Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, the Mercer Engineering Research Center, or MERC, is the nonprofit, research and applied engineering arm of Mercer University, a private university founded in 1833 and located in a state-of-the-art research facility in Warner Robins, GA; just a short drive from Robins Air Force Base. For over 175 years, the University has served Georgia as a highly respected educational institution. In 1984, the School of Engineering was established at the Macon, GA, campus with the charter class beginning studies in 1985. Two years later, MERC was established under the School of Engineering to provide locally available engineering and scientific services with critical specialized skills to the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, while simultaneously providing a workload support-base to the Mercer School of Engineering in its development of high-technology skills in the Middle Georgia area. MERC has a highly qualified professional staff, complex tools and test equipment, and extensive technical capability in the fields of aircraft structural analysis and design, flight test instrumentation, reverse engineering and prototyping, laboratory structural testing, electronic warfare software algorithm development, web deployed applications with integrated database access, industrial engineering and logistics. MERC also employs engineering interns providing an avenue for students to get real world, Air Force-related experience, and today they are the largest source of entry-level engineers for Robins Air Force Base while also providing superior support to all other military services, large and small business, and other research agencies. MERC has been able to maintain a successful, strategic relationship with Robins Air Force Base because of its Ph.D-level knowledge of sponsors' requirements and problems; its developing capability; its broad corporate knowledge and quick response capability; independence and objectivity; freedom from conflicts of interest; and lower costs. Their demonstrated ability to provide efficient, cost effective solutions to pressing research and development problems established MERC as the preferred source of real solutions to real problems Over the last few years, however, the Air Force and the Robins Air Force Base Small Business Office have emphasized increasing the percentage of small business contract awards; an initiative not without merit for sure. However, their interpretation and application of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, or FAR, has resulted in MERC essentially being barred from providing contracted services the likes of which they have provided with unmatched efficiency and significant savings for the Air Force for almost 30 years. Since nonprofit research organizations by definition cannot be small businesses, they are excluded by law from competing for small business set-asides. However, the FAR offers seven equal and independent statutory authorities the U.S. government can apply which authorize, under certain conditions, contracting without providing for full and open competition. Senior Air Force leadership at Robins Air Force Base have long supported the use of those exceptions, specifically, the so-called ``Exception Three'' which allowed for contacting without providing for full and open competition ``when it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source or sources in order to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center.'' That application of the FAR allowed Robins AFB to maintain the essential engineering capabilities of MERC to augment their own because under FAR Exception Three, MERC received sole source contracts when their expertise, flexibility and lower costs demanded it. In recent years, however, the Small Business Office at Robins Air Force Base has approved the use of only one of the FAR exceptions, that being when ``only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.'' This application of the FAR, or misapplication if you will, makes it virtually impossible for the Robins Air Force Base to award certain contracts to any entity other than small businesses. It translates to higher costs and greater inefficiencies. Robins Air Force Base continues to seek MERC's unique expertise and essential engineering skills, but is forced to pass money through small and large businesses to MERC adding time and cost to the product/service delivery. By demanding more awards go to small businesses, the government also suffers a loss of intellectual property, IP, since MERC transfers ownership of all said property back to the U.S. Government, while small businesses can retain IP for future revenue. You would be hard pressed to find any bigger supporter of small businesses in the Senate than myself. However, when it comes to ensuring our men and women fighting overseas for our freedom have what they need to get the job done, there are only three things I care about: cost, schedule, and performance. Our men and women in uniform deserve that. In this era of defense spending austerity, the Air Force can ill afford the unintended consequences of precluding entities that supply vital complex engineering solutions, along with the added benefit of cross pollination of educational experience between government employees, both civilian and military, and the best in the academic engineering community, from receiving business simply to meet a set- aside quota. This issue is about ensuring Robins Air Force Base maintains essential engineering capabilities to supplement their own and their ability to swiftly and inexpensively select the most capable organization to provide the best product or service at the best value to the government. The Small Business Office at Warner Robins, in their attempt to carry out the Air Forces' broader goal of increasing small businesses participation, is jeopardizing the very survival of institutions provided for and protected by the FAR. By selectively applying the FAR exceptions, the Air Force is ignoring the intent of the acquisition regulations. It is certain to destroy these few vital educational links between academic institutions and government engineers that need that level of expertise. More importantly, by ignoring FAR Exception Three, the government is limiting its ability to pursue the best solutions at the best price. We can ill-afford such consequences in this period of economic austerity, simply in the name of fostering the growth of small businesses. I was encouraged in September when the Air Force took a step in the right direction with their approval of a Justification and Approval, J&A, for the use of other than full and open competition for an engineering, research and development contract in support of technologies and methodologies applicable to aging aircraft and support equipment. The contract will maintain essential engineering, research, and development capabilities at Robins AFB through support provided by MERC. I am hopeful this recent development is indicative of a new way of doing business at Warner Robins. In case it is not, I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to remain vigilant in their oversight responsibilities, and I renew my call to the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure local commands apply the FAR as written so as to guarantee our men and women in uniform have exactly what they need, when they need it, and at a price that is in keeping with our responsibilities as stewards of the American tax dollar.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we have all just heard a very moving, a very inspirational and what I considered a motivational speech from our dear friend Tom Coburn. Twenty years ago, in 1994, there were a bunch of wild and crazy folks who got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. The Republicans took the majority for the first time in 42 years. They ran on a Contract with America and were led by a group of firebrand leaders. Tom Coburn was in that group of folks who got elected in 1994 to the U.S. House. I was in that group. Senator Graham was in that group. Senator Burr was in that group. Senator Wicker was in that group. There were a few Members of that class who became known as real bomb throwers. Tom Coburn was a bomb thrower. Tom Coburn would object for the sake of objecting to anything that was going on. It didn't make any difference which side of the aisle it was coming from. But let me tell you, Tom Coburn matured into a class act, No. 1, which he always was; and No. 2, he matured into a legislator second to none. Tom did not hesitate to object to any spending bill that came from either party if Tom Coburn believed that was not provided for in the Constitution and was something the U.S. taxpayer should not be paying for. There is nobody who has guarded the pocketbook of the taxpayers of the United States like Tom Coburn. It is remarkable that those of us who were elected with Tom have had the opportunity to see him over the last 20 years take on major subjects that most veterans said, you know, in the end, we are going to prevail. But guess what. They never did. Tom Coburn, even though he may have lost a vote from time to time, in the end, Tom Coburn prevailed. Tom is one tough guy too. He has been through a lot physically and, boy, what a survivor. I mean we think we have issues to deal with. None of us can imagine what Tom has gone through. When somebody comes up to me as I am walking through an airport--and they will have seen Tom Coburn on TV--and they say: What about this guy Coburn, there are two things that immediately come to mind when I think of Tom Coburn, family and faith. First, family. Tom and Carolyn have had such a solid marriage. He tried to date her as an eighth grader and she wouldn't go out with him. But he kept pestering her long enough that she finally did and what a great marriage they have had. They have three beautiful daughters and a household of grandchildren whom he absolutely loves to death and likes to spend time with, as opposed to being here. Secondly, Tom's faith. There is nobody I have ever met who has a stronger faith than Tom Coburn. He exhibits it on the floor, he exhibits it one-on-one, he exhibits it in the Prayer Breakfast every Wednesday morning. He is one person who has probably counseled more people in this body, on both sides of the aisle, than anybody other than the Chaplain. On top of that, he is just a class act. He has been a dear friend. We have spent many hours on the road together, many hours on the golf course together and socializing together. There is no finer individual who ever served in the Senate than Tom Coburn. He is one of the things I am truly going to miss about leaving here. But actually, as we have already talked, we will probably now spend more time together than ever since both of us are retiring. But, Tom, to you, I thank you for that great friendship but also thank you for what you have done for my children and my grandchildren. You are a great American and you have served this country well. God bless you.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lewis Sorvillo, my defense legislative fellow, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the NDAA and/or the 113th Congress.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as my service in the Senate comes to an end, I rise today to say thank you to some of the wonderful people who have been part of a great ride for over 20 years. We as Americans are fortunate to live in the greatest country in the world; a country where the American dream is still alive and well; a country where, in spite of all of our problems, we are the envy of the free world; a country where a preacher's kid from rural southern Georgia can rise to be elected to the House of Representatives and then to the Senate. We as Members of the Senate are fortunate to have the opportunity to serve. We are blessed to be able to work in such a historic venue as we are in this afternoon. As we come into our offices and into this building every day, there are some things we take for granted. So to the entire Capitol Hill workforce, from those who clean our offices, to those who change the lightbulbs, provide our food, maintain our subways, keep us safe and secure, and to all of those in between, I say thank you. You are very professional in what you do, and you always do it with a smile. To the floor staff and the cloakroom staff for both the majority and the minority, thanks for putting in the long hours, listening to often boring speeches, reminding us when we have not voted, scheduling floor time, reminding us of the rules, and making sure our mistakes are at a minimum. I am fortunate to have been surrounded by great staff during all of my 20 years in the House and Senate, mostly young people from varied backgrounds who are the brightest minds my State and my country have to offer. They are committed patriots and loyal to the core. To those current and former members of my staff, thank you for your service to me and to the State of Georgia. I have been served by four chiefs of staff: Rob Leebern, Krister Holladay, Charlie Harman, and Camila Knowles. Every office plan that each one of them put together starts with providing better constituent service than any other Member of the House or the Senate. I am extremely proud that our record shows we achieve the goal of doing just that. I have even had government agency personnel call my office asking for guidance on cases from other offices. I have often said that my greatest satisfaction from this job comes not from negotiating major pieces of legislation but from being able to help Georgians with difficulties they are experiencing and having a positive impact on their lives. I am particularly blessed to have three members of my staff who have been with me for all 20 years. My deputy chief Teresa Ervin, Debbie Cannon, and Bill Stembridge have walked every mile with me and have been so valuable. Thanks, guys. My greatest support comes from my family. My wife Julianne, my daughter Lia and her husband Joe, my son Bo and his wife Bess, along with our grandchildren--John, Parker, Jay, Kimbrough, Anderson, and Ellie--have all been somehow involved on the campaign trial. Come the 28th day of this month, Julianne and I will have been married for 48 years, having met at the University of Georgia a couple of years before that. For tolerating a husband who had a 24/7 job for 20 years, for being a single mom part of that time, and for understanding why I could not get home until Christmas Eve some years, I say thank you, sweetheart. I am privileged today to represent almost 10 million Georgians who are the most wonderful people God ever put on this earth. I lost my first primary election and went on to win each of my next seven races. I won every one of those seven races because I shared the values of my constituents, I outworked each of my opponents, and I had better ideas and the best advisers and staff. Thanks, Tom and Paige. Thanks to Senators Nunn and Miller for their regular advice and counsel. Thanks to my three leaders, Senator Lott, Senator Frist, and Senator McConnell, each of whom provided me with strong leadership and always listened to me even when I had ideas that might have been different from their ideas. I am often asked what I will miss most about the Senate. The answer is very easy. I will miss my friends and the relationships we have developed over the years. Senator Isakson and I entered the University of Georgia 52 years ago in September and became friends immediately. We have been the dearest of friends ever since. He is without question the most trusted friend and adviser I have. I will miss our daily conversations. My three best buddies from my House days, Speaker John Boehner, Congressman Tom Latham, and Senator Richard Burr, along with Senator Tom Coburn, have been the legislative collaborators, dinner partners, golfing buddies, confidants, and numerous other things that should not be mentioned on the floor of the Senate. Senator Lindsey Graham is like a member of my family. We have traveled the world together many times, hearing a lot. I have no plans to write a book, but if I did, Lindsey Graham's anecdotes would fill a chapter. Senator Feinstein has been a great chairman and partner on the Intelligence Committee. I will miss her leadership, her wisdom, her friendship, and those late-afternoon glasses of California wine. My most productive time in the Senate has been spent with my dear friend Senator Mark Warner. Our work with the Gang of 6, which included Senators Durbin, Conrad, Coburn, Crapo, and then later Senators Johanns and Bennet, represents the very best of everything about the Senate. We spent, literally, hundreds of hours together debating ideas and trying to solve major problems, and we came very close. Senator Warner's insight, his wanting to solve problems, and his political inspiration are lessons that I will carry with me forever. As the Senate now goes forward under new leadership, I have two comments. First, the Senate should return to regular order. Senator McConnell has indicated that will be the case, and it should be. The rule change by the current majority changed the institution of the Senate in a negative way. I hope the rule is changed back to require 60 votes on all issues, including judges and nominees. Some of those most vocal favoring the rules change lost their elections, and while the rules change did not cost them their election, it is very clear that the American people wanted a change in the leadership that changed the rule. Regular order will help in restoring trust and confidence to the world's most deliberative body. Second, it is imperative that the issue of the debt of this country be addressed. Just last week our total debt surpassed $18 trillion. We cannot leave the astronomical debt our policies have generated for our children and grandchildren to fix. It is not rocket science; it is what must be done. Cutting spending alone--for example, sequestration--is not the solution. Raising taxes is not the solution. As Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin and the Gang of 6 all agreed, it will take a combination of spending reduction, entitlement reform, and tax reform to stimulate more revenue. Hard and tough votes will have to be taken, but that is why we get elected to the Senate. The world is waiting for America to lead on this issue. If we do, the U.S. economy will respond in a very robust way. The Gang of 6 laid the foundation for this problem to be solved, and it is my hope that we do not leave the solution for the next generation. I close with what I have enjoyed most about Congress, and that is the opportunity that I have had to spend with the men and women in uniform and those in the intelligence world, all of whom are willing to put their lives in harm's way for the sake of our freedom. Whether it was Robins Air Force Base, Kabul, Ramadi, Jalalabad, Khowst or Dubai, I always get emotional telling the men and women how proud I am of them and how blessed we as Americans are to have them protecting us. They are special people who sacrificed much for the sake of all 300 million Americans. Let us also remember and be thankful for the families of those military and civilian personnel who likewise make a commitment to America. As we head into another Christmas season, many of those families will not have at home their spouse, their parent, their son or their daughter. May God bless them. May God bless this great institution, and may God continue to bless our great country. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise and second what my friend and colleague from Arizona said. It has been a privilege of mine to serve in this body for 12 years-- and I will be making some comments about that tomorrow--but during my early years in the Senate the Secretary of Agriculture was Secretary Mike Johanns. Being a very active member of the Agriculture Committee and being chairman for 2 years during then-Secretary Johann's tenure, I had the opportunity to work with Mike on a day-to-day basis and, boy, what a pleasure it is to work with one of the finest gentlemen and public servants I have ever known. He is smart, and he is political when he needs to be political, but he has as much or more common sense as, again, any public servant I have ever known. For the past 6 years, he has been my next-door neighbor in the Russell building, so we see a lot of each other coming and going and have the opportunity to visit on a regular basis. As I leave at the end of this term, one of the real Members of the Senate I am going to miss is Mike Johanns. I publicly thank him for his service and thank him for his commitment. I wish him and Stephanie the best, but what I really thank him for is the great friendship he and I developed over the years.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today as the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to respond to the public release of the declassified version of the executive summary and findings and conclusions from the committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. This is not a pleasant duty for me. During my 4 years as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have enjoyed an excellent relationship with our chairman, Senator Dianne Feinstein. We have worked closely to conduct strong bipartisan oversight of the U.S. intelligence community, including the passage and enactment of significant national security legislation. However, this particular study has been one of the very, very few areas where we have never been able to see eye-to-eye. Putting this report out today is going to have significant consequences. In addition to reopening a number of old wounds both domestically and internationally, it could be used to incite unrest and even attacks against our servicemembers, other personnel overseas, and our international partners. This report could also stoke additional mistreatment or death for American or other Western captives overseas. It will endanger CIA personnel, sources, and future intelligence operations. This report will damage our relationship with several significant international counterterrorism partners at a time when we can least afford it. Even worse, despite the fact that the administration and many in the majority are aware of these consequences, they have chosen to release the report today. The United States today is faced with a wide array of security challenges across the globe, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, north Africa, Somalia, Ukraine, and the list goes on. Instead of focusing on the problems right in front of us, the majority side of the Intelligence Committee has spent the last 5 years and over $40 million focused on a program that effectively ended over 8 years ago, while the world around us burns. In March 2009, when the committee first undertook the study, I was the only member of the Intelligence Committee who voted against moving forward with it. I believed then, as I still do today, that vital committee and intelligence community resources would be squandered over a debate that Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court had already settled. This issue has been investigated or reviewed extensively by the executive branch, including criminal investigations by the Department of Justice, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as other entities. Congress has passed two separate acts directly related to detention and interrogation issues--specifically, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The executive branch terminated the CIA program and directed that future interrogations be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. Also, the Supreme Court decided Rasul v. Bush in 2004, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, as well as Boumediene v. Bush in 2008, all of which established that detainees were entitled to habeas corpus review and identified certain deficiencies in both the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. By the time I became the vice chairman, the minority had already withdrawn from active participation in the study as a result of Attorney General Holder's decision to reopen the criminal inquiry related to the interrogation of certain detainees in the CIA's detention program. This unfortunate decision deprived the committee of the ability to interview key witnesses who participated in the CIA program and essentially limited the committee's study to the review of a cold documentary record. Now, how can any credible investigation take place without interviewing witnesses? This is a 6,000-page report, and not one single witness was ever interviewed in this study being done. This is a poor excuse for the type of oversight the Congress should be conducting. There is no doubt that the CIA's detention and interrogation program--which was hastily executed in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in our Nation's history--had flaws. The CIA has admitted as much in its June 27, 2013, response to the study. There is also no doubt that there were instances in which CIA interrogators exceeded their authorities and certain detainees may have suffered as a result. However, the executive summary and findings and conclusions released today contain a disturbing number of factual and analytical errors. These factual and analytical shortfalls ultimately led to an unacceptable number of incorrect claims and invalid conclusions that I cannot endorse. The study essentially refuses to admit that CIA detainees--especially CIA detainees subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques--provided intelligence information which helped the U.S. Government and its allies to neutralize numerous terrorist threats. On its face, this refusal does not make sense given the vast amount of information gained from these interrogations, the thousands of intelligence reports that were generated as a result of them, the capture of additional terrorists, and the disruption of the plots those captured terrorists were planning. Instead of acknowledging these realities, the study adopts an analytical approach designed to obscure the value of the intelligence obtained from the program. For example, the study falsely claims that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques played ``no role'' in the identification of Jose Padilla because Abu Zubaydah, a senior member of Al Qaeda with direct ties to Osama bin Laden, provided the information about Padilla during an interrogation by FBI agents who were ``exclusively'' using what is called ``rapport-building'' techniques against him more than 3 months prior to the CIA's ``use of DOJ-approved enhanced interrogation techniques.'' What the study ignores, however, is the fact that Abu Zubaydah's earlier interrogation in April of 2002 actually did involve the use of interrogation techniques that were later included in the list of enhanced interrogation techniques. Specifically, the facts demonstrate that Abu Zubaydah was subjected to ``around the clock'' interrogation that included more than 4 days of dietary manipulation, nudity, and more than 126 hours--which is about 5 days--of sleep deprivation during a 136-hour period by the time the FBI finished up the 8.5-hour interrogation shift in which Abu Zubaydah finally yielded the identification of Jose Padilla. So during a 5-day time period, Abu Zubaydah got less than 10 hours of sleep, yet the majority does not acknowledge that this was an enhanced interrogation. In light of these facts, the study's claims that the FBI was exclusively using ``rapport- building'' techniques is nothing short of being dishonest. More important, the actionable intelligence gleaned from the enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah that started in April of 2002 served as the foundation for the capture of additional terrorists and the disruption of the plots those captured terrorists were planning. His information was also used to gather additional actionable intelligence from these newly captured terrorists, which in turn led to a series of successful capture operations and plot disruptions. By the study's own count, the numerous interrogations of Abu Zubaydah resulted in 766 sole-source disseminated intelligence reports. That is an awful lot of actionable intelligence collected under the CIA program that this study tries to quietly sweep under the carpet in an effort to support its false headline that the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques was not effective. The study also overlooks several crucial intelligence successes that prevented terror attacks against the United States and our allies around the world. Al Qaeda-affiliated extremists subjected to the program's enhanced interrogation techniques made admissions that led to the identification of the man responsible for plotting the September 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or KSM. The program also helped stop terrorist attacks in the U.S. homeland and against our military forces overseas. Al Qaeda affiliate Abu Zubaydah's statements to interrogators led to the identification of Jose Padilla--an Al Qaeda operative tasked with conducting a terrorist attack inside the United States. The interrogation of KSM and Guleed Hassan Ahmed disrupted Al Qaeda's plotting against Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, a critical base of operations in the war on terror in Africa and at that time home to some 1,600 U.S. military personnel. There is no telling how many lives this program saved in those particular interrogations alone. Intelligence gathered under the detention and interrogation program also prevented terrorist attacks on our allies in the United Kingdom. Terrorist plots against London's Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf--a major London financial center--were disrupted because key conspirators were apprehended and questioned on the basis of intelligence gathered using several interrogation techniques, including enhanced interrogation techniques. Finally, information from detainees held in the program was critical to ascertaining the true significance of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, the Al Qaeda facilitator who served as Osama bin Laden's personal courier and the man who ultimately lead CIA intelligence analysts and the Navy Seals to bin Laden himself. For anyone interested in a nice, chronological survey of the significant intelligence gained from the program and how it was used to capture additional terrorists and disrupt terrorist plots, I would invite my colleagues to read two pages of our minority views. Pages 96 and 97 delineate exactly a chronology of significant intelligence that allowed for the takedown of individuals. It seems as though the study takes every opportunity to unfairly portray the CIA in the worst light possible, presupposing improper motivations and the most detestable behavior at every turn. The very enemies whom the program helped keep at bay for all of those years, as well as adversarial nations, will be able to exploit what is essentially a dangerously insightful and instructive treasure trove of information about our intelligence operations. I am all for pointing out and correcting problems with the intelligence community and I have been very outspoken on some of them, but I prefer our oversight be conducted quietly and in a manner that does not jeopardize the national security of the United States. Ultimately, our minority views examined eight of the study's most problematic conclusions, many of which attack the CIA's integrity and credibility in developing and implementing the program. These problematic claims and conclusions created the false impression that the CIA was actively misleading policymakers and impeding the counterterrorism efforts of other Federal Government agencies during the program's operation. We found these claims and conclusions were largely not supported by the documentary record and were based upon flawed reasoning. Specifically, we found that: No. 1, the CIA's detention and interrogation program was effective and produced valuable and actionable intelligence. No. 2, most of the CIA's claims of effectiveness with respect to the use of EITs were accurate. No. 3, the CIA attempted to keep the Congress informed of its activities and did so on a regular basis. As a member of the committee, I can attest to that. No. 4, the CIA did not impede White House oversight. The White House was very involved in doing oversight of the program. No. 5, the CIA was not responsible nor did it have control over sharing or dissemination of information to other executive branch agencies or to members of the Principals Committee. No. 6, many of the study's claims about the CIA providing inaccurate information to the Department of Justice were themselves totally inaccurate. No. 7, the CIA did not significantly impede oversight by the CIA Office of the Inspector General. No. 8, the White House determined that the CIA would have the lead on dealing with the media regarding detainees. These findings are not meant as a defense of the CIA. The CIA is fully capable of defending its own actions, and I know it will do so. Rather, these findings are a critique of certain aspects of this particular study. As a general rule, I want our committee findings, conclusions, and recommendations to be unassailable in every investigation we conduct. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and I am very concerned about the unintended consequences that will result from the study's erroneous and inflammatory conclusions. I imagine some members of the media may choose to repeat the study's false headlines contained in the report without checking the underlying facts. By doing so they will only be damaging their own credibility. I invite anyone who reads the study's executive summary and findings and conclusions to pay particular attention to how often the text uses absolutes, such as ``played no role,'' ``no connection'' or ``no indication.'' Please then read our minority views to find the clear counter examples that disprove most of these absolute claims. I suspect the readers who make this effort will be disappointed, as I was, that this study makes so many inaccurate claims and conclusions. Our minority views also explain how this study was crippled by numerous procedural irregularities that hampered the committee's ability to conduct a fair and objective review of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. These procedural defects resulted in a premature committee vote in December of 2012 to approve the study before the text was adequately reviewed by the committee membership or subjected to a routine fact check by the intelligence community. Typically, once a Senate committee report has been approved, staff are only authorized to make technical and conforming changes. The executive summary and findings and conclusions released this week have undergone such extensive and unprecedented revisions since the study was approved back in December of 2012 that the traditional concept of technical and conforming changes has now been rendered meaningless. Amazingly, the majority made significant changes in the substance of the study for months after it was voted on by the committee. In addition, after we submitted our minority views, the majority staff then went back and made a few changes to specifically correct some of the more blatant errors that we identified in the views and that the CIA identified in their review. While I am pleased our views led to some minor improvements in the study, those untimely changes required us to add text explaining the validity of our initial conclusions and criticisms. Simply put, the documents released today are very different from the documents that were approved almost exactly 2 years ago by the committee at the end of the last Congress on a partisan basis. Another significant weakness of this study is its disregard of the context under which the CIA's detention and interrogation program was developed. It is critical to remember that the intelligence community was inundated by a surge of terrorist threat reporting after the September 11 attacks. The fear of a follow-on attack was pervasive, and it was genuine. The Nation was traumatized by the horrific murders of nearly 3,000 Americans and at the CIA there was no greater imperative than stopping another attack from happening. This context is entirely absent from the study. In addition, everyone must remember that the CIA was directed to conduct this program by the President. I have spoken with a number of CIA officers over the years who remember the contentious debates about the program at the time it was being considered, but at the end of the day the Agency did what the President directed them to do under the color of law and based upon opinions issued and updated by the Department of Justice. Many of my colleagues continue to discuss the brutality of many of the enhanced interrogation techniques. I agree that waterboarding, which only occurred against three detainees, is particularly severe. Many of the other techniques were not. By comparison, KSM, who was one of the detainees who was subjected to waterboarding, personally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and a number of other U.S. citizens have been tortured and beheaded by Al Qaeda- inspired groups since. In my opinion, the current threat level posed by ISIL and other Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups may be greater today than what we faced prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They are better funded, better equipped, and have recruited hundreds of terrorists who have American as well as European passports. ISIL terrorists are using social media to encourage new recruits to conduct ``lone wolf'' attacks in their home countries such as the United States. They are murdering and beheading captured hostages and planning terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. In light of these significant threats, the President is still attempting to make good on a misguided campaign promise to close down Guantanamo Bay. It doesn't seem to matter to him that we are now down to the worst of the worst or that his own review groups have strongly recommended against the release of these remaining terrorists. Instead, he has returned to the pre-9/11 practice of treating terrorists like ordinary criminals. We are reading terrorists their Miranda rights instead of conducting extended intelligence interrogations to develop actionable intelligence that might lead to additional captures or plot disruptions. I think we would be better off if we were to return to a mindset where we attempt to capture the enemy and use authorized interrogation techniques to obtain the actionable intelligence information needed to neutralize these dangerous terrorist organizations. While there is no doubt there were indeed moments during the CIA detention and interrogation program where interrogators exceeded their authorized limits, such instances were relatively few and far between. In this, my last week of service on the floor of the U.S. Senate and as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I wish to thank the men and women of the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community and the members of our Armed Forces who have served us so well since the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks. Their efforts and their sacrifices have not gone unnoticed. I will be forever grateful for their patriotic service to our beloved country. May God bless them all and may God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, to discuss an issue that has been spoken about on this floor over the last several years many times, but it continues to be a problem. The Senator from New Hampshire has been very focused, as have I, on this issue, which is the release of detainees from Guantanamo and the fact that we know that not only are there dangerous individuals there who should not be released, but we also know these individuals are returning to the fight, and they are scheming and planning and intending to do harm to America and Americans. So we wish to visit this issue again. I wish to start off by saying that it is well-founded in our Nation's history that the United States has the authority to hold enemy combatants until the end of hostilities in order to prevent their return to the battlefield. For the past several years, each National Defense Authorization Act that has been signed into law by the President has recognized this principle and made clear that any Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, whether foreign or American, who takes up arms against the United States can be held under the law of war. Because Congress authorized the use of military force against these terrorists shortly after they attacked us on September 11, 2001, detention within a military framework is often the best means of collecting valuable intelligence to prevent further terrorist attacks, while ensuring they remain on the sidelines for the duration of the conflict. There are fundamental failures of the administration in the war against terrorism. First, when the President announced the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo in January of 2009, he left our Nation without a clear policy for detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. Without such a policy, including one that identifies a facility for holding terrorists who are captured outside of Afghanistan, the intelligence community's ability to conduct ongoing intelligence operations has been severely limited. Second and even more alarming is the ill-advised release of these Gitmo detainees back to the battlefields from which they came. I would suggest to the Senator from New Hampshire that we are doing material harm to our national security efforts by purging the Guantanamo facility, particularly without a long-term plan for guaranteed monitoring, and I know she is going to address this issue. In fact, those who remain at Guantanamo Bay today are not low-level fighters who were in the wrong place at the wrong time; they are some of the most hardened, determined extremists we have encountered and remain singularly focused on bringing violence to the United States and our allies. Shockingly, many of the detainees who are being transferred were determined to be too dangerous to transfer by the administration's own Guantanamo Review Task Force. Yet many of them are still being transferred. I have been to Guantanamo on several different occasions, the most recent time being about 3 months ago. I can attest once again that these truly are the most hardened and the most dangerous terrorists who exist today, particularly who are, obviously, in captivity. As we see these individuals on the screen, in their cells, we can see in their eyes that criminal activity is occupying 100 percent of their thoughts and that they truly are determined that they are going to, one of these days, get out of that facility and return to the battlefield. There was one particular anecdote where the leadership at the facility and I were engaging in a conversation, and it was close to the cell of one of the individuals. All of a sudden we realized that individual was telling other cell mates that he was trying to hear what was going on in our conversation. It has gotten that sophisticated on their part when it comes to trying to figure out ways to communicate with the outside the ideas they have about killing and harming Americans and planning and scheming to one day, as I said earlier, leave that place and reengage in the fight. Instead of working with Congress to develop commonsense policies to enable our national security personnel to detain and interrogate terrorists, this administration is releasing them back with little thought to their future actions. In this haphazard fashion, there is no uniform procedure for the continued monitoring of these individuals-- individuals, I might add, who have already demonstrated a propensity for violence. Each country accepts them on their own terms with varying commitments and cooperation, making further monitoring by the intelligence community and our partners nearly impossible. This is neither a safe nor a sustainable way of ensuring the national security of the United States, yet it has become an all too common practice in this administration. We know for a fact that a number of these former detainees are returning to the battlefield with renewed zeal to wage war against our American way of life. According to the Director of National Intelligence, an additional four former Guantanamo detainees were confirmed to have rejoined the fight between July of 2013 and January of 2014, raising the combined suspected and confirmed recidivism rate to 29 percent. In addition, although the next report has not been released, we know this number will increase. We constantly face new plots and operatives looking for ways to murder Americans, such as the foiled May 2012 AQAP plot that put another IED on a United States-bound aircraft. Thankfully, this plot and others did not materialize. But we are not going to always be that fortunate, especially in the absence of meaningful interrogation of terrorists and their imminent return to the battlefield. We know that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, today represents one of the biggest threats to the United States homeland, as well as personnel serving overseas. They are continually plotting against our interests and seeking new recruits, especially among our own citizens as well as former Guantanamo detainees. Explosives experts, such as Ibrahim al-Asiri, continue to roam free, posing a tremendous threat to the safety and security of U.S. citizens. It is Mr. al-Asiri who is the bomb-making expert who has attempted to devise bombs that cannot be detected by the equipment in airports, so that they can hopefully place a bomb either inside an individual or on an individual who can secure a seat on an airplane without that bomb being detected as they go through the various checkpoints at airports around the world. Additionally, as the Senator from New Hampshire again will allude to, this proposed closure of Guantanamo Bay presents significant risks for the United States as well as Yemeni efforts to counter AQAP inside of Yemen. A substantial portion of the detainees remaining in Guantanamo Bay are, in fact, Yemeni citizens. Transferring these individuals to a country plagued by prison breaks, assassinations, and open warfare at this point could prove catastrophic. These detainees would likely rejoin several other former Gitmo detainees who have returned to the fight in Yemen, further destabilizing the country, and worsening an already tenuous security situation. The most recent example of a totally failed and dangerous policy on the part of this administration is the exchange of the Taliban Five back in May. That decision, to release five individuals who now wake up every morning thinking of ways to kill and harm Americans, was wrong. This administration clearly and callously failed in its obligations of notifying Congress. It appears they did not comply with this requirement because they knew there would be objections to the release of those five individuals from both sides of the aisle here in the Senate, as well as across the Capitol on the House side. This administration clearly decided they wanted to intentionally release these individuals in spite of the fact that we had included language in the previous Defense authorization bills requiring specific notification to Congress in advance of them doing so. In addition to simply violating that notification requirement, the administration violated the Antideficiency Act by obligating funds that were not legally available. While the President has a habit of ignoring laws relating to domestic policies such as health care and immigration, this overreach will likely directly threaten the lives of our citizens and servicemembers in Afghanistan. In the wake of the President's bold defiance of congressional oversight, I wrote the White House requesting the declassification of the 2009 Guantanamo Bay review task force assessments for the Taliban Five. I also requested, on the floor of the Senate, that the administration release these files so the American people can know what I know, and what the Presiding Officer knows, and decide for themselves if that was the right decision. Today I renew that request and I call on this administration to fulfill its failed promises of transparency and show to the American people the very real stakes they are gambling with in their attempts to empty Guantanamo. Nevertheless, this dangerous trend continues unabated, even amidst bipartisan calls for greater oversight after the Taliban Five release. In November alone, seven detainees were transferred, three to the country of Georgia, two to Slovakia, one to Saudi Arabia, and another to Kuwait. Some of these countries have previously had detainees sent to them. We have mixed reaction as to the reengagement or the oversight that is provided in those countries. Some of those countries have never had a detainee they have taken possession of. We have no idea what kind of supervision they are going to exercise over these individuals. Whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other parts of the Middle East, Americans have fought and died in the war against Al Qaeda. Our Nation may be weary of war, but threatening elements still remain. Those five individuals, the Taliban Five to whom I alluded, are clearly threats to the United States. I urge President Obama as well as my congressional colleagues and the American people not to abandon the gains we have made in this fight against terrorism since 9/11. We must remain steadfast in our resolve to defeat extremists who oppose freedom, democracy, and our American way of life. I look forward in my remaining days here in the Senate to working with colleagues such as my friend from New Hampshire and other Members of this body as we continue to face this growing threat. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Maj. Lewis Sorvillo for his exemplary dedication to duty and service to the U.S. Air Force and to the United States of America. Major Sorvillo spent the last year serving in my office as a congressional defense fellow, and it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate him as he concludes an exemplary tour of duty in the Senate. Major Sorvillo was born in Youngstown, OH. He enlisted in the Air Force in 1994 as a motor vehicle operator, ultimately advancing as a noncommissioned officer and aide on the Vice President's military staff. After his White House service across two presidential administrations, Major Sorvillo earned his commission in 2002 as a distinguished graduate of the Air Force Officer Training School at Maxwell Air Force Base, AL. For his superior performance at OTS, Major Sorvillo was awarded the Top Hawk Award as his squadron's No. 1 graduate. Major Sorvillo subsequently qualified as a communications officer and was assigned to Patrick Air Force Base, FL, in support of the 45th Space Wing's mission of delivering assured space launch for the Nation. While at Patrick AFB, Major Sorvillo again distinguished himself by leading the Air Force Space Command's top information assurance unit of the year. He subsequently served at Goodfellow Air Force Base, TX, where he was responsible for the critical communication infrastructure necessary to train the Air Force's next generation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance professionals. From Goodfellow AFB Major Sorvillo joined the command staff of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe. As a senior officer in the USAFE communications directorate's plans and policy branch and subsequently force management branch, he played an instrumental role in the manpower, training, utilization, and readiness of 130 cyber operations officers at 42 locations throughout 10 countries. Across his two decades of service, Major Sorvillo has deployed to Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and just concluded his second tour to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom prior to joining my Senate staff. From June 2012 to May 2013, Major Sorvillo served as the principal adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Interior, Deputy Director of Information, Communication, and Technology, and led a team of military, civilian, and contract advisers in the development of enduring, nationwide systems and processes critical to the long-term sustainment of communication capabilities for the Afghan National Police. For his meritorious service, Major Sorvillo was awarded a Bronze Star Medal. Over the past year, Major Sorvillo has distinguished himself among his fellowship peers as a leader in the Senate. From his legislative contributions supporting my role on the Senate Armed Services Committee to his dedication to constituent services, Major Sorvillo deftly applied his military expertise to elevate the performance of my personal office. He exemplifies the Air Force core values of integrity, service, and excellence, and I am deeply grateful for his significant contributions this year. It is my great pleasure to congratulate Major Sorvillo, his wife Amy, and their three children, Jessica, Brandon, and Ivy, as they leave the Senate and continue to serve our great Nation. I wish them the very best of luck.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I join with my colleague Senator Isakson in recommending that all of our colleagues vote for all three of these judges: Judge Eleanor Ross, Judge Mark Cohen, and Judge Leslie Abrams-- or future judges in all three cases. They are excellent candidates. I particularly wish to commend Senator Leahy for working closely with us, the President for being willing to sit down and discuss our judicial nominations, and particularly former White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler. We would not be here today if Kathy had not demonstrated great legal skills in working this package and putting this package together. I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of all three of these judges.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time on the other side has been used?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I only had one speaker and I had 15 minutes. Did he use 7\1/2\, 8 minutes?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time the Senator from California used be added to my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I object to that. He can have your 30 seconds.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the Senator from Maine for 2 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, in closing, let me say there are any number of reasons why the substance of this bill is totally flawed. We live in a dangerous world today. We all know and understand that. While the provisions in this bill wouldn't have prohibited ISIL from being formed--it didn't prevent ISIL from being formed--the provisions in the underlying FISA bill give the Intelligence Committee all the tools they need to make sure that when ISIL recruits individuals to go to Syria to fight, if they are trying to recruit Americans, we can find out about that. We have under surveillance today any number of individuals, whom we think have been committed to jihad, who live in America. Secondly, there is another part of their recruiting that is even more dangerous than asking young men and women to come to Syria to fight for ISIL. They want people to go into the Parliament in Canada and start killing people. They want people to walk the streets of New York and pull out a gun or a hatchet or whatever it may be and start killing people. If we eliminate this program--and that is basically what the Leahy amendment does--then we are going to take a tool away from our intelligence community that is not going to allow them to be able to interrupt and disrupt those types of terrorist attacks. Now, with respect to our privacy, folks, gosh, we need to be really protective of privacy issues in this country. We live under a Constitution that has survived for in excess of 200 years. It has lots of privacy protections in it, and all of us want to see that happen. But let me tell my colleagues what is going to happen if this amendment comes to the floor and should happen to pass today. The metadata that is collected by the NSA can be accessed by 22 individuals--22. That means there is an opportunity for leaks to occur or for individual privacy rights to be breached by 22 people. If this amendment ever became law, all of a sudden, all of the telecoms are going to be holding this metadata information as opposed to the NSA holding it. All of those telecoms have thousands of employees, lots of whom have access--will have access to this metadata. So instead of having the potential for 22 people to breach the privacy rights of American citizens, all of a sudden we are going to have thousands of opportunities for the privacy rights of Americans to be breached. Let me close by saying that this program has been criticized an awful lot simply because of the leaks that Mr. Snowden made because of his theft of government property. But the fact is there cannot be one single case pointed to by anybody who can show that as a result of the collection of metadata under 215, any American has had their privacy rights breached. It simply has not happened. It will not happen if we keep this program in place. Do we need to modify it? You bet. And Senator Feinstein and I did a good job of that, considering 10 amendments within our committee, voting on all 10 of them. Some of them passed. Some of them didn't. The bill came out of our committee on a bipartisan vote. The Leahy amendment has not even gone to the Judiciary Committee to give the members of the Judiciary Committee the opportunity to review it, to file amendments on it, to debate it in committee, and vote on it. That is not the way this institution has ever worked, and it is not the way it should work here in a lameduck session with time running out, and particularly on a controversial and sensitive and important program as is the 215 FISA amendment program. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield back the remaining time, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Cloture Motion

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, we yield back the time on our side, and I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak on behalf of the Northern District of Georgia on the appointee, Leigh May.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to welcome my friend and fellow Georgian, Dr. George Dillard--who is the senior minister at the Peachtree City Christian Church in Peachtree City, GA--as he prayed so eloquently, as is our tradition here in the Senate. I am very pleased Dr. Dillard had a chance to come join us today. He and his wife Renee have been married for 26 years and have three children: Tiffany, Alexis, and Stewart. I appreciate them sharing him with us today. George has been my dear friend for many years. I have had the opportunity to pray with him in public, pray with him in private, and hear him preach in his church. He is a very eloquent individual and such a great Christian public servant in that he is so active not just in the Peachtree City Christian Church but all over the community of Peachtree City. He has been the guest Chaplain across the Capitol with our neighbors, the House of Representatives, on a couple of occasions. He regularly is the guest pastor in the Georgia Legislature under the gold dome in Atlanta. I am very pleased he is here today. I thank him for taking time to join us and for his well-spoken words getting us started in the Senate today. I yield the floor.