quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i come to the floor today to talk about zero dark 30. not the movie, but a report on the movie. the report was supposed to tell us how the movie's producers obtained top-secret information from the federal government. but the report never took us there, the department of defense inspector general stumbled and fell and lost sight of the goal, and the need for independence. people were exposed to harm,

the taxpayers' money got wasted, alleged misconduct by top officials was shielded by a policy that may have been abused , bureaucratic bungling causeed confusion, turmoil, and dissent. for certain, the whole thing was a fiasco. the zero dark 30 report was driven by the hemorrhage of leaks of highly classified information by senior administration officials after the osama bin laden raid. it was requested by the chairman of the house oversight committee, congressman peter king, a very good congressman, very good on oversight. he read a column in "the new york times" which indicated that

hollywood filmmakers -- quote -- "received top-level access to the most classified mission in history" -- end of quote. congressman king was concerned that those disclosures could undermine our ability to successfully conduct covert operations in the future. so on august, 2011, congressman king asked the inspectors general of central intelligence agency and the department of defense to answer five simple questions. my focus during these remarks is on the department of defense i.g.'s investigation. i became involved as you might expect after whistle-blowers

contacted my office on december, 2012, alleging that acting and deputy inspector general lynn hallbrooks was sitting on congressman king's report. they allege that she, ms. hallbrooks was suppressing the report to protect her boss, secretary of defense panetta and other officials from disciplinary action and prosecution, and two, to further her candidacy to be the next inspector general. her nomination was vetted while the investigation was in progress. the convergence of these potential conflicts of interest grabbed my attention. they needed scrutiny. the independence of the inspector general's office could

have been jeopardized. so my staff just started digging. they interviewed key witnesses and examined documents provideed by whistle-blowers and official sources, and here is what we have found. on december 16, 2011, the department of defense office of inspector general announced that its investigation would begin immediately, and that it was to be coordinated with the c.i.a. inspector general. it would be conducted by the office of intelligence and special programs assessment, headed by a mr. james ives. that investigation took a year. a draft report was submitted for classification review on october 24, 2012.

the allegations were substantiated. senior officials, including defense secretary leon panetta, his chief of staff, jeremiah bush, and under secretary of intelligence, michael vickers, allegedly made unauthorized disclosures of highly classified information on that raid. and two, these alleged disclosures may have placed special operation personnel and their families in harm's way. one month later, the draft report containing those allegations was declared unclassified. a coordination package was then developed. it included a publicly releasable version, talking

points for reporters, and transmittal memos to the defense secretary and chairman king. this package was circulated internally for review and cleaners. the next and final step was submission to deputy i.g. hell brooks as a request -- who will holbrookes for a request for release. the report was ready. however there is a major foul-up, a real showstopper. the review process was bungled from start to finish. all references to unauthorized disclosures of highly classified information by senior officials had to be stripped from the report before it could be published. this draconian measure, which gutted the report mandate it

unfit for -- report and made it unfit for publication. this long-standing department policy was known only to the two leaders of the investigations, deputies holbrookes and ives. it was their responsibility to execute it at the front end of the review. i want to make one point crystal clear. i don't support the policy of seinsensenbrennersensorring rep. it is a bad policy that needs to be changed. here is my beef, though. if that policy -- if that's the policy, then it should have been followed, but it wasn't followed until the last possible moment. to make matters far worse, both ives and holbrookes failed to

communicate the policy mandate to those who need the information to ready the report for publication. hellbrooks and identifies kept the investigative team in the dark like a bunch of mushrooms, so they had the mistaken notion the report was final and ready to go. this cause add great deal of turmoil. two factors set the stage for the bungled review process. first, the official assigned to lead the project, mr. ives, lacked relevant professional experience and top management failed to actively supervise his day-to-day progress on the report to ensure that he followed established protocols. he needed guidance navigating his way through an unfamiliar

process but got no guidance. plus, his appointment was limited to four months on a project that took two years. this was a recipe for disaster. second, the problem was compounded by a failure to coordinate with c.i.a. inspector general before the investigation got rolling. effective coordination was essential. congressman king's request crossed jurisdictional lines between two powerful agencies, the c.i.a. and the department of defense. the c.i.a.'s inspector general was ultimately responsible for examining the alleged misconduct because it occurred while panetta and his chief of staff, jeremiah bash, were c.i.a. employees. that they had moved to the

pentagon after the investigation started was very irrelevant. this was a no-brainer. but for inexplicable reasons, the department of defense i.g. tackled the panetta-bash allegations. this was an irresponsible and a wasteful action. it took over a year of groping down blind alleys for the reality to finally sink in. by then, it was way too late. the failure of the two agencies to coordinate effectively right up front had disastrous consequences. just as the report was reaching critical mass in late-2012, the panetta case had to be referred back to the c.i.a. i.g. for investigation. panetta's alleged misconduct was the heart and soul of the report. it was suddenly gone, leaving

the report hollow eandlety. -- and empty. how could all this senseless blundering happen unless it was part plan of to slow-roll or even torpedo the report? the blundering was coupled with unexplained delays. between mid-december and early january, deputy ives finally completed the mandated substantial review, which gutted the report. hough, it did not regain forward motion until after secretary panetta retired february 27, 2013. helbrooks claims she did not receive or see a draft until march 25, 2013. aside from a few minor edits, there is no record of significant edits between

mr. ives' review and publication of the report. the three-month delay in reaching her desk and subsequent delays until june remain unexplained and unaccounted for. these facts create the perception that the review process was slowed by helbrooks and others at her direction to shield department of defense officials from scrutiny. she claims her nomination was dead at this point and no longer a potential conflict. but she offers no evidence to back it up. mormoreover, this time line fits with other relevant information. according to a whistle-blower, she stated repeatedly that the report would not be issued until panetta stepped down, and that's exactly what happened. finally, the bungled review process may have triggered whistle-blowers. whistle-blowers thought the report was about to be issued in

late-2012 when media's talkingpoints were circulating whvment that didn't happen -- when that didn't happen, they perceived a cover-up. they contacted my office and then they leaked the report to the project on government account -- oversight, and that's normally referred to around this town as pogo. the uncensored version of the report appeared on pogo's web site on june the 4th, 2013. 10 days later, the i.g.'s office reacted by finally issuing a censored version of the report. if pogo had not acted, the report might never have seen the light of day. it might have been pigeonholed for good. immediately after the official report was issued, helbrooks launched a hunt for the mole. she wanted to know who leaked

the reports to pogo. extensive interviews were conducted, and 33,269 e-mails were examined. but the leaker was not found. hough, during questioning, mr. dan meyer, the department of defense o.i.g. director of whistle-blower and transparency, admitted to giving a copy of the report to congress. it was one of the many o.i.g. employees -- or, he was one of the many o.i.g. employees who mistakenly believed that the uncensored version of the report circulated in late-2012 for final review and cleaner clearas indeed fine a h final. he thought it was ready to go out the door. maybe he just thought it was doing his job and being, like every government official ought to be, very transparent, because

the public's business ought to be public. around this towrntion however, that's not -- around this town, however, that's not always the case. mr. meyer's admission triggered swift and decisive action. he was accused of making false statements, placing his security clearance in jeopardy. this action had the potential of destroying his career. now, fortunately -- and this doesn't happen very often around this town -- the new inspector general at d.o.d., john rhymer, intervened in mr. meyer's behalf and blocked those efforts. the case against mr. meyer was very flimsy, though his clearance is still hanging fire. in the end, mr. meyer bore the brunt of blame for the pogo leak. the principal targets of the investigation -- panetta, vickers and bash -- they skated.

mr. meyer exposed their alleged misconduct and yet he got hammered. justice got turned upside down. what happened during the 22 months between chairman king's request and june 2013 when the report was finally issued is a tangled bureaucratic mess. despite exhaust i have -- despie questioning, an explanation hasn't been given. what i have today is just a brief summary of the facts and analysis laid out in greater detail in a staff report that i released today. in that report, my staff identified potential red flags pertaining to the way the inspector general's office handled the zero dark 30 report.

these were boiled down to nine conclusions that fell into four broad categories: one, impairment of i.g. independence and lack of commitment to the spirit and intent of the i.g. act. two, weak leadership. three, mismanagement. and, four, waste of time and taxpayers' money. the staff findings suggest that some corrective action may be justified, including an appropriate measure of accountability. if misconduct and/or mismanagement occurred, then deputies helbrook and james ive, both of who led the zero dark 30 project, would appear to be chiefly responsible for whatever happened. it is also recommended that the long-standing department policy, which i earlier told you i disagreed with, but that this long-standing department policy

of sensitive information from reports not be applied to cases involving alleged misconduct by top officials because agency heads and their senior deputies should be held to a higher standard. they should be subjected to greater public scrutiny. this policy needs review and possible modification. when all is said and done, the proof is, of course, in the pudding, as they say. what good came from this effort? it's true value is reflected in the end product: the highly sanitized report that was finally issued june 14, 2013, six months after it was finished. i believe that it is a second-class piece of work that is not worth the paper that it's written on. even helbrook seems to report

that the -- seems to agree that the report' report's. she said that once ives removed all the derogatory information on panetta and vickers, the report was no longer interesting or important to me. meaning her. and it just dropped off my radar screen, and words to that effect. she was talking about the report issued june 14, 201367813. helbrooks is correct about the value of the report but she is dead wrong about her responsibility as i.g. for the unfinished report. at that point she appeared to have lost sight of her core mission at the inspector general. the report was about alleged misconduct by her boss, the secretary of defense. it was requested by the chairman of the house oversight committ

committee, mr. king. she had a solemn duty to put it back up on her radar screen and keep it there front and center until it was fixed. once it was ready and up to standard, she should have presented it proudly and enthusiastically to the congress and secretary of defense and done it properly and in restricted format, if necessary. this project was an unmitigated disaster, spawned by a series of top-level missteps and blunders. all the wasted energy and blundering produced nothing better than internal confusion, turmoil, dissent, and more alleged misconduct. two years' worth of hard work and money was more or less poured down a rat hole. to make matters far worse, a valued employee was threatened with termination.

this person was unique and unparalleled knowledge of whistle-blowers and a rock-solid commitment to fair treatment of whistle-blowers. were it not for inspector general rhymer, he would be out on the street this very day. halbrooks' search for the mold was misguided. the inspector general's office needs strong leadership that has the courage to tell it like it is and to report wrongdoing promptly to agency heads and even congress with recommendations for corrective action. when the secretary and the under secretary stand accused of misconduct as in this case, the i.g. should double down and ensure public accountability. thus far in this matter there has been none because truth was hidden behind questionable policies that may have been abused. there is an excellent case in

point from just a few years back. deputy secretary of defense and c.i.a. director john deutch allegedly mishandled highly classified information and got hammered for doing it. he lost his security clearance for six years and came very close to prosecution, unlike this case, the zero dark thirty leaks, that john deutch matter was dealt with effectively and it was aired publicly. the zero dark thirty model was wasteful of the taxpayers' money. it was harmful to morale and harmful to perceived independence of the i.g.'s office. it should be used as an educational tool to teach office of inspector general employees in any department of government how not to conduct

investigations of alleged misconduct by senior officials. i yield the floor. mr. roberts: i'd like to amplify remarks by my colleague from utah, senator hatch, the distinguished member of the senate finance committee, concerning the year-end tax legislation, what's called the tax extenders bill. senator hatch was entirely correct, it seems to me, when he said that getting this legislation through the senate had been an ordeal, an unnecessary ordeal not only for the senate but more particularly for every person and business back home in my state of kansas

and all throwt the country -- throughout the country. utah, kansas, wherever in the united states. i'm talking about farmers, ranchers, small business owners, manufacturers, all of their employees. in other words, the backbone of our economy. it's a real shame that the longer-term extenders deal developed by the chairmen of the tax committees and the leaders in the house and senate -- yes, you heard me right. both, chairmen, house and senate, and both leaders have agreed that basically this deal that was reached before the thanksgiving holiday has collapsed. the deal included a number of very critical items, including a permanent simplification of the research credit that would help businesses plan and invest in job-creating innovation. the package also included a number of provisions which i had, for which i had worked very hard, including special

depreciation and expensing rules that are very important to agriculture small business. the plan also included bipartisan legislation i developed with senator schumer to modify the research and development tax credit so it could be more easily used by smaller businesses where the bulk of technological innovation really occurs. the plan also included long-term extension of legislation that i pushed to make sure smaller businesses are able to access the capital they need to grow and hire new employees. now, mr. president, these provisions are not give-aways. they free up capital and cash that can be invested and recycled into economic growth. that's a good thing. we should have done that. these provisions do not fit within the class warfare debate. actually it's not a debate, but rather a diversionary tactic that actually took place.

it shouldn't have even been mentioned. a veto should have never even been forthcoming from the white house. i have heard the complaint that the proposal was too business focused. well, since business today is mired in the swamp of regulation and guessing games and unpredictability, the focus of a so-called tax extenders bill should have darned well been focused on business. not every person in america works for our growing government. the deal would have also helped individual taxpayers from teachers taking a deduction for school supplies they purchase with their own money for help to homeowners who have defaulted on a mortgage or face financial hardship to deductions for college tuitions and expanses. these provisions would keep more money in the pocket of taxpayers, a better place for it. the package represented months of good-faith work by the tax committees and leadership in both houses of congress,

something unique that we have experienced around here for quite awhile. now obviously the deal wasn't perfect by any stretch, but it would have been a great down payment for true tax reform. but most of all, it would have brought certainty and clarity to tax policies, something we sorely need and which is long overdue. let me give you an example of what i mean. earlier this week i visited with farmers in kansas at the annual kansas farm bureau meeting. about 1,000 farmers attended. one farmer who shared his views so that pretty much everybody around him could hear, told me he recently purchased new farm equipment -- combines and tractors -- so his family could step up work on their land, expand their operation. and he was upset. actually he was not upset. he was mad because we we have, quote, according to him "we've been messing around too much

with the extenders bill. " he was mad because if equipment expensing rules aren't extended he's out of many thousands of dollars. that is just a portion of what has been spent. but that's money he would have used to buy more equipment or more land, the productive use of capital and not some trivial amount used for a vacation or something else. and it is not this gentleman, not just this farmer. my phone has been ringing off the hook all month with calls from farmers and ranchers, equipment dealers, other businesses who need to know whether this will get extended or not. and they too are upset -- make that mad. they're frustrated and they need us to get to work to help them run their businesses and their lives. yes, even with the recent blowup, we will extend these tax provisions but only for one year. a month. and then we'll be back at it next year. and these folks will be in the same position, the same kind of

purgatory, wondering we will ever come to our senses, wondering whether to buy that new tractor or buy the new production line or to hire new employees. every day when i visit with business owners and taxpayers in kansas, i hear over and over one simple refrain: senator, we need certainty in the tax code. we need to be able to rely on a stable tax system so we can plan and grow our business. senator pat, the congress needs to do something about these tax extenders. well, i couldn't agree more, and i think most of us, if not all of us, on the finance committee, the senate finance committee, couldn't agree more. the lack of certainty about these tax provisions is bad for american families. it's bad for business looking to create jobs. and it's bad for our economy. it leaves businesses unable to plan ahead and invest because they're left in the dark about what tax provisions will affect their operations.

so what happened to the deal? why are we at this debating another kick of the can down the road? well, the imperial presidency has happened. the president has decided that instituting executive amnesty was the best course of action before the end of the year. president obama's immigration grenade doomed the tax extenders deal negotiated -- real negotiations unraveled. a veto threat was issued and the bipartisan compromises were killed. because of president obama's "my way or the highway" approach to leadership and to amnesty, congress is now forced to once again cobble together a one-year tax policy patch that basically nobody really wants. this hurts families, job creators, farmers, ranchers, teachers, everyone who needs to plan ahead to succeed. so instead of working with congress to develop an immigration reform compromise, we have the most arrogant attack

on the constitution i've ever seen. once again the president placed partisan politics above the needs of the middle class, workers or business owners or students and teachers and indeed our entire economy. without this unprecedented illegal executive order, we would right now be discussing a long-term extension of the vital tax provisions. we could have maybe even voted on it as of this year, laying -- as of this week, laying a strong base for comprehensive tax reform. instead the president has sacrificed job-producing economic policy for the expedience of the executive action. as i have said elsewhere, the president has seemingly no interest in a constructive working relationship with congress. he really didn't have any intention of listening to the will of the american people and he has no respect for the constitutional boundaries of his office. this is beyond troubling, but it

spilled over into other areas like tax policy does not bode well for the bipartisan development of policy to build the economy that we so desperately need and that we were so close to achieving. but let us be hopeful. maybe something goodwill come out of this whole situation. maybe we will recognize the level of dysfunction illustrated by the executive order. and i hope that it will point us back to regular order. it is critically important that we return to regular order in the senate, in particular, with all of the major fiscal issues that we face. bringing the extenders package through the finance committee was a strong sign that we mean business and that we are ready to move on a bipartisan basis to address the fiscal issues that are facing the country. sadly, that effort was sabotaged. without that action, we would be moving toward a more sensible bipartisan progrowth extenders

bill. and perhaps well on our way to tax reform. but we are not. it's really a shame. it didn't have to be this way. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: first, on roll call vote 309 i voted "aye" and it was my intention to vote "no" therefore i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote since it won't affect the outcome. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: i have a couple things i want to do before i assume the chair, and i want to express my great gratitude to my friend from massachusetts for his willingness to sit tight for a little bit. i was sitting here thinking about the two men that i want to talk about, and i was thinking about how similar they are and how different their background

are but how similar their goals in life and their interest in the people that they serve are. it's the great irany of our democracy that -- the great irony of our democracy that regardless of where you come from, if you come to serve the public you come to love the public and you come to believe in the work that you do and believe that every person has to be given an opportunity. and so i first want to offer my great condolences to the family of mayor denny walliker from our great city of fargo, north dakota. it is with a heavy heart i come to pay tribute to the mayor of fargo who passed away tuesday after a very short but aggressive fight in his battle against his cancer. his passing, i think, shocked most of us and certainly saddened all of us. mayor walliker was a giant in

fargo not only in stature. he was a big guy but as a leader and fighter for the city he loved. he dedicated his entire life to public service first serving in the north dakota department of public transportation, later joining the city of fargo as a civil engineer. for 40 years denny has been a fixture in this growing city from leading the city's flood fight in 1997 as operations manager for the city he later became mayor for. one cannot think of fargo without thinking of mayor walliker and seeing in every corner the impact he made, whether it was infrastructure, investment improvements to provide a strong foundation for a thriving community and city to the revitalization of the city's downtown, to his focus on those within the city who are less fortunate. he led the city through unprecedented growth, while always working diligently to make sure the region secured the

long-term flood protection that was necessary to sustain that growth. he was always willing to listen and cared deeply for all the people of the city of fargo. the people of fargo always came first for him, no matter what. for many of us, denny will always be remembered for leading the city's flood fighting effort, particularly in 1997 and 2009 when the city of fargo confronted an historic flood. he had keen instincts when it came to understanding and predicting the red river and wasn't afraid to push back on the so-called experts. his calm, clear, and decisive decision making in 2009, when he made the decision that the city would not -- would not evacuate when facing record-setting flood levels, but instead stay and fight and fight together, that image of him building our

city and building our community will forever be etched in the memories and the minds of those of us who knew denny. however, for all of the discussion about the flood fight, there is so much more denny did in addition to his role as chief flood fighter, but much of it was under the radar, it was away from the spotlight. just a few weeks ago, i was with the mayor in one of his last public appearances. it was an event where we were honored for the work that we had both done on affordable housing. at that event, he remarked to me and the others who were there about how proud he was to receive that award and how proud he was about the work that he had done on affordable housing because he told all of us he wanted to make sure that fargo was a city for every citizen, that every citizen of fargo had an opportunity for a good home. he was passionate for fighting for those less fortunate, and

his heart and his personality really were unmatched. people like mayor walaker are the unsung heroes of our democracy. he stepped up to serve when his city needed him, and he was a friend and hero to so many. a few weeks ago, i was in fargo for the college game day, and denny couldn't make it because he was recuperating from surgery at his home. i had a chance to talk to him on the phone, and i was explaining the seat for him in downtown fargo, the part of fargo that he had revitalized and really nurtured back to an incredible, healthy center of activity for that great city. i was telling him how proud he would be to not only see every citizen there enjoying but the work that had been done by the city work force and the -- the fact that fargo was able to move that game day effort in such short notice. and i think it really is indicative of the history of

fargo, and that history was part of the history that denny built. and so he will always have a place in my heart. he will always have a place in the heart of so many in fargo and the surrounding areas and really throughout the state of north dakota. i loved denny because i used to laugh at him. i was pretty sure he was the only public official in north dakota that had a picture of barack obama on his wall. he had met the president. he believed in a lot of what the president had said. obviously, not on everything, but he believed in public service and he believed in the challenges and respecting people who stepped up. we mourn denny's loss but we celebrate his life as an incredible example of a leader. he was one of a kind. i offer my sincerest condolences to his wife mary, his daughters,

grandchildren and his entire family, but i also extend my sincerest condolences on the loss of a great mayor, a great public servant and a great friend to a great city, the city of fargo. also, if i can take a few moments and just make some comments about another great guy and another good friend of mine, senator jay rockefeller. i have only known jay for a couple of years, and when i first started, people would -- i would go home to north dakota and people would ask me kind of consistently, so who do you meet? who do you listen to? what has been a big surprise. and when they said who are your favorite people, i said this may come as a surprise because i didn't go with the idea that i would have an opportunity to work with or spend time with senator rockefeller, but i said

the one person who impressed me the most when i first got here was senator jay rockefeller. and he for so many of us a giant. not only physically. people say what about him? i say one of my funnest moments was watching senator rockefeller stand and visit with barbara mikulski. i'm pretty sure she might be the shortest person in the united states senate, and i'm pretty sure jay might be the tallest. and i said what you don't know about senator rockefeller, not only in intellectual stature but physical stature, he's a giant of a man. but it's not that intellectual stature of senator rockefeller that impressed me, and it certainly wasn't his size that impressed me. it was the size of his heart and how much he cared for the people that he served in west virginia. i had a chance last year -- or this year to travel to west virginia and spend time with the folks of his great state.

as they were looking at this transition, they would tell me stories about senator rockefeller, and they would tell me stories about what he meant to them and what -- the things that he had gone out of his way to do, things that were beyond maybe what even expectations of a -- of a -- of a populace would ever be, that jay was there for them, and they knew that every day jay woke up and in his heart were the people of west virginia. and i think you heard that today with his floor speech as he talked about the impact of coming to west virginia as a young vista worker. that impact that had -- it had on him that changed his life and created the man that you see today. and so i celebrate a senator with an enormous intellect, an enormous capacity for facts and data and public policy, but that

wasn't what made him a great senator. what made jay rockefeller a great senator was his enormous heart for the people he served. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. let me begin by echoing the wonderful analysis of my colleague, senator heitkamp, relative to how much we're all going to miss senator jay rockefeller. as she pointed out, he reminded us today why we all are here, and that is to try and make a difference for our constituents and for the people that we serve, and no one did that better than jay rockefeller. he was always a voice for those most in need and never stopped fighting for the people he

served, so we will certainly miss him. mr. president, i really came to the floor this afternoon to talk about a provision that i think we need to make sure is included as we continue to negotiate and debate the tax extenders package. that's a commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral provision that enjoys a lot of support and one that i think should be included in any reform or extension effort, and that is the enhanced tax incentive for conservation easement donations. conservation easements are a critical component of modern day efforts to preserve our outdoor treasures. that's something that means a lot to us in new hampshire where we have so many wonderful natural resources and historic

resources and we want to try and preserve them. one of the things that conservation easements do is provide a flexible, voluntary, nongovernmental and nonregulatory approach to protecting our nation's places. conservation easements and tax incentives for their donations allow landowners to exchange development rights in order to protect a property's conservation values, and that then allows them to pass on those conservation values to future generations. easements keep the lapped in its natural state -- land in its natural state and ensures that these outdoor treasures aren't sub divided and exploited. and just as important, lands placed in conservation easements can continue to be farmed, grazed, hunted or used for outdoor recreation and wildlife conservation. and equally important, they

romaine on the tax rolls, which makes such a huge difference to local communities. in antiquities, congress recognized the importance of promoting conservation easements by enacting the enhanced tax incentive for conservation easement donations. and as i said, that was done with bipartisan, bicameral support because this is an idea that makes sense. this tax incentive provided working and middle-class landowners with the ability to donate their land for conservation. as opposed to simply selling off the land to the highest bidder, allowing it to be developed and partitioned off. and the great thing about this incentive is that it worked. it's directly responsible for the conservation of more than two million acres of our nation's natural outdoor heritage. now, unfortunately, as so many provisions in the tax extenders

bill, this tax incentive lapsed at the end of 2013, and as a result, landowners who want to donate their land for conservation but need this enhanced deduction to make it work financially, these landowners are left in limbo. making this incentive permanent will provide much-needed certainty to landowners, because the decision of whether to donate conservation easements on land -- and land is often a family's most valuable asset -- that decision requires careful planning and consideration, and it often takes years from the initial conversations with the landowner before conservation -- a conservation easement is executed. understandably, many landowners will never begin this process without the assurance of a permanent incentive. in new hampshire, we have seen firsthand how valuable the enhanced conservation easement

tax credit is when it comes to making sure we're protecting our special outdoor places for generations to come. for example, take henry brooks jr. and his sister linda, linda brown. they donated two conservation easements on about 200 acres of land in sullivan, new hampshire, which is down in the western part of our state in what we call the manandack region, not too far from the vermont border. the land had been in their family since the time of the town's founding, over 200 years. it's open fields with expansive views all the way to vermont. the fields are pasture and haylands that are used for henry's beef cattle. the forests, streams and wetlands also provide excellent wildlife habitat. the enhanced conservation easement tax incentive was very persuasive in their decision to move forward and finish the

project by the end of 2013. in particular, the ability to take that deduction over the course of 16 years is going to make a significant difference for henry, who is really of modest means. and as linda, his sister, said, the enhanced incentive is a win-win situation. another example that i think is significant is the squam lakes watershed. the squam watershed is renowned for its conservation ethos and it's the only watershed that is listed on the national register of historic places. organizations like the squam lake conservation society have used conservation easements to protect 25% of the watershed. and thanks to tax deductions, 91% of thesesments were donated. so think about that. 25% of the watershed and 91% of it has been donated. projects like these in new

hampshire are great examples of the need to renew the enhanced conservation and easement deduction. and, you know, protecting these spaces isn't just good for the environment. certainly, that's the case. but it's also critical to new hampshire's economies -- economy. and i know that's true in other states as well, but our economy depends on tourism, on outdoor recreation. we have thousands of jobs that are created in those industries that bring millions of dollars into our state, and if we can preserve our landscape and protect our natural resources, it makes a huge difference in ensuring that those industries are successful. that tourists want to continue to come to new hampshire and visit. right now, we have families who are making decisions about what they're going to do with conservation easements, and they are in limbo because congress has not yet acted on this issue.

we haven't determined if we're going to pass another tax extenders package and how long we're going to pass that for so people don't know whether they are going to have any certainty about taking this tax deduction on a conservation easement. it's time for us to provide some certainty, to encourage families to continue to make those contributions to protect these natural treasures. it's important not only in new hampshire, i'm sure it's important in north dakota and across this country. so i urge my colleagues as we are continuing to look at a tax extenders bill that we support this legislation that will make smart incentives to help our local economies grow stronger and help the middle class. so thank you very much, madam president. i hope we can make some progress on this next week. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i rise today to recognize the end of an era in my office here in washington, d.c. because at the end of the year, sum armersinger will leave my office. had she comes from a small town called owe hnida, about an hour and a half away from where i grew up, our towns are similar in signs, have similar backgrounds in which we were raised and growing up in owe hnida -- oneida, south dakota, she took those experiences and has used them

now for the past 15 years in my office but before she got to my office she went to the university of minnesota and got her degree there and in 1999 came out here, worked as an intern and then shortly after that became full-time employee in my house office at the time. and for the past 15 years through thick and thin through the ups and downs, the good days and the bad days, summer has been the rock in our office. she has been the person, the glue that kind of holds things together, i've described her as the center of gravity, the mama bear, lots of things but everybody in my office knows she is the go-to person if you want to get something done, you go through summer. so when it comes time for her to move on to a different opportunity, obviously it's a time we want to recognize and pay tribute to her service, her

great service in our office. and usually around here i think most people know this, that it's the members themselves, the senators whose names are in the press releases, whose names get to be on the door, but it's the staff that really gets things done here in the united states senate. and i've been very blessed and fortunate to have people like summer mersinger work in our office and i think of all the people who work here in the united states senate and the hard jobs they have trying to balance the hours that we have to put in,if the sacrifices that come with that, the time away from family, always being on call on weekends, always having to put out fires whatever that might be, that's the role that summer has served now in our office for a very long time. not only is she very skilled at what she does, but she brings so many other attributes to the job. summer is somebody who is -- has a powerful work ethic, she

is somebody who has over the years expressed a calming demeanor in our office, somebody who always is able to deal with people of all personalities and somebody who most importantly has absolute integrity. and her wise counsel is something from which i have benefited enormously over the years and one of her great at tributes, she is intensely loyal when i don't deserve it but she has been an ally and i couldn't have a better ally like her. so as she departs to do something else and moves on with her life, we want to wish her well. i had the opportunity to see a lot of transition and a lot of change in her life over the years from the time she started working for me and particularly when we got to the united states senate she not only worked full time but earned a law degree at the same time. met a great guy here in

washington, got married, has had four children at the same time she continued to work full time and handle all the difficult responsibilities that come with working and leading and in running a united states senate office. there aren't many people who could pull that off, and she has tirelessly dedicated herself to public service, to serving the people of south dakota, to serving the united states senate and to serving in our office. it will be a very big void indeed when she leaves. but we're grateful for that outstanding service for the time that we've had to work with her, and, you know, most importantly i want to thank her for her outstanding work for the people of south dakota, for the united states senate, for our office, but for her friendship. and her always wise counsel. we will miss her and -- but we know whatever she does she will be out there making a difference because that is the kind of person that she is.

so we say farewell to her at the end of the year and wish her and her family well and look forward to seeing her around the neighborhood and maybe even someday back in the small down of oneida, south dakota. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, it is widely anticipated that the president intends to nominate dr. ashton carter to be the next secretary of defense, perhaps as early as tomorrow and i welcome that nomination. should dr. carter take over the helm at the defense department, it would coincide with an ominous development on a national security issue that he and i have dealt with together in the past. and that issue is the growing danger that iran will soon be able to develop nuclear weapons, and the inability of

prolonged negotiations with iran to prevent them from doing so. in 2008, ash carter and i participated in coauthoring a report by the bipartisan policy center entitled "meeting the challenge, u.s. policy toward iranian nuclear development." in that report, we acknowledged that iran's nuclear program would pose -- and i quote -- "the most significant strategic threat to the united states during the next administration." that group, which was cochaired by former senator chuck robb and myself and included many with long and well-respected credentials on foreign policy matters, that report emphasize ed also what was at stake in our engaging in this issue, what was at stake, what

were the consequences -- what would did the consequences be if iran was allowed to achieve nuclear weapons capability. and i want to quote from what we said and concluded. "a nuclear ready or nuclear armed islamic republic ruled by the clerical regime could threaten the persian gulf region and its vast energy resources, spark nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east, inject additional volatility into global energy markets, embolden extremists and destabilize states in the region, provide nuclear technology to other radical regimes and terrorists and seek to make good on its threats to eradicate israel." that is why this threat has been labeled by most in the intelligence community if not all as the most significant

long-term threat to the united states. and this was written in 2008. now, six years later into this current administration, we can see the truth of those judgments unfortunately, what we have also seen is that this administration has not dealt effectively with this growing threat. in our bipartisan policy center report, ash carter and i called for direct negotiations with iran, but on the condition that these negotiations were backed by strong economic sanctions and the threat of military force as the last resort if all other efforts failed to achieve the stated goal of preventing iran from attaining the capability of producing nuclear weapons. we did not come to this conclusion easily. we debated it for weeks and months. we debated each phase of the

potential negotiation with iran through diplomacy, through the imposition of sanctions, through the potential threat of military force, and to ultimately the need to use military force if we could not achieve the desired objective. we obviously made that a last resort if all other efforts had failed. and this, as i said, was written in 2008. most relevant at this moment was our insistence -- and i quote from the report here again -- "any u.s.-iranian talks will not be open ended but limited to a predetermined time period so tehran does not try to run out the clock." this was our deepest concern, that failure to move forward in terms of the ever-ratcheting and tightening regime of diplomacy,

sanctions, and threat of force, if it did not achieve that goal, and it hasn't to this debate, but the concern here was is that iran would run out the clock in the meantime continue to spin the centrifuges and add to those methods which were producing the ability for them to obtain nuclear weapon capability. now, more than six years later after prolonged negotiations and yet another extension of talks without achieving the stated goal of ending the regime's request, it is time to reassess where we currently stand. president obama is not only ignoring the clear and present danger by iranian ambitions, he is abetting those ambitions by surrendering key positions first and then pursuing negotiations

that confirm our weakness. for eight years u.s. policy, backed by six united nations security council resolutions, insisted that iran abandon its program to enrich uranium because of the danger it would arm itself with nuclear weapons. that policy was discarded virtually at the start of the negotiations with iran, these recent etion goes, a year and a half or so ago. indeed, that was discarded even before the negotiations began. and although the subjects of uranium enrichment, weapons programs, nuclear power are highly complex and the discussions have been lengthy, they all lead now to a very simple question. indeed, the one question at the core of the issue from the beginning is, how much ability

will iran have to enrich uranium and how many centrifuges will it be permitted to operate in reaching their goal? when the u.n. security council passed its first resolution demanding that iran cease enriching uranium -- cease enriching uranium -- iran then had 800 centrifuges doing that illegal work. today, after two years of direct negotiations on this specific issue, iran has 19,000 centrifuges. let me repeat that. after two years of direct negotiations, iran has moved from 800 centrifuges to 19,000. any negotiated agreement that gives iran the abet ability to retain so much uranium capability is completely unacceptable and the senate should prevent such failure from

being ratified or otherwise accepted by this congress. when it comes to negotiation strategy, we should learn from past failures. this is not the first time we've been through something like this. the structural example comes from our experience with north korea. when i first served in the united states senate, we were dealing with this very subject. starting with the so-called agreed framework in 1994, we trade to resolve the north korea nuclear problem by cycles of negotiations salted with incentives. does that sound familiar? cycles of negotiation salted with incentives. we have at various times relieved international economic sanctions pressure in return for promises of improved behavior from the north koreans. as we pursued inconsistent and dis-didn't strategies, the north

koreans responded with bouts of hostility, cynical manipulation, and threats. they have repeatedly tested missiles with nuclear capability, revealed a vast new uranium enrichment facility previously undetected by the atomic energy association and our own services tested nuclear weapons, intimidated and threatened their neighbors and continued to build their nuclear weapons arsenal. i distinctly remember being on this floor questioning our ability to verify that the koreans would live up to what they promised to do, and that is not develop nuclear weapon capability. oh, we have this all wired in. we have their promise. we have provided aid to them in the nature of food and in the nature of a number of financial incentives, and we have the verification procedures in place. we know that none of that

worked. we know that we were rope-a-doped by the north koreans, just as we're being rope-a-doped by the ranges. -- by the iranians. so we have a precedent here. doing what we're doing is not the way to diffuse a critical threat to our national security. that is view, by the way, that ash carter has expressed emphatically and one of the major reasons why i so strongly will urge for his confirmation to be secretary of defense. to the contrary, secretary kerry, who energetically leads the current negotiation strategy with iran, should surely have learned from the north korea agreed framework arks which was that strategy's predecessor. when senator kerry and i were both in the senate, he strongly supported the north korea

strategy. it was harshly critical of the bush administration for that the doing the same. in march 2001, senator chirr said, the clinton administration left a framework on the table which if pursued biby the bush administration go a long way toward reducing the threat posed by north korean missiles and missile exports. two days agriculture stated that colin powell stated that the bush administration would pick up where the clinton administration left off. senator kerry went ton say, "apparently not yerksd president bush -- apparently not. yesterday president bush told president kim that the administration would not resume missile talks with north korea anytime soon. i believe this is a serious mistake in judgment impi by the president," then-senator kerry said. now after the clear and macive failure of negotiations with north korea, secretary kerry is pursuing a groundhog day

strategy for dealing with iran. we now know for certain that north korea was using negotiations to lead us down that garden path to cynical noncompliance. so why do senator kerry and president obama continue to believe blindly in hopeful talks rather than hard-edged compulsion? this unguided blindness leads us to a second problem. the administration has ignored not only the united nations security council but the u.s. congress as well. the administration has been clear about its intention to circumvent congressional scrutiny in agreement of any deal because of widespread bipartisan opposition, and i believe that is a serious mis-staifnlgt any settlement of issues regarding iran's nuclear program is of paramount importance to the security of the american people and the security and stability of the world.

any proposed agreement requires thorough review and deliberation by this congress, an agreement on aaron of such vast -- an agreement on an issue of such vast significance requires a bipartisan and bicameral agreement and support by both the legislative and executive branches of government. anything less than that should not be acceptable. this is the most significant national security issue of our age, and it is being mishandled parntsly to secure -- apparently to secure a legacy for the administration. thus, it is all the more important to assert a vigorous congressional role before we are burdened with a bad agreement that does little to prevent a nuclear iran. these negotiations with iran began by yielding on the central issue. they now continue while ignoring the proper essential role of congress and it appears that they are aimed at achieving a legacy for the obama administration rather than

enhancing national security. most serious and dangerous of all is the strategic vacuum in which these iran negotiations are taking place. their failure will force us to face that void. and when we do, we must then return to the world that existed before these misguided negotiations began. we will have to renew and reinforce our efforts to impose crippling sanctions on iran. we will have to redouble our efforts to bring our allies and friends along with us, preventing the carefully constructed international sanctions regimes from slipping. and now we must find ways to limit the damage being done by an irresponsible russia, already signing deals with iran worth billions of dollars. unfortunately, and most challenging of all, we must find way to make the threat of using military force as a last resort

credible. that won't be easy. our nation is militarily, politically, economically, and emotionally exhausted by wars, and now we have been forced to embark on yet another. americans are justifiably repulsed by and fix aitd on the more immediate chaos of televised beheadings. a more abstract nuclear threat of iran is beyond the horizon of most americans. but the ayatollahs are counting on that and it is many ways the conflicts in iraq and sear why are connected to our iranian dilemma. copying with alcoping with all e is what it is all about. four american presidents have declared that a nuclear weapons-capable iran is unacceptable. i'd like to repeat that. four american presidents, including this current president, have declared that a

nuclear-capable iran is unacceptable. to give meaning to that repeated commitment, to do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from getting that dangerous capability is the most urgent matter facing the united states and international security. a robust uranium enrichment industry in iran means a capability to produce nuclear weapons within an unacceptably brief amount of time. the consequences of a nuclear weapons-capable iran are not tolerable, not acceptable, and must motivate the most powerful and effective efforts possible to prevent it from happening. that is our challenge. that is the role of the united states senate. so we must insist on playing a significant role in the examination of whatever is being done and whatever might be put

before us and insist that it will be put before us so that we can examine it carefully and not mistake -- and not repeat the mistakes of the past, as we have with the northern koreans. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: leamr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i'd ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: leaf mr. president, on tuesday evening, senator

inhofe and i announced that we had reached agreement with the chairman and the ranking member of the house armed services committee on a new national defense authorization act bill for fiscal year 2015. the text of the bill and report were published on the web site of the house rules committee that evening and on tuesday -- on wednesday morning we put out a press release detailing the provisions of the bill. the bill passed the house earlier this afternoon by a vote of 300 to 119 and we expect to take it up in the senate next week. our bill includes hundreds of important provisions to authorize the activities of the department of defense and 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 pays and bonuses which are needed for recruitment and retention of key personnel. it provides continued impact aid to support military families and local school districts. it strengthens survivor benefits of disabled children of service members. it includes provisions addressing the employment of military spouses, job placement for veterans, military child custody disputes. it addresses military hazing, military suicides, post traumatic stress disorder and mental health problems in the military. and it includes 20 provisions to continue to build on the progress that we are starting to make in addressing the scourge of sexual assault in the military. 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, so-called isis.

as requested by the administration, it authorizes the department of defense to train and equipment 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 to provide 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 party in kurdistan from receiving visas under the immigration and nationality act. our bill takes steps to respond to russian aggression in ukraine by authorizing $1 billion for a european reassurance initiative to enhance the united states 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 united states and nato force posture, readiness and contingency plans in europe and by expressing support for both lethal and nonlethal military assistance 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 and help blunt some of the negative effects of sequestration. it includes provisions addressing the threat of cyber warfare, 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 government-wide reform of information technology

acquisition. and although we were unable to bring the senate-reported bill, the bill that was reported by our committee 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 on each side of the aisle, and to include them in our new bill. when the bill comes to the floor, i'll have a lot more to say about some of the more difficult issues in the bill such as provisions addressing military compensation reform, army force structure and guantanamo detainees and the liams package included in our bill based on the bipartisan request of the committees of jurisdiction. i hope our colleagues will take the opportunity to review our bill. it's obviously a long bill.

there are going to be enough days, we believe, to review that bill so our colleagues can have a fair opportunity to see what is in our bill. we're proud of the bill. we think it's a good bill. it would be the 42nd or 43rd straight bill we passed a military authorization bill or defense authorization bill if we are able to pass the bill next week. but i hope our colleagues will take the opportunity in the next few days to review the bill and hopefully give it the kind of broad support it deserves and that it received today in the house of representatives. mr. president, i thank the presiding officer and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: