the bell generals committee staff have dedicated years of their life to this report and they've demonstrated courage and dedication and faced enormous challenges because they thought first and foremost about the united states of america. in the past year they even threatened the criminal prosecution. for why? for doing the job they're supposed to do for the united states of america. but they were not -- they would not allow themselves to be intimidated. they erve i served their countrl and they have my deepest appreciation for bring this truly historic study. and their families, my god, they couldn't tell their families the things they were reading. if the family knew some of the attacks on them. these families, too, deserve our thanks. those staffers had to spend so many months arguing with this white house about redactions to this report.

the white house is supposed to be dedicated to transparency. reports have been issued months ago that still contains more redactions than it should. i can think of some that wonder why they're there. i'm gratified that we can finally shine light on this dark chapter because among the many lessons we can take from this report is that americans deserve more government transparency. it's essential to a strong democracy. just yesterday the senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill, the leahy-cornyn bill, that significantly improves the free trade agreement of information act -- the freedom of in fact act. i think today's release of this act is another important victory for greater government transparency. so i strongly disagree with those who argue that this report should not come out. those who have tried to pressure in silence senator feinstein ... don't place the blame on those

who are telling the truth. place the blame squarely where it belongs: on those who authorized and carried out a systematisystemamatic program o. it is in violation of the fundamental principles and morality on which our great nation was founded. i am in trying times like those faced after september 11 and those we face now, we look to our intelligence, our military and law enforcement professionals to keep us safe, and we're fortunate to have so many talented people in the intelligence, military, and law enforcement. but one thing for their sake and our sake and our country's sake we should never become so blinded by fear that we're willing to sacrifice our own principles, laws, and humanity. we're the greatest, most powerful nation on earth.

don't say we're going to turn our back on our laws, our history, our constitution because we're afraid. this nor is no senator is not a. no matter what no matter how evil they are, no matter how horribly they have treated their own victims, we do not torture them because we don't join them on that dark side of history. we stand on the other side of history as americans. generations of men and women have given their lives. many have even endured torture themselves in order to protect this nation. they did so not to protect our way of life but to protect our principles, our understanding of right and wrong, of humanity, of evil. the shameful actions uncovered by this report dishonor those men and women who have fought to protect what is best of our

nation as well as the men and women even today who continue to put their lives at risk for this country. americans know throughout this country we're better than this. as we heard after abu ghraib and we'll hear now, we're better than this. and we should never let this happen again. let's show the rest of the world that, too. mr. president, i've spoken much longer than i normally do, but this is important to me. i yield the floor. senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine u. mr. king: before i begin my remarks, i ask that james reeves be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president, i want to also address the report that was released this morning

by the chair of the intelligence committee, and i come at this in a slightly different way than some of my colleagues because i came to this process late. i was -- i joined the intelligence committee in january of 2013. by that time, the report had been authorized, had been written, and was actually had been finalized. and so i came to it as a final product, and the principle decision was whether or not it should be released. now, before talking about the report, there are two very important points that should be made. number one, one of my problems with this discussion is that everybody talks about the c.i.a. the c.i.a. did this. the c.i.a. did that. the fact is, the c.i.a. as an institution doesn't do anything. people do things. and i've been around the world and met with c.i.a. people in all of our -- in many countries,

and i've met with them here. they are patriotic, they are dedicated, they are smart, they are brave. and the problem with this situation is, their reputation has been sullied by a relatively small group of people early in the prior decade. so i want to make clear, at least as far as i'm concerned, this is not an attempt to discredit or otherwise undermine the c.i.a. or the good people that are there but to point out that mistakes were made. and the second point is that i think we need to acknowledge that those were extraordinary time, the year or so after september 11. we thought there was going to be another attack. there was a lot of pressure to uncover that information. and i think it's -- it's easy ten years later to look back and say, well, we shouldn't have done this or w we shouldn't have done that. i think we have to acknowledge that. however, those circumstances cannot justify a basic violation

of who we are as americans and what our values are. now, here's the process. the report was completed and accepted by the committee on a bipartisan basis. my predecessor olympia snowe voted in favor of the acceptance of the report in december of 2012. it was then sent to the c.i.a. they responded. a rather full re-sponges, it re- a rather full response, it took about six months and then they submitted their response to the committee. i knew that the vote was going to be coming up next spring about whether to release the report. so i went over to the secure site in wu one of our buildings and sat down every night for a week and read this executive summary every single word. all 500 pages, all of the footnotes and made my own judgment as one who was in no way invested in this report.

and here are the conclusions that i came to. and i must say, mr. president, that until i sat and read it, i did -- i didn't fully comprehend what this issue was, why we needed this large report, why we needed to do this study. after reading it, i was shaken and convinced that the report was important and should be released. basically it has four conclusions, and i'm not going to go through them in detail. the first was, we committed torture. i'm not going to argue that. i would just say, as i will say repeatedly, read the report. no person can read the description of what was done in our name and not conclude that it was way outside the values of this country and constituted torture by any definition. number two, it was terribly managed.

that's not a very exciting point about management, but nobody was in charge. contractors were actually designing the program and assessing whether or not it was successful. the peement who had designed it and -- the people who had designed it and were implementing it. there was no central place at the c.i.a. that managed it. so that was a problem. number three -- and this we're going to talk about for a few minutes -- it was not effective. the guts of this report is an analysis of the 20 principal cases that the c.i.a. presented as justification for the torture to say that it worked that it led to intelligence that was reliable and current. and the report goes through in ex-cruciating detail looking at each one of those allegations and it basically finds that either the information was already available, it was already in our hands, it was available in other ways, the witnesses had given up the data

prior to their being subjected to these extraordinary measures. i'm going it tawrks as to talki mentioned, about this method of effectiveness. and i should have said this at the beginning. my poor words can't contribute a great deal this debate, but the speech that senator john mccain made on this floor this morning should be required veg viewing for every schoolchild in america, every member of this body, every member of this congress and every american. he talked eloquently about the violation of our ideals, of this program, and the fact that it can't, will not, and could not work. the final point that you take from the report is that this program was continually misrepresented. it was misrepresented to the president, it was misrepresented to the justice department, it

was misrepresented to the congress, it was misrepresented to the intelligent committee. and the problem is, that continuings today. in the last few days we've seen an outburst of statements and speeches and interviews on television say, it was effecti effective. it wasn't effective. and i think the report makes that clear. there's a semantic sleight of hand going on, mr. president. i have a already seen it in two or three interviews on television where people slide from the report and they say, the program of detention of people that we captured after september 11, the program was effective in generating intelligence. absolutely true. there's no doubt of that. people were detained, they were interrogated, they gave good intelligence and it tots what we know -- and taught us what we know about al qaeda.

the question before the house, though, is, was the torture effective? if you have somebody in custody and they give up good information and later you torture them and they don't give you anymore information, the torture didn't create that information. -- or that intelligence. the question is, did the extraordinary methods create additional intelligence? and i think people should cock their ears when they hear people say, "the program created this good intelligence." it did. but the program is not what we're talking about here today. we're talking about so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. and i will suggest, mr. president, when people come up with a euphemism like that, "enhanced interrogation techniques," that should tip you off that something is going on that we should be concerned about. so, i wrestled with this

decision. it was not easy. there's risk involved. there's been a lot of commentary today. our people are on alert. will someone attack us because of this report. i can't deny that risk. i think it's impossible to say. but we've already learned, these people will attack us for any or no reason. they've been trying tack us for ten years. that's their reason for existing. isil has beheaded americans, not because of this report but because that's their agenda. now, they may issue a press release or a youtube video and takers we're doing this because of the report. but i would submit, mr. president, that they're going to do it anyway. and what they're going to cite, it's not the report. it's what we did that has enflamed opposition around the world, and it has done so for many years already. finally, on the question of the risk, when the terrible

activities at abu ghraib came to the attention of the congress, we did a report. the armed services committee did a study and issued a report in grisly detail of what was done, and at that moment, mr. president, we had 100,000 troops in iraq. if ever there was a report that would have enflamed public opinion in a foreign country and generated retribution against you it was that one. we cannot be intimidated by people to tell us that we can't exercise and be true to our own ideals. but if there's any risk, why should we do it in why should we do it? because these actions are so alien to our values, they are so alien to our principles, that we simply can't countenance it. and, by the way, if this wasn't for tiewrks itorture, if this wa problem, why did the c.i.a.

destroy the tapes of one of these interrogations? that's what started this, when the senate learned that they he had destroyed tapes. if they thought this this was not torture -- which is what they are taling us -- then why did they destroy the tapes? that was what began this process. to me, one of the most telling quotes in the whole report was a back and forth between the c.i.a. and i think the white house, but i think it was within the c.i.a. where the statement was made whatever you do, don't let colin powell know about this. he'll blow his stack. now that tells me that they knew that they were doing something that wasn't acceptable to our country and to the american people. but the second reason to not to -- the second reason to release the report is the key: so it will never happen again. that's the whole deal here. now, the campaign of the last few days of people saying it

worked and it wasn't torture and you shouldn't do it because of the risk, that, to me, validates my concern, because these people are essentially saying we would do it again if we had the chance. and the only thing standing between them and doing it again is an executive order signed by this president in january of 2009 which could be wiped out in the first week of a new presidency or in the first month of a new presidency. we cannot have this happen again. the oratory is that it works. i have a letter which i'll submit for the record from 20 former terrorist interrogators: army, air force, c.i.a., f.b.i., saying these kind of tactics don't work, and in fact they produce bad intelligence. there was an article in "politico" just today by mark fallon, who is a 30-year

interrogator, saying it doesn't work. we have to have this discussion and lay that to rest, because the people who are saying it works are really saying and we'll do it again if we have to. and that's not who we are as people. interestingly, in the c.i.a.'s response to the report, all during the early part of this past decade, the argument was -- and we're hearing it today -- it works. we're certain it works. we got valuable intelligence. we got osama bin laden. the c.i.a. is not saying that today. when they submitted their response to the committee's report, what they said was about effectiveness, it's unknowable whether it was effective. i believe that the migration from the certainty that they gave to members of congress and the president and the department of justice, the migration of certainty to unknowable speaks

volumes. because they couldn't refute the facts that are in this report. if this idea that this kind of interrogation works becomes conventional wisdom, it will definitely happen again. i go back, in conclusion, to john mccain's statement this morning. i can't match his eloquence. it was one of the most powerful messages i have ever heard in this body or anywhere else. but he talked about who we are as americans, and he also talked from personal experience about what torture will do and whether it will produce good information. and i would submit john mccain knows more about that particular subject than all the rest of us in this body put together. i got a critical note from a friend in maine this morning. it said, you know, euro naive and -- you're naive and those

kinds of things. i wrote him back and said don't take it from me. watch what john mccain had to say. we are exceptional. but we're not exceptional because of natural resources or because we're smarter or better looking than anybody else. we're exceptional because of our values. we're one of the few countries in the world that was founded on explicit values and ideals and principles. and principles aren't something that you discard when times get tough. that's when they're important. that's like saying i'm in favor of free press unless somebody says something offensive. these are principles that make us distinct and different. i believe this debate is about the soul of america. it's about who we want to be as a people. it's a hard debate. it's difficult. it's hard to talk about these things. this was a dark period.

but i believe that having this discussion, having this debate, getting this information out -- and, by the way, all the information is going to be out. the report, the c.i.a.'s response was made public today. the minority made, had their own statement that's quite substantial. so the public is going to be able to look at this information and make their own decisions. i looked at the information, and the decision i made was that this is important information, that the people of america are entitled to. they should understand and we should move forward consistent with our ideals and our principles as a nation and see that something like this never happens again. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that senator levin be permitted to follow my remarks for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: mr. president, torture is wrong. it is un-american, and it doesn't work. and recognizing these important areas, the president signed an executive order in january of 2009 that limited interrogations by any american personnel to the guidelines that are in the army field manual. and he reinforced u.s. commitment to the geneva conventions. this closed the book on the bush administration's interrogation program. but let's make no mistake, these weren't just enhanced interrogations. this was torture. i would challenge anyone to read this report and not be truly disturbed by some of these

techniques. releasing the intelligence committee study of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program to the american people today will finally provide a thorough accounting of what happened and how it happened. in addition, like my colleague and friend from maine who spoke before me, i hope that this process helps to ensure that it never ever happens again. this was a grave chapter in our history, and the actions taken under this program cost our nation global credibility, and let's be blunt. they put american lives at risk. some have suggested that releasing this report could put american lives at risk, but let's be clear. it has been the use of torture that puts americans unnecessarily in harm's way. there is no question that there will never be a good time to

release this study. we all know that for months now terrorists in the extremist group isis have been kidnapping and barbarically killing innocent americans because of what we as a nation, mr. president, stand for. the response to their threats and terrorism should not be for us to change our american values. it should be to stand firm in our values and work with our allies to, root out extremism and terrorism in all its forms. the release of this study will finally let us face what was done in the name of the american people and allow for future generations to use these findings to learn from the mistakes made by the architects of this program. this is an objective, fact-based study. it's a fair study. and it is the only comprehensive

study conducted of this program and the c.i.a.'s treatment of its detainees in the aftermath of the september 11 attacks. today marks an enormous, albeit painful step into our future. it is important to know that these torture methods were the brainchild of a few c.i.a. officials and their contractors. now when i joined the intelligence committee two years ago, i began to read the classified report material and was surprised to learn this. frankly, it was not consistent with all of my assumptions. it wasn't what my prejudices told me to expect. but that is exactly why a fact-based study is so important. furthermore, it is important to know that at every turn that

c.i.a. leadership avoided congressional oversight of these activities. and even worse, misled congress. that leadership deliberately kept the vast majority of the senate and house intelligence committees in the dark on the interrogation techniques until the day the president revealed the detention and interrogation program to the rest of the world in 2006, four years after it began. even then misrepresentations to the committee about the effectiveness of this program continued in large part because the c.i.a. had never performed any comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the interrogation techniques or the actions of its officers. myths of the effectiveness of torture have been repeated perpetuating the fable that this was a necessary program that somehow saved lives. the committee examined the

claims of plots thwarted and detainees captured as a result of intelligence gained through torture. in each and every case the committee found that the intelligence was already available from other sources or provided by the detainees themselves before they were tortured. however, we need to stop treating the issue of torture as one worthy of debate over its practical merits. this is about torture being immoral, being un-american, reducing a human being to a state of despair through systemic subjugation and pain and humiliation is unquestionably immoral. it should never happen again with the blessing of the government of the united states of america. and as my colleague who spoke

before me, senator angus king of maine, said in an interview this morning so well, this is not america. this is not who we are. i think that sums up how i view the revelations in that report. the information in the study released today to the public will finally pull back the curtain on the terrible judgment that went into creating and implementing this interrogation program. the decision to use these techniques and the defense of the program were the work of a relatively small number of people at the c.i.a. this study is in no way a condemnation of the thousands of patriotic men and women at this great agency who work tirelessly every day to protect and defend our nation from very real and

imminent threats using lawful measures, using effective measures. and in fact, the insistence that so many intelligence successes were the result of enhanced interrogations negates and marginalizes the effective work done by hundreds of other c.i.a. officers not involved in these activities. what this study does is to show that multiple levels of government were misled about the effectiveness of these techniques. and if secret government agencies want to operate in a democracy, there must be trust and transparency with those who are tasked with the oversight of those agencies. as the committee carries out future oversight, we will benefit from the lessons in this study, and i hope we never let the challenges of our difficult times used as an excuse to

frustrate and defer oversight the way it was in the early years covered by this report. although president obama ended the program by signing that executive order in 2009, any future president could reverse that order. and it is worth remembering that years before this detention and interrogation program even began, the c.i.a. had sworn off the harsh interrogations of its past. but in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the united states, it repeated those mistakes by once again engaging in brutal interrogations that undermined our nation's credibility on the issue of human rights, produced information of dubious value and wasted millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. the public interest in this issue too often has centered on

the personalities involved and the political battle waged in the release of this study. but those stories are reductive and i hope they'll soon be forgotten because the story of what happened in this detention and interrogation program, how it happened is too important and needs to be fully understood so that future generations will not make the same mistakes that our country made out of fear. when america engages in these acts, with authorization from the highest levels of government, we invite others to treat our citizens and our soldiers the same way. this study should serve as a warning to those who would make similar choices in the future or argue about the efficacy of

these techniques. let us learn from the mistakes of the past, and let us never, ever repeat these mistakes again. mr. president, before i close, i just want to say how important it is i think to acknowledge that the intelligence committee study of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program represents many, many years of hard work by members and staff who faced incredible obstacles in completing their work. the fact that this study was finished is a testament to their dedication, and it's a testament to the dedication and focus of chairman rockefeller and chair feinstein in deciding that oversight is our job regardless of how long it takes. mr. president, i would yield back the remainder of my time.

thank you. the presiding officer: the senior senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, the report released today by the intelligence committee is an important addition to the public's knowledge about the c.i.a.'s use of torture. euphemistically described by some as enhanced interrogation techniques. in the period following the september 11, 2001, terror attacks. the use of these techniques was a failure both moral and practical. these tactics violated our values that this nation has long stood for while adding little benefit to our security. as general david petraeus and others have pointed out, their use has placed u.s. personnel at greater risk of being tortured. they have tarnished america's standing in the world and undermined our moral authority to confront tyrants and torturers. i'm glad that this report will

fully inform a public debate with facts that have remained classified for too long, and i hope that it helps ensure that our nation never again resorts to such brutal and misguided methods. the report lays out clearly that contrary to claims by former c.i.a. and bush administration officials, these techniques did not produce uniquely valuable intelligence that saved lives. the report examines 20 such specific representations that have been used frequently by the c.i.a. to make the case to policymakers for continued use of abusive techniques. in all 20 cases, the c.i.a.'s claims about the value of intelligence gathered through torture were inaccurate, and at the same time the c.i.a. was making false claims about the effectiveness of these techniques, it was failing to mention that some detainees subjected to these techniques

provided false, fabricated information, information that led to time-consuming wild goose chases. this is not at all surprising when you consider the origin of these abusive interrogation techniques. in 2008, the senate armed services committee produced a detailed investigative report into the treatment of detainees in military custody. that report traced a path of techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and forced nudity. from the military's survival evasion and resistance and escape training or sere training, the path to interrogations of u.s. detainees. sere training was not designed to train u.s. personnel to torture detainees. rather, it was designed to prepare u.s. personnel to survive torture at the hands of

our enemies. sere training simulated sikhs that were used by the chinese interrogators during the katrina war, techniques designed to illicit -- elicit a confession, any confession, whether true or false. those who tortured u.s. troops were not after valuable, actionable intelligence. they were after confessions that they could use for propaganda purposes. defenders of the c.i.a.'s actions have claimed that abusive techniques produced key intelligence on locating bin laden that could have been acquired through other means. this is false. as the intelligence committee's report demonstrates in detail. not only was the key information leading to bin laden obtained through other means not involving abusive interrogation techniques by the c.i.a., but in

fact the c.i.a. detainee who provided the most significant information about the courier presidio the information prior to being subjected to abusive interrogation. there has been a grail of conversation, and rightly so, about the need for effective congressional oversight of our intelligence community and the obstacles that exist to that oversight. this report highlights many such obstacles. in one case, this report makes public the likely connection between the senate's efforts to oversee intelligence and the destruction of c.i.a. tapes documenting abusive interrogation of detainees. in 2005, i sponsored a resolution with the support of ten colleagues to establish an independent national commission

to examine treatment of detainees since 9/11. according to emails quoted in the report released today, acting c.i.a. general counsel john rizzo wrote on october 31, 2005, that the commission proposal -- quote -- seems to be gaining some traction -- close quote -- and argued for renewed efforts to -- quote -- get the right people don't, that means the white house -- quote -- on board with the notion of our destroying the tapes, close quote. does it sound a little bit like watergate, mr. president? the videos were destroyed at the direction of jose rodriguez, then the head of the c.i.a.'s national clandestine service just one day after the november november 8, 2000, vote on our commission proposal in the senate.

it's just one striking example of c.i.a.'s efforts to evade oversight. some argued against releasing this report, suggesting it could spark violence against american interests. fundamentally, mr. president, the idea that release of this report undermines our security is a massive exercise in blame shifting. telling the truth about how we engaged in torture doesn't risk our security. it's the use of torture that undermines our security. release of this report is hopefully an insurance policy against the danger that a future president, a future intelligence committee and a future congress might believe that we should compromise our values in pursuit of unreliable information through torture. if a future american believes

that what america's c.i.a. did in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 was acceptable and useful, we're at risk of repeating the same horrific mistakes. that, mr. president, is a threat to our security. torture is never the american way. concealing the truth is never the american way. our nation stands for something better. our people deserve something better. they deserve an intelligence community that conducts itself according to the law, according to basic human values and with the safety of our troops always in mind, and they deserve better than intelligence tactics that are likely to produce useless lies from people trying to end the torture being used against them instead of producing valuable intelligence. i want to thank chairman

feinstein for her leadership in completing and releasing this report. i want to thank senator rockefeller for his long-standing effort in this regard. i want to thank senator mccain and others for speaking out on the need to ensure that the united states never again repeats these mistakes. and, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. i'm on the floor this afternoon to speak briefly about the american savings promotion act. this is house resolution 3374. my understanding is that this bill may soon pass the senate. it was passed by the house of representatives in september. i wanted to speak just briefly about its value to our country, to its citizens and to our country's future. this is a really pretty narrow kind of circumstance, i think with brought consequences. i think we as american citizens if there is a primary responsibility we have in being

a citizen of this country is to make sure, among other things, that we pass on to future generations of americans the opportunity to pursue the american dream, to be able to have an idea to pursue a business plan, to save for your family's children's education, to save for your own retirement, to prepare for yourself a bright financial future. unfortunately, many americans struggle to do that. certainly, one of the aspects of that circumstance is that there is very little savings that goes on in our country today. people are unable, unwilling, perhaps undisciplined in a way that allows them to prepare for their financial security and their financial future. a problem -- and statistics bears this out -- that people just aren't saving. the reality is that, according to a recent survey, 44% of

american households lack the savings to cover basic expenses for three months if unemployment or medical emergency or other crisis leads to a loss of stable income. many americans have the inability, almost most americans have the inability to care for themselves and their families if there is an emergency, a problem for more than three months. that's something we ought to try to resolve. i also think that there is a -- has been over a period of time a disparity in incomes. we want to make certain those at the lowest income levels have the opportunity to increase their income and to increase their financial stability and, in fact, the senator from oregon, senator wyden and i, created some time ago the senate mobility caucus. economic mobility, trying to make certain people have a chance to move up the ladder of

economic success and souter in our economy -- security in our economy and in our country. and senator wyden and i come together to bring some of the best minds from conservative to more liberal thought and thought-provoking organizations, policy organizations together to visit with republican and democrat senators and their staffs about what ideas are out there that the might increase the chances that a person or a family has i the chance to impre their financial circumstances. one of the ideas that arose from that caucus's discussions is this legislation called the america savings promotion act. again, with the realization that people are not saving for their own financial security, that they lack stability in times of emergency and difficult economic challenges to care for themselves, how can we encourage americans to save more. and one of the ideas that came forth in this regard is the

opportunity to link savings to prizes. and when i first heard this, it sounded a little bit odd to me, a little bit like a gimmick but the reality is, with little savings, we discovered that people still believe -- in fact, 20% of americans believe winning the lottery is a meaningful strategy to build wealth. americans spend more than $60 billion every year on lottery tickets and families earning the least spend the highest percentage of their earnings on lottery tickets despite the long odds of winning. now, this legislation is not about a lottery but it's about allowing financial institutions the opportunity to provide prizes for those who save, who open a savings account and deposit money into that account. and in our country because of the way financial institutions are regulated, that's been an opportunity in a number of states in credit union financial

institutions for a period of time. and, in fact, the statistics, the facts that arise from that experiment or that experience indicate that savings increases when there is a prize associated with the savings behavior. so it's one of the reasons that this makes sense. prize link savings is an innovation. it's a tool to encourage savings while offering the chance to win a larger prize. we know these work because of the evidence in the states that i mentioned in which credit unions have been offering these prizes associated with savings and that has occurred in nebraska and north carolina and washington. since 2009, over 50,000 account holders have collectively saved more than $94 million and it only is available in the credit union setting and not available

in a bank setting because of federal barriers that prevent banks and thrifts from offering these prize linked savings products. with the passage of this legislation, which, again, is a pretty straightforward, commonsense kind of opportunity, this legislation will update federal laws to allow states to expand prize linked savings to other financial institutions beyond credit unions. increasing savings is a win-win for individuals. it's certainly valuable to boost the financial institution's accounts and an improvement to the american economy. this legislation was introduced by me with the -- with the cosponsorship, the efforts of senator sherrod brown, the senator, the gentleman from ohio, in an effort to create one more opportunity, one more piece of encouragement for people to save for their own financial

well-being, to care for themselves and their families and to increase the savings rate in this country for the benefit of the entire economy but, most importantly, for the benefit of low-income individuals who need a boost, an encouragement to save. and so i'd like to thank my colleagues in the house. as i say, this legislation passed in the house where congressman kilmore and congressman cotton led the effort in the house and my colleague, the senator, the gentleman from ohio, senator brown, for his efforts in supporting this legislation here in the senate. it is an opportunity for us to do something modest but useful, something based upon common sense and something that accomplishes a that we all should have of making certain that the american dream is alive and well and that individuals and families take personal responsibility for themselves and their family members. and we all know that increased

savings, preparing for any kind of circumstance, emergency that comes our way is something that ought to be encouraged. so i appreciate that it is likely that later today, tomorrow that h.r. 3374 will pass. again, an example of where we've been able to work together and bring new ideas to the cause of making certain that everybody has the opportunity to increase their economic value, to increase the worth -- economic worth for their family available for future to pay their bills and to make sure that their future is bright. and again, this just being, in my mind, a matter of helping ensure that the american dream is more alive and all american families are better off. mr. president, i thank you for the opportunity of being able to address the senate and i notice that there is an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

nor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, may i ask unanimous consent to -- five minutes is if in morning business. the presiding officer: national is in a coru a quorum . mr. whitehouse: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. white house whoisd a chance earlier when-- -- mr. whitehouse: i had a chance earlier when chairman dian diane

feinstein of the senate intelligence committee and her predecessor of the senate intelligence committee, jay rockefeller, were on the floor to express my appreciation to them for the leadership that they showed in bringing the senate intelligence committee report through a very, very long ordeal and finally before the american public today. i am not going to revisit what the report says. i was on the intelligence committee as it was prepared, and i was closely involved in its preparation. the points that i would like to make here today are, first, to once again thank quhairn -- chan rockefeller and chairman feinstein for persisting through this process, particularly chairman feinstein, who i think saw very, very intense

resistance both within the senate and within the c.i.a. to this effort. they, i think, have done something that is in the very best traditions of the united states senate. the second thing i will say is that, in my opinion, america, an open democracy like ours lives and dies by the truth. and if we have done something wrong, if we have done something we should not have done, then we should come clean about it. and that's what this report does, in ex-cruciating, painstaking detail. let me credential the report for a minute. when the c.i.a. was offered a chance to challenge the facts of the report, they had it for six months, and my understanding is that they came up with one factual correction which was accepted. so you hear a lot of blather in the talk show circuit now about

how the report isn't accurate. well, the agency that least wanted this report come out and most wanted to hammer at it had six months with full access to all the files and the underlying knowledge of what was done and the best they could come up with was a single correction. so i hope we can get past whether it was correct. the other thing we should get past is this is a bunch of sort of second armchair thinking by people who approved the program originally and now in reflection want to look good. the senate was not briefed on this program until the public found out about it. the senate intelligence committee was not briefed on this program until the public found out about it. the only people who were briefed on it were the chairs -- the chair and the vice chair on the house and the senate side, and they were told strictly not to talk to anybody, not to talk to staff, not to consult with lawyers, in some cases not even

to talk about each other. so the idea that the senate is now having some kind of second thoughts about this, having once approved it, part of the findings of the report is that the senate was misled. not only was the senate misled, but it appears that the executive branch was misled as well. and the point that i had like to conclude with is that when you have a wrong, a considerable wrong that has taken place -- and i think that for an american agency to torture a human being is a very considerable wrong -- it tends to affect nearby areas. you can't contain the wrong. so congressional oversight was compromised in order to protect this program. people simply weren't told, and when they were told, they were

given watered-down, misleading or outright false versions. separation of powers has been compromised by this. a federal executive agency has actually used its tech million to hodge cal skills to -- its tech million to logical skills to -- its technological skills to hack into the files of a congrescongressional committee. that has to be a first in this country. a subject of a congressional investigation was allowed to file a criminal referral with the department of justice against members of the investigative committee staff. that, i believe is a first in the history of separation of powers offenses in this country. the integrity of reporting -- not only through congressional oversight but up into the executive branch -- appears to have been compromised to protect

this program, with information that the government already knew from legitimate, proper, professional interrogation being ascribed to the torture program. you can line up the time line. you can see that the information was disclosed first. and you can see where higher-ups in the executive branch were told that that information was due to the torture which occurred after the information was received. that simply doesn't meet the test of basic logic. and the final thing is that it compromised the integrity of the way we look at our law. the department of justice and the office of legal counsel wrote opinions designed to allow and protect this program that were so bad that they have since been withdrawn by the department

of justice. the presiding officer is a very able and experienced lawyer, and those of us who have been in the department of justice know well that the office of legal counsel stands at the pinnacle of the department of justice in terms of legal talent, ability, and acumen. and many of us believe that the department of justice stands at the pinnacle of the american legal profession. so these are the people who are ordinarily the best of the best. and when they write legal opinions so shad i di shoddy thy have to be withdrawn, when they overlook and fail to even address united states circuit court decisions that describe waterboarding as torture, when they're answer the question, "is waterboarding torture," that is shoddy work. when i first got a look at it, i thought of it as file the associate shoddy legal wonch --l

work. it's not because there was a lo lack of talent there. it's because things were bent and twisted to protect this pravment it is very important that the truth came out and i am very glad that this has happened. it is a sad day in many respects, because these are hard truths. these are hard facts to have to face. but we are better off as a country if we face hard truths and hard facts. i'll close by saying this: i have traveled all over that theater looking at the way our central intelligence agency operates and the way our other covert operations operate, and i am extremely proud of what our intelligence services do. i'm incredibly impressed by the courage and the talent of the young officers who go overseas into often very difficult and dangerous situations and really

do a brilliant job. and in many respects it's for them that i think this report needs to be out. it needs to be known that this was not the whole department, that there are many officers who had nothing to do with it and would want nothing to do with it and knew better. there were many people who are professionals in interrogation who knew how amateurish this was. it was done by a bunch of contractors, basically. so i think we should be well-aware, as we reflect on this, of the courage and of the sacrifice and of the ability and of the discipline of the young men and women who put their selves in harm's way to make sure that this country has the information and the intelligence that it needs to succeed in the world. i am proud of them. i'm also proud of the intelligence committee and our staff who worked so hard to perform this extraordinary service. with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the following the vote on confirmation of executive calendar 1081 walter the senate consider calendar numbers 1094,

1095, that there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote, that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that any roll call votes following the first in the series be ten minutes in length, that any nominations confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, no further actions or debate and no further motions be in order to the nomination, any statements wree lated to the nomination be printed in the record and the president notified of the president's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: for the information of all senators, these two nominations are richard verma and peter mckinley. we expect the nominations to be considered and agreements made by voice. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, a bloomberg headline monday noted, and i quote, half the senators who voted for obamacare will be

gone in 2015, end quote. obamacare, it seems, has not been kind to the party who jammed it through congress. in fact, a third ranking democrat here in the senate admitted as much two weeks ago when he told an audience the democrats made a mistake after the 2008 election by putting all their focus on passing the health care law. unfortunately, he said, and i quote -- "democrats blew the opportunity the american people gave them. we took their mandate, we put all of our focus on the wrong problem, health care reform." end quote. as a result, my colleague said, and i quote again -- "the average middle-class person thought the democrats aren't paying enough attention to me." end quote. madam president, democrats weren't paying enough attention to middle-class families. the american people didn't support the health care law and they made that clear. the democrats just ignored their objections and forced it through anyway. they were far from frank about what was in the bill. in fact, obamacare architect jonathan gruber essentially admitted that democrats were

deliberatively deceptive when passing their health care reform law. gruber said, and i quote -- "this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure c.b.o. did not score the mandate as taxes. lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." end quote. that's from jonathan gruber, as i said, an architect of obamacare. four and a half years after the law passed, it's clear that americans were right to be concerned. the law that was supposed to reduce the cost of health care for american families is actually driving up prices. madam president, each friday, my office puts out a document featuring the obamacare headlines of the week. i'd like to read just a few headlines from the past week that i think give a picture of where we are with this law. this is from the associated

press. healthcare.gov average premiums going up in 2015. "the wall street journal," more cost of health care shifts to consumers. for "business week," obamacare's future, cancer patients paying more for medication. from gallup, costs still a barrier between americans and medical care. from the "fiscal times," high deductible plans have more people delaying treatment. from "u.s. news & world report," americans unhappy with obamacare shopping experience. and from "the hill," security flaws found in obamacare fecal congratulator. and i could go on. those are just headlines from last week. i could read you similar headlines from the week before and from the week before that. madam president, any way that you look at it, obamacare is a mess. the president promised the law would lower premiums by $2,500. in fact, the average family health care premium has

increased by $3,064 since the law was passed and family premiums are still going up. the president promised americans could keep the health care plans that they had and liked. in reality, obamacare has forced millions of americans off their plans. the president promised that americans would be able to keep the doctors that they liked. in fact, americans have lost the doctors they liked and trusted, not to mention access to convenient hospitals and needed medications. the president promised that shopping for obamacare would be like shopping on amazon or kayak the reality is the president's own former health and human services secretary recently admitted it was more like buying an airline ticket using your fax machine. madam president, we're still just talking about the ways obamacare has harmed americans' health care, but the damage hasn't been confined to health care. obamacare is also hurting our already sluggish economy. take the obamacare tax on

life-saving medical devices like pacemakers and insulin pumps. this tax has already eliminated thousands of jobs in the medical device industry, and it's on track to eliminate thousands more if it isn't repealed. in fact, this tax is so bad that even democrats who voted for obamacare support repealing the tax. then there is the obamacare 30-hour workweek rule which has forced employers to cut workers' hours and wages. and the numerous, numerous obamacare rules and regulations that are making it difficult for small businesses to hire and create jobs. it's no wonder that democrats are rethinking their decision to support this law. madam president, americans have made it clear that they don't like obamacare and republicans are listening. one of our top priorities when we take the majority in the senate in the new congress will be working to repeal this law and replace it with real reforms, reforms that will actually cut costs and improve

americans' access to health care. in the meantime, we will focus on choosing -- chamblissening away at the law's most harmful provisions. we want to repeal the job-killing medical device tax and restore the 40-hour workweek so that employers will no longer be forced to cut workers' hours to be able to afford health care costs. many democrats as well as republicans oppose these obamacare provisions, so i look forward to bipartisan repeals. madam president, the senior senator from new york was right when he said democrats made a mistake when they decided to focus on the president's health care law instead of on jobs and the economy. in poll after poll, americans have made it clear that they want their representatives in washington focused on creating jobs and on growing the economy, and that's what the new republican majority in the senate intends to do. we'll take up legislation to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and the 42,000-plus jobs that it will support.

we will take up house-passed bills that have been gathering dust on the democrat leader's desk. we'll work with the president to expand trade promotion authority and open new markets for american agricultural products and manufactured goods. and we will take up legislation to repeal the president's national energy tax which could eliminate tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastate entire communities. we also intend to take up big projects that will help put our economy on the path to long-term health like legislation to simplify and streamline our costly and inefficient tax code. madam president, the election results were pretty decisive. americans made it very clear that they were tired of democrats' policies, and they wanted a change in washington, and republicans are listening. our priorities in the next congress will be the american people's priorities. we will focus on screeght jobs and growing our economy. madam president, we hope, we

hope the democrats will join us. the american people have been waiting long enough. madam president, i yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coburn: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

quorum call: quorum call: