this overincarceration, this overcriminallity anguishes this nation, aggravates divisions, undermines freedom and liberty, and costs taxpayers so much more money, it is an unnecessary burden and expense that is a self-inflicted wound in this nation that undermines our prosperity, undermines our success. we spend a quarter of a trillion dollars a year locking people up and the majority of those people are nonviolent offenders. in fact, over the last decades, right now in america there are more people in prisoned for drug offenses than all the people in respond in -- imprisoned in the 1970's. it is an extraordinary fact.

and whether you are black or white, if you get arrested and charged with a felony crime for doing some things that the last three presidents of the united states admitted to doing, if you are arrested for that, tried and convicted -- and i say tried because with hesitancy because the majority of them are plea bargains as the president knows, if you get convicted of that felony offense for that nonviolent drug offense, the collateral consequences to your life are horrendous. we now live in a nation where the chat rail consequences are profound. -- the collateral consequences are profund. time behind bars reduces people's hourly wages by 11%. their annual employment by nine weeks, their annual earnings by 40%.

it has a powerful economic impact. if a person is convicted for possession of controlled substances, use, they become ineligible for so many benefits that we would often think that we would want these very people to have. they can't get federal education grants, like a pell grant. they can't get loans or work assistance. they become ineligible for business license licenses, outry so. a person convicted of a felony will be denied public housing, even the ability to visit their family in public housing. they can be kicked out of their current housing arrangements. former inmates can't get jobs, can't get shelter, can't get loans, they often feel that no option exists other than going back to that slippery slope towards more crime. and now that is for all the people within the criminal

system. but what is anguishing so many is the clear and undeniable applications of this criminal justice system, of this legal system, excuse me -- the applications of this legal system in uneequal ways to different portions of our population. in my life i've seen that firsthand, how the useage of drugs in different communities, where there's no difference between blacks and whites, folks are treated differently based upon their race or their socioeconomic status. let me be clear: these issues are american issues, not simply race issues. they affect us all because we are a nation with a profound declaration of independence, but the truth of our country speaks also to an interdependence. in justicinjustice anywhere is t

to justice anywhere. i point out these facts to help you understand why we have such an urgency. african-americans and whites have no difference in drug usage whatsoever, but an african-american who chooses to use marijuana is 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for that usage than someone who is white. in fact, between 2007 and 2009, drug sentences for african-american men were 13.1% longer than those for white men. usage that has no difns but arrest -- difference but arrest rates dramatically higher for african-american men. in fact, for all crimes, when you start breaking the actual data down, you see patterns of discriminatory impact that are unacceptable in a nation this great. even for police violence, we have to understand that nearly

-- today nearly 2.5 times more whites are arrested than blacks for crimes that are violent and nonviolent -- 2.5 times more arrests for whites than blacks, but somehow african-americans are 21 more times more likely to be shot dead by a police offic officer. this is data that should not shock us along racial lines but shock us along american lines. we are the nation of liberty and justice for all. we are the country of equal protection under the law. african-americans make up just 13% of our population but 40% of the prison population. in new jersey, african-americans are 13.7% of new jersey's population but 62% of new jersey's prison population. and much of that as clearly the

data shows has come about through the persecution of the american drug policy that is applied to different groups in different effects. and the reality for minorities is punishing. by the age of 23, 44% of latino youth will be arrested. we know the sad reality today that one in three black males born in america today can be expected, if we make no changes, to be incarcerated at some point in their lives. one in every 87 white males -- one in 87, 18-64, is incarcerated while one in every 12 blacks are. now, i struggle with these issues -- i've stru struggled wh these issues my whole life. and as a mayor of a city constantly working to fight to

protect citizens, i know how complicated these problems can be. my police department, ourselves, when we dug into the data, we saw that our practices had to be changed, that we had to find better ways of keeping our communities safe, but we also knew something deeper. i'll never forget when i sat with the head of the f.b.i. in newark and i asked him about the violent crime problem, how are we going to solve this problem, and he looked at me and he said,ings you don'said,you don'. we -- meaning law enforcement -- is not going to solve this problem. what has to be done is changes greater than this. i've watched how young kids get arrested for breaking the law, for smoking marijuana, being caught with possession. teenagers find themselves, because they had marijuana on them of a certain amount and

weight so the charges increase, to be in a school zone, which is every place in many cities, now face mandatory minimums of upwards of five years. these teenagers are afraid, scared, knowing that they broke the law, but other folks, like the last three presidents, have gotten away with it. and they get offered it by the prosecutor, overworked, trying to keep the public safe, they give them a deal, just take time served, a month or six months, but they find themselves with that fell knee conviction. and now they find themselves in a world where they think they have no options, they can't get jobs, they can't get education grants, they can't get hope. hopelessness is a toxic state of being, and those kids then often get back caught up into that underground economy, back into that world of drugs. what we saw in nigh tim my timea

mayor is that so many of the people that ultimately end up being violent criminals got caught up in the world of drugs. one of the worst-class collateral consequences of the way we're going about prosecuting our criminal legal system is the violence we're seeing from people who think they have no option but to do what they're doing. we must find a way out. if we are, america, a system that believes in elevating human potential, believes in ideas of liberty and freedom, and deplores this concept that government should take people's liberty for no good means, we have to do something about this issue. we who believe in freedom, who tell the world to look at our light and our torch and our promise, we should evidence something better than leading the globe in incarcerating our own citizens.

we, this country, where generation after generation have concurred discrimination against irish, have concurred discrimination against italians, have beat back discrimination against catholics, have stood up to discrimination against jews, have fought against jim crow and slavery, advantaging not toward black ideals or jewish ideals but the common ideals that bind us, we have to do better than lead the globe in incarceration, than have a legal system that subjects more of its people and minorities towards search and scrutiny and seizure and arrest. this we cannot tolerate. and why i stand so confidently with a faith in my nation that we can do better does not just stem from this hollow history. it also stems from the present. right now in america there are

states doing incredible things, incredible things to change away this reality. i am eproud of my state. we've -- i'm proud of my staivmen-- i'mproud of my state. we reduced our prison population 26% and, guess what? during that same period of time new jersey saw a 30% reduction in violent crime. we showed to america that, hey, we are better than this. we can give more liberty to people, lower our prison population, having a disproportionate effect on minorities, and actually drive down crime as well. we're not the only state. new york's prison population is down 24% from the late-1990's, and this is due om entirely to reforms -- duet almost entirely to reforms of the rockefeller drug laws, policies that sent

thousands of people to prison for low-level crimes. over that same period, crime -- new york has reduced its crime by more than half, lowering prison populations, disproportionately affecting african-americans and latinos and lower crime. texas reduced its prison population in 2013 dramatically and has seen decreases in both crime and recidivism rates. all of these states can do more, but why ha ha has the federal government done little to nothing to follow suit? i'm proud of what's going on in the senate wellcome of my cleesmghts i -- in the senate with many of my colleagues. i came when people pulled together on the redeem act. i'm so proud that this issue cuts across political side side, that we have democrats and republicans, red states and blue states all beginning to say that

we can do better, and i'm here today to end my remarks with that call to the consciousness of our country. if we have an injustice in our midst with a legal system that is so far away from the justice system to which we should aspire, we have to do better. i was raised to believe that injustice any where you is a threat to justice everywhere. the words of languagesto langst, "to save the dream for one we must save the dream for all," i know in my heart that we anguish of millions of americans being punished by a legal system that has gone way out of control, affecting blacks and whites, young people of all backgrounds, that a legal system that paten patently has a discriminatory impact on minorities that a legal system that steals the

people's liberty, that we can do better than this. we can save taxpayer money. we can lower our prison and incarceration rates. we can elevate the promise of so many now denied their promise. and we can celebrate our american ideals. we need to lead this globe, not incarceration. we need to lead this globe by telling the truth of who we are; that america is a land of freedom, of justice, where there truly is liberty and justice for all. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, i want to talking about regulation today. we end this congress failing to take more responsibility for regulation, things like the rains act that i cosponsored with rand paul, senator paul and

others, that would require members of congress to vote on regulations that had significant economic impact, didn't get done. a bill that i introduced with senator king from maine that would create a regulatory review process that got great reviews and every economic and many other papers and magazines, didn't get done. but what i'm seeing in missouri and around the country is more and more concern that begins to focus on the congress of the united states not doing what it needs to do to keep the regulators under control. legislation that would routinely put an end date on every regulation so that regulation has to be reviewed, regulation has to come up again and be looked at, and frankly if you combine that with the requirement for the senate of the united states and the house to rot vote on that regulation,e

very unlikely that regulations that no longer made sense would be presented another time. so having to look at this in a way that makes sense for our economy -- and one of the generally used estimates is that $2 trillion worth -- $2 trillion is spent every year in the united states complying with regulations. well, let's assume that maybe as much as half of that -- and could be more -- is either duplicative or either simply unnecessary. what would happen in our economy if we had $1 trillion chasing the future rather than trying to needlessly comply with things that no longer make sense? we have to take more responsibility for that because, frankly, there's no other way to get your hands on the regulators. the regulators are often out of control and almost always unaccountable. and, frankly, madam president,

there are more unaccountable in the second term of a president than they are the first term because nobody in the chain of command ever has to go back and answer to the people we work for about the cost of these regulations. i know in my state, in missouri, people are really concerned about a couple of regulations out there now. i think maybe that are dealing with energy policy and water policy, regulations that the e.p.a. have opposed that just really don't make sense when you look at the cost of those regulations versus what would be gained by the regulations, if they were even possible to comply with. i think a clear message was sent in november to the next congress that people want the government to be more responsive, that people want the government to, when you have a cost-benefit analysis of something the government has done, make it a

realistic analysis, make it an analysis that would stand the straight-face test. that when you say, oh, this is not the emotional cost of worrying about some societal problem that you really can't quite define, this is what it really costs american families in terms of, for instance, their utility bill. we look at these regulations that frankly go beyond the capacity of the regulators. i'm not suggesting that the congress of the united states is the right place to draft most regulations. an it be -- and i'd say the process of passing a law and say we want this agency to figure out how to implement the law is in fact the right way to do that. but i'd also suggest within that agency having to come back to the congress and say here's the regulation that we think is the proper implementation, now you have to vote yes or no, this regulation is the way to go forward with

this law. i think often the regulators now are well beyond what the law allows them to do. there's a case in point i'm going to talk about in a minute, the water rule that's out there where a navigable water was used as a definition of where the e.p.a. had some jurisdiction. well, i think their view right now is well beyond navigable. so what would we do about that? i think the enforce the law act that i introduced in the senate, that the house passed months ago with a bipartisan vote, where the congress would have standing in court to be able to go to court if either house of the congress thought the president wasn't enforcing the law as intended, that the congress, who now can't go to court and say, we want a third party to step in right now and define in the principle, could go to court and say, we want to know right now what "navigable" meant in 1972 when it was put into law in the early 1970's, what it meant in

1899 when it was used for the first time, and what it means today. there's no reason to have a couple of years of trying to comply with a relaition that eventually -- regulation that eventually the supreme court will say, as they did a handful of times last year, that the federal government does not have jurisdiction to do this. or that people were appointed illegally to a board or commission and that all the actions they took had to be set aside. this is not a hypothetical case. this is what the court decided just last year. the enforce the law act would give us the capacity to not require a citizen to have to bear the burden of -- of looking at a regulation that's outside the law or doesn't make sense but would allow the congress to actually participate in that process at a much earlier time. so i hope in the next congress we'll do in the senate what the house did and pass something like the enforcement law act.

i certainly intend to introduce that legislation again, put it on the president's desk and have that discussion. the administration recently took the opportunity to roll out a new rule on the wednesday before thanksgiving. this was a estimate of -- this was a rule on air matter, ozone, a new ozone rule. came out the wednesday before thanksgiving. believe me, if you -- if you have a rule you think people are going to like, you don't put it out the wednesday afternoon before thanksgiving. this is the -- like the -- you know, watch late friday afternoon what comes out because that's what whoever is announcing it didn't want to announce on monday. or look at the -- even a bigger day is the wednesday before thanksgiving. and we have a air rule now that we haven't achieved. we've made great strides in the

right direction but looking at where we are now on this rule, the mercury in the air, the quality of the air, that we'd have to have at least 75% -- 85% attainment in counties all over america before you could then raise the bar one more time. this would take the 75% standard or 75 standard that we have now for particulate matter, the so-called nac standards, and reduce it even further. well, we're not in attainment with the first rule yet. and, in fact, e.p.a. just recently years after the rule put out the guidelines you'd need that were helpful to try to achieve the rule. but before you get -- as soon as you get the guidelines for the last rule, the e.p.a. wants to say, "oh, and here's -- we want

to talk about the next rule." even though we just now told you how to begin to comply with the last rule, even though there are not containment all over the country, we want to move right beyond that and go to the next rule. that's the kind of thing that shouldn't be allowed to happen. people are still looking for good-paying jobs, they're still looking at a utility bill they want to make sense, and i hope the congress can be part of that. you know, the e.p.a. has another rule that they've been asking for comment on, the so-called clean power plan. well, now, who's opposed to that? nobody. there is nobody who doesn't want clean power. and, in fact, the standards for utility power plants have moved in a very positive direction in the last 10 years. we've done -- we've made great gains. and then the question is, are the next gains worth the economic cost?

if the next gains are worth people having utility bills they can't pay or if the next gains are worth people not having jobs that they would otherwise have, that's the discussion we need to have. you know, the wrong utility policies produce an absolute lose-lose. the utility bill goes up, we lose jobs that we otherwise would have and they go to places that care a whole lot about what comes out and less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do. so the problem gets bigger, we lose jobs and the country that's made the most positive strides in recent years is the country that pays the price for rules that no longer make sense. the rule that's out now -- you know, our state's largely coal dependent. we're about the fifth largest coal dependent state. we're about 52% coal dependent.

of the million comments that have been made on the rule, 305,000 of them came from missouri families. but there are a million comments of people talking about why this rule doesn't make sense for th them. we need to be sure that we do the things that not only meet the legal standard but also meet the commonsense standard as we move forward. the "wall street journal" recently ran an opinion, an op-ed, an opinion editorial piece by harvard professor laurence tribe who happened to be one of president obama's law school professors, whose more often a witness for the left side of an argument than the right side of an argument. he joined the world's largest private coal company, peabody energy, to criticize the executive overreach in what the e.p.a. is proposing as they

propose to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. now, madam president, there's a big different if you have a rule that talks about what you do in the future for utility companies than regulating what people have previously decided to do under the old rules. you know, there's a -- a bill out there that i'm a cosponsor of that really tries to use the great resource we have of -- through coal in a most effective way, but i'm not -- we don't produce nicole in missouri any -- any coal in missouri anymore. we used to. we don't have nicole mines left in -- any coal mines left in our state. but we have coal-powered power plants. that's not really a war on coal, as missourians are concerned. it's a war on coal-fired plants.

if you have a power plant that has the mos plant that has met e older rules, and now the e.p.a. comes in and say you have to comply with the new rules, somebody has to pay that bill. and there's this mythical view that, well, it's the big industry or it's manufacturing or it's the fun -- the most laughable of all is somehow the utility companies are going to pay the bill. the utility companies don't pay the bill. people that get a utility bill pay the bill. and the people that are most impacted by that are the people that are having a hard time paying their utility bill now. these are bad policies. i'm committed that as a congress, we should do more than we've been doing to accept responsibility for these agencies that we find, for some

overall law that no matter how much they're abusing it by stretching it beyond what the congress intended, the congress would have passed -- nobody is out there issuing a rule and says, by the way, we don't have any legal authority to do this. so defining that authority, being sure the rules make sense are important. on the power -- the power rule on december the 2nd, i filed comments urging that this rule be withdrawn and we think more carefully about the impact it has on jobs that have good take-home pay and on families that have a hard time paying their utility bill now. our retired individuals, our single moms or others that have a hard time paying their utility bill now. we need to continue to look at that. one other rule i want to talk about as my time comes to an end is the so-called waters of the united states rule.

and the e.p.a. was given the authority under the clean water act, as i said earlier, to have some authority over navigable water. and navigable water beginning in the 1890's was used in federal law as a constitutional explanation of why the federal government would be involved in water policy. because the federal government under the constitution is involved in commerce. navigable and commerce come together. navigable actually means you can navigate with some sort of -- of vessel that can -- is capable -- that can carry a commercial lo load. well, the e.p.a. has now decided, or in the process of proposing, at least, that navigable water means any water that can run into any water that could run into any water that could be navigable. i compan am confident that's not the congress intended. now, if they want to propose that, that's fine.

the e.p.a., through the president, through the administration, can come to congress and say, we think we ought to control all the water everywhere. let's have a debate about that. and the congress would not give the e.p.a. that authority. so, madam president, i just hope that the next congress sets as a priority taking responsibility for what the federal government does, taking responsibility for these regulators and regulations, being sure that we have regulations where we need them that make sense and that we push back and don't have regulations where all they do is hurt families, hurt jobs, and don't solve the bigger problem. so i hope we see that happen and i am hope thankful the next congress is more focused on doing that job than this congress was. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that

deepa gosh, a foreign affairs fellow in my office, and cave savezada be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. udall: our nation and indonesia enjoy a strong relationship reflected in the u.s.-indonesia comprehensive partnership of 2010. this partnership is robust and growing. it serves both of our countries for bilateral and regional election. the election of the president in july is a step forward, part of a great democratic tradition over the past two decades in indonesia. mr. udall: we are working together for economic growth, for the environment, and for our security.

this is progress, and to be encouraged. indonesia has a major role to play as a regional and global leader. but in that role it must be an inclusive democracy. key to this is to address past human rights abuses, specifically the mass murders committed in 1965 and 1966. next year is the 50th anniversary of these killings. i rise today, international human rights day, to introduce a resolution concerning these events which indonesia's own human rights commission has labeled a crime against humanity. but let me be clear, this is not a censure of the people of indonesia or independent nearby

yea's --, indonesia's new government. it is an opportunity for justice and for reconciliation. the events took place decades ago. the reasons behind them are complex. but that cannot justify the past or forgetting those who suffered under it. nor can we ignore our own government's role during that time. my resolution proposes two things -- first, i urge indonesia's new government to create a truth and reconciliation commission to address these crimes. second, i urge our own government to establish an interagency working group and release relevant classified documents. we should make clear what was known to us and we should make this information available. it is a painful history to

recall. on october 1, 1965, six indonesian army generals were killed. according to scholars, these generals were killed by military personnel, but their deaths were blamed on indonesia's communist party, which was used to justify mass murders. the next few months were horrific for the indonesian people. the c.i.a. has called it one of the worst periods of mass murder in the 20th century. hundreds of thousands were killed. many others were imprisoned, tortured, raped, starved and disappeared across the country. these individuals were targeted for their alleged association with communism, but they came from all walks of life, including women's groups, teachers, intellectuals, and others. most were unarmed, and none had

due process of law. the u.s. provided financial and military assistance during this time and later, according to documents released by the statement. and general suharto consolidated his power, ruling from 1967 to 1998. so some may ask, why is this resolution needed? why now? here's why -- the survivors and desend ants of victims -- -- descendants of victims continue to be marginalized. many of the killers live with impunity and very few americans are aware of these historical events, or our government's actions during this time. these events demand our attention and resolution as we work together to build a strong asia pacific partnership.

i'm proud to serve on the senate foreign relations committee, an important goal is the development of peaceful, stable democracies, democracies that provide security and hope to their own people and economic opportunity with businesses in my state and across the united states. indonesia is the world's third largest democracy. its population is diverse. it has the largest muslim majority population in the world. it has faceed many challenges and continues to move forward. a strong u.s.-indonesia relationship benefits both of our countries. i offer this resolution in support of that relationship, and indonesia's continued progress as a growing democracy and a vital u.s. ally. madam president, i note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: tropical storm rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i rise today in support of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015 and i commend the work of my colleagues on the armed services committee, especially the chairman, carl levin. on reaching an agreement with the house to complete this important legislation and it is also i think appropriate that this legislation will be named in honor of both senator carl levin and congressman buck mckeon, the chairmen of the respective committees who are retiring after extraordinary service and dedication to the nation and particularly the men and women of the armed services. so it is another reason why this bill is particularly special, because it represents the culmination of the work of these

two extraordinary gentlemen. for over other 50 consecutive years, this senate has passed the defense authorization bill and i hope we'll be able to soon send this bill before us to the president for his signature. we owe it to our service members to pass a law that will support them and enable d.o.d. to execute this year's budget efficiently and effectively. once again, we have had to make very difficult decisions, especially because of the economic circumstances that we face as a nation, the resources and the threats which are challenging at this moment in our history. but this bill will allow the department of defense to combat these current threats, plan for future threats and provide for the welfare of our brave service members and their families. while it is disappointing that we're not able to bring this bill to the floor for amendments

in regular order, because the time is literally running out, this is a very good bill based on -- upon a principle compromise between many parties and it is critical at this moment that we pass it for those men and women who wear the uniform of the united states. i'd like to point out a few highlights of the bill. first, it authorizes the 1% across the board pay raise and we authorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays for men and women in uniform. it includes provisions that build on the reforms we passed last year to strength and improve sexual assault programs. it is unacceptable, it is completely antithetical to the ethic of the military that anyone in uniform would be a predator. to be a soldier, a marine, an airman, it's about your subordinates, your comrades, helping them, sacrificing for

them, not using them. and so we can do more and we must do more but i'm pleased to see we've taken important steps and we're following through on these steps and we have to continue to follow through on these steps. the legislation in general improves the ability of the armed forces to counter emerging and nontransitional threats particularly cyber warfare. this is one we're coping with but i don't think anyone should believe we have the technology, the techniques, the operations and the insights to feel fully confident. this legislation will help us move in that direction. the legislation authorizes the request of $4.1 billion for the afghanistan security forces fund to sustain the afghan national security forces as coalition

forces shift our mission to training and advising and assisting these forces, letting them take the lead in combat operations, letting nato, our allies and part of that nato coalition, the united states, provide the support and the assistance and the training. it's very essential. it also authorizes several train and equip programs to assist foreign militaries in counternarcotics operations and of particular note are the programs and the resources that will go to iraq and syria. where we face serious challenges and where we have to provide the kind of support indicated in this legislation. this year i once again had the honor of serving as the chairman of the sea power fee committee alongside john mccain, the ranking member and our subcommittee focused on the needs of the navy, marine corps and strategic mobility forces. we put particular emphasis on supporting marine and navy forces engaged in combat

operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher priority programs. specifically, the bill includes the required funding for two virginia class submarines and a training ship. it includes shipbuilding programs including funding for two ddg-51 dryers destroyers, and three littoral combat ships and permits incremental funding for another amphib bus dock ship. i'm pleased about the funding for the virginia plans submarines and the serious. so many rhode islanders build them, design them, and they are an incredible part of our national security. and so we are not only reinforcing shipbuilding programs that are underbudget and ahead of schedule, but are vitally important to the security of the united states. along the same lines i'm pleased to note the bill establishes a

national sea-based deterrence fund to provide resources and manage the construction of the ohio class replacement ballistic missile submarine program. according to testimony, the ohio class replacement is the navy's highest priority program. we are currently constructing attack submarines. these submarines operate to go against other submarines, to deliver special operations troops, to conduct fire missions from the sea. the highway class will replace our ballistic missile submarines which are part of our deterrence force which have nuclear weapons which are part of our triad, our arc detectivure to deter the use of nuclear weapons. we have to replace them. it cannot be done just with navy resources because it's not just a navy program, it is a national security program embracing our nuclear deterrence, and this fund we established is a good starting

point for that process and i'm very pleased to see it in the legislation. working with senator mccain and particularly following senator mccain's lead, this bill increases accountability for taxpayers' dollars spent on several major navy programs. for example, the bill includes a provision to require the director of operational test and evaluation to submit a report of the current l.c.s. test for sea frames emission mod modules. it would provide and assessment whether it will demonstrate operational effectiveness and suitability for both sea frames and for mission modules. this is a very important program. we want to make sure we get it right, we want to make sure we build in efficiencies where we can and the director of operational test and evaluation will help us do that. the bill also includes language that will continue support of an advanced planning for the

refueling of the u.s.s. george washington aircraft carrier and preclude the navy from spending funds to enact straight this ship. -- inactivate this ship. this goes to the mandate which is congressional of having a specified number of aircraft carrier battle groups and without refueling the washington we will not meet that legislative mandate. so we hope we will go forward in this year and provide the requisite funding to complete the refueling but at least we are moving forward in that direction. i think that's important. and i particularly against want to offer my thanks to senator mccain and the other members of the sea power subcommittee for their diligence, for their leadership, for their insistence on not only giving what our navy and marines need but also making sure that the taxpayers are protected as best we can and, frankly, we have to do more with respect to efficiencies, economies and being wise in our allocation of resources. now, before i conclude with my

remarks regarding the traditional defense programs, i want to touch on two other aspects of the legislation, the one particularly with respect to the defense act. i'm pleased that it includes the haven act. this is bipartisan legislation that i introduced with senator johanns to help more veterans with critical repairs and modifications for those homes so that they're safer and more accessible. these are resources in a program that's directed at some of our disabled veterans. they find themselves out of the service, they have benefits, but they have needs to fix their homes, just to get around. and this program will help them do that. it establishes a competitive pilot program allowing nonprofit organizations throughout the country to apply for grant grans administrated by the department of housing and urban development, to make key improvements. it is fitting that we take this

step to give back to those who have made a personal sacrifice for our nation. and i'm particularly delighted that i was able to work with senator johanns. as i noted in my remarks yesterday, he is retiring, but his deanscy, integrity -- decency, integrity, intelligence and commitment will be missed her. -- missed here. i am a also glad on a top that t is not usually found in the defense authorization bill that we've reached an agreement on a package of public land bills, a bipartisan agreement. including long p standing priorities for my state. for years i've supported the presidentervatiopreservation ofr valley which led to parts of that area as a national park, which the bill will finally establish. samuel slater began the american industrial revolution in rhode

island, where he built his historic mill on the black stone river. the first really industrial-scale operation in the united states. from that, much has ensued. today the mills and villages throughout what is known today as the john h. chafee black stone river corridor in rhode island and massachusetts stand as witness to this important era of our history. much credit has to go to senator john h. chafee, who real politicked up the ball from those who proceeded him -- who really picked up the ball from those who preceded him. i was told that this attempt to get recognition goes back as far as a letter to lady byr bird jon asking if she could get the black stone preserve. john chafee was a key person in that process. creating a national historic park will preserve the

industrial, cultural heritage. it includes the use and enjoyment. natural resources, including outdoor education for young people. it'll assist local communities by providing economic development opportunities, and it'll increase the protection of the most important and naturally significant cultural and natural resources of the black stone river valley. i can recall last year inviting the secretary of the interior, and we were kayaking on the black stone river valley. when i was young in the 19 50's and 1960's, the idea of going into the black stone river, which was then frankly an industrial waste zone, would be ridiculous. bastoday we're not only doing it but with this national park, we can do so much more. the public land package also includes legislation to also authorize the national park service to look at another river

system in rhode island and adjacent connecticut, wood pawcatuck water sheet for inclusion in the wild scenic river system. these rivers are again so important to rhode island. one of the things you discover as you go around rhode island, particularly after a storm, that our whole development was centered around rivers because water power in the 1760's a understand 1780's was the source -- and 1780's was the source of energy. as a result, a lost our communities are clustered around the rivers and they have great historic cultural, recreational, and environmental value to our state, not just to ours but throughout the nation. so let me thank not only my colleagues here but in the house, congressman david ciccelini and jim lambert. the black stone runs into massachusetts and i particularly want to thank senator sheldon

whitehouse, a stalwart when it comes to anything having to do with the environment and his leadership and his support was absolutely critical in et going this measure -- in et going this measure today included in the bill. madam president, we have a good national defense authorization bill before the senate. i urge all of my colleagues to support it. i look forward to being able to witness even remotely the signing of the levin-mccann national defense authorization bill. -- levin-mccain national defense authorization bill. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president, earlier today the former secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, said that there was a way to fix obamacare. she said, change the name. she said, change the name. that was her solution. that's not something she just told a friend. it's something she told many as

she was participating in "politico"'s lessons from leaders events. well, madam president, leaders don't blame the failure of a bad product on naivmen name. you can blame it on a lot of things but the name is not it. the president said he was fond of the name "obamacare." apparently, kathleen sebelius is taking a play from the playbook of professor gruber. this law isn't unpop blawrs it was named after the president. it is unpopular because it doesn't work. it is unpopular because it doesn't deliver what the president promised the american people it woovmen would. so democrats can rename this health care system whatever they want and people all across the country are still going to know that the law is failing them.

people have been hit by higher costs, higher co-pays, higher premiums, higher deductibles, many of them can't continue to see the doctor that treated them in the past. so no matter what the democrats and kathleen sebelius want to call it the law remains very unpopular because it is unworkable and it's unaford baling. -- and it's unaffordable. so, madam president, as we head into the militar middle of dece, next wee week, december 15, is e deadline for people to sign up on healthcare.gov. that's for people living in the 37 states that use the federal health care exchange. a lot of people still haven't signed up, and they may certain over the next few days if they do go to the web site to sign up that their health care and their insurance premiums are actually more pencive next -- expensive next year than they were this year.

that's what people continue to see -- health care rates going up in spite of the president's promise. you know, when president obama was selling his health care law to the american people, he promised them they would save money. he actually went so far to say that people would save $2,500 per year per family under his plan. and nancy pelosi, the former speaker of the house, she actually went on "meet the press" and at one point she said, everyone's rates would go down -- everyone's rates, she said, would go down p. well, that didn't happen. now the obama administration finally admits that people are paying more, not less. americans buying health insurance through the federal exchange will see their premiums go up and the administration finally admits it. that's according to a new report by the department of health and human services. it came out last thursday. democrats said prices would go down. the president promised they'd go down. nancy pelosi said, down for

everyone. instead, the prices keep going up. here's what one person in syracuse, new york, wrote to his local newspaper last week: lawrence petty wrote to the "syracuse post standard" last week, december 1, he wrote that he has a plan that he bought through the state obamacare exchange. this year the cost was about $664 a month for the couple. next year, going on the ex-chairng thexchange, the ratee plan -- the president said if you like your plan, you can keep it -- is going up to $773 a month. that's over $1,300 extra a year. he asked the newspaper in syracuse, new york, so what gives? the average increase across the country is less than that.

but this man in syracuse, new york, is looking at a price hike of more than 17%. every democrat in the senate voted for the president's health care law. every one of them. the democratic senator from new york voted for the health care law. it's the very state where this man writing to his newspaper in sear kiewrksyracuse, new york. what do they have to say to this man whose insurance premiums are going up 17% next year? how do they respond to this man who was writing to the paper in new york, what gives? maybe his question has something to do with what the senior senator from new york said a couple of weeks ago at the national press club when he add- when he admitted that the, his words, mechanic healt health cat the change we meant to make. the health care law added so many and make, so many things that people aren't interested

in, don't need, that other costs have gone up as well. that includes the money people have to pay out of pocket for things like co-pays, their deductibles. now, some people have actually had to dhai thei delay their mee because of these additional expenses much according to a new gallup poll last month, 33% of americans say that over the past year they've put off getting medical treatment because of the cost. now, gallup has been asking this same question all the way since 2001, well before the health care law had ever been passed. and this year it is the highest number ever. this is after the president's health care law has been signed into law and has taken effect and the exchanges are in effect. highest ever of people not getting care because of the cost. those people, two-thirds of them say they have put off treatment for a serious condition.

one is woman named patricia. she works part-time at landscaping company outside of chicago. the patient -- the president's home state. she told "the new york times" that she has a small brain aneurysm that needs monitoring. she told her story on october 17 under the headline "unable to meet the deductible or the doctor." patricia that is a health insurance plan through obamacare that has an annual deductible of $6,000. so she has to pay for most of her medical expenses up to that amount. because of that she says she is skipping this year's brain scan and hoping for the best. she says, a $6,000 deductible -- that's just staggering. this is the kind of p earn that obamacare was supposed to -- this is the kind of person that obamacare was posed to help. and changing the name of

obamacare, as kathleen sebelius has recommended today, isn't going to solve the problems for this patient with a $6,000 deductible. she got the insurance, she got the coverage, but she still cannot get care. and that is a fundamental problem with this health care law. the other thing this "new york times" article points out is that people can't meet their deductibles and they also can't meet their doctor. patricia told the newspaper that if she switches to a policy with a lower deductible next year, she will get a lower network of doctors, which means she will lose access to the specialists who are taking care of her. a lot of people are finding that they're in the same situation, losing access to their doctors. sometimes it's because the insurance has these narrow networks of health care providers. sometimes it is just because the doctors are so overburdened that you can't get an appointment.

there was an associated press report that came out over the weekend. the title was, "health law impacts primary care doc shortage." "health law impacts primary care doc shortage." we already knew there was a shortage of primary care doctors in the country. also a shortage of specialists, also a shortage of nurses. the president's health care law has made it worse. the associated press article quoted an insurance agent in california nailed anthony halbewho says he has cleents -- clients who tell him the obamacare health care made it extremely difficult to find primary health care doctors. as he said coverage does not equal access. he is advising his clients to skip obamacare next year so they can get to see the doctors they want, the doctors they choose, the doctors they need.

he tells people the premiums are going to be higher because there is no subsidy, however it is going to guarantee you actually get to see your doctor and keep your doctor. so people are finding that they're paying more when they were promised by president obama, by the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, that they would pay less. but she is the one who said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. so people are having to put off care that they need because washington says they have to pay for things they don't want, they don't need and they can't afford. people are finding out that the coverage isn't the same as care, and millions of people are finding out they can't meet their deductible or their doctor. that's not what the american people wanted from health care reform. people wanted access to the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. that's what they wanted. instead what they got are all these new washington mandates, all these new expenses, all these new problems.

but what was the president's solution to that? he said put more people on medicaid. he told governors around the country expand the medicaid program. make sure people have gotten on medicaid. we know that that is a system that has been broken for a long time. and the question that we continue to ask is, can somebody who's gotten a medicaid card printed up and given to them or sent to them, can they actually see a doctor? the department of health and human services says don't worry about that. what did the inspector general say this week? yesterday, "new york times" -- yesterday "new york times," "half of doctors listed as serving medicaid patients" -- this is by health and human services -- "half of doctors listed as serving medicaid patients are unavailable, investigation finds." and who did the investigation? the inspector general of the department of health and human

services. so even though health and human services says, oh, all of these doctors are available to take care of medicaid patients, their own inspector general of the department says not true. not true. only half of the doctors listed as serving medicaid patients are available. that's what we're dealing with. that's why republicans are going to vote to repeal the entire health care law. meanwhile, we'll also vote to strip away the worst and most destructive parts of the law. things like the arbitrary 30 hour workweek. it's been damaging to part--workers across the country. things like unfair medical device tax that sends american jobs overseas threatening lifesaving innovation. republicans are going to talk about finally giving people choices. that is what people want with health care. they want choices, they want availability, they want afford ability. that is what they're looking for.

available, affordable care and choices. not more washington mandates. finally giving the health care people wanted all along. kathleen sebelius may give a lecture on leadership, changing this health care law from obamacare to anything else isn't going to make it any better for the people across this country who are finding out that the president's promises were empty promises but they have been intentionally deceives as the way that this health care law was presented and passed. and now they find out that their insurance is less affordable, their cost of care is going up, and the availability of that care is going down, and they have lost their choices. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest 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 utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: madam president, the bill before the senate today at once represents the best of our nation and some of the worst of washington. on the one hand, the primary purpose of the national defense authorization act or ndaa represents the best of america. in past years, it's been one of the few very consistently bipartisan pieces of legislation considered by the senate, and it has usually been afforded leapty debate and an open and transparent amendment process on the floor. that's because it's one of the most important and solemn duties of congress to provide for our national defense.

the united states of america has the best armed services the world has ever seen, not just because of what they do but because of who they are -- honest, courageous, selfless patriots who love our country and have dedicated themselves to protecting and defending our way of life. of all the bills that come before congress, the ndaa deserves to be treated with the kind of integrity and respect with which our military personnel approach their jobs, and yet the process that has unfolded this year in connection with the ndaa has fallen far short of the standard that our armed personnel have set for us. congress has waited until the last minute to conduct our most important business, using the holidays to fabricate a false sense of urgency. the senate majority leader has refused to allow an open and

transparent debate, shutting down our ability to offer amendments on the senate floor to this important piece of legislation. and finally, only a privileged few members of congress have had a hand in drafting this bill which was cobbled together with numerous extraneous provisions behind closed doors. what used to be an exception to the typical legislative process, the typical legislative sausage making for which washington has become famous, has been subsumed by the status quo, and it's exactly what's wrong with washington today. madam president, each one of us as members of congress is here for just one reason. we have been elected to represent and serve the american people. unfortunately, the twisted, tainted process that has

produced this bill prevents all of us from carrying out this responsibility, and it threatens our obligation to do what's right for our men and women in uniform. as the title suggests, the national defense authorization act is supposed to be a relatively straightforward, largely noncontroversial bill. it is the primary legislative instrument for congress to exercise its constitutional power granted in article 1, section 8 of the constitution to provide for the common defense. but that's not what we're voting on today. that's not what we are considering in connection with this bill. this bill, the ndaa for 2015, is a legislative hodgepodge that includes those straightforward, noncontroversial items that almost all of us support, but also numerous other provisions that are entirely unrelated to national defense.

most egregiously, the drafters secretly edit 68 unrelated bills pertaining to the use of federal lands, the so-called lands package portion of this bill. they put that into this bill without any opportunity for debate or for a vote on any of those 68 independent bills. none of these bills were included in the version of the ndaa that the senate armed services committee debated and voted on in may of this year because had any member tried to include them in the normal process of our committee, they clearly would have been ruled out of the committee's jurisdiction. another outlier in this legislative grab bag is a provision reauthorizing a defense department program to train and equip quote -- unquote -- moderate syrian rebels for the next two years.

now, we have testimony from some of america's top military leaders warning us of the immense risks involved in this program. they have told us that there is no way to guarantee these efforts won't backfire, further embroiling the united states military in volatile and unpredictable parts of the world in the middle east in conflicts in that part of the world. yet here we are forced to reauthorize this risky program in order to provide for our troops and the defense department. the authority for this program was first added to the ndaa in the closed committee markup process in may, and then later attached to the must-pass spending bill in the house in september, giving senators the all-or-nothing choice of either approving this controversial program or voting against all other government spending.

this is not how congress is supposed to work. congress is supposed to evaluate, debate and amend individual pieces of legislation based on their own merits, with enough time to inform and educate the american people about what their representatives are doing. instead, it's politics as usual in washington. rather than an open, transparent and inclusive process, several extraneous and sometimes controversial provisions were added to the ndaa at the last minute by a select few operating entirely behind closed doors. and as we've come to expect from the outgoing majority in the senate, once the bill appears from behind those closed doors, the american people are denied any real debate or even a chance to read let alone understand the bill.

this is a shame because there are good bipartisan amendments out there like the due process guarantee act, an attempt that senator feinstein and i attempted to offer for the senate's consideration which would improve the twist ndaa by prohibiting the indefinite detention of u.s. persons. even though the due process guarantee act received 67 votes of support in the last congress, it continues to be blocked by this privileged few who cobbled together this bill. now at the 11th hour, we're told we have to vote for everything in this legislative medley or vote for none of it. after deliberately allowing time to expire, up to the final moments before the holidays, the senate majority leader has told the american people that the only way to support our soldiers is to support a distorted legislative process and controversial items that have never been debated in public.

our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and others who serve us in pursuit of our national security interests deserve better. many of my colleagues have said that this is a --quote, unquote -- must-pass bill. i would put it slightly differently. i would say we must pass legislation without political gimmicks or procedural games that enables men and women serving our defense department to fulfill their missions. we absolutely must pay our sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines and authorize our national defense budget. as a matter of constitutional responsibility, national security and moral duty, we must do these things, but not like this. madam president, i fear that we in the senate have perhaps become far too comfortable with the idea that the most important issues like paying our troops,

funding our defense department and sending our sons and daughters halfway around the world into harm's way, that it's somehow okay if we bend the rules to their breaking point and we allow our colleagues to hijack funding for our men and women in uniform to pass their unrelated political priorities. there is no doubt that it's easier this way, easier, that is, for senators. it's easier to outsource our representative duties to a select few and to avoid debate on the tough topics that come up along the way, but that doesn't make it right. and as our courageous service members and their families know, easier is rarely best. the rules governing how a bill becomes a law are not optional. they're not arbitrary either. they exist for a good reason -- to ensure that the will of the american people is heard and followed. if we fail to adhere to the

rules, then we fail in the duties we were elected to carry out, and we fail to be a truly representative democracy. but these rules are not self-enforcing. writing them down doesn't make them so unless we hold them true in our hearts and our minds and our actions, they will be nothing more than words on paper, mere parchment barriers, as james madison put it. if we as an institution can accept a legislative process driven by backroom deals rather than fair and inclusive debate when we're dealing with the most important issues, then when are we ever going to do things the right way? we can do better. the american people and especially those serving in uniform deserve better, and as we saw in the recent elections,

the american people demand that we do better. i think we can and we must. thank you, madam president. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, many people think that congress is irrelevant, unimportant and wastes its time with floor speeches that go nowhere. yesterday on the floor of the united states senate, something historic occurred. standing right back here, the senator, senior senator from california, senator dianne feinstein, delivered to congress and to the nation a report on the use of torture by the united states of america. seated on this side was senator jay rockefeller, who as her predecessor and chairman of the senate intelligence committee, initiated this investigation into the use of torture.

her speech, that lasted about an hour, was followed by senator john mccain who stood up and applauded her for releasing this report. it's worthy of note that what happened on this floor of the senate yesterday was an assertion of constitutional principles that goes back to the founding of this country. it was an assertion of the three branches of government and their authority, and the authority of congress to oversee the executive branch of government. and it got down to the most basics. let's remember how we reached the point where this report was put together and delivered to the american people. let me say at the outset that before i came to this job, i used to practice law and occasionally would go into a courtroom. i really waited for that moment when i could turn to a jury and say, i want to let you know that

my opponent in this case destroyed evidence, and i want to let you know why my opponent destroyed evidence. because what was in that evidence was so terrible that they would rather leave it to your speculation of how bad it was than let you actually read it. that is what started this debate that led to the report. because you see what happened was the central intelligence agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of prisoners. and after it was discovered that they destroyed them, the senate intelligence committee said why did you destroy those videotapes, and they said because congress never asked for them. and the intelligence committee said we didn't know they existed. at that point the central intelligence agency said to the senate intelligence committee, we did nothing wrong, and we invite you through your staff and members of the committee to

review the cables and e-mails within the central intelligence agency which prove our case. prove we did nothing wrong. i think the c.i.a. was surprised and shocked when the senate intelligence committee took up their invitation. it meant, i understand, five years of work, reviewing some six million -- six million pages of information. staffers from the senate intelligence committee sat in what they call the cave day after day after day -- two of them -- poring through e-mails and cables to try to reconstruct what happened after 9/11 when the central intelligence agency was interrogating prisoners. it wasn't an easy task. it was made even more difficult when we came to learn that the central intelligence agency hacked into the computers of the senate intelligence committee. it was a tough confrontation

between two branches of government, and it's one that resulted, i think, in the right ending, when senator feinstein and the senate intelligence committee, following the lead of senator rockefeller, stepped forward and produced this report. i want to just reflect for a minute on how we reached this point, but first let me tell you this report concluded that the c.i.a. repeatedly misled senior officials in the bush and obama white houses about detention and interrogation programs. the report said the c.i.a. falsely told the justice department that techniques like waterboarding helped to obtain lifesaving information that kept our country safe. the report said the c.i.a. detained more individuals and subjected more individuals to abusive interrogation techniques than it ever disclosed to congress or to the president. the c.i.a. did not disclose the

use of brutal interrogation techniques that went way beyond what even the torture memo of the previous administration had authorized. it is worth noting what brought us to this point. and of course it was the tragic, horrible events of september 11. the bush administration after that occurrence unilaterally decided to set aside treaties and laws that have served us in the past. president bush's white house counsel, then alberto gonzalez, recommended to president bush that the president ignore the requirements of the geneva conventions. the geneva conventions were treaties that grew out of world war ii, and they established rules of warfare to protect soldiers and civilians. these treaties were ratified by the united states of america. they are and were the law of the land. colin powell, who was secretary of state under president bush, objected to alberto gonzalez's recommendation. he argued that we could comply

with the geneva convention, fight terrorism and still keep america safe. here's what secretary powell said at the time about setting aside the geneva conventions. "this will reverse over a century of u.s. policy and practice and undermine the provisions of the law of war for our own troops. it will undermine public support among critical allies making military cooperation more difficult to maintain." today secretary powell's words seem prophetic. unfortunately, president bush rejected secretary powell's advice and instead followed alberto gonzalez's recommendations to set aside the geneva conventions. then in august of 2002, the department of justice issued the infamous torture memo. the memo said abuse only arises to the level of torture if it causes pain equivalent to organ failure or death. the memo also concluded the president has the authority to order the use of torture even

though that torture would be a crime under u.s. law. the justice department of the united states also signed off on the use of torture techniques like waterboarding. this was in august of 2002. thanks to the intelligence committee report, we know now that the justice department's legal advice was based on false information given to them by the c.i.a. i have a long history with this issue. it was almost ten years ago i stood at this very desk and read into the record a graphic description of an f.b.i. agent's record of abuse, of interrogation that she witnessed at guantanamo bay. at the time i was criticized by members of the bush-cheney administration. but we know now that the description by this f.b.i. agent was accurate. and what she described was authorized by the bush administration based on false information provided by the

c.i.a. it was ten years ago -- ten years ago that i first authored legislation to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. in june of 2004, america was shocked by revelations about what had occurred at abu ghraib prison. the bush administration told us these were rogue actions of a few bad players. i introduced my torture legislation in 2004. i wanted to make sure and make it clear that america condemned the abuses at abu ghraib and stood by our commitment to humane treatment of prisoners. but what we didn't know is that the administration approved the use of abusive interrogation techniques at c.i.a. facilities and guantanamo bay. a defense department investigation later concluded that these techniques migrated to abu ghraib. i offered my legislation as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. i expected it to be noncontroversial. it was adopted unanimously here in the senate.

however, the bush administration had it removed in conference. in the fall of 2004 i tried again. i offered the same amendment to the 9/11 commission intelligence reform legislation. again my amendment was adopted unanimously by the senate and again in conference negotiations the bush administration removed it. i didn't understand their opposition to my amendment because the united states had ratified the torture convention, a treaty that prohibits cruel and inhuman degrading treatment, the same thing my amendment said. a few months later i had the opportunity to get to the bottom of this. alberto gonzalez, president bush's white house counsel, was nominated to be attorney general. during his confirmation hearings in january of 2005, mr. gone disolz told me that the administration believed that they had legal authority to subject detainees to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. that was the first time that a bush administration official had acknowledged this legal loophole. "the washington post" called that testimony a gross

distortion of the law and cited it as a key reason for opposing the gonzales nomination to be attorney general. after this revelation, senator mccain asked me if he could take the lead on legislation that i had written to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. i agreed. there was no better person than john mccain who in service to the united states of america was a prisoner of war in vietnam for more than five years, a person who had been subjected to torture because of his service on behalf of our nation. it became known as the mccain torture amendment. despite a veto threat from president bush, the senate passed the mccain torture amendment in december 2005 by an overwhelming bipartisan 90-9 vote. when the president signed the amendment into law, he issued a signing statement reserving the right to ignore it if he chose. then in june 2006 in the hamdan decision the supreme court held the decision was required to

follow the geneva conventions in its treatment of detainees. the court took the same position as secretary colin powell had argued years before when president bush had first decided to disregard the geneva conventions. in september of 2006, president bush publicly acknowledged the c.i.a. detention and interrogation program for the very first time. then in july of 2007, president bush signed an executive order stating the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program" fully complies with the interrogation of the united states" in the geneva convention in authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques. again the administration twisted the law to justify the use of abusive tactics based on false information provided by the c.i.a. in october of 2007 the senate judiciary committee held hearings on the nomination of michael mukasey to be attorney general. the hearings were going smoothly until i asked mr. mukasey to

condemn waterboarding as torture. he refused. and that became the focal point of the debate on his confirmation. on december 6, 2007, "the new york times" reported that in november 2005 the c.i.a. had destroyed videotapes showing the c.i.a.'s use of abusive interrogation techniques. the next day i sent a letter to attorney general mukasey asking the justice department to open a criminal investigation into the destruction of c.i.a. interrogation videotape evidence. i was the only member of congress to call for that investigation. and in january attorney general did open the investigation. the c.i.a.'s destruction of these videotapes is what led to this intelligence committee report. then-c.i.a. director hayden suggested the intelligence committee staff review the operational cables and e-mails. the intelligence committee study was authorized on an overwhelming 14-1 bipartisan

vote after the ssci, the select committee on intelligence, found that the cable's detailed detention conditions and interrogations far worse than what the c.i.a. had previously described to the committee. the investigation led to the production of a report that is more than 6,700 pages long, including nearly 38,000 footnotes. it is based on a review of more than six million pages of c.i.a. records. in december of 2012 the intelligence committee approved this report on a 9-6 bipartisan vote. two months later, in february 2013, i received a briefing on this report before it was redacted. i was so disturbed by what i heard that i personally spoke with the president, then-secretary of defense panetta and john brennan to urge each of them to do everything possible to be briefed on its findings and support its declassification. in march of 2014 i sent a letter to c.i.a. director brennan

raising serious concern about the c.i.a.'s hacking of senate select committee on intelligence computers and urging again declassification of the report. in april of 2014 the intelligence committee approved the declassification and public release by 11-3 bipartisan vote. it is critically important that this report has been declassified so that the american people could understand what has been done in their name. it was inconsistent with american values. it didn't make us safer and it must never be repeated again. yesterday senator mccain came to the floor to support senator feinstein's disclosure, and during the course of his statement on the floor he said, our enemies are acting without conscience. america cannot act without conscience. we are called to a higher standard than some because we believe in basic human values

and in basic principles. and it may mean that some of the tactics used by our worst enemies are out of bound for us. as they should be. what happened with this disclosure is an important reaffirmation of our separation of powers and our constitutional responsibility. i want to congratulate senator feinstein, senator rockefeller, every member of the senate select committee on intelligence, but particularly those who voted to go forward time and time again. they were under immense pressure not to do so. but the fact that they have held the c.i.a. accountable to the american people, to congress, to the president is part of our constitutional responsibility. it reminds people that in a democracy the people govern and the people have a right to know what this government is doing in their name. there's been a lot of debate since the release of this

report. i assume it will continue. but if it ends with the report and the press, we haven't done enough. we have to reform our processes. and let me start with congress. i -- i served on the senate intelligence committee for four years. it was a daunting assignment. virtually every hearing is behind closed doors and classified. no one knows you're even at the select committee on intelligence unless you tell them afterwards. testimony before us isn't available to the public, and most of the time the professionals from these intelligence agencies come before us and speak in the acronyms of their agencies to the point where you can't even follow what they're saying. it took me two years of sitting there puzzling over what they were saying to finally get an insight into what the committee and its responsibility were all about. that's not right. we need to make sure that congressional oversight of our

intelligence function is up to the job and up to the constitution. that means more resources put in the senate select committee on intelligence. when i served, members of the committee shared a staffer. we each shared a staffer. we didn't even have one staff person working for each of us on these subjects. the amount of money that's being spent, tens of millions of dollars in covert activities and the like, needs to be carefully monitored, and as the chairman of the select committee on -- pardon me, of the subcommittee on defense appropriation, i have that responsibility to look at the overall budget on intelligence. there is not enough oversight. we need to make certain that our branch of government is up to that challenge so that we can guarantee the american people that we're doing our job, so that we can be held accountable as we hold the agencies, the intelligence agencies accountable as well. i think what happened yesterday is going to be part of the

history of the senate, an important, positive part, and i hope that it's just the beginning, where both political parties come together and accept their constitutional responsibility. mr. president, i have some tributes here to my colleagues who are retiring, are leaving the senate, a lengthy list of tributes. to senator tom harkin from my neighboring state of iowa who i worked with over many years on so many important topics. i want to salute him for his service. the highlights of his service include the americans with disabilities act and of course the affordable care act, his work on education and medical research are legendary. there was a time when tom harkin and arlen specter, a republican of pennsylvania at that time, sat out to double the medical research budget at the national institutes of health, and they did it. lives have been saved. people have been spared suffering because they had the political determination and courage to achieve it.

i'm going to miss tom harkin. kay hagan, my colleague from north carolina, she has done an amazing job. in her short time in the senate, her one term in the senate, she really made a name for herself when it came to public service. she stepped up time and again and took tough votes, and i know it because as whip i asked her to take some of them on some important issues that have really made this a better and stronger nation. i thank kay chaik for being my colleague. mark begich of alaska, i can't imagine how a senator from alaska handles that commute back and forth, but he did it. i've said the other day when we spoke p his service that many people don't realize his father was a congressman before him and died in a plane crash with hale boggs when they were flying back to alaska to appear at an event. that plane was lost and never recovered. when mark begich came from alaska to serve in the united states, he completed the journey his father never could complete. his six years of service to

alaska have been extraordinary. i hope that his commitment to public service will continue for many years to come. tim johnson and i came to the senate together, tim from south dakota. eventually became chairman of the banking committee. after he faced one of the toughest physical challenges any senator has ever faced, a debilitating brain injury that left him physically limited but never limited in spirit and intelligence. thank god with barb at his side, he continued in public service to serve the state of south dakota. i'm going to miss my great friend, tim johnson. i wanted to say a word about three others on the other side of the aisle who are retiring -- saxby chambliss of georgia, tom coburn of oklahoma and mike johanns of nebraska. i got to know them when i gathered with one of these gangs, as they call them around here, to talk about deficit reduction. we spent more time together trying to explore this federal budget and ways to reduce or

deficit in a thoughtful manner that we really got to know one another and respect one another. there is a world of difference in our political values and philosophies, but each of them in their own way made a positive contribution toward making this a stronger nation. last night, it was my honor to salute carl levin of michigan. 36 years of service in the united states senate. he's done so many things so well. as chairman of the armed services committee, he's produced this con contentious and challenging bill year after year, both as ranking member and as chairman. as chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations, he really raised that subcommittee to a new level. he tackled some of the most complex issues of our day, particularly when it came to corporate abuse. spent the time to get the facts right. and then when he had a hearing, made an extraordinary contribution to the public dialogue about reforming our law and making us a better nation. i once said that when i was first elected to the senate,

people back home said to me well, now that you have been in the senate a year or two, which senators do you respect the most? i said then and i will repeat it today that if i had a tough, important decision, one that i was wrestling over, over an issue or a vote and i could only reach out to a couple senators, at the time i said one would be paul sarbanes of maryland, now retired, and the other carl levin. that's still a fact. and mark udall, my friend from colorado and your colleague, mr. president. as i said last night, i served with his dad morris udall in the house. his dad may have been the funniest public servant i ever served with. what a wit. what a sense of humor. and he once said if you have politics in your bloodstream, only embalming fluid will replace it. thank goodness the udalls had politics in their bloodstream. mo udall's service in the house of representatives, candidate for president. mark udall's uncle stewart udall

who was secretary of interior under president john kennedy. tom udall, mark's susan, the son of stewart udall, serves as senator from new mexico, and mark udall himself. what a great person. i can remember so many things about his public service but i especially remembered last night when he lost his brother and came before our caucus lunch and talked about the love he had for that man and what that loss meant to him. it touched the heart of everyone in the room and gave us an insight into mark udall as a person. he was committed to a number of causes. his wife maggie and he have given so much time to the environment and preserving our natural heritage, but he also showed great courage when it came to his service on the senate intelligence committee. even as a new member of that committee, he stepped up for principles and values, and i'm glad he did, preserving our rights and liberties as american citizens and fully supporting the disclosure that senator feinstein made yesterday with her report.

i have been in the senate now for 18 years and i have seen many come and go, but we have lost, sadly, in this departure of these members some of our best. i will close by mentioning the one whose fate was determined the last, and that was mary landrieu of louisiana. she has been a great senator from louisiana. she worked harder for that state and achieved more for that state than obviously the people of that state realized. there wasn't an issue that came before us that mary didn't stand up and say now, let me tell you how that affects louisiana. and let me add one other grace note when it comes to her personal and public life. mary and her husband have adopted two children, and they are the light of their lives. and her dedication to the cause of adopted children has really made a difference, not just in the united states but in the world. i'm sure she didn't get a lot of political reward for it, but

thank goodness she put a big part of her life and her public life into standing up for the rights of adopted children and adoptive parents, encouraging it more and more so that kids would have a loving home as part of their lives. it was just one of the things that mary worked on, but it was one of the things that i will remember. i'm going to miss her and her service to the united states senate, and, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: