[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 150 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6470-S6480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the message to accompany H.R. 3979, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 3979, an act to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are 
     not taken into account as employees under the shared 
     responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 
     3984 (to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3985 (to amendment No. 3984), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 3986, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3987 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 3986), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 3988 (to amendment No. 3987), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Inhofe, 
the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to bring 
to the floor H.R. 3979. This is the agreement between the Armed 
Services Committees of the Senate and House on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The House of Representatives 
passed the bill last week by a vote of 300 to 119. If we succeed in the 
Senate, it will mark the 53rd year in a row that we have enacted this 
bill that is so essential to the defense of our Nation and to our men 
and women in uniform and their families.
  I thank all the members of the staff of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, especially our subcommittee chairs for the hard work they 
have done to get us to the finish line on this bill. I thank Senator 
Inhofe for his close partnership. Before this Congress I had been 
fortunate to serve with a series of Republican chairmen and ranking 
members, including John McCain, John Warner, and Strom Thurmond. They 
understood and appreciated the traditions of our committee and the 
importance of the legislation we enact every year for our men and women 
in uniform. That is what this is all about. Jim Inhofe, our ranking 
Republican in this Congress, has upheld that tradition of 
bipartisanship and dedication to enacting this important legislation 
through particularly challenging circumstances.
  Our bill includes hundreds of important provisions to authorize the 
activities of the Department of Defense and to provide for the well-
being of our men and women in uniform and their families. The bill will 
enable the military services to continue paying special pay and bonuses 
needed for recruitment and retention of key personnel. It strengthens 
survivor benefits for disabled children of servicemembers and retirees. 
It includes provisions addressing the employment of military spouses, 
job placement for veterans, and military child custody disputes. It 
addresses military hazing, military suicide, post-traumatic stress 
disorder, and mental health problems in the military. It provides 
continuing impact to support military families and local school 
districts.
  The bill includes 20 provisions to continue to build on the progress 
we are starting to make in addressing the scourge of sexual assault in 
the military. Key provisions will eliminate the so-called good soldier 
defense, give victims a voice in whether their case is prosecuted in 
military or civilian courts, give victims the right to challenge court-
martial rulings that violate their rights at the court of criminal 
appeals, and would strengthen the psychotherapist-patient privilege. 
Last week we received the welcome news that the number of incidents of 
unwanted sexual contact in the military is down and that more incidents 
are being reported so victims can receive the care and assistance they 
need and perpetrators can be brought to justice. With the enactment of 
the legislation before us and the commitment of military leaders, we 
hope to build on these trends.
  The bill provides continued funding and authorities for ongoing 
operations in Afghanistan and for our forces conducting operations 
against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria called ISIS.
  As requested by the administration, it authorizes the Department of 
Defense to train and equip vetted members of the moderate Syrian 
opposition and to train and equip national and local forces who are 
actively fighting ISIS in Iraq. It establishes a counterterrorism 
partnership fund that provides the administration new flexibility in 
addressing emerging terrorist threats around the world. In addition, 
the bill extends the Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa Program, 
providing for 4,000 new visas, and addresses a legal glitch that 
precluded members of the ruling parties in Kurdistan from receiving 
visas under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  The authority provided in this bill to train and equip local forces 
in Iraq and Syria to take on ISIS is particularly important because our 
military leaders and intelligence experts have uniformly told us 
airstrikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat ISIS. American air 
power has changed the momentum on the ground somewhat and given 
moderates in the region an opportunity

[[Page S6471]]

to regroup, but ISIS cannot be defeated without an opposing force to 
take the fight to it on the ground. To do that, our Arab and Muslim 
partners must be in the lead because the fight with ISIS is primarily a 
struggle within Islam for the hearts and minds of Muslims. Training and 
equipping our moderate Muslim allies gives us a way to move beyond the 
use of air power to support them in this fight.
  Our bill takes steps to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine by 
authorizing $1 billion for a European Reassurance Initiative to enhance 
the U.S. military presence in Europe and build partner capacity to 
respond to security threats, of which no less than $75 million would be 
committed for activities and assistance to support Ukraine by requiring 
a review of U.S. and NATO force posture, readiness and contingency 
plans in Europe and by expressing support for both nonprovocative 
defense military assistance--both lethal and non lethal--to Ukraine.

  The bill adds hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to improve 
the readiness of our Armed Forces across all branches--Active, Guard, 
and Reserve--to help blunt some--and I emphasize some--of the negative 
effects of sequestration. It includes provisions increasing funding for 
science and technology, providing women-owned small businesses the same 
sole-source contracting authority that is already available to other 
categories of small businesses, expanding the No Contracting With the 
Enemy Act to all government agencies and requiring governmentwide 
reform of information technology acquisition. Although we were unable 
to bring the Senate-reported bill to the floor for amendment, we 
established an informal clearing process pursuant to which we were able 
to clear 44 Senate amendments--roughly an equal number of Democratic 
and Republican amendments--and include them in the new bill which is 
before us.
  I am pleased the bill also includes a half dozen provisions to 
address the growing cyber threat to critical information systems of the 
Department of Defense and the Nation. One provision which was added to 
the bill was the Levin-McCain amendment, which requires the President 
to identify nations that engage in economic or industrial espionage 
against the United States through cyber space and provides authority to 
impose trade sanctions on persons determined to be knowingly engaged in 
such espionage.
  A second provision which arose out of a committee investigation of 
cyber threats to the Department of Defense requires the Secretary of 
Defense to establish procedures for identifying contractors that are 
operationally critical to mobilization, deployment or sustainment of 
contingency operations and to ensure that such contractors report any 
successful penetrations of their computer networks. Much more remains 
to be done, but these are important first steps as we begin to respond 
to the serious threat posed to U.S. interests by cyber attacks.
  With regard to military compensation reform, we adopted a number of 
proposals to slow the growth of personnel costs in fiscal year 2015, as 
needed to enable the Department of Defense to begin to address 
readiness shortfalls in a fiscal environment constrained by 
sequestration-level budgets, while deferring further changes to be made 
in future years if sequestration is not adequately addressed.
  In particular, the Department requested pay raises below the rate of 
inflation for 5 years. This bill provides a pay raise below the rate of 
inflation for fiscal year 2015, deferring decisions on future pay 
raises to later bills. The Department requested that we slow the growth 
of the basic allowance for housing by permitting adjustments below the 
rate of inflation for 3 years. This bill would slow the growth of the 
basic allowance for housing for fiscal year 2015, deferring decisions 
on future increases to later bills. The Department requested that we 
gradually increase copays for TRICARE pharmaceuticals over 10 years. 
This bill includes a proportionate increase in copays for fiscal year 
2015, deferring decisions on future increases to later bills.

  These are not steps any of us want to have to take; however, the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 cut $1 trillion from the planned Department 
of Defense budget over a 10-year period. Our senior military leaders 
told us they simply cannot meet sequestration budget levels without 
structural changes--canceling programs, retiring weapon systems, and 
reducing the growth in benefits--to reduce the size and cost of our 
military.
  A year and a half ago when sequestration was first triggered, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that sequestration 
``will severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It 
will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break 
faith with men and women in uniform.'' At a hearing this spring, he 
told us that ``delaying adjustments to military compensation will cause 
additional, disproportionate cuts to force structure, readiness, and 
modernization.''
  The Department of Defense budget proposal also proposed to retire 
several weapon systems in an effort to meet sequestration-level budget 
ceilings. For example, the Department proposed to take half of the 
Navy's fleet of cruisers out of service and to retire the Army's entire 
fleet of scout and training helicopters. With regard to Navy cruisers, 
our bill allows the Navy to take two cruisers out of service this year, 
deferring a decision on additional ships until next year's budget. With 
regard to Army helicopters, the National Guard objected to the plan to 
consolidate Apache attack helicopters in the Active component so they 
can operate at the higher operational tempo needed to both fill their 
own mission and replace the Kiowa mission. The Guard maintains that the 
Army should be able to achieve needed savings and meet mission 
requirements without transferring Apaches from the Reserve components 
to the Active Army.
  Our bill establishes an independent commission on the future of the 
Army to examine Army force structure and make recommendations as to the 
best way forward for Army helicopters. Because the Army needs the 
savings generated by the helicopter restructuring now, the bill would 
allow the transfer of 48 Apache helicopters--as called for in both the 
Army plan and the alternative National Guard plan--before the 
commission reports. Additional transfers would depend on the 
recommendations of the commission and subsequent Department or 
congressional action.
  Sequestration is damaging enough to our military, but the damage will 
be far worse if we insist that the Department conduct business as usual 
without regard to the changed budget circumstances. The budget caps 
imposed by sequestration mean that every dollar we choose to spend on a 
program that we refuse to cancel or reduce has to come from another 
higher priority program. Our senior military leaders have told us that 
this will mean planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are not properly trained and 
equipped for the mission we expect them to accomplish. As the Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us in January, sending 
troops into harm's way without training, equipment, or the latest 
technology is a breach of trust with the troops and their families.
  The painful measures included in this bill are just a downpayment on 
the changes that will be needed if sequestration is not repealed. 
Delaying these changes will only make the pain worse later on while 
damaging the readiness of our troops to carry out their missions when 
we call upon them.
  I am disappointed that we were unable to make further progress in 
this bill toward the objective of closing the detention facility at 
Guantanamo, Cuba. The Senate committee-reported bill included a 
provision that would have allowed the Department of Defense to bring 
Gitmo detainees to the United States, subject to a series of legal 
protections, for detention and trial. The provision also included an 
amendment--this is the provision in the Senate committee-passed bill--
which was offered by Senator Graham that would require the President, 
before authorizing the transfer of any detainees to the United States, 
to present a plan to Congress and that Congress would be afforded an 
opportunity to disapprove the plan using expedited procedures. It would 
have been a joint resolution.
  I continue to believe the Gitmo facility undermines our interests 
around the world and has made it more difficult to try to convict the 
terrorists

[[Page S6472]]

who are detained there, and I am disappointed that the House leadership 
refused to consider this provision even with the Graham amendment.
  Finally, our bill includes a lands package that Senator Inhofe and I 
agreed to include based on the bipartisan, bicameral request of the 
committees of jurisdiction and the overwhelming support of our 
colleagues. The contents of the lands package were worked out by the 
House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, which will be managing that part of the bill on 
the Senate floor. We have been assured that all provisions have been 
cleared and that the package has been cleared by the chairmen and 
ranking minority members of the relevant committees.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the names 
of our majority and minority staff members, who have given so much of 
themselves and their families, be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Peter K. Levine, Staff Director, John A. Bonsell, Minority 
     Staff Director, Daniel C. Adams, Minority Associate Counsel, 
     Adam J. Barker, Professional Staff Member, Steven M. Barney, 
     Minority Counsel, June M. Borawski, Printing and Documents 
     Clerk, Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings Clerk, 
     William S. Castle, Minority General Counsel, John D. Cewe, 
     Professional Staff Member, Samantha L. Clark, Minority 
     Associate Counsel, Jonathan D. Clark, Counsel, Allen M. 
     Edwards, Professional Staff Member, Jonathan S. Epstein, 
     Counsel, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Professional Staff Member, 
     Lauren M. Gillis, Staff Assistant, Thomas W. Goffus, 
     Professional Staff Member, Creighton Greene, Professional 
     Staff Member, Ozge Guzelsu, Counsel, Daniel J. Harder, Staff 
     Assistant, Alexandra M. Hathaway, Staff Assistant, Ambrose R. 
     Hock, Professional Staff Member, Gary J. Howard, Systems 
     Administrator.
       Michael J. Kuiken, Professional Staff Member, Mary J. Kyle, 
     Legislative Clerk, Anthony J. Lazarski, Professional Staff 
     Member, Gerald J. Leeling, General Counsel, Daniel A. Lerner, 
     Professional Staff Member, Gregory R. Lilly, Minority Clerk, 
     Jason W. Maroney, Counsel, Thomas K. McConnell, Professional 
     Staff Member, Mariah K. McNamara, Special Assistant to the 
     Staff Director, William G. P. Monahan, Counsel, Natalie M. 
     Nicolas, Minority Research Analyst, Michael J. Noblet, 
     Professional Staff Member, Cindy Pearson, Assistant Chief 
     Clerk and Security Manager, Roy F. Phillips, Professional 
     Staff Member, John H. Quirk V, Professional Staff Member, 
     Brendan J. Sawyer, Staff Assistant, Arun A. Seraphin, 
     Professional Staff Member, Travis E. Smith, Chief Clerk, 
     Robert M. Soofer, Professional Staff Member, William K. 
     Sutey, Professional Staff Member, Robert T. Waisanen, Staff 
     Assistant, Barry C. Walker, Security Officer.

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I have to say what a joy it is to 
work with Senator Levin. I know the public thinks that no Republicans 
like any Democrats and vice versa--at least those are the flames they 
try to fan--and that is not true.
  I can only think of two issues on which Senator Levin and I disagreed 
with each other. He has been through 16 of the NDAAs as either chairman 
or ranking member. I am sure that is some kind of a record. But to work 
with someone who you know will be totally honest with you even when you 
have a difference of opinion is really a joy. I hope we can be an 
example for some of the other committees that don't have that much joy 
when they are working on an issue.
  The long history he has had here and the integrity he has expressed 
will be sorely missed, I have to say to my good friend Senator Levin.
  As Senator Levin said, we will have to get to the bill before we 
leave. This bill has passed for 52 consecutive years, and that really 
says something. But each year there is always a problem.
  The comment that was made on the land package--I think the process is 
wrong regardless of the merits of the bill. As was pointed out by 
Senator Levin, it was supported in a bipartisan way by all the 
appropriate committees; however, that is not us, that is them. The 
process should not allow others to come in on this bill, so I think it 
is flawed. I don't think it will happen again. I really don't.
  I talked to the people who will be involved in next year's NDAA, 
which, by the way, we will start working on in February of next year.
  I will go over a couple of other reasons why we have to get this bill 
done. As I said, we have done this for 52 consecutive years, and I am 
sure we are going to be able to get this done.
  We passed this bill out to the floor from our committee--the 
committee chaired by Senator Levin--on May 23, the day after it was 
done in the House committee. So we were ready to do this way back in 
May, and the problem was we could not get it on the floor.
  I can remember coming down to the floor with Senator Levin and 
begging people to bring amendments to us. We have to have amendments 
down here because we can't expect the leader to bring this to the floor 
unless we know people will work with us on amendments. So eventually 
they did bring amendments, and we responded. We had many amendments. I 
don't remember exactly how many amendments were put forth, but I do 
remember we considered and put 47 amendments into this package--we did 
it through the big four method, which was the only thing left for us to 
do--47 amendments divided almost equally between Republicans and 
Democrats. We considered those amendments and put them in as a part of 
the bill.
  Of course, despite pushing for months that the NDAA be considered 
under regular order, which we should have done, we find ourselves in 
the unfortunate situation we are in today. It is reminiscent of last 
year. Last year we went all the way up to December 26 before we finally 
passed it.
  It would really be a disaster if we didn't pass it. People don't 
realize that if we don't pass this bill--our last chance is this week 
because the House will be out of there. There will be no way to have 
amendments or change anything now from the product we have. We already 
have a lot of the amendments in, but we can't make changes to them. We 
can't have another bill because we have run out of time. It will not 
happen unless it happens with this bill. I know a lot of people would 
prefer to have something else, although I know this bill is going to 
pass by a large margin. It is a good bill.
  People wonder what would happen if we didn't pass this bill. It would 
be a disaster. Enlistment bonuses--a lot of these kids have been over 
there serving, and they have been told they will have certain things, 
and one of them is the bonuses. Well, all of a sudden, on December 31, 
if we don't have a bill, those expire and those kids will not have 
enlistment or reenlistment bonuses.
  The incentives are important in order to keep troops with critical 
skills. We hear a lot about the SEALs and the great work they do. These 
critical skills incentives will go away on December 31.
  There is also incentive pay for pilots. I have researched this 
because there is a lot of competition out there for our pilots--pilots 
for heavy vehicles, as well as strike fighters. Right now there is a 
competition with the airlines. Everyone wants to hire these guys, so 
there is competition out there. All of a sudden the flight pay would 
come out on December 31 if we don't pass this bill, and that means we 
will lose some of these guys. It is a $25,000-a-year bonus for these 
guys over a 10-year period, so it is $250,000. However, for each one 
who decides not to come back--to retrain someone to the status of an F-
22 would cost about $17 million. We are looking at bonuses that might 
be $25,000, but the alternative, if we don't get this done by December 
31, would cost $17 million for each pilot who needs to be trained. So 
that is very significant. We have skill incentive pay and proficiency 
bonuses for all of those. So that singularly would be enough reason to 
say we have to have it; we just can't do without it. Stopping all 
military construction, which would be on December 31.

  One of the areas where the chairman and I disagree is on Gitmo. We 
have had a friendly and honest difference of opinion on that. I look at 
Gitmo as one of the few resources we have that is a good deal for 
government. We have had it since 1904 and it only costs us $4,000 and 
half the time Cuba forgets to charge us, so it is a pretty good deal. 
There is no place else we can put, in my opinion, the combatants. 
People say bring them back to the United States. The problem is if we 
intermingle prisoners at Gitmo with the

[[Page S6473]]

prison population--these people at Gitmo are not criminals, they are 
people who teach terrorists. So there are a lot of arguments against 
bringing Gitmo prisoners to the United States. That in itself would be 
a 2-hour speech, so I will not get into it now.
  There are some areas where the chairman and I disagree and there were 
a lot of compromises because we knew we had to have the bill. If we 
don't pass this bill, there will be no European Reassurance Initiative 
to stand up against Russian aggression. I shouldn't have done this 
because I was on the ballot this year for reelection, but for the week 
prior to our election, I went over to see what was happening in Ukraine 
because Ukraine was having their elections the week before we had our 
elections. Not many people are aware that in Ukraine, Poroshenko--what 
happened in their election in Ukraine, a political party cannot have a 
seat in Parliament unless they get 5 percent of the vote. The vote took 
place 1 week before our vote. This will be the first time in 96 years 
that the Communist Party will not have one seat in Parliament. That is 
amazing. We have to understand what is happening with Putin.
  I also went to Lithuania and Estonia and Latvia and those areas in 
the Baltics. That is another problem we have. They want to give us the 
assurance that it is not just Putin in Ukraine, but they are becoming 
aggressive. I coined the term for what Putin is trying to do, ``de-
Reaganize'' Europe, to try to take out all the freedoms that were there 
and try to put a coalition together. That is a huge issue, and it is 
addressed in this bill in a very aggressive way with the reassurance 
initiative.
  Also, if we don't pass this bill, we would not have the 
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which I think we are all aware is so 
necessary with ISIL on the rampage they are pursuing.
  So we have a lot of provisions. I think the chairman did a good job 
of covering them. A couple of them perhaps might have been overlooked 
or that I might add for my own personal interests. One is the support 
of the Aircraft Modernization Program. Historically, we have always had 
the best of everything, but now when we look at China and at Russia and 
what they are doing, it is a very difficult situation for us. We had 
the F-22; the President terminated that program his first year in 
office. So now we have all of our eggs in the basket in terms of the 
strike vehicles and the F-35. A lot of people don't like the F-35, but 
that is what we have to have and that is in this bill to continue with 
that.
  The E-2D surveillance aircraft is one very few people know about. It 
is one of the ugliest airplanes in the sky, but it is one that is 
necessary for surveillance and other functions of government.
  We have the KC-46 tanker aircraft. We have been using the KC-135 now 
for decades and we have to go toward a more modern vehicle, and we do 
have on the books that we will continue to do that, working with the 
KC-46. So several others--some improvements to the workhorse of the 
military, the C-130 aircraft, and other vehicles.
  Without this bill, we are going to have to stop some of these 
projects, so think about the cost. We are in the midst of contracts 
right now that we could be in jeopardy of losing.
  The construction on military and family housing is there. It is very 
significant.
  So I think all of these pieces--and one piece I think people are 
interested in is this will end the reliance on Russian-made rocket 
engines. We hear a lot about that. This bill includes a timeframe for 
when the current contracts run out, so that we are going to be 
developing our own rocket engine. I have heard from a lot of outside 
experts. Tom Stafford is one of the famous astronauts from Oklahoma. He 
and I have talked at length about what we are going to be able to do 
with some of these rocket engines. So I think this is enough reason why 
we have to do this, and I think everyone realizes that.
  We have heard a lot of talk that frankly is not true. Unfortunately, 
there are some groups that are kind of antimilitary groups that came 
out with some statements that weren't true and some of the talk show 
hosts I admire were given information that wasn't quite as accurate as 
it should have been.
  Right now, if we can think of no other single major reason to pass 
this bill, it is to take care of those individuals who are in the field 
right now who are fighting. We have the exact count, to make sure we 
use accurate figures. As of today, 1,779,343 troops in the field or 
enlisted personnel. These are the ones who can be affected, 1.8 million 
of them. We would be reneging on the commitments we have made to them.
  We have heard criticism that we are somehow cutting their benefits to 
put in a land package. That just isn't true. We don't need to talk 
about this because that is not our committee. That is the committee 
referred to by the chairman in his remarks--the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committees of the House and the Senate. But it is 
budget neutral. Over a 10-year period, the CBO says it is budget 
neutral. So there is no legitimate argument that we are using any of 
the funds that would otherwise go to the military on the land package.

  I have to say the process was wrong. We have done this in the past 
and we are not going to do it again. We shouldn't have had a land 
package come in that has nothing to do with defense, but nonetheless it 
is there. I was offended by the process. Frankly--I have to confess, 
and it is good for the soul, I guess--I thought after reading it, it 
was a pretty good bill. If it would have been brought up outside of 
this bill, I would have still voted for it. But the process is wrong, 
and I think we all understand that. We did the best we could.
  We have these things that are going on right now, and I think we 
can't take a chance on not having or, for the first time in 53 years, 
not passing an NDAA bill by the end of the year. It would be a crisis. 
The system could be criticized for the way it happened. Considering 
that we passed our bill out of the committee on May 23, we should have 
had it on the floor. We should have had it done in regular order. We 
will do everything we can in the future to try to make that happen. For 
two consecutive years now we have not been able to do that. We have had 
to go through the system of what they call the Big Four--the chairman 
and ranking member of the House and the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate--to pass this bill. I think in this case we have come up 
with a good bill. We have been able to incorporate 47 of the amendments 
that have come from those that were filed to be added on the floor. So 
we have done the best we can. There is no other alternative now when we 
consider what will happen if for some unknown reason this would be the 
first year in 53 years that we don't have an NDAA bill.
  I will just repeat what I started off with; that is, what a joy it 
has been to work with Carl Levin over these years in the capacity of 
either the chairman or the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. He will be sorely missed. Oddly enough, we also have the 
same situation happening over on the House side with Buck McKeon. I 
served with him when I served in the House. He is going to be retiring 
after this year as well. So we have two retiring chairmen of what I 
consider to be the most significant committees in Washington.
  We are going to continue to work together for the rest of this bill. 
We have a good bill, and we are going to uphold our obligation to the 
1,779,343 enlisted personnel in the field. We are not going to let them 
down.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Inhofe for his 
friendship, most importantly, but also for the great partnership we 
have enjoyed. It has been a real pleasure working with the Senator from 
Oklahoma. I should perhaps also say we are confident our successors 
will carry on this tradition as well. Senator McCain, the new chairman, 
and Senator Jack Reed will be the new ranking member and they will be 
carrying on this tradition that we have done everything we know how to 
do to maintain.
  I wish to again thank my good friend Jim Inhofe and his staff who 
worked so well with the staff on this side. We talk about this side of 
the aisle and that side of the aisle. In this bill obviously there will 
be differences--very rarely,

[[Page S6474]]

by the way, on a partisan basis, even when there are differences. But 
the aisle sort of disappears when it comes to the Defense authorization 
bill, and that is the way it should be.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time just to make one 
other comment. The two people who are sitting here, Peter Levine on 
your side and John Bonsell on our side, their compatibility in working 
together is also unprecedented. It doesn't happen very often. I can't 
speak for the Senator from Michigan, but I can speak for myself, to say 
that without these two working together I sure could not have 
participated in a meaningful way. So I thank them as well.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Oklahoma is speaking for both of us, I 
can assure him, with his comments and so many other comments he made.
  I will yield to the Senator from Colorado, but first I wish to thank 
him for the great contribution he has made to our committee. I think he 
is planning on speaking on a different subject. He has played a major 
role on the Intelligence Committee. I look forward to reading, if not 
hearing, his remarks on the subject on which I know he has spent a good 
deal of time. Although he has had perhaps more visibility in terms of 
the Intelligence Committee, he has been a major contributor on the 
Armed Services Committee. I can't say we will miss him because I will 
not be here, but they will miss the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, before I start my remarks on 
the historic day which was yesterday--when it comes to the publication 
of our long-in-the-making report on the CIA's torture program--I wish 
to thank the chairman for his leadership, his mentorship, and his 
friendship. I also am proud obviously to be a part of the Armed 
Services Committee and to have chaired the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee. Again, I extend my thanks to the good men and women in 
uniform, as did my good friend from Oklahoma. The NDAA bill is a 
crucial task in front of us. I look forward to one of my last votes as 
a Senator from the great State of Colorado, and I look forward to 
casting a vote in favor of the Defense authorization bill.
  Again, I wish to thank my two friends who have mentored me and who 
have led our committee with great elan and intelligence.


      SSCI Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program

  Yesterday was a historic day. Almost 6 years after the Senate 
Intelligence Committee voted to conduct a study of the CIA's detention 
and interrogation program and nearly 2 years after approving the 
report, the American people will finally know the truth about a very 
dark chapter in our Nation's history.
  My goal from the start has been twofold. First, I have been committed 
to correcting the public record on the CIA's multiple 
misrepresentations to the American people, to other agencies in the 
executive branch, the White House, and to Congress. Second, my goal has 
been to ensure that the full truth comes out about this grim time in 
the history of the CIA and of our Nation so that neither the CIA nor 
any future administration repeats the grievous mistakes this important 
oversight work reveals.
  The process of compiling, drafting, redacting, and now releasing this 
report has been much harder than it needed to be. It brings no one joy 
to discuss the CIA's brutal and appalling use of torture or the 
unprecedented actions that some in the intelligence community and 
administration have taken in order to cover up the truth.
  A number of my colleagues who have come to the floor over the past 24 
hours and discussed this report have referred to 9/11. I, too, will 
never forget the fear, the pain, and the anger we all felt on that day 
and in the days that followed. Americans were demanding action from our 
government to keep us safe. Everyone, myself included, wanted to go to 
the ends of the Earth to hunt down the terrorists who attacked our 
Nation and to make every effort to prevent another attack. Although we 
all shared that goal, this report reveals how the CIA crossed a line 
and took our country to a place where we violated our moral and legal 
obligations in the name of keeping us safe. As we know now, this was a 
false choice. Torture didn't keep us safer after all. By releasing the 
Intelligence Committee's landmark report, we reaffirm we are a nation 
that does not hide from its past but must learn from it and that an 
honest examination of our shortcomings is not a sign of weakness but 
the strength of our great Republic.

  From the heavily redacted version of the executive summary first 
delivered to the committee by the CIA in August, we made significant 
progress in clearing away the thick, obfuscating fog these redactions 
represented.
  As Chairwoman Feinstein has said, our committee chipped away at over 
400 areas of disagreement with the administration on redactions down to 
just a few.
  We didn't make all the progress we wanted to and the redaction 
process itself is filled with unwarranted and completely unnecessary 
obstacles. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, what began as a 
bipartisan effort on the committee did not end as such, even after my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle were repeatedly urged to 
participate with us as partners.
  As my friends in the Senate know, I am a legislator who goes out of 
his way to form bipartisan consensus. However, it became clear that was 
not possible here and that is regrettable.
  But all told, after reviewing this final version of the committee's 
study, I believe it accomplishes the goals I laid out and it tells the 
story that needs to be told.
  It also represents a significant and essential step for restoring 
faith in the crucial role of Congress to conduct oversight. 
Congressional oversight is important to all of government's activities, 
but it is especially important for those parts of the government that 
operate in secret, as the Church Committee discovered decades ago. The 
challenge the Church Committee members discovered are still with us 
today: how to ensure that secret government actions are conducted 
within the confines of the law. The release of this executive summary 
is testament to the power of oversight and the determination of 
Chairman Feinstein and the members of this committee to doggedly beat 
back obstacle after obstacle in order to reveal the truth.
  There are a number of thank-yous that are in order. I start by 
thanking the chairman for her courage and persistence. I also thank the 
committee staff director, David Grannis; the staff lead for the study, 
Dan Jones; and his core study team, Evan Gottesman and Chad Tanner. 
They toiled for nearly 6 years to complete this report. They then 
shepherded it through the redaction process, all the while giving up 
their nights, weekends, vacations, and precious time with family and 
friends in an effort to get to the truth of this secret program for the 
members of the committee, the Senate, and now the American people.
  They have been assisted by other dedicated staff, including my 
designee on the committee, Jennifer Barrett. We would not be where we 
are today without them. I am grateful, beyond words, for their service 
and dedication. I want them to know our country is grateful too.
  Let me turn to the study itself. Much has been written about the 
significance of the study. This is the study. It is a summary of the 
CIA's detention and interrogation program. I want to start by saying I 
believe the vast majority of CIA officers welcome oversight and believe 
in the checks and balances that form the very core of our Constitution.
  I believe many rank-and-file CIA officers have fought internally for 
and supported the release of this report. Unfortunately, again and 
again, these hard-working public servants have been poorly served by 
the CIA's leadership. Too many CIA leaders and senior officials have 
fought to bury the truth while using a redaction pen to further hide 
this dark chapter of the Agency's history.
  The document we released yesterday is the definitive, official 
history of what happened in the CIA's detention and interrogation 
program. It is based on more than 6 million pages of CIA and other 
documents, emails, cables, and interviews. This 500-page study, this 
document, encapsulates the facts drawn from the 6,700-page report, 
which is backed up by 38,000 footnotes.

[[Page S6475]]

  This is a documentary that tells of the program's history based on 
the CIA's own internal records. Its prose is dry and spare, as you will 
soon see for yourself. It was put together methodically, without 
exaggeration or embellishment. This study by itself--using the CIA's 
own words--brings the truth to light, and that is what it was intended 
to do.

  The study looked carefully at the CIA's own claims--most notably that 
the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees 
elicited unique, otherwise unobtainable intelligence that disrupted 
terrorist plots and saved lives. It debunks those claims conclusively.
  The CIA repeatedly claimed that using these enhanced interrogation 
techniques against detainees was the only way to yield critical 
information about terrorist plotting. But when asked to describe this 
critical information and detail which plots were thwarted, the CIA 
provided exaggerated versions of plots and misattributed information 
that was obtained from traditional intelligence collection, claiming it 
came from the use of interrogation techniques that are clearly torture.
  This study shows that torture was not effective, that it led to 
fabricated information, and its use--even in secret--undermined our 
security and our country more broadly. Our use of torture and I believe 
the failure to truly acknowledge it continues to impair America's moral 
leadership and influence around the world, creates distrust among our 
partners, puts Americans abroad in danger, and helps our enemies' 
recruitment efforts.
  Senior CIA leaders would have you believe their version of the 
truth--promoted in CIA-cleared memoirs by former CIA Directors and 
other CIA and White House officials--that while there was some excesses 
in its detention and interrogation program, the CIA did not torture. 
Their version would have you believe that the CIA's program was 
professionally conducted, employing trained interrogators to use so-
called enhanced interrogation techniques on only the most hardened and 
dangerous terrorists.
  But as Professor Darius Rejali writes in his book ``Torture and 
Democracy,'' ``To think professionalism is a guard against causing 
excessive pain is an illusion. Instead, torture breaks down 
professionalism'' and corrupts the organizations that use it.
  This is exactly what happened with the CIA's detention and 
interrogation program. Without proper acknowledgement of these truths 
by the CIA and the White House, it could well happen again.
  In light of the President's early Executive order disavowing torture, 
his own recent acknowledgement that ``we tortured some folks'' and the 
Assistant Secretary of State Malinowski's statements last month to the 
U.N. Committee Against Torture that ``we hope to lead by example'' in 
correcting our mistakes, one would think this administration is leading 
the efforts to right the wrongs of the past and ensure the American 
people learn the truth about the CIA's torture program. Not so.
  In fact, it has been nearly a 6-year struggle--in a Democratic 
administration no less--to get this study out. Why has it been so hard 
for this document to finally see the light of day? Why have we had to 
fight tooth and nail every step of the way? The answer is simple: 
Because the study says things that former and current CIA and other 
government officials don't want the American public to know. For a 
while I worried that this administration would succeed in keeping this 
study entirely under wraps.
  While the study clearly shows that the CIA's detention and 
interrogation program itself was deeply flawed, the deeper, more 
endemic problem lies in the CIA, assisted by a White House that 
continues to try to cover up the truth. It is this deeper problem that 
illustrates the challenge we face today: reforming an agency that 
refuses to even acknowledge what it has done. This is a continuing 
challenge that the CIA's oversight committees need to take on in a 
bipartisan way. Those who criticize the committee's study for overly 
focusing on the past should understand that its findings directly 
relate to how the CIA operates today.
  For an example of how the CIA has repeated its same past mistakes in 
more recent years, look at the section of the executive summary 
released yesterday that deals with the intelligence on the courier that 
led to Osama bin Laden. That operation took place under this 
administration in May of 2011. After it was over, the CIA coordinated 
to provide misinformation to the White House and its oversight 
committees suggesting the CIA torture program was the tipoff 
information for the courier. That is 100 percent wrong and signifies 
the Agency leadership's persistent and entrenched culture of 
misrepresenting the truth to Congress and the American people. This 
example also illustrates again the dangers of not reckoning with the 
past. So while I agree with my colleagues on the committee who argue 
that doing oversight in real time is critical, I believe we cannot turn 
a blind eye to the past when the same problems are staring us in the 
face in the present. Oversight by willful ignorance is not oversight at 
all.
  In Chairman Feinstein's landmark floor speech earlier this year, she 
laid out how the CIA pushed back on our committee's oversight efforts. 
Thanks to her speech, we know about the history of the CIA's 
destruction of interrogation videotapes and about what motivated her 
and her colleagues to begin the broader committee study in 2009. We 
know about the CIA's insistence on providing documents to the committee 
in a CIA-leased facility and the millions of dollars the CIA spent on 
contractors hired to read, multiple times, each of the 6 million pages 
of documents produced before providing them to the committee staff. We 
know about the nearly 1,000 documents that the CIA electronically 
removed from the committee's dedicated database on two occasions in 
2010, which the CIA claimed its personnel did at the direction of the 
White House. Of course we know about the Panetta review.
  I turn to the Panetta review. I have provided more information on the 
events that led up to the revelation included in the Panetta review in 
a set of additional views that I submitted for the committee's 
executive summary, but I will summarize them.
  From the beginning of his term as CIA Director, John Brennan was 
openly hostile toward and dismissive of the committee's oversight and 
its efforts to review the detention and interrogation program. During 
his confirmation hearing, I obtained a promise from John Brennan that 
he would meet with committee staff on the study once confirmed. After 
his confirmation, he changed his mind.
  In December 2012, when the classified study was approved in a 
bipartisan vote, the committee asked the White House to coordinate any 
executive branch comments prior to declassification. The White House 
provided no comment. Instead, the CIA responded for the executive 
branch nearly 7 months later, on June 27, 2013.
  The CIA's formal response to the study under Director Brennan clings 
to false narratives about the CIA's effectiveness when it comes to the 
CIA's detention and interrogation program. It includes many factual 
inaccuracies, defends the use of torture, and attacks the committee's 
oversight and findings. I believe its flippant and dismissive tone 
represents the CIA's approach to oversight--and the White House's 
willingness to let the CIA do whatever it likes--even if its efforts 
are armed at actively undermining the President's stated policies.
  It would be a significant disservice to let the Brennan response 
speak for the CIA. Thankfully, it does not have to. There are some CIA 
officials and officers willing to tell it straight. In late 2013, then-
CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston answered a series of questions that 
I asked about his thoughts on the Brennan response as part of his Armed 
Services Committee nomination hearing to be General Counsel of the 
Defense Department.
  His answers to the questions about the program contrasted sharply 
with the Brennan response. For instance, he stated matter of factly 
that from his review of the facts, the CIA provided the committee with 
inaccurate information regarding the detention and interrogation 
program. I have posted on line my questions to Mr. Preston, along with 
his answers.
  Stephen Preston was not alone in having the moral courage to speak 
frankly and truthfully about the CIA's

[[Page S6476]]

torture program. There were also other CIA officers willing to document 
the truth. In March 2009, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta announced the 
formation of a Director's review group to look at the agency's 
detention and interrogation program. As he stated at the time, ``The 
safety of the American people depends on our ability to learn lessons 
from the past while staying focused on the threats of today and 
tomorrow.''
  The Director's review group looked at the same CIA documents that 
were being provided to our committee. They produced a series of 
documents that became the Panetta review. As I discussed in late 2013, 
the Panetta review corroborates many of the significant findings of the 
committee's study. Moreover, the Panetta review frankly acknowledges 
significant problems and errors made in the CIA's detention and 
interrogation program. Many of these same errors are denied or 
minimized in the Brennan response.
  As Chairman Feinstein so eloquently outlined in her floor speech on 
March 11 of this year, drafts of the Panetta review have been provided 
by the CIA unknowingly to our committee staff years before within the 6 
million pages of documents it had provided.
  So when the committee received the Brennan response, I expected a 
recognition of errors and a clear plan to ensure that the mistakes 
identified would not be repeated again. Instead--this is a crucial 
point--instead, the CIA continued not only to defend the program and 
deny any wrongdoing but also to deny its own conclusions to the 
contrary found in the Panetta review.
  In light of those clear factual disparities between the Brennan 
response and the Panetta review, committee staff grew concerned that 
the CIA was knowingly providing inaccurate information to the committee 
in the present day, which is a serious offense, and a deeply troubling 
matter for the committee, the Congress, the White House, and our 
country.
  The Panetta review was evidence of that potential offense. So to 
preserve that evidence, committee staff securely transported a printed 
portion of the Panetta review from the CIA-leased facility to the 
committee's secure offices in the Senate. This was the proper and right 
thing to do, not only because of the seriousness of the potential 
crime, but also in light of the fact that the CIA had previously 
destroyed interrogation videotapes without authorization and over 
objections of officials in the Bush White House.
  In my view, the Panetta review is a smoking gun. It raises 
fundamental questions about why a review the CIA conducted internally 
years ago and never provided to the committee is so different from the 
official Brennan response and so different from the public statements 
of former CIA officials. That is why I asked for a complete copy of the 
Panetta review at a December 2013 Intelligence Committee hearing.
  Although the committee now has a portion of the review already in its 
possession, I believed then, as I do now, that it is important to make 
public its existence and to obtain a full copy of the report. That is 
why I am here today, to disclose some of its key findings and 
conclusions on the Senate floor for the public record, which fly 
directly in the face of claims made by senior CIA officials past and 
present.
  For example, as I mentioned earlier, on a number of key matters, the 
Panetta review directly refutes information in the Brennan response. In 
the few instances in which the Brennan response acknowledges 
imprecision or mischaracterization relative to the detention 
interrogation program, the Panetta review is refreshingly free of 
excuses, qualifications, or caveats.
  The Panetta review found that the CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate 
information to the Congress, the President, and the public on the 
efficacy of its coercive techniques. The Brennan response, in contrast, 
continues to insist the CIA's interrogations produced unique 
intelligence that saved lives. Yet the Panetta review identified dozens 
of documents that include inaccurate information used to justify the 
use of torture and indicates that the inaccuracies it identifies do not 
represent an exhaustive list. The Panetta review further describes how 
detainees provided intelligence prior to the use of torture against 
them.
  It describes how the CIA, contrary to its own representations, often 
tortured detainees before trying any other approach. It describes how 
the CIA tortured detainees, even when less coercive methods were 
yielding intelligence. The Panetta review further identifies cases in 
which the CIA used coercive techniques when it had no basis for 
determining whether a detainee had critical intelligence at all.
  In other words, CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they did 
not have intelligence, not because they thought they did. Again, while 
a small portion of this review is preserved in our committee spaces, I 
have requested the full document. Our request has been denied by 
Director Brennan. I will tell you, the Panetta review is much more than 
a ``summary'' and ``incomplete drafts,'' which is the way Mr. Brennan 
and former CIA officials have characterized it, in order to minimize 
its significance. I have reviewed this document. It is as significant 
and relevant as it gets.
  The refusal to provide the full Panetta review and the refusal to 
acknowledge facts detailed in both the committee study and the Panetta 
review lead to one disturbing finding: Director Brennan and the CIA 
today are continuing to willfully provide inaccurate information and 
misrepresent the efficacy of torture. In other words, the CIA is lying. 
This is not a problem of the past but a problem that needs to be dealt 
with today.
  Let me turn to the search of the Intelligence Committee's computers. 
Clearly the present leadership of the CIA agrees with me that the 
Panetta review is a smoking gun. That is the only explanation for the 
CIA's unauthorized search of the committee's dedicated computers in 
January. The CIA 's illegal search was conducted out of concern that 
the committee staff was provided with the Panetta review. It 
demonstrates how far the CIA will go to keep its secrets safe. Instead 
of asking the committee if it had access to the Panetta review, the CIA 
searched, without authorization or notification, the committee 
computers that the agency had agreed were off limits.

  In so doing, the agency might have violated multiple provisions of 
the Constitution as well as Federal criminal statutes and Executive 
Order 12333.
  More troubling, despite admitting behind closed doors to the 
committee that the CIA conducted the search, Director Brennan publicly 
referred to ``spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly 
unsupported by the facts.''
  He even said such allegations of computer hacking were beyond ``the 
scope of reason.'' The CIA then made a criminal referral to the 
Department of Justice against the committee staff who were working on 
the study. Chairman Feinstein believed these actions were an effort to 
intimidate the committee staff, the very staff charged with CIA 
oversight. I strongly agree with her point of view.
  The CIA's inspector general subsequently opened an investigation into 
the CIA's unauthorized search and found, contrary to Director Brennan's 
public protestations, that a number of CIA employees did, in fact, 
improperly access the committee's dedicated computers. The 
investigation found no basis for the criminal referral on the committee 
staff. The IG also found that the CIA personnel involved demonstrated a 
``lack of candor'' about their activities to the inspector general.
  However, only a 1-page unclassified summary of the IG's report is 
publicly available. The longer classified version was only provided 
briefly to Members when it was first released. I had to push hard to 
get the CIA to provide a copy for the committee to keep in its own 
records. Even the copy in committee records is restricted to committee 
members and only two staff members, not including my staff member.
  After having reviewed the IG report myself again recently, I believe 
even more strongly that the full report should be declassified and 
publicly released, in part because Director Brennan still refuses to 
answer the committee's questions about the search.
  In March, the committee voted unanimously to request responses from 
Director Brennan about the computer search. The chairman and vice 
chairman wrote a letter to Director Brennan, who promised a thorough 
response

[[Page S6477]]

to their questions after the Justice Department and CIA IG reviews were 
complete. The Chair and Vice Chair then wrote two more letters, to no 
avail. The Director has refused to answer any questions on this topic 
and has again deferred his answers, this time until after the CIA's 
internal accountability board review is completed, if it ever is.
  So from March until December, for almost 9 months, Director Brennan 
has flat out refused to answer basic questions about the computer 
search; whether he suggested a search or approved it; if not, who did. 
He has refused to explain why the search was conducted, its legal 
basis, or whether he was even aware of the agreement between the 
committee and the CIA laying out protections of the committee's 
dedicated computer system. He has refused to say whether the computers 
were searched more than once, whether the CIA monitored committee staff 
at the CIA-leased facility, whether the agency ever entered the 
committee's secure room at the facility, and who at the CIA knew about 
the search both before and after it occurred.
  I want to turn at this point to the White House. To date, there has 
been no accountability for the CIA's actions or for Director Brennan's 
failure of leadership. Despite the facts presented, the President has 
expressed full confidence in Director Brennan and demonstrated that 
trust by making no effort at all to rein him in.
  The President stated it was not appropriate for him to weigh into 
these issues that exist between the committee and the CIA. As I said at 
the time, the committee should be able to do its oversight work 
consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of 
powers, without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it has and 
as it continues to do today. For the White House not to have recognized 
this principle and the gravity of the CIA's actions deeply troubles me 
today and continues to trouble me.

  Far from being a disinterested observer in the committee-CIA battles, 
the White House has played a central role from the start. If former CIA 
Director Panetta's memoir is to be believed, the President was unhappy 
about Director Panetta's initial agreement in 2009 to allow staff 
access to operation cables and other sensitive documents about the 
torture program.
  Assuming its accuracy, Mr. Panetta's account describes then-
Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan and current Chief of Staff Denis 
McDonough--both of whom have been deeply involved in the study 
redaction process--as also deeply unhappy about this expanded 
oversight.
  There are more questions that need answers about the role of the 
White House in the committee's study.
  For example, there are the 9,400 documents that were withheld from 
the committee by the White House in the course of the review of the 
millions of documents, despite the fact that these documents are 
directly responsive to the committee's document request. The White 
House has never made a formal claim of executive privilege over the 
documents, yet it has failed to respond to the chairman's request to 
the documents or to compromise proposals she has offered to review a 
summary listing of them. When I asked CIA General Counsel Stephen 
Preston about the documents, he noted that ``the Agency has deferred to 
the White House and has not been substantially involved in subsequent 
discussions about the disposition of these documents.''
  If the documents are privileged, the White House should assert that 
claim. But if they are not, White House officials need to explain why 
they pulled back documents that the CIA believed were relevant to the 
committee's investigation and responsive to our direct request.
  The White House has not led on this issue in the manner we expected 
when we heard the President's campaign speeches in 2008 and read the 
Executive order he issued in January 2009. To CIA employees in April 
2009, President Obama said:

       What makes the United States special, and what makes you 
     special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold 
     our values and ideals even when it's hard--not just when it's 
     easy; even when we are afraid and under threat--not just when 
     it's expedient to do so. That's what makes us different.

  This tough, principled talk set an important tone from the beginning 
of his Presidency. However, let's fast forward to this year, after so 
much has come to light about the CIA's barbaric programs, and President 
Obama's response was that we ``crossed a line'' as a nation and that 
``hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.''
  That is not good enough. We need to be better than that. There can be 
no coverup. There can be no excuses. If there is no moral leadership 
from the White House helping the public to understand that the CIA's 
torture program wasn't necessary and didn't save lives or disrupt 
terrorist plots, then what is to stop the next White House and CIA 
Director from supporting torture.
  Finally, the White House has not led on transparency, as then Senator 
Obama promised in 2007. He said then this:

       We'll protect sources and methods, but we won't use sources 
     and methods as pretexts to hide the truth. Our history 
     doesn't belong to Washington, it belongs to America.

  In 2009 consistent with this promise, President Obama issued 
Executive Order 13526, which clarified that information should be 
classified to protect sources and methods but not to obscure key facts 
or cover up embarrassing or illegal acts.
  But actions speak louder than words. This administration, like so 
many before, has released information only when forced to by a leak or 
by a court order or by an oversight committee.
  The redactions to the committee's executive summary on the CIA's 
detention and interrogation program have been a case study in its 
refusal to be open. Despite requests that both the chairman and I made 
for the White House alone to lead the declassification process, it was 
given by the White House to the CIA--the same Agency that is the focus 
of this report. Predictably, the redacted version that came back to the 
committee in August obscured key facts and undermined key findings and 
conclusions of the study.
  The CIA also included unnecessary redactions to previously 
acknowledged and otherwise unclassified information. Why? Presumably, 
to make it more difficult for the public to understand the study's 
findings. Content that the CIA has attempted to redact includes 
information in the official, declassified report of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, other executive branch declassified official 
documents, information in books and speeches delivered by former CIA 
officers who were approved by the CIA's Publication Review Board, news 
articles, and other public reports.
  It is true that through negotiations between the committee, the CIA, 
and the White House, many of these issues were resolved. However, at 
the end of the day, the White House and CIA would not agree to include 
any pseudonyms in the study to disguise the names of CIA officers. In 
2009 the CIA and the committee had agreed to use CIA-provided 
pseudonyms for CIA officials, but in the summary's final version, the 
CIA insisted that even the pseudonyms should be redacted.
  For an agency concerned about morale, this is the wrong approach to 
take, in my view. By making it less possible to follow a narrative 
threat throughout the summary, this approach effectively throws many 
CIA personnel under the bus. It tars all of the CIA personnel by making 
it appear that the CIA writ large was responsible for developing, 
implementing, and representing the truth about the CIA's detention and 
interrogation program. In fact, a small number of CIA officers were 
largely responsible.

  Further, there is no question that the identities of undercover 
agents must be protected, but it is unprecedented for the CIA to 
demand--and the White House to agree--that every CIA officer's 
pseudonym in the study be blacked out. U.S. Government agencies have 
used pseudonyms to protect officers' identities in any number of past 
reports, including the 9/11 Commission report, the investigation of the 
Abu Ghraib detention facility, and the report of the Iran-Contra 
affair.
  We asked the CIA to identify any influences in the summary wherein a 
CIA official mentioned by pseudonym would result in the outing of any 
CIA undercover officer, and they could not provide any such examples.
  Why do I focus on this? The CIA's insistence on blacking out even the 
fake

[[Page S6478]]

names of its officers is problematic because the study is less readable 
and has lost some of its narrative thread.
  But as the chairman has said, we will find ways to bridge that gap. 
The tougher problem to solve is how to ensure that this and future 
administrations follow President Obama's pledge not to use sources and 
methods as pretexts to hide the truth.
  What needs to be done? Chairman Feinstein predicted in March--at the 
height of the frenzy over the CIA's spying on committee-dedicated 
computers--that ``our oversight will prevail,'' and generally speaking, 
it has. Much of the truth is out, thanks to the chairman's persistence 
and the dedicated staff involved in this effort. It is, indeed, a 
historic event.
  But there is still no accountability, and despite Director Brennan's 
pledges to me in January 2013, there is still no correction of the 
public record of the inaccurate information the CIA has spread for 
years and continues to stand behind. The CIA has lied to its overseers 
and the public, destroyed and tried to hold back evidence, spied on the 
Senate, made false charges against our staff, and lied about torture 
and the results of torture. And no one has been held to account.
  Torture just didn't happen, after all. Contrary to the President's 
recent statement, ``we'' didn't torture some folks. Real actual people 
engaged in torture. Some of these people are still employed by the CIA 
and the U.S. Government. There are, right now, people serving in high-
level positions at the Agency who approved, directed or committed acts 
related to the CIA's detention and interrogation program. It is bad 
enough not to prosecute these officials, but to reward or promote them 
and risk the integrity of the U.S. Government to protect them is 
incomprehensible.
  The President needs to purge his administration of high-level 
officials who were instrumental to the development and running of this 
program. He needs to force a cultural change at the CIA.
  The President also should support legislation limiting interrogation 
to noncoercive techniques--to ensure that his own Executive order is 
codified and to prevent a future administration from developing its own 
torture program.
  The President must ensure the Panetta review is declassified and 
publicly released.
  The full 6,800-page study of the CIA's detention and interrogation 
program should be declassified and released.
  There also needs to be accountability for the CIA spying on its 
oversight committee, and the CIA inspector general's report needs to be 
declassified and released to the public.
  A key lesson I have learned from my experience with the study is the 
importance of the role of Congress in overseeing the intelligence 
community. It is always easier to accept what we are told at face value 
than it is to ask tough questions. If we rely on others to tell us what 
is behind their own curtain instead of taking a look for ourselves, we 
can't know for certain what is there.
  This isn't at all to say that what the committee found in its study 
is a culture and behavior we should ascribe to all employees of the CIA 
or to the intelligence community. The intelligence community is made up 
of thousands of hard-working patriotic Americans. These women and men 
are consummate professionals who risk their lives every day to keep us 
safe and to provide the their best assessments regardless of political 
and policy considerations.
  But it is incumbent on government leaders--it is incumbent on us--to 
live up to the dedication of these employees and to make them proud of 
the institutions they work for. It gives me no pleasure to say this, 
but as I have said before, for Director Brennan that means resigning. 
For the next CIA director that means immediately correcting the false 
record and instituting the necessary reforms to restore the CIA's 
reputation for integrity and analytical rigor.
  The CIA cannot not be its best until it faces its serious and 
grievous mistakes of the detention and interrogation program. For 
President Obama, that means taking real action to live up to the 
pledges he made early in his Presidency.
  Serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee for the past 4 years 
opened my eyes and gave me a much deeper appreciation of the importance 
of our role in the balancing of power in our great government. It also 
helped me understand that all Members of Congress, not only 
Intelligence Committee members, have an opportunity and an obligation 
to exercise their oversight powers.
  Members who do not serve on the Intelligence Committee can ask to 
read classified documents, call for classified briefings, and submit 
classified questions.
  This is my challenge today to the American people. Urge your Member 
of Congress to be engaged, to get classified briefings, and to help 
keep the intelligence community accountable. This is the only way that 
secret government and democracy can coexist.
  We have so much to be proud of in our great Nation, and one of those 
matters of pride is our commitment to admit mistakes, correct past 
actions, and move forward knowing that we are made stronger when we 
refuse to be bound by the past.
  We have always been a forward-looking Nation, but to be so we must be 
mindful of our own history. That is what this study is all about. So I 
have no doubt that we will emerge from a dark episode with our 
democracy strengthened and our future made brighter.
  It has been an honor to serve on this committee, and I will miss 
doing its important work more than I can say.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. WALSH. Madam President, I rise today to speak to this body and my 
fellow Montanans about service.
  In preparing to leave the Senate, I add my voice to the voices of 
many other departing Members who have called for a return to civility 
in Washington, DC. Politics today is too full of pettiness. Public 
servants--you and I, as well as those elected to serve in the next 
Congress--should set the standard with better words and better actions, 
but we should also lead from the front. I am not saying anything that 
hasn't already been said, but more of us need to say it. If we are 
lucky, which we are, we are even blessed to stand in this room and do 
what we do on behalf of our fellow citizens.
  Everyone in this Chamber has a unique story about their roots and 
their path to public service. Mine began in Butte, MT. I was the son of 
a union pipefitter in a struggling blue-collar town, and my path led to 
the military. I enlisted out of high school in the Montana National 
Guard and soon found a career serving my neighbors and family.
  The National Guard--the great citizen wing of our Armed Forces--was a 
home for me. Leading my fellow soldiers into combat in Iraq in 2004-
2005 was a defining experience in my life. Overseeing two successful 
elections for the Iraqis added a new perspective to my view on 
democracy. Fighting insurgents drove home how fortunate we are to live 
in the United States of America and to enjoy the freedoms we often take 
for granted.
  The men of Task Force GRIZ who unfortunately didn't come home with me 
and the men and women who came back with visible and invisible wounds 
have truly defined the cost of war for me, and they remind me every 
single day of the cost of public servants getting it wrong when it 
comes to our national defense. I have devoted much of my professional 
life since returning home to accounting for the true cost of war.
  Today, from my perspective, the debts are stacked against the 
democratic process in America in many ways. There is too much money, 
too much noise, and too little commitment to finding common ground. 
Anonymous money masquerading as free speech can poison campaigns. It 
silences the voices of the majority of American citizens. The 
concentration of wealth in fewer hands is bad for our society, just as 
the ability for a handful of the wealthy to carry the loudest 
megaphones in our elections is bad for our democracy. Elections are 
starting to look much like auctions. Dark money and circus politics 
shouldn't prevent the U.S. Senate from honorably living up to the power 
we have been given.
  Growing up in a little house that shook twice a day from the dynamite

[[Page S6479]]

blasts at the copper mine nearby, I never thought I would be involved 
in public service. I aspired to have a decent job. I aspired to get an 
education. I aspired to having the time to fish the lakes and streams I 
fished with my father. Just the normal stuff. And that normal stuff is 
what I think most Americans still want today and too often can't 
achieve.
  Public service--becoming a soldier--was my ticket to a better life: a 
job and a college education. After only a small taste, I discovered 
that I loved public service. I loved being devoted to something bigger 
than myself.
  We should all remember that Congress can always use more Americans 
from more walks of life who have discovered public service through 
unlikely means.
  It is the privilege of my life to serve the people of Montana in the 
seat of Senators Lee Metcalf and Max Baucus. Lee, along with Mike 
Mansfield, was my Senator while I was growing up in Butte, MT. The 
great citizen conservationist Cecil Garland said:

       It was typical of Lee to fight to give the little guy a 
     voice in government decisions.

  In my time in this Chamber, I have tried to follow Lee's example.
  The people who need a voice in this Chamber are the ranchers and 
hardware store owners like Cecil in towns like Lincoln and Dillon. The 
person who needs a voice in this Chamber is the mother in Troy, MT, who 
became the primary bread winner when her husband lost his job cutting 
timber. The person who needs a voice here is the young woman in Shelby, 
MT, who has done everything right--studied hard and earned her degree--
only to be squeezed by too much student debt and too few opportunities. 
The people who need voices are the servicemembers from Laurel and Great 
Falls, MT, who returned from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq with 
delayed onset PTSD and have fallen through the cracks at the VA. They 
are the entrepreneurs in Big Fork and Bozeman, MT, who have opened 
small distilleries and faced the tangle of redtape. They are the 
committed couples across Montana--your neighbors, my family, my 
friends--who are treated like second-class citizens because of whom 
they love.
  So today I urge my colleagues to lend people like this in each of 
your States your voice as a Senator in this Chamber.
  I am humbled by the number of challenges that face the next Congress. 
I urge my colleagues to continue to fight to protect Americans' civil 
liberties. I leave the Senate dismayed by the scope of government 
surveillance in our everyday life. Congress must always--and I 
emphasize always--protect the privacy of our citizens.
  I remain deeply concerned about the National Security Agency's 
unconstitutional spying on Americans' communications, the secret 
backdoors into the Department of Commerce encryption standards, and the 
gag orders under the FBI national security letter program.
  I urge my colleagues to continue fighting for rural America. We need 
stronger voting rights and more jobs in Indian Country to promote 
tribal sovereignty and prosperity. We need to keep our farm safety net 
strong and address brucellosis to protect the livestock industry. We 
need a stronger commitment to fund and reform the Payment in Lieu of 
Taxes Program and its sister programs. Small county budgets, schools, 
and roads depend on them. These same rural communities need better 
management of our national forests--something Congress and the Forest 
Service need to focus on.

  We need an honest conversation and urgent solutions to the incredible 
challenge posed by climate change. As I said earlier from this same 
podium, we cannot put our heads in the sand and continue with business 
as usual.
  Members of Congress should be taking responsibility and upholding the 
oaths we all swore. We should agree with science--climate change is a 
clear enemy, and Congress must take steps to stop it.
  The next Congress should be thoughtful about women and families--from 
health care decisions to paycheck fairness.
  Finally, I implore all of Congress, all of you, to redouble your 
attention to the crisis of suicide among our veterans. Yesterday the 
House of Representatives passed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for 
American Veterans Act. That bill now sits before this body, and we have 
an opportunity to act. We have an opportunity to pass it. I mentioned 
the invisible wounds of war already, but if this country were losing 22 
servicemembers a day on the battlefield, Americans would be on the 
streets protesting. Congress would be demanding action. But that is 
exactly the number of veterans who die by suicide each and every day 
from across our country. Veteran suicide is an urgent crisis facing our 
communities, and congressional action is long overdue.
  I believe extending the eligibility for combat veterans at the VA is 
one essential way to address delayed-onset PTSD and reduce the suicide 
rate among our veterans. This simple fix and other solutions that 
improve access to mental health for veterans should continue to be a 
top priority for the next Congress.
  It is fitting that in the last days of the 113th Congress, the Senate 
is sending the President a bill that carries on the public lands legacy 
of Senators Lee Metcalf and Max Baucus and the thousands of Montanans 
who worked together to find common ground.
  In the words of Randolph Jennings, Senator Rockefeller's predecessor 
from West Virginia, Lee ``was a tireless champion of preserving and 
protecting our nation's natural heritage for succeeding generations to 
use and enjoy.''
  After Lee's death, Max and the rest of the Montana delegation carried 
on his legacy by passing wilderness designations for the Absaroka-
Beartooth, Great Bear, and the Lee Metcalf wilderness areas. In the 
same spirit, I am honored to join Senator Jon Tester and Senator-elect 
Steve Daines in carrying on their legacy by passing the North Fork 
Watershed Protection Act and the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. We 
took a page from Montanans. We sat down together, and we worked out an 
agreement that protected almost 700,000 acres of the Crown of the 
Continent. This is how democracy should work.
  Forty-two years after the first citizen-driven wilderness, this week 
Congress is expanding the Scapegoat and Bob Marshall Wilderness areas 
in Montana. Thirty-eight years after the Flathead River was protected 
from schemes to dam it and divert it, this week Congress is protecting 
the Flathead and Glacier National Park forever from efforts to mine it 
and drill it. Montanans came together. Farmers, ranchers, small 
business owners, conservationists, hunters, anglers--all worked 
together to find common ground. Montanans went there first, and their 
representatives in Congress followed.
  When Congress rewards the work of citizens who collaborate, when we 
finally reach the critical mass in this Chamber to be responsive, that 
is the day we earn the title of ``public servant.'' Montanans can be 
hopeful today that government by them and for them still works. They 
can still effect change. The Senate still listens and serves.
  When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, Congress passed 
legislation at his request that restored his military title. He wanted 
to be remembered as a career soldier rather than the Commander in 
Chief.
  My 33 years in uniform defined my life. I will always be a soldier. 
As a soldier, as a husband to my wonderful wife Janet, who has been my 
partner for 31 years, and as the proud dad of Michael and Taylor, as 
the father-in-law to my wonderful daughter-in-law April, and as the 
grandfather of a little girl named Kennedy, who will inherit this great 
Nation, I will return to civilian life with great hope for the United 
States Senate and for the United States of America.
  I, along with millions of others, will be watching closely and 
imploring Members in this Chamber to check politics at the door and 
instead focus on the future. Honor veterans and their families who 
sacrifice so much. Honor seniors who have heard promises from you. 
Honor the most vulnerable amongst us. They are who we always should 
fight for.
  Madam President, I am forever grateful to have served the people of 
Montana in this building standing side by side with each and every one 
of you. God bless each and every one of you, and may God continue to 
bless the United States of America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.

[[Page S6480]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________