producers. In fact, all three of these trade agreements will give major benefits to Georgia's agriculture sector. With the South Korea agreement, we will see gains in poultry, eggs, beef, cotton, and pecan exports as tariffs on these items are phased out. We will see the same benefits with the Columbia pact, and that agreement will also eliminate peanut tariffs over the next 15 years. I am proud to say that agriculture is not the only sector where Georgia will see gains. I would like to highlight a couple of local companies that stand to benefit from these agreements. Sasco is a third-generation family-owned business based in Albany, GA. Sasco produces and distributes worldwide more than 1,200 chemical products, but it faces a 5-percent tariff in Colombia. For Sasco to remain competitive in South America, it must be able to export duty free. While the company's president, Mark Skalla, continues to seek partnerships and contracts in the region, the delays he has experienced are hindering Sasco's expansion. Payne Hughes, CEO of Thrush Aircraft, a manufacturer of agricultural aircraft in Georgia, says he has already seen big gains in Panama and Colombia, where these markets continue to grow. As these countries' economies expand, American business will be able to take advantage of the increased needs for our quality products. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has calculated that for every $1 billion in agriculture exports, some 8,000 U.S. jobs are created and supported. Every $1 billion in manufacturing exports supports nearly 7,000 U.S. jobs. The large-scale manufacturers in Georgia, including General Electric and IBM, will also see major benefits that translate to growth and job creation. As we continue to look for areas where we can enhance American competitiveness, increase job creation, and boost economic development, free-trade agreements are a sure-fire way to make big gains. They are, quite simply, good for American business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, throughout this past week, Americans are observing the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on our Nation. As we have properly done so many times since that horrific day, we remember and honor the innocent who perished in the Twin Towers, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA. We remember and honor the many brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives to defend this great country, from the heroes of flight 93, to the first responders and members of our military and intelligence community. We share in the grief still endured by so many families whose lives were permanently changed by this attack, and we resolve that their sacrifices will not be in vain. In the wake of 9/11, one question has been asked repeatedly, but has yet to be answered completely: how can we better protect our homeland from another attack? As with so many difficult questions, finding an answer must begin with the acknowledgment that something went terribly wrong. Many experts, within and outside the government, have studied the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Certainly, there were clear warnings that our national security was at risk, including the first World Trade Center attack, the East Africa Embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole. We all know those warnings were not heeded, mistakes were made, intelligence was not connected as it should have been, and our policies simply did not reflect the serious threat we were, and indeed still are, facing. We often hear that, as a government, we have made a lot of progress in preventing another attack. The operation that killed Osama bin Laden showcased the progress that our military and intelligence community have made in working together to neutralize terrorists. Just as the disruption of the plot to attack the New York subway system in 2009 demonstrated the continuing transformation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from a criminally-focused law enforcement agency to a full member of the intelligence community. But, our record in preventing terrorist attacks here at home has not been perfect. In 2009, fourteen servicemembers were killed in attacks on military facilities in Little Rock, AR, and Fort Hood, TX. Christmas Day 2009 brought the attempted bombing of an airplane over the skies of Detroit, an attack that if successful would likely have killed, at a minimum, all 289 people on board. A few months later, disaster was averted in Times Square only because explosives inside a vehicle failed to ignite. Our successes and failures since 9/11 can teach us a lot about what we are doing right and where we must do better. First and foremost, we must all remain vigilant. I have heard it repeated in recent months, especially since the death of Osama bin Laden, that al-Qaida has been marginalized and they are not the threat they once were. In certain respects, this is accurate, but as we saw just this past weekend with the heightened concern that al-Qaida operatives would attack New York City or Washington, DC, al-Qaida remains a threat. We must also remember that al-Qaida has many facets and none of them are benign. We know that al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula today represents the biggest threat to our homeland and they are continually seeking new recruits, especially among our own citizens and former Guantanamo detainees. Their new status manifested itself with the Christmas Day bombing attempt, for which they immediately claimed responsibility. Our country faces many different threats, from terrorism to hostile nation states to cyber attacks. We cannot afford to grow complacent or undo the progress we have made. I have heard too often that the intelligence community ``can live with'' changes to the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act, or other classified authorities that are vital to preventing terrorist attacks. Prior to 9/11, we forced the intelligence community to ``live with'' many unnecessary restrictions and I believe that is a gamble we can no longer afford to take. Second, we must ensure that the same mistakes that contributed to the September 11 attacks are not repeated. Following the failed Christmas Day attack, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted an in-depth review to determine what intelligence there was leading up to the attack. The committee concluded that there were systemic breakdowns across the intelligence community that contributed to the failure to identify the threat posed by the Christmas Day bomber. Senator Burr and I submitted additional views to the report noting that some of the very same intelligence failures identified by the committee were also cited as failures leading up to 9/11, including a lack of aggressive analysis and insufficient technology to facilitate sharing and analysis of information. Compounding our concerns was the fact that the National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC, created in response to 9/11, still did not seem to understand its statutory responsibility to integrate and analyze all terrorism- related intelligence. After so many years--and so much effort to reform the old ways of doing business--repeating the same mistakes is not an option. I am encouraged that, since the committee's report, NCTC has taken concrete steps towards meeting this responsibility and I am committed to ensuring they continue on this path. I am also committed to ensuring that we do not retreat from the progress made in improving information sharing. Following 9/11 there were concerted efforts to remove stovepipes within the intelligence community and get the information to analysts who needed it. Unfortunately, some of the old tendencies to restrict intelligence are recurring, particularly amid concerns about Wikileaks. I share the anger about the many leaks of classified information that have jeopardized successful intelligence programs, such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the CIA's interrogation program. But we must be careful not to overreact by restricting access to information that analysts need to do their jobs. Third, our policies and laws must promote effective intelligence collection, specifically with respect to detainees and foreign intelligence surveillance laws. Since the President ordered the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in January 2009, our nation has been without a clear policy for detaining suspected terrorists. Without such a policy, including one that identifies a facility for holding terrorists captured outside Afghanistan, the intelligence community's ability to conduct intelligence interrogations is being severely limited. I recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for handling terrorists, but our detention policies must foster full intelligence collection, before any prosecution begins. Yet our default seems to be that terrorists, such as the Christmas Day bomber, should be treated like ordinary criminals, given their Miranda rights, and prosecuted in Federal court, with all the protections enjoyed by criminal defendants. This means the opportunity for any interrogation, much less one that allows for in-depth intelligence questions, may be very short lived. The bottom line is that the intelligence community cannot conduct effective interrogations without an established policy that includes a place for those interrogations to occur. While the administration maintains its intent to close Guantanamo Bay, I believe the facility there which I have visited and found to be impressive remains the best option for holding terrorists, like Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, captured off the coast of Yemen and transferred for prosecution after only 60 days of interrogation. Many of my colleagues, as well as the American people, have made clear that bringing suspected terrorists into the United States is not a good solution. Moreover, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay are not likely to leave there any time soon, especially as the recidivism rate among former detainees continues to rise. But regardless of whether Guantanamo or another facility outside the United States is selected, it is well past time for the President to come up with a long-term detention policy that allows for full and effective intelligence collection. Many of my colleagues and I have been asking for this policy, with no success. Quite simply, our intelligence community cannot afford further delays. Congress must stand ready to pass legislation that ensures our intelligence interrogations of suspected terrorists are not cut short because of arbitrary timelines or potential criminal proceedings. Congress must also make permanent the remaining provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that are subject to sunsets. Continually revisiting these laws because of arbitrary sunsets does not facilitate oversight, especially when we know that there have been no intentional abuses of these authorities. Moreover, each time we get into a public debate about how some of our most sensitive intelligence collection authorities are used, our enemies learn that much more about our methods. We know they pay attention to our laws and readjust their own communication methods in order to defeat our surveillance. This makes the intelligence community's job that much harder. We cannot expect intelligence analysts to put together vital pieces of information if we do not collect the information in the first place. It is time for Congress to give them permanent tools to do their jobs. Our Nation, our families, and our communities have suffered tremendously because of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We must not forget that suffering, nor should we ever lose sight of the failures that prevented us from averting this tragedy in the first place. We must remain vigilant. Our Nation is fortunate to be blessed with outstanding men and women in the armed forces and our intelligence community who serve tirelessly to protect and defend us, wherever the threat. We owe them our thanks and our support. As we remember those who have sacrificed so much in this fight against terrorism, we must resolve to do all that is possible to protect and preserve our great Nation and our way of life.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, later on this afternoon the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to vote out the nomination of Matt Olsen to be the next Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. I rise today in support of the nomination of Matthew Olsen to be the next Director of NCTC. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, we did a lot of self- examination as a government and, putting it simply, realized that pieces of intelligence that should have been connected had not been or, in other words, the dots had not been connected. Congress understood we could not afford another lapse like 9/11, so it created the National Counterterrorism Center to analyze and integrate counterterrorism information across the government. While we have not suffered another 9/11, our record is not perfect. From the Christmas Day bombing attempt, to Fort Hood, Times Square, and the New York subway plot, the threats to our homeland are very real. At the same time, changing political landscapes and challenges from adverse nations require constant attention. In this environment, it is essential for NCTC to perform its mission beyond reproach. After the Christmas Day near-bombing aboard flight 253, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a review to determine where the intelligence community could have done a better job of anticipating this attempted attack. Unfortunately, the committee's review showed that NCTC had not lived up to its statutory responsibilities. The then- Director, Mike Leiter, to his credit, took criticism in a very positive way and made the right kinds of changes at NCTC to move us in the right direction. While I am encouraged by the progress NCTC has made since then to repair those shortcomings, there is much work that still needs to be done. I believe Matt Olsen has the right background to take the helm of this important intelligence center at this very critical point in our history. He is no stranger either to the Senate Intelligence Committee or to the serious threats that face our Nation. Members and staff have worked with him on several high-profile issues over the last few years. As a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, he was responsible for ensuring that our intelligence professionals had all the legal authority they needed from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to continue this country's safety. Let me just say this was no easy task and the stakes were high, especially given the political wrangling over FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act in recent years. Matt spent countless hours briefing our staff and other committees on many highly sensitive FISA issues. In large part because of his willingness to stick to the facts and not play political games, he has earned the respect of Members on both sides of the political aisle. For the last year, Matt has served in a very professional way as the General Counsel for the National Security Agency, a position that has also put him in close contact, again, with the Intelligence Committees. GEN Keith Alexander, who heads up NSA, provided a letter of support for Matt's nomination. I have also spoken personally with General Alexander about Matt. I have a great deal of respect for the general, and it speaks volumes to me that he has such high, unequivocal praise for Matt, both as a leader and as a person. Matt's other job--not an enviable one--which brought him in close contact with the committee was his service as the Executive Director of the Guantanamo Review Task Force. I have had numerous conversations with Matt about some of the recommendations made by the task force on transferring what I believe continue to be potentially dangerous detainees. I appreciate that the task force was following a deadline set by Executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. But I believe we have accepted too great a risk to our national security by transferring many of these detainees to other host countries. The recidivism rate continues to climb. It is today somewhere in the range of 26 percent. We have no reason to expect it will stop climbing anytime soon. Our first obligation must always be to ensure the safety of the American people, not to transfer dangerous detainees to meet an arbitrary political deadline. Of particular concern to me are the transfers of a number of Yemeni detainees during 2009, when the intelligence community was already warning about the dangerous security situation in Yemen. Of course, we all know that al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula makes its home in Yemen and that several former GITMO detainees now hold high positions in AQAP. AQAP was directly responsible for the Christmas Day bombing attempt, and their efforts will continue to inflict harm on our Nation. Matt acknowledges the difficulties presented by the Yemeni transfers, and he has acknowledged that the task force did not get every recommendation right, just as the previous administration did not get every recommendation right. He also shares my personal view that Guantanamo should remain open so that we are not transferring any more detainees as the recidivism rate continues to grow. I appreciate the many conversations and briefings he has had with my staff on those transfer issues. I appreciate his willingness to continue to discuss these issues and the need for a long-term detention policy even after taking on his new position as NCTC Director. Ironically, in his new position, he will be responsible for tracking former detainees, including detainees whose transfer the task force may have recommended who slipped into their old ways, before they can strike us again. It was in this capacity that Matt had an issue with a colleague, and I have vetted this with Matt and with most of those who were in the room on the occasion the issue arose. While better judgment could have been used, the issue is now behind us. I have impressed upon Matt that if he is confirmed as the Director of NCTC, his credibility must be unquestionable. He has confirmed to me that he will always communicate with Members of Congress fully and openly without political censorship. He also is committed to being totally open and will have an ongoing dialog with members of the respective House and Senate Intelligence Committees. My good friend Senator Kent Conrad, who is actually the home Senator for Matt since he is originally from North Dakota, spoke extensively about Matt's reputation and commitment to public service during his confirmation hearing. Many intelligence professionals on both sides of the political lines wrote letters of recommendation on Matt's behalf. I believe Matt when he tells me he is committed to working closely with Congress and the Intelligence Committees to do the job needed to keep this country safe. I will be supporting his nomination when it comes to the floor, and I look forward to working with him.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Dave on his 23 years of service as a public servant. His career, including service in the Senate, the Department of Agriculture and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, has led him to be one of the most influential staffers on legislation supporting farmers, ranchers and the less privileged across the country. For those of us who have had the pleasure of knowing and working closely with him, we know Dave as a true professional and an extremely thoughtful individual. His knowledge and experience have served as a virtual encyclopedia for policy makers on this Committee and in the Executive Branch. The talent and knowledge that Dave possesses reflects a career of dedicated service that cannot be replicated or easily replaced. His well-earned departure will create a void that will be difficult to fill. As I look back at Dave's career and the years I served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I can say I am particularly proud of Dave's work on nutrition and food assistance programs. I know my colleagues and I can attest to Dave's care for and dedication to improving the lives of the less privileged. His tireless efforts to secure funding for the hungry and less privileged through the 1996 farm bill, the 1994 Child Nutrition Act and countless other pieces of legislation are a testament to his sense of duty and his nonpartisan approach to identifying solutions that advance the promise of our great Nation to all of our citizens. I was always honored to have his passion and advocacy for the disadvantaged on my side of the aisle. Dave has made a real impact on the lives of all Americans and has done so with a modest approach that sought solutions over recognition. Dave is one of the most modest individuals I have ever met and I am certain his modesty is born of his upbringing. Dave's approach to work in Washington, DC, has always been governed by the lessons he learned on his family farm in rural Indiana. He does not boast of his many achievements nor lecture those who seek his counsel or advice. I have always known him to be quiet and unpretentious in spite of his achievements and station. He has sought to act as a mentor to young staffers and wise counsel to the Senators and policy makers who have called on him throughout the years. On behalf of my former agriculture committee staff and for myself, I want to thank Dave for his service to the U.S. Senate and to our country. I wish him the best as he moves on to his next adventure.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the bill that is before the Senate today. But as a part of that, we are now in the midst of a true fiscal crisis in this country, and I want to address something that has been debated over the last several days, discussed over the last several days, criticized over the last several days. It has been the subject of a lot of misinformation--by colleagues on my side of the aisle particularly--about the proposal that has been submitted by the so-called Gang of 6, of which I happen to be a member. And I am someone who for the last 7 months has participated in discussions with two of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, as well as on the other side of the aisle, to try to find a bipartisan solution to being able to repay the $14.3 trillion our Federal Government owes, and that we have all participated in creating. The misinformation that is going around from my friends is very disturbing. People are here on this floor throwing out numbers that are wrong, giving specifics on a piece of legislation that has not even been written, and yet they are talking as though they are experts on the subject of a matter that my five colleagues and I have been discussing and debating among ourselves for the last 6 months--and we have not even put the legislation out there yet. So it is pretty disturbing to me that there are some people in this body who want to see nothing done and I assume want us to continue down the road of borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we are spending. I am not willing to do that. I think we were sent here with a commitment from our constituents to solve the serious problems this country faces. The only way we are going to solve this fiscal problem we have is to generate 60 votes in this body in support of some proposal. I am going to talk in support of the proposal we have under consideration now because I think it is a potential solution. I am very appreciative of the authors of the cut, cap, and balance bill. I am appreciative of our leadership for at least trying to come forward with something and put it on the table to give us the opportunity to debate those ideas. I think there have been a number of very positive proposals that have come forward and hopefully that will come forward in the next few days to allow us to debate this issue and to primarily solve the problem relative to the debt ceiling and solve the problem relative to the long-term debt we have. I have to say, I am disturbed about some of the comments and statements--even from folks who were critical of the plan we put forward for cutting too much spending. These are the folks who have been ranting and raving about the fact we are spending too much money in this town, and now they are complaining about the fact we are cutting too much in spending. I look forward to continuing this debate. I want to say the proposal that we put forward was intended from day one to be a framework, not the final product, but a framework, for this body as well as the House to discuss as a way forward for solving the issue of how we are going to repay this $14.3 trillion. We never, ever intended for it to be in the mix on solving the issue of the debt ceiling that needs to be raised, according to the Department of the Treasury, by August 2. Because we happen to have come to a conclusion of our negotiations this week, at the same time the debate on raising the debt ceiling is reaching its height, that has obviously created the impression on some folks that our proposal is intended to solve the issue of the debt ceiling. And it is not. It categorically is not. I want to make that perfectly clear. That being said, if there is any part of our agreement, any part of our principles that can be utilized by the leadership of the House and the Senate to figure out a way forward on the debt ceiling, for we have no pride of authorship. We hope leadership will take advantage of anything that can be used to try to generate the necessary support in this body as well as in the House to solve the issue of this deadline we are facing on August 2. I rise today in full support of the cut, cap, and balance legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and I commend my fellow Senators in this Chamber who have taken it upon themselves to offer solutions to the large and growing problem of our debt and our deficit. A majority of Republicans here in the Senate as well as a majority of those in the House believe that legislation that cuts government spending and makes tough enforcement mechanisms on the Federal budget is the right way to bring spending under control. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of a separate balanced budget amendment. I firmly believe all of these proposals will structure and control the Federal Government's spending, just as Americans have demanded. We are in the middle of a fiscal crisis. Last year, the government spent at a rate of 25 percent of our gross domestic product and took in revenues of about 14 percent of our gross domestic product. The result of that is that last year, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, we had in excess of a $1.5 trillion deficit. It looks as though we are headed in the same direction this year. This is totally unsustainable. Our financial markets have told us that. The folks who are in the process of putting together another sale of our bonds have told us that. We know people who are looking at buying those bonds are looking very closely at how this body acts over the next several days. Some people have said the bond market is the most honest financial market out there, as the bond market tends to track truest to the debtor's overall fiscal standing. The bond-rating agencies have already told us that we are approaching the edge of what the market will bear. We are close to the brink of our self-imposed debt limit of $14.3 trillion. We must give serious, solemn consideration to any plan that will turn us immediately away from our overspending. We need to be mindful of the consequences of a default. Forcing the administration to make spending decisions is only one problem we face. A default and the subsequent rise in interest rates means we will find ourselves deeper in debt, and rampant inflation will prevent us from achieving fiscal solvency. Current levels of discretionary and mandatory spending cannot be sustained. Mr. President, I say that with respect to every area of the Federal Government. We cannot allow any area of the Federal Government to go untouched. If we do, we will allow that area of government to continue to grow out of control. We must cut Federal spending anywhere we can and in every department of the Federal Government. We also have to reform entitlements. We have to look at the issues that are very difficult for a lot of us to deal with, and we have to make some very tough decisions. Too frequently we have engaged in political theater instead of earnest efforts to resolve these long-term budget issues. The American people expect and deserve an honest budget debate and an honest budget process. On Tuesday of this week, the House made an historic vote. Its Members decided that Congress can no longer feign interest in securing our financial future. They took the right step of voting to cut spending and place rigid caps on remaining expenditures with tough budget enforcement mechanisms. I commend them for their efforts. Now is the time to join our colleagues in the House. We must look for new ways of ensuring that the Congress cannot break promises. The best path forward toward fiscal stability will set a firm foundation, and this legislation will do exactly that. George Washington gave clear guidance when he told the House of Representatives that no consideration ``is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt.'' We can no longer allow the American people to suffer by not providing the economic basis for recovery and growth. The equation is simple: a balanced Federal budget that is free of excessive debt leads to a healthy economy and sustainable job creation activities. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. It scared me for a minute, I thought we were almost engaging in a debate on the Senate floor. This could get interesting here. I have great respect for both my colleagues who were making comments, and it will be an interesting discussion on the floor when they both have their respective numbers and we will look forward to that. I want to say to my colleague from Arizona that what he says is exactly right. Raising taxes in tough economic times is a very difficult thing to do and is not stimulative of the economy. The way we need to see revenues increased--and I don't think there is any disagreement from anybody in the Senate or in the House that the 14.5 percent of GDP we are now seeing in revenues has got to be increased. But the way we need to increase it is enacting policies, whether they be tax policies or spending policies or otherwise, that will truly grow the economy, and we can do that with the right kind of policies that will not only in the short term stimulate the economy and show an increase in revenues, but will also have the same impact on the other side of the ledger, which is reducing spending. We are now at an all-time high since World War II on the spending side, we are at an all-time low on the revenue side, and that is what has gotten us into this terrible fiscal problem we have today. I concur with what the Senator from Arizona said, and I look forward to continuing to dialog with him as well as the Senator from Rhode Island about what needs to be done to get this gap closed. Mr. President, I rise tonight to discuss the need for the American government to fundamentally change the way it conducts business. Congress and the President can no longer fail to make significant meaningful changes to our fiscal path. We must act now to ensure the safety and security of our Nation. There is a mutual understanding from all involved in the ongoing debate that the current fiscal path our country is on will lead us to ruin. It is simply unthinkable to believe that we can continue to run deficits in excess of $1 trillion, on top of $14.3 trillion in accumulated debt, and remain the leader of the global economy. It is well known that the Federal Government will soon risk a potentially catastrophic default on its credit obligations. Clearly, any increase in the debt ceiling must come with substantial policy reforms and commitments that future spending and deficits are being addressed appropriately. Against this backdrop, we are being provided with a unique opportunity to review the underlying causes of our current path and potential effects we face. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its long-term budget outlook. Their release shows debt increasing to approximately 200 percent of GDP by 2035, unless drastic and immediate changes are made. Economists have told me that a debt equaling 90 percent of GDP is the tipping point, and that after that it is impossible to turn the situation around. Under the same CBO scenario, interest costs alone in 2035 would reach 9 percent of GDP, and 9 percent of GDP is more than the United States currently spends on both Social Security and Medicare. This body spends a considerable amount of time deliberating on matters of national security and, indeed, that is extremely important work. We must stay vigilant that any threats to this country are swiftly dealt with. However, ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said emphatically over and over again that our debt is the single greatest threat to our national security. Admiral Mullen is not alone. The cochairs of the President's own fiscal commission warned him of the need for swift action. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson continue to speak almost daily of the importance of addressing our fiscal situation and continue to make impassioned pleas that this situation must be corrected and must be done so in the short term. It is during these hard times that most Americans look to their elected representatives and the Chief Executive of the United States for guidance on these issues. The American people have waited for leadership on this issue and have demanded fiscal discipline. It is reprehensible that an issue of this magnitude and significance is subject to the partisan bickering and gamesmanship that often rears its head in politics. This is an issue that will determine the fate of our country. It deserves careful, serious, thoughtful deliberation and not political theater. Not long ago the Senate held a series of votes on budget resolutions that everyone knew were destined to fail. The American people expect and deserve an honest budget debate and a honest budget process. While I am glad the President is now engaging in this debate, he, too, has not been forthcoming in helping to decide America's budget fate. He has not given those in his party instructions or guidance on how to address our fiscal situation, nor has he given the Congress as a whole a relevant plan. It would be reprehensible for these White House negotiations that are now underway to produce a last-minute proposal that leaves Congress no time to review the merits of the legislation or the immediate and lasting effects to the American people. I have been on record many times before stating everything must be on the table when it comes to solving our debt problems, and I seriously mean that. We see daily the effects of oppressive debt on countries such as Greece and the fear and panic it creates for the citizens of that country. We must take the steps now to ensure we do not fall off the precipice, and that means looking at all of our options. We must reduce discretionary spending, reform entitlements, simplify the individual and corporate code, and lower tax rates. This is a proven path to prosperity because the solution is based on both spending reduction and economic growth. We have a model for this. The model is what Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did in 1986. We saw an economy stimulated at a time when it really needed it by the elimination of tax expenditures and the lowering of tax rates--particularly on the corporate side. It is important on both the personal and corporate, but if we are truly going to expand our tax base and see revenues increase, then we need to put the corporations in this country that manufacture the finest quality of products of anybody in the world on the same level playing field as their competitors across the globe. So it is of critical importance that we reform our Tax Code, make it simpler and more fair, and, particularly from a corporate level, make it more competitive from a worldwide perspective. We must cut Federal spending in any way we can. Our current levels of discretionary and mandatory spending simply cannot be sustained. But we cannot solve our problems simply by reducing spending. We have to reform entitlements. We have to look at those issues that are very difficult for a lot of us to deal with, and we have to make some hard and tough decisions. The unfortunate part about this is we do not have a lot of time to do it. I do not know the window. The window may be 6 months, it may be 12 months, it may be 2 years. No economist will give an exact definite prediction of how long this window continues. But we do know we were not able to predict the financial crisis that occurred in 2008. As Mr. Bowles has said time and time again, this is one crisis we can predict, so now is the time for policymakers in Washington to act. It is job creation that will ultimately be the benefit to Americans once a strong and balanced Federal budget is in place. Slower economic growth results in dramatic job loss. Christina Romer, the former Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, equated 1 percentage point of GDP with 1 million jobs annually. We cannot allow the American people to suffer by not providing the economic basis for recovery and growth. A balanced Federal budget that is free of excessive debt will lead to a healthy economy and long-term sustainable job creation activities. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and commitment of Senator Richard B. Russell to the State of Georgia and to our Nation. Senator Russell died on January 21, 1971, 40 years ago as of this past winter. Senator Russell devoted 50 years of his life to public service as a state legislator, as Governor of Georgia, and as U.S. Senator. I take great pride in recalling before this body the lasting imprint on the history of Georgia, the U.S. Senate, and our Nation that Senator Russell left behind. He was a natural-born leader who had the persuasive ability to unite men, a quality which aided in his rapid rise to positions of political power. He will be remembered as the most prominent of politicians of his time. He began service in public office early in his life, serving in the Georgia House of Representatives at the age of 24. That was in 1921. His composed demeanor and civil nature quickly led to his nomination for Speaker of the Georgia House a few years later. He was the youngest Speaker ever elected in the Georgia House. Under Russell's guidance, the State of Georgia saw drastic improvements in the organization of State government. He went on to win the largest majority in the State's history for the election of Governor in 1931. It was in the midst of our Nation's most devastating economic downturn, and he was only 33 years old. Despite all this, he succeeded in guiding Georgia out of the Great Depression. Through his tremendous efforts to promote economic development, he was ultimately able to create a balanced budget for the State. His time in office is recognized as being one of the most significant eras in Georgia's history, creating economic relief for the State after only 18 months in office. The powerful economic impact left behind by Senator Russell is still felt in Georgia today through many of the Federal facilities he brought to our State, as well as through the piece of legislation closest to Senator Russell's heart, and to my own: The National School Lunch Act. He was sent to Washington by Georgians to serve in the U.S. Senate in 1933, making him then the youngest member ever to serve in the Senate. Senator Russell came to be one of this body's most respected members ever. He was looked upon by his colleagues for his leadership, integrity, equality and intellect. His colleague from Mississippi, Senator John Stennis, was once approached by a tourist, who told him he would like to see the Senate and asked him how to go about it. At that moment, Stennis spotted Russell walking down the other end of the hall. Stennis told the tourist he could go to the Capitol to see the Senate Chamber, but if he really wanted to see the Senate, he should take a look at the man walking down the hall. ``He represents the living embodiment of United States Senate,'' Senator Stennis said. During his time in office, his powerful position as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee aptly rendered him the label of ``Mr. Defense,'' a role for which he will continue to be remembered. He was known as one of the Nation's leading experts on military and defense policy, acting as adviser to six Presidents, valued for his knowledge and judgment. He was called ``a great patriot who never failed to facilitate the United States when its security was an issue'' by President Nixon. In a dedication speech given on this very floor 15 years ago, Senator Sam Nunn recalled Senator Russell's ``strong belief in the independence and co-equal role of the Congress of the United States'' and his ``insistence that he had not served under six Presidents, but rather served with six Presidents, a real difference.'' Russell later served as this body's senior Senator, becoming President pro tempore of the Senate, putting him fourth in line to the succession of the Presidency. But beyond all of his accomplishments, what truly set Senator Russell apart from other men was his commitment to civility. He demonstrated his fair and conscientious nature on many occasions, most notably a he presided over the 1951 dismissal hearings of GEN Douglas McArthur, a time in which his judicious handling of such a volatile event did much to diffuse an explosive situation. He effectively navigated the bipartisan barriers of the Senate through his unrelenting civility and trustworthiness, and, of course, his humor. Once, when he was in need of a tailor, he asked his good friend, then-President Johnson, for a recommendation. Johnson gave him one, so Russell sent his suits over to the man. When the bill arrived, he just stared at it, dumbfounded. ``No wonder this country is going to hell if the President is willing to spend this much just to fix his suits!'' he exclaimed. When I was first elected to the Senate in 2002, the Dean of the Senate at that time was Senator Robert Byrd, who sat right on the aisle across the way. I will never forget that the first day, as I was sworn in, I went over and introduced myself to Senator Byrd, who was so well respected by everybody on both sides of the aisle and is without question the greatest historian within the Senate that the Senate has ever had, and he looked up at me and said, ``You hold Senator Russell's seat.'' I said, ``Yes, sir. That's right.'' He said, ``My favorite Senator was Senator Richard Russell.'' From then on, every time I would walk by Senator Byrd's seat when he was there, he would stop me and he would give me another anecdote about Senator Russell, about their close relationship, and about what a huge impact Senator Russell had on our Nation and on this institution during his 32 years of service. Senator Russell devoted his life to public service with only one desire: to be remembered as an honorable man. We can all agree that his legacy more than fulfills that objective. His name lives on in our own Russell Senate Office Building and throughout the State of Georgia, giving evidence to the amount of honor deservedly bestowed upon this great man. His leadership skills, his honest dealings, and his fairness to both sides in an argument created a remarkable representative for the people he served. He was an unfailing champion in Washington, and a revered statesman of Georgia for more than 38 years. The epitaph on his tombstone, at his home place in Winder, GA, is a simple carving: ``Richard B. Russell, Jr.--Senator from Georgia--1933- 1971.'' Mr. President, that says it all. There is only one Member of our body today who served with Senator Russell; that is, Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye has again, just like Senator Byrd, given me very many fond memories of Senator Russell. It is a pleasure to serve with Senator Inouye. I wish I had the opportunity to serve with Senator Russell because he truly was a great patriot, a great American, and a great champion for this institution. I believe all of us here today can learn from the life of one of the greatest Senators in this body's 200 year history. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Leon Panetta to be the 23rd Secretary of Defense. Director Panetta has a long history of government and private sector service and experience, including service in the U.S. Army. Director Panetta served ably for eight terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, rising to be chairman of the House Budget Committee. He left that position to be President Clinton's Director of the Office of Management and Budget and later served 2\1/2\ years as President Clinton's Chief of Staff, which is where I got to know him well. He then spent 10 years codirecting a foundation with his wife that seeks to instill in young men and women the virtues and values of public service. Knowing Director Panetta, this comes as no surprise. In February 2009, he became the 19th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and it is in this capacity where I have had the opportunity to work very closely with him over the last several years and consider him a close friend. Director Panetta has been an outstanding leader of the Central Intelligence Agency, and it is bittersweet to see him leave. Director Panetta is a true leader in every sense of the word. He understands how Capitol Hill works since he served in Congress for 16 years. He has always shown the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is the committee that oversees his organization, the right kind of deference and responded to our questions and concerns promptly and directly. Although he leaves the CIA, he is not leaving the administration and I am quite pleased that I will continue to have the opportunity to work with him as Secretary of Defense. I think he has the right qualifications for his new job. He understands budgets, and in this time of economic austerity we need someone with that knowledge and his ability to understand and manage the resources of a huge organization such as the Department of Defense. In his current capacity as Director of the CIA, he has also worked and built strong partnerships with the Department of Defense, having been involved in the planning and execution of numerous joint operations, including of course the most recent operation against Osama bin Laden. He will continue this strong partnership in his new position, and I know he will continue to ensure that these two organizations work closely together and cooperate successfully in the interest of our national security and for the safety of our country. Director Panetta has a very challenging job ahead of him. The United States is involved in three major military operations overseas, as well as countless smaller ones. Budgets are extremely tight, and they are only going to get tighter. However, no country has the global interests and global responsibilities that the United States has, and for that reason we need a military that can protect those interests and carry out those responsibilities. Director Panetta will need to decide how we do that and will also help decide what, if anything, the United States can and needs to stop doing. He will also need to take responsibility for shaping our military to be prepared for the future. For the last decade, our military has necessarily been focused on fighting and winning the conflicts we are in; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan. We continue to meet that challenge, and I am very optimistic that we, with the Afghan people, will prevail against insurgents in Afghanistan, just as we prevailed with the Iraqi people against insurgents in Iraq. However, we can't take our eyes off the future. As a nation, we have a very poor record of predicting where our next conflict will come from. I have heard it said that when Secretary McNamara had his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of Defense in 1961, no one asked him a question about a country called Vietnam. And when Secretary Rumsfeld had his confirmation hearing in 2001, no one asked him about Afghanistan. But, in both cases, those were the issues that would dominate their tenure as Secretary of Defense. If I might say, Director Panetta, if a new global hot spot dominates your tenure as Secretary of Defense, there is a good chance that it will be one that no one asked you about at your confirmation hearing. For this reason, our Armed Forces need to be prepared to fight conflicts that are unlike our current ones. We cannot, and should not, assume that the next war will be like the current one. We need to be prepared for both high-end and low-end conflict. We need to be prepared not just so that we can fight and win these conflicts but so we can deter potential adversaries and not have to fight in the first place. I know Leon Panetta realizes that, and I know he will continue to be committed to ensuring our military is as prepared as possible to meet whatever challenges may come our country's way. That will not be easy, and it will take a man of his ability to do this successfully and in a way that takes into account our current fiscal situation. However, I believe the President has chosen the right man for the job. I support Leon Panetta's nomination to be the next Secretary of Defense, and I encourage my colleagues to support that nomination as well.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and that I be followed by Senator Coburn.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, to the Economic Development Revitalization Act which would repeal the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit. His amendment is No. 436. For months, there has been very heated public debate surrounding the blender tax credit for ethanol and the tariff on imported ethanol. Some of my colleagues advocate repealing ethanol tax incentives immediately, while others are adamantly opposed to changing course on tax policy that was enacted at the end of the last Congress and would extend these tax credits through the end of this year. Regardless, it is clear that Congress must make a decision on whether to reform the ethanol blenders tax credit and import tariff this year. In my home State of Georgia, I see both the positive and the negative effects this tax policy has had. While it has spurred the growth of the ethanol industry, some say it has caused drastic increases in the price of corn-based feedstock. A new study prepared for the upcoming G20 meeting shows that biofuel subsidies are directly related to food price volatility. I believe that because the credit is set to expire in December of this year and many ethanol producers have the credit embedded in their business plans, Congress should not immediately repeal the tax credit. When it expires at the end of this year--even though I have supported this tax credit for all the years I have served in both the House and the Senate--I think the time has come for it to end. If we tell the blenders today that at the end of this year this tax credit is going to expire, it needs to expire then. So I do not intend to support an extension of that tax credit beginning upon the expiration at the end of this year. Regardless of where one stands on the underlying issue itself, I believe the amendment deserves to have a vote on its merits and not be blocked by procedural tactics. Because so much attention has been paid to the issue and because we have had such extensive debates, this amendment deserves an up-or-down vote, rather than being stopped by a filibuster. For this reason, I intend to vote in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise to speak in opposition to Amendment No. 365, Senator Paul's amendment concerning suspicious activity reports, or what is referred to as SARS. This amendment would prevent the Department of Treasury from requiring any financial institution to submit a suspicious activity report unless law enforcement first requests the report. If this amendment should become law, it will effectively take away one of the government's main weapons in the battle against money laundering and other financial crimes. It will also negatively impact our efforts to detect and follow the flow of funds to and from international terrorists. It is important to remember that SARS are essentially tips from third-party financial institutions concerning suspicious transactions. Because law enforcement is not watching the financial transaction of every American on a daily basis 24/7, they often have no idea that a person is even engaged in a financial crime until they receive a suspicious activity notification from a financial institution. In a sense, SARs are not much different than the tips that law enforcement often receives from anonymous sources. These tips or leads can often form the basis for initiating investigations that can be used to neutralize criminal or terrorist activities. The problem with this amendment is that it would require the government to look into a crystal ball in order to figure out when they should request a SAR. With this logic, we should only allow law enforcement to act on an anonymous tip unless they ask for the tip to be reported first. If a law enforcement or intelligence officer doesn't get a tip about suspicious activity, how in the world is he going to know when it occurred in the first place? The answer here is simple: They will likely never know it occurred until the criminal activity has occurred, and maybe it will even go undetected. Look, for example, at the 9/11 hijackers. There was a minimum of 12 to 13 of those individuals who came into and out of the United States over a period of time. Money was transferred to and from those individuals over a period of time. Under the requirements pre-PATRIOT Act, there was no suspicious activity detected. But after the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, there would be reason now for any financial institution to suspect the potential for suspicious activity from those transfers of moneys. That is exactly why we did what we did in the PATRIOT Act, and that is one of the reasons why we have not seen a subsequent direct attack on U.S. soil from individuals who had been in the United States and have received money through transfers, or whatever it may be. Let's don't forget that section 215 business records cannot be obtained in an arbitrary manner. There has to be, first of all, a determination that there is some international connection between the individual whose account has been deemed suspicious by the financial institution, and also there has to be some follow-on procedure to determine that there is reason for the government to get hold of the financial records of this individual. In my mind, this amendment would put law enforcement in an unacceptable and unreasonable position. At the same time we are asking them to pursue swindlers and money launderers more aggressively, we need to preserve the requirement that financial institutions report suspicious activities. We need to follow up on these leads not just from a criminal law enforcement perspective but from a national security perspective as well. Since 9/11, I have been involved with the Intelligence Committee all of those years. We do extensive oversight on this particular provision in the PATRIOT Act, as well as other provisions. We have hearings on this from time to time, and we require the law enforcement officials to come in and talk to us about what they are doing. To my knowledge, there has never been one complaint or abuse that has been shown from the use of this particular provision. This particular provision is working exactly the way we intended it to work. It is a valuable tool for our law enforcement. Let me speak also about amendment No. 363, which is Senator Paul's amendment concerning firearms records. Simply put, this amendment would make it more difficult for national security investigators to prevent an act of terrorism inside the United States. The amendment would prohibit the use of a FISA business records court order to obtain firearms records in the possession of a licensed firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer. Instead, national security investigators could only obtain such records through a Federal grand jury subpoena during the course of a criminal investigation or with a search warrant issued by a Federal magistrate upon a showing of reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Federal firearms laws has occurred. That might not always be possible. For example, before MAJ Nidal Hasan began his deadly assault against innocent military and civilian personnel at Fort Hood, TX, in November 2009, there was no evidence that he had violated any criminal or Federal firearms laws. Thus, the FBI could not have relied on title 18 to obtain information about Hasan's purchase of the firearms used in the attack. As we have since learned, however, there was likely enough intelligence information to open a preliminary investigation on Hasan because of his contacts with a known al-Qaida member in Yemen, and seek a section 215 order for information about his gun purchases. I don't understand why we would take this tool away from national security investigators, especially, here again, where there has been no indication of any abuse of this authority with respect to firearms or other sensitive records. Congress has conducted extensive oversight of the PATRIOT Act and FISA authority, and there have been no reports of any widespread abuse or misuse, and no reports that the government has ever used these authorities to violate second amendment rights. Moreover, the protections detailed in section 215 ensure that second amendment rights are fully respected in the use of this authority. Unlike in criminal investigations where a Federal grand jury may issue a subpoena for firearms records, any request for records under section 215 must first be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. As with all other section 215 records, the court must find that such records are relevant to an authorized national security investigation. This means the FBI cannot use this authority in a domestic terrorism investigation, nor can the FBI randomly decide to see whether an ordinary citizen or even a vocal advocate of the second amendment owns a firearm. There are two additional oversight safeguards that are built into the section 215 process. First, each request for these sensitive records by the FBI can only be approved by one of three high-level FBI officials-- the Director, the Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security. Second, there are also specific reporting requirements that are designed to keep Congress informed about the number of orders issued for these types of sensitive records. One of the big lessons we learned after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was that we needed to make sure national security investigators had access to investigative tools similar to those that have long been available to law enforcement. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act addresses that need. It provides an alternative way to obtain business records, including firearms records, in situations where there may be a national security threat but not yet a criminal investigation or violation. I have long been a strong supporter of the second amendment. There is nobody in this body who has a better voting record on the second amendment than I do. Probably nobody here owns as many guns as I own, but I use them for legal and lawful purposes. I will work with the National Rifle Association and any citizen group to make sure that neither this law nor any Federal law is misused to infringe on the second amendment rights of any law-abiding citizen. But this particular amendment would harm legitimate national security investigations. I want to take a minute to read a letter I received from Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association: Dear Senator Chambliss: Thank you for asking about the National Rifle Association's position on a motion to table amendment No. 363 to the PATRIOT Act. The NRA takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting gun owners' rights against government abuse. Over the past three decades, we fought successfully to block unnecessary and intrusive compilation of firearms-related records by several Federal agencies, and will continue to protect the privacy of our members and all American gun owners. While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment, as currently drafted, raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind. Based on these concerns, and the fact that the NRA does not ordinarily take positions on procedural votes, we have no position on a motion to table amendment No. 363. For those reasons, I intend to vote against both of these amendments. While I appreciate the intent and the emotion with which my friend Senator Paul comes to the floor to advocate, we need to make sure we get these extensions in place immediately, so we have no gap in the coverage available to our intelligence community, and that we continue to give them the tools they need to protect America and protect Americans.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated May 26, 2011, from the NRA.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1038, the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011. In 4 days, on May 27, three FISA provisions--the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and section 215 business records authorities--will expire unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. The House has been working on a bill, H.R. 1800, that would make the lone wolf provision permanent and extend the other two provisions until December 2017. Senators Feinstein and Leahy have sponsored bills that would, among other things, extend all three provisions until December 2013. It seems to me that S. 1038, with its extension of the three sunsets until June 1, 2015, is a reasonable compromise. Although I believe each one of these tools should be made permanent, this bill will ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep our Nation safe. There is little disagreement that these provisions should and must be reauthorized. FBI Director Robert Mueller has testified repeatedly that each one of these provisions is important to both national security as well as criminal investigations. But their importance does not end there. Because of enhanced information-sharing rules and procedures other parts of the intelligence community, such as the National Counterterrorism Center and the National Counterproliferation Center, often depend on the information collected under these provisions. Losing or changing these authorities could adversely impact the intelligence community's ability to analyze and share important national intelligence information. According to Director Mueller, with all the new technology, it is easy for a terrorist target to buy four or five cell phones, use them in quick succession, and then dump them to avoid being intercepted. He has testified that the ability to track terrorists when they do this is ``tremendously important.'' I could not agree more because it is pretty obvious those guys are up to something, and it is not good. Our enemies often know our own laws better than we do. They understand the hoops and hurdles the government must clear to catch up to or stay ahead of them. Keep in mind the FBI cannot use a roving wiretap until a court finds probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power. Some critics claim the provision allows the FBI to avoid meeting probable cause as surveillance moves from phone to phone. This claim is simply not accurate, as every roving wiretap must be approved by a FISA Court judge. If a target changes their cell phone and the FBI moves to surveil the new phone, the court is notified of that change. All of the protections for U.S. person information that apply to any other FISA wiretap also apply to roving wiretaps. In short, while this authority is a tremendous asset for the FBI and has been used 140 times over the past 5 years, it poses no additional civil liberties concerns, and it should be renewed without delay. With regard to section 215, the Business Records Act, over the past several years the rallying cry against the PATRIOT Act has centered on section 215 FISA business records authority. Section 215 allows the FBI to seek FISA Court authority to obtain business records, such as hotel information or travel records. As with each one of the expiring provisions, the FBI must meet the statutory standard of proof. The inspector general from the Department of Justice conducted several audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders and found no abuses of the authority. Director Mueller testified that the business records sought by the FBI in terrorism investigations are ``absolutely essential to identifying other persons who may be involved in terrorist activities.'' The lone wolf provision: The sole expiring provision under the PATRIOT Act that has not been used by the FBI, prompting some critics to demand its repeal, is the lone wolf definition of an agent of a foreign power. Recent events have demonstrated that self-radicalizing individuals with no clear affiliation to existing terrorist groups are a growing threat to national security. The lone wolf provision provides a counter to that threat, at least in the cases of a non-U.S. person who is not readily identifiable with a particular foreign power. The lone wolf provision is a necessary tool that will only need to be used in limited circumstances. It is kind of like those ``in case of emergency break glass'' boxes that cover certain fire alarms and equipment. While we may not use it too much, we will certainly wish we had it when the right situation comes up. In conclusion, I am grateful for the leadership of Senators Reid and McConnell on this crucial piece of legislation. This bill will ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement professionals can continue doing what they do best, without any additional restrictions. Our Nation has been fortunate to have not suffered a sequel to the 9/ 11 attacks, and much of the credit goes to the dedicated work of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. We owe them not only our thanks but the recognition that their jobs are as difficult as it is, and we should not be taking any steps that will make their responsibility to protect this country any more difficult. Mr. President, I urge a vote in support of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our Nation's energy policy, or, frankly, our lack thereof. Georgians, as well as folks all across America, are shocked every time they pull up to a gas pump, both at the price of gas per gallon and at the jaw-dropping cost each time they fill up their tanks. With rising food prices and a stagnant economy, skyrocketing gas prices could not come at a worse time. This situation illustrates why it is imperative for Congress to focus on creating a policy to expand and diversify our energy sources so the American people are no longer held hostage by prices at the pump. The necessity of congressional action has become all too clear as we watch gas prices climb and unrest spread throughout the Middle East, potentially threatening major sources of energy we import. It highlights the fact that we cannot afford to keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year to foreign countries--many of which are not America's friends--to meet our energy needs. It poses a threat to our national security and further harms our Nation's struggling economy. This week we are considering two pieces of legislation that both deal with domestic production of oil and gas: the Reid proposal that aimed to stifle it, and one introduced by Leader McConnell that increases offshore production while improving the safety of offshore drilling operations. Unfortunately, the Reid proposal would have increased taxes on domestic production of oil and gas, which would have discouraged domestic drilling and resulted in the loss of many American jobs associated with the oil and gas industry. Without incentives to produce oil and gas in the United States, there is real risk that energy companies will take many of their drilling operations overseas. This goes directly against goals I know many of my Democratic colleagues share of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil and encouraging job growth. Moreover, as we watch gas prices rise, why would anyone want to impose new taxes on energy which will only further increase prices Americans pay at the pump? My colleagues across the aisle who support this legislation portray their proposal as a deficit-cutting measure. As much as anyone here, I recognize the importance of reducing our Federal deficit. But I do not support targeting one industry to bear the brunt of the deficit-cutting measures while others enjoy tax incentives. Rather than hindering domestic production of oil and gas, we must encourage the development of abundant energy resources we have right here inside the United States, and we must do so in an environmentally responsible manner. I was pleased the Reid proposal did not pass yesterday. As a cosponsor of Leader McConnell's Offshore Production and Safety Act, I will continue to support domestic oil and gas exploration and production. It is an essential component of a comprehensive energy policy that will enable America to become more energy independent. As I hear more reports of new oil and natural gas deposits found within our borders and off America's shores, I am stunned we are not doing more to encourage the development of these resources. I cannot think of a better means of improving our economy by both reducing America's energy imports and encouraging job growth. After the oilspill last year, the Obama administration reviewed its drilling and permitting process for domestic oil and gas production, and is still in the process of revising it. While changes clearly needed to be made, the Department of the Interior continues to hold up and unnecessarily delay approval of drilling leases and permits. Now is not the time to tie up valuable and much-needed American energy production in bureaucratic redtape. Senator McConnell's bill would actually streamline the permitting process while improving safety. A responsible energy policy that will make gas prices reasonable, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthen our economy will also result in increased domestic energy production, improved energy efficiency through technology, increased conservation, and a diversified energy supply through the use of renewable fuel sources. Along with supporting America's oil and gas development, we must also focus on other domestic energy sources--including nuclear energy, wind, clean coal, and solar power--that will allow us to achieve sustainable energy independence. I am hopeful that in the 112th Congress we will take on some form of comprehensive energy legislation. For the sake of our national security and our economy, we need to take this issue on now instead of kicking it down the road for others to handle. I encourage my colleagues to support the McConnell proposal. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to cloture on the nomination of James Cole to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Last December, I objected to further consideration of Mr. Cole's nomination because of the refusal of the Department of Justice, DOJ, to comply with reasonable document requests from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Unfortunately, the President decided to circumvent the Senate and recess-appointed Mr. Cole on December 29, 2010. Here we are 5 months later: the Justice Department is still thwarting the Intelligence committee's oversight. The documents we have requested all relate to the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force that made recommendations to the Administration on whether to transfer, release, or detain Gitmo detainees. Over 2 years ago, the committee became aware of rising recidivism rates among former Gitmo detainees. At that time, the rate was around 11 percent--it is now above 25 percent. Congress has a unique obligation to the American people to ensure that no more dangerous detainees are released from Gitmo, and that those who have been released do not resume their terrorist ways. Each one of the documents we are seeking is essential to understanding why the task force made certain recommendations about certain detainees, especially those detainees our intelligence professionals judged were too dangerous to transfer. The detainees remaining at Gitmo are among the worst of the worst, yet many are still designated for transfer. Given the upward trend in recidivism rates, the Intelligence Committee is reasonably concerned that some of the detainees who have been or may be transferred to third countries will reengage in terrorist activities. Lingering questions about the monitoring capabilities of countries that have accepted detainees add to these concerns. In making its recommendations, the task force operated under guidance and recommendations from the Attorney General. The Department of Justice, however, refuses to provide a September 2009 Attorney General memorandum that reportedly recommends that an entire category of detainees be presumed to be eligible for transfer. If classes of detainees are to be presumed to be eligible for transfer by DOJ, then I think the Intelligence Committee should know about it and why such guidance was considered appropriate. The Department has also refused to provide the Intelligence committee with the task force's recommendations for the disposition of the detainees. The task force documents we have been given have entire portions of their recommendations blacked out. This is no way to conduct oversight and it certainly puts the committee at a disadvantage in trying to understand why transfer decisions were made. Interestingly, the Department has provided the recommendations made by review boards during the previous administration. As with the September 2009 memorandum, the Department argues against giving this information to Congress because of ``deliberative process.'' That assertion may work in a FOIA case or in the context of executive privilege, but there is no legal basis for using it to deny congressional oversight, especially where the documents pertain to national security matters. It is time for the Justice Department to abandon this baseless argument and give us the documents. The Intelligence committee is also waiting for a list of the 92 detainees who were approved for transfer as of August 28, 2009, prior to the application of the September 2009 memorandum. The Department indicated in November 2010 that the list would be provided, but the committee has yet to receive it. Last Friday, we heard from the Department for the first time in months, wanting to work something out on the documents in advance of the cloture vote on the Cole nomination. This is a bit ironic, considering that letters and e-mails from last year have gone unanswered. The best thing they can do now is to honor our request and give us the documents that we have requested. The Department's obstruction of a congressional review is not the only reason I am opposing cloture. Mr. Cole still has not explained comments he made about the 9/11 attacks. In September 2002, he wrote an op-ed in which he called these attacks ``criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population.'' Following this logic, he diminished 9/ 11 to being no more than ``the scourge of the drug trade, the reign of organized crime, and countless acts of rape, child abuse, and murder.'' He also argued that the protections of our criminal justice system ``must be applied to everyone to be effective.'' I could not disagree more with this statement--no terrorist deserves the benefits of our criminal justice system. Mr. Cole has neither rejected these comments, nor really explained why he made them. Until he does so, I have to question his judgment and his suitability to be the second-in-command at the Justice Department. It is for these reasons, I cannot support cloture on the nomination of Mr. Cole at this time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me just say that California wine being a favorite of mine, I am available any time. Thanks for those kind comments. Let me just say to my good friend from California what a pleasure it has been to work with her. The Intelligence Committee has always been a very bipartisan committee, and nobody exhibits that more so than our current chairman, Dianne Feinstein. She is tough when she needs to be tough, and she is fair at all times. She and I have a unique relationship in contrast to the other committees in the Senate in that we jointly hire all of our staff, and she has been extremely cooperative to me in the hiring process. Again, she has just been a pleasure to work with. I have to say that Dianne and I have been on the committee together for several years, and I am very proud of the work our committee has done and our relationship with the intelligence community. One of the big reasons we have the successes that we had on Sunday in the takedown of bin Laden is because of the oversight that Dianne and others have carried out on the Intelligence Committee and because of our relationship with the community. It is not a combative relationship. We have the Director of the CIA, the heads of NSA, the DNI, and others on a regular basis both formally and informally. All of that is done under Dianne's leadership. Those are the times when we found out the needs of the intelligence community. Had they not exhibited that and had the Senator not provided the right kind of leadership, they would not have had all of the tools necessary to carry out this very important and very sophisticated mission. So thanks for your great work. Thanks for your friendship. I look forward to that glass of California wine. I rise today in support of the resolution with respect to the takedown of Osama bin Laden and also to praise the men and women of our intelligence and our military communities with regard to Sunday's successful operation. We have been pursuing the world's most infamous terrorist for over a decade, but it was ultimately the hard work and tireless dedication of these professional men and women that led to this significant achievement. I am always proud of our military and intelligence men and women, but most especially today I am truly proud of their great work. As we approach the 10-year anniversary of September 11, I am thankful that the families and loved ones of the victims of 9/11, as well as all Americans, can have some closure. The leader of al-Qaida and murderer of thousands of Americans and allies can never again sponsor a terrorist attack. It is also important to point out that this operation was made possible by information provided by enemy combatants that had been detained and interrogated by the United States. There has been a lot of debate in this country about our detention and interrogation policy, but this is probably one of the clearest examples of the extraordinary value of the information we have been able to gather from the CIA's detention and interrogation program. If we had not had access to this information, Osama bin Laden would likely still be operating undetected today. It is because of the information gained from these detainees, pursued and analyzed over the years by the intelligence community, that led us to bin Laden's compound. It is almost unimaginable that he was located not in a cave in a Pakistani no man's land, but in a city just miles outside of Islamabad with a large Pakistani Government and military presence. This is an amazing achievement and one that will be remembered for decades, but we must remember that al-Qaida is a diffuse and decentralized network that continues to threaten Americans both at home and abroad. A number of dangerous leaders associated with al-Qaida, including Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar al-Aulaqi, are still out there, no doubt plotting their next attack as we speak. We also face a growing number of threats from other radical organizations and individuals, including homegrown terrorists and extremists. Although bin Laden's death is an enormous blow to al-Qaida, we must make sure we remain vigilant in all our efforts to defeat terrorism and never lose sight of our objectives, which is not the death of one man, but the dismantling of all terrorist networks that seek to do us harm. In closing, I want to again thank our intelligence professionals and military personnel for their service and dedication. I also want to remind everyone that while this is our greatest success to date in our efforts to combat al-Qaida, we still have a lot of work to do and cannot rest until all of that work is done. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Defense Intelligence Agency and a resolution that Chairman Feinstein and I have introduced in honor of DIA's 50th Anniversary. The Defense Intelligence Agency is an integral part of the Department of Defense, our combatant commands, and the intelligence community. I want to congratulate the Agency and its employees on the approaching 50th Anniversary. The Defense Intelligence Agency was established in 1961 under Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara following a national debate on defense reorganization after World War II. McNamara, acting on recommendations of a Joint Study Group appointed by President Eisenhower, created the DIA to consolidate and integrate military intelligence efforts. DIA began operations on October 1, 1961 with only a handful of employees in borrowed office space in the Pentagon. Shortly after its inception, DIA was thrust into the Cold War where DIA's analysts played a key role in the discovery of ballistic missiles in Cuba. However, the fledgling agency faced several early hurdles in the 60's including the Vietnam War and the Soviet Union's invasion of Czechoslovakia. In the 70's and 80's, DIA focused much of its attention on providing intelligence on the Soviet Union, but was finally coming of age as it was assigned support responsibilities to our combatant commanders under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act. The 90's brought Operation DESERT STORM and bolstered DIA's mission as a Combat Support Agency with U.S. and United Nations forces in places such as Somalia, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, and Kosovo. The emergence of radical Islamic movements such as al-Qaida and the terrorist attacks of September 11th have ushered in a new era of integration and cooperation in military intelligence. The intelligence community has faced significant challenges and reorganization in recent years, but DIA has stepped up to meet these challenges head-on. DIA has worked diligently to deter, detect, and prevent acts of terror by providing intelligence to U.S. and coalition forces in support of the Global War on Terror, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, DIA has over 16,000 employees worldwide and has become an integral part of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. I want to thank them for their service to our country and all that they do for our warfighters, planners, and policymakers. I am sure that all of my colleagues will join me in congratulating them on their upcoming 50th Anniversary.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, to commend to this body the confirmation of two judges who have been nominated by President Obama for the Northern District of Georgia. First of all, Amy Totenberg is an Atlanta lawyer who certainly has the academic credentials that have prepared her well--a graduate of both Radcliffe College and Harvard and also Harvard Law School. She began law practice in Atlanta in 1977 with the Law Project and then went out on her own for 20 years. During her time as a solo practitioner, she specialized in constitutional rights litigation and also became a well-known arbitrator and mediator, particularly in employment and civil rights cases. She served as a court-appointed monitor and mediator for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has served as a special master for the U.S. District Court in Maryland on an institutional education reform case. Ms. Totenberg has a wealth of experience on that issue, having served as general counsel to the city of Atlanta's Board of Education from 1994 to 1998 and also having served as a part-time municipal court judge in Atlanta for several years. She also has been an adjunct professor at Emory University Law School. She has been deeply involved in her community. In addition to her legal activities, Ms. Totenberg has been a member of the State Personnel Boards, served as a member of the Governor's Education Reform Commission, and given her time to Hands On Atlanta, the city's largest volunteer service program. I commend Ms. Totenberg for confirmation today as her name comes before this body. Steve Jones has been a friend for a long time. He is a guy who, if you had to pick a jurist, you would want to go before whether you are a lawyer, a defendant, or a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. Steve Jones is a native of Athens, GA, and attended the University of Georgia both as an undergraduate and as a graduate of the law school. He began his legal career as assistant district attorney before becoming a municipal court judge. In 1995, he was appointed to the superior court bench for the Western Judicial Circuit, which covers both Clarke and Oconee Counties, two of the fastest growing counties in our State. In his capacity as a superior court judge, Steve presided over both criminal and civil cases. He has also supervised the circuit's felony drug court for 6 years. His list of honors and awards is truly too numerous to mention here for this body, but he has been awarded the State Bar of Georgia's Distinguished Judicial Service Award, Georgia Legal Services Program's Georgia Justice Builder Award, the University of Georgia President's Fulfilling the Dream Award, the Boy Scouts of America Distinguished Citizen Award, the Chief Justice Robert Benham Award for community service beyond official work, and the Julian Bond Humanitarian Award. He has been very active in the Athens and Clark County communities. Steve is a wonderful person, a great family man, a great community citizen, and an outstanding jurist. He is going to make a truly outstanding district court judge on the northern district court in Atlanta. I yield to my colleague, Senator Isakson.