lined up, i recall the poles and checks, under the bush administration, we had negotiated the placement of missiles and radar in poland and czechoslovakia, respectively and shortly after our president was elected, mr. speaker, he canceled the agreement to place the missiles and the radar in those two countries. the headlines in the warsaw paper they found out about this in the news. it wasn't the president calling them up and saying, listen, i'm not going to follow through on this. they found out about it in the news. and the headlines in the warsaw paper read one word, betrayed. the united states agreement with the poles and the czechs was a betrayal of our word and it's because putin influenced barack obama into pulling -- into canceling the agreement to establish the missiles and the radar in poland and czechoslovakia and the headline

saying betrayed in poland, they were betrayed. i've had conversations with poles since the invasion of crimea. i'm convinced that they would accept the missiles again, even though we haven't been very reliable in our partnership. they're taking a lot of heat. they're right there. i mean, russia is next door. and the poles have stood in the middle of invasions going two directions, in the memory of many of the poles yesterday, they have enjoyed a long period of peace, fairly long, considering their history. but the poles would, i believe, would accept the missiles today and we ought to place them there. the czeches, i don't have as good a measure on, but i would be hopeful that we could place a radar there. and start to build up the missile defense shield. we did operations on the ground in poland last august. we need to ramp them up again and do more ground operations, more joint military exercises. we need to expand those exercises along that part of

the world, working in conjunction with nato troops and the troops of the sovereign countries along that border that is now on the west side of the new iron curtain that putin essentially announced by his invasion into the crimea. we need to put whatever kind of advicery support the ukraine -- advisory support the ukrainians need right into ukraine so those people are trained, their people are ready to step up and defend themselves. if putin decides to move into the balance of ukraine, how could they do anything but defend themselves? i think they must and i'd like to see that they are ready. mr. speaker, i'm known as a fiscal conservative in this house. i supported the resolution that advanced $1 billion in loan guarantees to the ukrainians. i don't think that's enough. i think that we should be prepared in this congress to go down the line and match putin dollar per dollar with loan guarantees, provided we could condition them in such a way

that putin himself doesn't get his hands on those resources. we need to demonstrate our commitment to the ukrainians and let them know we'll be there. we need to invite georgia into nato. we should have done that back in 2008. we should have brought the ukraine in to nato at the same period of time. those kind of things could well have been a deterrent to putin and we didn't take advantage of the opportunity to bring them into that -- into the nato spirit of influence. so i'd offer again, to georgia, come on into nato. you crine, -- ukraine, get stabilized a little bit so we can see what kind of government's going to emerge but we ought to consider a stabilized government of ukraine being an eligible candidate for nato. we need to build our defenses up along those borders. we need to understand that back to that static nature of this is the renewal of the cold war, launched by putin, and we can't continue to back up thinking that he's not going to push. i've read through and delivered the history of the nazi regime

from 1938, march of 1938 on until the invasion of russia by the germans in -- and by the nazi regime, because there is a distinct difference, june 22, 1941 when the second world warthen was launched in a large way. this doesn't happen in a way that putin's going to put this out on the calendar and tell us that he's got his eye on some of the eastern regions of the ukraine and then maybe he thinks he's going to put a little bit of pressure on one of the other chris up along that way -- countries up along that way. maybe back up to georgia again, maybe belarus. they're so closely aligned there it's hard to draw a distinction. maybe it's one of the other countries along the way. maybe it's latvia, maybe it's lithuania, maybe it's all of them. but i've gone through this history of what happened at the beginning of world war ii and i think, mr. speaker, we understand how quickly it could happen and how little the time is to get ready and how

important it is to be prepared. mr. speaker, we must be a strong military nation, we must be prepared. about the same time that secretary hagel announced drastic military cuts is about the same time that putin went into the rhymia. and that's -- it's possible that that's a coincidence, but the military cuts information was already out and i think we should suspend those cuts now. i think we should be prepared to match putin dollar per dollar in the ukraine. i think we need to put the missiles up and the radar up and poland and czechoslovakia. i think we need to sail a few more operational ships into the black sea. i think we need to have more presence in that part of the world and we need to get our military back to ready. if they're cutting our military down to pre-world war ii levels, and i look at some of the troop levels that we have for an entire -- all of our

arenas of operation, and see what can be mustered by the russians in one location, and i see how weak the military is in western europe and how weak their resolve is, mr. speaker, i am very concerned that this second cold war has been relaunched and you never know if it's going to turn into a shooting war. but trading land for peace as no success precedent in history that i can think of. neville chamberlain tried to trade off land for peace. what did it get us? that gave up the rest of czechoslovakia and the invasion of poland. and i recall the gaza strip being traded off land pour feas -- for peace and what does that again? -- get? that gets tunnels and missiles and rockets, rockets i should say, shot out of the gaza strip into the balance of ral israel -- balance of israel. land for peace, mr. speaker, if someone can show me a successful trade of land for

peace, i do not know what it is throughout the course of history. and it isn't that this is something this second world war, that happened a long, long time ago in a different time and a place far away. sure it was a place far away. very close to us. a lot of americans are buried in that soil in europe. and they gave their lives so that freedom could live. we're going to commemorate and celebrate the successful landing in normandy this upcoming june 6. that should be enough to bring our focus to what transpired then, through that period of history, it should bring our focus into the prevention of anything like that ever happening again. it should bring our focus into having peace through strength, being strong militarily, being strong economically, being strong spiritually and strong culturally. that's the residentials of the united states of america.

to live free and be strong. each time that we've been involved in wars that were -- some would say as critics -- foreign interventionism, then we've decided that there was a ed our vidend, chop military down, we don't need them so much anymore, we'll have a core group of our military, because after all, we're americans. just being americans is a deterrent. obviously it's not. putin thumbs his nose at us. take us through the cycles. we were late getting into world war i. we went over there very highly monalized and made a significant difference to help close out the end of world war i. it was a a trafficiest in that part of the world -- travesty in that part of the world and world war i didn't end it. and dn't end it decisively con cluesively and it set the stage for world war ii. we cut our troops back down to a low level going into 1940. we were weak. the japanese knew it. that's why they had the

audacity to attack us in pearl harbor in 1941. the nazis didn't respect us. or they would have been more hesitant in that -- in their part of the world that they were invading and occupying. and so a strong america has always been successful. ronald reagan came in onto the scene, recognized that we were weak, recognized, mr. speaker, a t there was a cold war and jo political chess game taking place -- geopolitical chess game taking place. chess and monopoly on the same board. the only question was during the cold war, would the united states of america -- this is 1984, mr. speaker, when she said this, five years later we found the answer. 1984, jean kirkpatrick, as she stepped down as ambassador she said, the question -- chess and monopoly on the same board in this cold war between the united states and the soviet

union. and the question is, will we bankrupt the soviet union economically before they checkmate us militarily? mr. speaker, we know the answer to that. we brumented the soviet union -- bankrupted the sove outunion economically before they checkmated us militarily. they could not keep up with the american investment and america's innovative ness. they could not keep up with our defense system we were nutting -- we were putting in place either, the strategic defense initiative that was announced by ronald reagan. so i say, demagogued here on the floor of the house of representatives by democrats, calling it star wars d. i thought -- "star wars." i thought it was a tactical way of not just embracing it and say, that's right, it is star wars and we're going to build a missile defense system that seemed a long reach at the time. it doesn't seem like such a long reach today. that defense system should have been deployed in poland and czechoslovakia.

there is a defense system that's been deployed in other places around the world. and a defense system of course that is deployed to protect israel today. that's a product of s.d.i. that's some of the vision of s.d.i. but the vision of putin, vladimir putin, is if you were once a soviet state, then he wants you back as a soviet state. he doesn't care if he can get a mill -- if he can get it militarily, if he can get it politically, he'll get it politically. we should understand that these questions that i've named off are countries that he looks at, that he'd like to have in the -- back as part of the russian federation, part of the -- to recreate the old soviet union. i name these countries again. georgia, he invaded and occupied crimea. that's part of it. the ukraine. estonia, latvia, lithuania, romania, the czech republic,

the slovak republic, croatia, austria are a on the edge, belarus. that's some of them. not all of them. we have a big challenge in front of us. and, mr. speaker, i would challenge and encourage the members of this congress to get better informed, to get up to speed on what's taking place in foreign relations. for about the last six months 've been very concerned that i don't hear a foreign policy discussion or debate here on the floor of the house. i don't see much for legislation come through. i don't hear it in the dialogue among my colleagues. i hear a handful of senators on the other side of the rotunda that will go out and engage in foreign policy. and have those kind of discussions. and, yes, i agree, the president sets foreign policy and he is the commander in chief, but he isn't the sole source of knowledge and put. he needs good advisors. i think he needs to make better decisions than he's made. he need to be strong, he needs to be bold. he needs to be able to look

putin in the eye and see the k.g.b. that john mccain identified and understand that there is an agenda there and putin can be deterred if the price is high. i want to challenge and encourage the members of this ouse, members of the senate, get engaged in foreign policy, travel, meet the leaders of these countries, mr. relation happen -- relationships in these countries. when it's time things must be done, it's too late to start building a relationship, then it's time to act. build the relations first, build an understanding first, mr. speaker, and we need far more expertise on foreign policy than we have today. we have a presidential election and i starting to emerge strongly encourage the candidates, get your foreign policy credentials up, travel now as you can, as the campaign gets closer and closer, it will

be less and less available time to do it and it will look more and more like you're trying to bureau initial your foreign policy credentials from my standpoint, you need to go to those countries, see the leaders, know them face to face and eye-to-eye, they need to recognize you when you walk in the room. this congress needs to the more focus on foreign policy. this country needs more focus on foreign policy. and when something like that happens, then we can have a more open discussion. i was encouraged to hear the gentlelady from ohio talk in depth on the relationship of the ukraine and of course as chair of the ukrainian caucus, marcy kaptur has been very good on these issues. there aren't enough of us engaged in a similar fashion. but here's what i would do if i were moving the pieces around on this chess board rather than having my vote and my voice here in the house of representatives. i would put the missiles and the radar back up in poland and czechoslovakia. i would amp up our energy

production here in the world. i would release it so that we could ship liquefied natural gas out of the united states over to europe to help give them -- back them up in the event that putin decides to shut their gas off. having that supply stream would be very useful. putting more energy out on the market does go into russia's economy tanned makes it harder and harded -- and it makes it harder and harder for putin to have the resources to do what he wants to do militarily. that's all delayed action, however. in the short-term, offer nato membership to georgia, take a look at doing that as soon as the government could be established of, by and for the people of the ukraine, about bringing them into nato. i would encourage the e.u. to look at brnding their membership -- broadening their membership also because i think easier to support that.

special trainers and operations and forces to help support the ukrainians. and anyplace up along the border of the countries that border on russia. and land operations up and down through that entire theater, build then a military shield of deterrent, to -- and start building it so that he knows that any aggressive move that strategic countermove and the you cranians need to be prepared to fight for their land. you may not be the military that can stand up for the russian military, if you can't stand up, no one else, i say that to the ukranians, love freedom, love liberty. let's strengthen our relationships with the ukranians

so the freedom that comes with free enterprise strengthens the ukranian people and the people along that border. i didn't want to see a replay of what happened at the beginning of world war inch i. don't want to see them taken over by a brutal invasion. i'll go through the marsh of what happened in 1938. use try yeah. and then the balance of czech, poland invaded in september of 1939, norway in the spring of 1940 by the nazis and greece and yugoslavia and belgium and june 22.d france, on

and nearly succeeded in his invasion of russia. that's the marsh that went through by a country that had essentially us fighting a two-front war, germanny. putin needs to be recognized. blocll take the old soviet countries and if he thinks he captain achieve, he can be restrained. the waist we can make him respect economic power and respect the military deterrent and we need to call upon our european allies to remember these lessons of the second world war i described. it seemed to me, some of them

announced that they have had a vote that declares them to be neutral. i recall sitting in vienna and they announced they are a neutral country and they will be neutral in any conflict and will never fight another war and nothing good comes from war. that was a discussion that happened to overlooks the battle of vienna that took place on september 11 and 12 of 1693 when launched a fight and there were a matter of days that they would have succeeded. and if they were successful. and i pointed out to the them, it is a good thing they didn't have a resolution in september

of 1683 because we would have oen occupied bring the ott on map empire and it was the west versus the east. so history december turn on battles and does turn on wars and enabled by a successful or a failed economy and they are promoted by people who believe in themselves and the overreach of brinksmanship. i am opposed by war. i don't want to see our military in a place like that but we need to provide that support in a way now. f we do that we may be able to deter what could well be putin deciding he is going to

reconstruct the entire soviet union. that is what i fear. that has to be our caution and by-word and if it's not going to happen, if we turn our policy do let's make sure -- and this is the policy from the white house, ive putin an off-ramp. let's push a little bit. give him room to pull back from crimea. it's not about an off-ramp. he pulled in there and not pulling out. i wans crimea. and his eyes are on the balance of ukraine right now. he idea that we are going to cowellens and i mark the times that were mentioned by our administration on our hand and

in sarah palin style, the eight times they mentioned off-ramp. it isn't about an off-ramp. if he wanted it he wouldn't have gone up the in-ramp that he took to go boo the crimea. this is about detering about him going into the sal light states in eastern europe. it's necessary that we put the deterrence in place and necessary we go through the steps i described. and i appreciate your detention and i urnl awe those who listened to my words to listen to them and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: janet -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to

adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. a >> on this historic day, the house of representatives opens

his proceedings to televised coverage. i wish to congratulate you for your courage in making this possible. and the committee who has worked hard to make this a reality. television will change this institution. just as it has changed the executive branch. the goodwill outweigh the bad. body muster of this ask himself or herself how many americans are listening to the debates which are made. the news media will be allowed to bring their own cameras into this chamber. there is no censorship. every word is available for broadcast coverage. journalists will be able to use it as they see fit. the solution for the lack of confidence in government is more open government at all levels.

>> find more highlights on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's ,able company's 35 years ago brought to you as a public service. >> the head of the senate intelligence committee accused the cia of inappropriately searching network set up for lawmakers. in a few minutes, we will hear senator dianne feinstein from the senate floor. the reaction from cia director john brennan on the allegations. later, whistleblowers fired after reporting safety issues took questions from senators on capitol hill. >> the chairman of the senate intelligence committee spoke on the senate floor this morning, leveling strong allegations against the cia regarding the senate report on cia detention

and interrogation. christina peterson is a correspondent with the "wall street journal. h or the allegations -- what were the allegations? feinstein gave a long and detailed speech. some of the allegations she made was that the agency searched computers and networks that contains cia documents in a secure location. these documents were provided by the cia. some were obtained through a search function the cia had provided to intelligence committee staffers working on a report. thatost divisive thing senator feinstein said was that the cia had then come back without notifying the senate staffers had search their computers and their network. questionsked them

shortly after she learned this about why they had gone ahead and search their computers and documents without notifying them. she hadn't heard back from them. >> she alleges it may have violated the separation of powers. what action is dianne feinstein seeking from the justice department? >> she has asked for an apology from the cia. separately, there has been calls to have this matter investigated by the justice department into whether the cia acted wrongly and into whether senate stuffers -- in a staffers acted improperly. she vigorously defended a senate actedr, saying they within the boundaries of the law and they were looking for

documents provided to them by the cia. one thing worth noting here is it is tricky, but the senate staffers were reviewing a mountain of documents pertaining to the cia secret detention program. in the course of looking for those documents and came across an internal cia review of the leonr conducted under panetta. the question how they obtain those documents at the heart of this dispute. senator feinstein said it was through this search function, because they had no way to navigate the documents. >> coincidently, the head of the cia was speaking in washington this morning. what was his initial reaction to the allegations? >> he said the cia had not hacked into these computers. if there could be nothing further from the truth area

senator feinstein said she stood behind her comment. there is a discrepancy. set use-senate -- have -- >> it was unusual to see her criticize the cia. she is a longtime defender of the intelligence community. democrats quickly embraced her position and said they supported her. many have said they are troubled by the potential constitutional issues and the need to maintain a separation of powers. the republican side has been broader range. some of the republicans did not initially embrace her position. the top level can on the committee said they have disagreement over the fax. other republicans have said that they would not second-guess her

and a independent committee may be needed to help investigate the issue. likes christina peterson of the "wall street journal." becky for the update. -- thank you for the update. >> allegations from diane feinstein that the cia secretly searched a senate computer network. that network percent for the committee to investigate treatment of suspected terrorists during the bush administration. senator feinstein is joined briefly by patrick leahy of vermont. the senator from california is recognized. mrs. feinstein: good morning. over the past week there have been numerous press articles written about the intelligence committee's oversight review of the detention and interrogation program of the c.i.a. specifically, press attention has focused on the c.i.a.'s

intrusion and search of the senate select committee's computers as well as the committee's acquisition of a certain internal c.i.a. document known as the panetta review. i rise today to set the record straight and to provide a full accounting of the facts and history. let me say up front that i come to the senate floor reluctantly. since january 15, 2014, when i was informed of the c.i.a. search of this committee's network, i've been trying to resolve this dispute in a discrete and respectful way. i've not commented in response to media requests for additional information on this matter. however, the increasing amount of inaccurate information circulating now cannot be allowed to stand unanswered. the origin of this study, the

c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program began operations in 2002, though it was not until september, 2006, that members of the intelligence committee other than the chairman and the vice chairman, were briefed. in fact, we were briefed by then-c.i.a. director hayden only hours before president bush disclosed the program to the public. a little more than a year later, on december 6, 2007, a "new york times" article revealed the troubling fact that the c.i.a. had destroyed videotapes of some of the c.i.a.'s first interrogations using so-called enhanced techniques. we learned that this destruction was over the objections of president bush's white house counsel and the director of

national intelligence. after we read -- excuse me, read about the tapes of destruction in the newspapers, director hayden briefed the senate intelligence committee. he assured us that this was not destruction of evidence as detailed records of the interrogations existed on paper. in the form of c.i.a. operational cables describing the detention conditions and the day-to-day c.i.a. interrogations. the c.i.a. director stated that these cables were -- quote -- "a more than adequate representation" -- end quote of what would have been on the destroyed tapes. director hayden offered at that time during senator jay rockefeller's chairmanship of the committee, to allow members or staff review these sensitive c.i.a. operational cables.

that the videotapes -- given that the videotapes had been destroyed. chairman rockefeller sent two of his committee staffers out to the c.i.a. on nights and weekends to review thousands of these cables, which took many months. by the time the two staffers completed their review into the c.i.a.'s early interrogations in early 2009, i had become chairman of the committee, and president obama had been sworn into office. the resulting staff report was chilling. the interrogations and the conditions of confinement at the c.i.a. detention sites were far different and far more harsh than the way the c.i.a. had described them to us. as a result of the staff's initial report, i proposed and then vice chairman bond agreed

and the committee overwhelmingly approved that the committee conduct an expansive and full review of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program. on march 5, 2009, the committee voted 14-1 to initiate a comprehensive review of the c.i.a. detention and interrogation program. immediately we sent a request for documents to all relevant executive branch agencies, chiefly among them the c.i.a. the committee's preference was for the c.i.a. to turn over all responsive documents to the committee's office, as had been done in previous committee investigations. director panetta proposed an alternative arrangement to provide, literally, millions of pages of operational cables, internal emails, memos, and

other documents pursuant to a committee's document requests at a secure location in northern virginia. we agreed, but insisted on several conditions and protections to ensure the integrity of this congressional investigation. per an exchange of letters in 2009, then-vice chairman bond, then-director panetta, and i agreed in an exchange of letters that the c.i.a. was to provide a -- quote -- "stand-alone computer system" -- end quote with a -- quote -- "network drive segregated from c.i.a. networks" -- end quote. for the committee that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the c.i.a. who would -- quote -- "not be permitted to share information from the system with

other c.i.a. personnel except as otherwise authorized by the committee" -- end quote. it was this computer network that notwithstanding our agreement with director panetta was searched by the c.i.a. this past january, and once before which i will later describe. in addition to demanding that the documents produced for the committee be reviewed at a c.i.a. facility, the c.i.a. also insisted on conducting a multilayered review of every responsive document before providing the document to the committee. this was to ensure the c.i.a. did not mistakenly provide documents unrelated to the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program. or provide documents that the president could potentially

claim to be covered by executive privilege. while we viewed this as unnecessary and raised concerns that it would delay our investigation, the c.i.a. hired a team of outside contractors who otherwise would not have had access to these sensitive documents, to read multiple times each of the 6.2 million pages of documents produced before providing them to fully cleared committee staff conducting the committee's oversight work. this proved to be a slow and very expensive process. the c.i.a. started making documents available electronically to the committee staff at the c.i.a. leased facility in mid 2009. the number of pages ran quickly to the thousands, tens of

thousands, the hundreds of thousands, and then into the millions. the documents that were provided came without any index, without any organizational structure. it was a true document dump that our committee staff had to go through and make sense of. in order to piece together the story of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program, the committee staff did two things that will be important as i go on. first, they asked the c.i.a. to provide an electronic search tool so they could locate specific relevant documents for their search, among the c.i.a.-produced documents, just like you would use a search tool on the internet to locate information. second, when the staff found a document that was particularly important or that might be referenced in our final report,

they would often print it or make a copy of the file on their computer so they could easily find it again. their thousands of such documents in the committee's secure spaces at the c.i.a. facility. now, prior removal of documents by c.i.a. in early 2010, the c.i.a. was continuing to provide documents, and the committee staff was gaining familiarity with the information it had already received. in may of 2010, the committee staff noticed that the documents had been provided for the committee -- that had been provided for the committee's review were no longer accessible. staff approached the c.i.a.

personnel at the offsite location who initially denied the documents had been removed. c.i.a. personnel then blamed information technology personnel who were almost all contractors for removing the documents themselves without direction or authority. and then the c.i.a. stated that the removal of the documents was ordered by the white house. when the committee approached the white house, the white house denied giving the c.i.a. any such order.57ñ after a series of meetings, i learned that on two occasions, c.i.a. personnel electronically removed committee access to c.i.a. documents after providing them to the committee. this included roughly 870 documents or pages of documents that were removed in february

2010. and secondly, roughly another 50 that were removed in mid-may 2010. this was done without the knowledge or approval of committee members or staff and in violation of our written agreements. further, this type of behavior would not have been possible had the c.i.a. allowed the committee to conduct the review of documents here in the senate. in short, this was the exact sort of c.i.a. interference in our investigation that we sought to avoid at the outset. i went up to the white house to raise the issue with the then-white house counsel. in may 2010, he recognized the severity of the situation and the grave implications of executive branch personnel

interfering with an official congressional investigation. the matter was resolved with a renewed commitment from the white house counsel and the c.i.a. that there would be no further unauthorized access to the committee's network or removal of access to c.i.a. documents already provided to the committee. on may 17, 2010, the c.i.a.'s then-director of congressional affairs apologized on behalf of the c.i.a. for removing the documents. and that, as far as i was concerned, put the incident aside. this event was separate from the documents provided that were part of the internal panetta review which occurred later and which i will describe next.

at some point in 2010, committee staff searching the documents that had been made available found draft versions of what is now called the internal panetta review. we believe these documents were written by c.i.a. personnel to summarize and analyze the materials that had been provided to the committee for its review. the panetta review documents were no more highly classified than other information we had received for our investigation. in fact, the documents appeared based on the same information already provided to the committee. what was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not their classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgement of significant c.i.a. wrongdoing.

to be clear, the committee staff did not hack into c.i.a. computers to obtain these documents, as has been suggested in the press. the documents were identified using the search tool provided by the c.i.a. to search the documents provided to the committee. we have no way to determine who made the internal panetta review documents available to the committee. further, we don't know whether the documents were provided intentionally by the c.i.a., unintentionally by the c.i.a. or intentionally by a whistle-blower. in fact we know that over the years on multiple occasions the staff have asked the c.i.a. about documents made available for our investigation. at times the c.i.a. has simply been unaware that these specific

documents were provided to the committee. and while this is alarming, it is also important to note that more than 6.2 million pages of documents have been provided. this is simply a massive amount of records. as i described earlier, as part of its standard process for reviewing records, the committee staff printed copies of the internal panetta review and made electronic copies of the committee's computers at the facility. the staff did not rely on these internal panetta review documents when drafting the final 6,300-page committee study. but it was significant that the internal panetta review had documented at least some of the very same troubling matters already uncovered by the

committee staff, which is not surprising in that they were looking at the same information. there is a claim in the press and elsewhere that the markings on these documents should have caused the staff to stop reading them and turn them over to the c.i.a.. i reject that claim completely. as with many other documents provided to the committee at the c.i.a. facility, some of the internal panetta review documents -- some -- contain markings indicating that they were -- quote -- "deliberative" and/or -- quote -- "privileged". this was not especially noteworthy to staff. in fact, c.i.a. has provided thousands of internal documents to include c.i.a. legal guidance and talking points prepared for the c.i.a. director, some of

which were marked as being deliberative or privileged. moreover, the c.i.a. has officially provided such documents to the committee here in the senate. in fact, the c.i.a.'s official june 27, 2013, response to the committee study which director brennan delivered to me personally is labeled -- quote -- "deliberative process privileged document." end quote. we have discussed this with the senate legal counsel who has confirmed that congress does not recognize these claims of privilege when it comes to documents provided to congress for our oversight duties. these were documents provided by the executive branch pursuant to an authorized congressional oversight investigation.

so we believe we had every right to review and keep the documents. there are also claims in the press that the panetta internal review documents, having been created in 2009 and 2010 were outside the date range of the committee's document request or the terms of the committee study. this too is inaccurate. the committee's document requests were not limited in time. in fact, as i have previously announced, the committee study includes significant information on the may 2011 osama bin laden operation, which obviously postdated the detention and interrogation program. at some time after the committee staff identified and reviewed the internal panetta review documents, access to the vast majority of them was removed by

the c.i.a.. we believe this happened in 2010, but we have no way of knowing the specifics. nor do we know why the documents were removed. the staff was focused on reviewing the tens of thousands of new documents that continue to arrive on a regular basis. our work continued until december 2012, when the intelligence committee approved a 6,300-page committee study of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program and sent the executive report to the executive branch for comment. the c.i.a. provided its response to the study on june 27, 2013. as c.i.a. director brennan has stated, the c.i.a. officially agrees with some of our study

but has been reported the c.i.a. disagrees and disputes important parts of it, and this is important. some of these important parts that the c.i.a. now disputes in our committee study are clearly acknowledged in the c.i.a.'s own internal panetta review. to say the least, this is puzzling. how can the c.i.a.'s official response to our study stand factually in conflict with its own internal review? now after noting the tkeus parity between the -- the disparity between the official c.i.a. response to the committee study and the internal panetta review, the committee staff securely transported a printed portion of the draft internal

panetta review from the committee's secure room at the c.i.a.-leased facility to the secure committee spaces in the hart senate office building. and let me be clear about this, i mentioned earlier the exchange of letters that senator bond and i had with director panetta in 2009 over the handling of information for this review. the letters set out a process whereby the committee would provide specific c.i.a. documents to c.i.a. reviewers before bringing them back to our secure offices here on capitol hill. the c.i.a. review was designed specifically to make sure that committee documents available to all staff and members did not include certain kinds of information. most importantly, the true names

of nonsupervisory c.i.a. personnel and the names of specific countries in which the c.i.a. operated detention sites. we had agreed up front that our report didn't need to include this information, and so we agreed to redact it from materials leaving the c.i.a.'s facility. keeping with the spirit of the agreement, the portion of the internal panetta review at the hart building in our safe has been redacted. it does not contain names of nonsupervisory c.i.a. personnel or information identifying detention site locations. in other words, our staff did just what the c.i.a. personnel would have done had they reviewed the document. there are several reasons why the draft summary of the panetta

review was brought to our secure spaces at the hart building. let me list them. one, the significance of the internal review given disparities between it and the june 2013 c.i.a. response to the committee study, the internal panetta review summary now at the secure committee office in hart is an especially significant document as it corroborates critical information in the committee's 6,300-page study that the c.i.a.'s official response either objects to, denies, minimizes or ignores. unlike the official response, these panetta review documents

were in agreement with the committee's findings. that's what makes them so significant and important to protect. when the internal panetta review documents disappeared from the committee's computer system, this suggested once again that the c.i.a. had removed documents already provided to the committee in violation of c.i.a. agreements and white house assurances that the c.i.a. would cease such activities. as i have detailed, the c.i.a. has previously withheld and destroyed information about its detention and interrogation program, including its decision in 2005 to destroy interrogation videotapes over the objections of the bush white house and the director of national intelligence. based on the above, there was a

need to preserve and protect the internal panetta review in the committee's own secure spaces. now, the relocation of the internal panetta review was lawful and handled in a manner consistent with its classification. no law prevents the relocation of a document in the committee's possession from a c.i.a. facility to secure committee offices on capitol hill. as i mentioned before, the document was handled and transported in a manner consistent with its classification, redacted appropriately and it remains secured with restricted access in committee spaces. now, the january 15, 2014 meeting with director john brennan. in late 2013, i requested in

writing that the c.i.a. provide a final and complete version of the internal panetta review to the committee, as opposed to the partial document the committee currently possesses. in december, during an open committee hearing, senator mark udall echoed this request. in early january, 2014, the c.i.a. informed the committee it would not provide the internal panetta review to the committee, citing the deliberative nature of the document. shortly thereafter, on january 15, 2014, c.i.a. director brennan requested an emergency meeting to inform me and vice chairman chambliss that without prior notification or approval, c.i.a. personnel had conducted a

search -- that was john brennan's word -- of the committee computers at the offcite facility. -- offsite facility. this search was not only of documents provided by the committee by the c.i.a. but also a search of the stand-alone and walled-off committee network drive containing the committee's own internal work product and communications. according to brennan, the computer search was conducted in response to indications that some members of the committee staff might already have had access to the internal panetta review. the c.i.a. did not ask the committee or its staff if the committee had access to the internal review or how we obtained it. instead, the c.i.a. just went and searched the committee's computers.

the c.i.a. has still not asked the committee any questions about how the committee acquired the panetta review. in place of asking any questions, the c.i.a.'s unauthorized search of the committee computers was followed by an allegation which we now have seen repeated anonymously in the press, that the committee staff had somehow obtained the document through unauthorized or criminal means, perhaps to include hacking into the c.i.a.'s computer network. as i have described, this is not true. the document was made available to the staff at the offsite facility and it was located using a c.i.a.-provided search tool, running a query of the information provided to the committee pursuant to its investigation. director brennan stated that the

c.i.a.'s search had determined that the committee staff had copies of the internal panetta review on the committee staff's shared drive and had accessed them numerous times. he indicated at the numerous times. the he indicated he was going to order further investing -- investigative researching to learn more about the oversight staff. two days later, i wrote a letter objecting to any further cia investigation, due to the separation of powers that the search raised. onre was a second letter january 23. c.i.a.'s actions, questions that the

c.i.a. has refused to answer. some of the questions in my letter related to the full scope of the c.i.a.'s search of our computer network. other questions related to who had authorized and conducted the search, and what legal basis the c.i.a. claimed gave it authority to conduct the search. again, the c.i.a. has not provided answers to any of my questions. my letter also laid out my concern about the legal and constitutional implications of the c.i.a.'s actions. based on what director brennan has informed us, i have grave concerns that the c.i.a.'s search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the united states constitution, including the speech and debate clause. it may have undermined the

constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function. i have asked for an apology, and a recognition that this c.i.a. search of computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. i have received neither. besides the constitutional implications, the c.i.a. search may also have violated the fourth amendment, the computer fraud and abuse act, as well as executive order 123 3 which 3reub9s the c.i.a. from conducting domestic surveillance. days after meeting with director brennan, the c.i.a. inspector general, david buckley, learned of the c.i.a. search and began an investigation into c.i.a.'s activities. i have been informed that

mr. buckley has referred the matter to the department of justice, given the possibility of a criminal violation by c.i.a. personnel. let me note, because the c.i.a. has refused to answer the questions in my january 23 letter and the c.i.a. inspector general is ongoing, i have limited information about exactly what the c.i.a. did in conducting its search. weeks later, i was also told that after the inspector general reviewed the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice --, excuse me, referred the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice, the acting counsel general of the c.i.a. filed a crimes report with the department of justice concerning the committee staff's

actions. i have not been provided the specifics of these allegations or been told whether the department has initiated a criminal investigation based on the allegations of the c.i.a.'s acting general counsel. as i mentioned before, our staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handled the sensitive material according to established procedures and practice to protect classified information, and were provided access to the panetta review by the c.i.a. itself. as a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the justice department that senate staff may have committed a crime. i view the acting counsel general's referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and i am not taking

it lightly. i should note that for most, if not all of the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program, the now acting general counsel was a lawyer in the c.i.a.'s counterterrorism center. the unit within which the c.i.a. managed and carried out this program. from mid 2004 until the official termination of the detention and interrogation program in january, 2009, he was the unit's chief lawyer. he is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study. and now this individual is sending a crimes report to the department of justice on the actions of congressional staff, the same congressional staff who were searched and drafted a report -- researched and drafted a report which details how c.i.a. officers including

the acting general counsel himself provided inaccurate information to the department of justice about the program. mr. president, let me say this -- all senators rely on their staff to be their eyes and ears and to carry out our duties. the staff members of the intelligence committee are dedicated professionals who are motivated to do what is best for our nation. the staff members sho have been working on this study and this report have devoted years of their lives to it, wading through the horrible details of the c.i.a. program that never, never, never should have existed. they have worked long hours and produced a report unprecedented in its comprehensive attention to detail in the history of the senate. they are now being threatened with legal jeopardy just as the final revisions to the report are being made so that parts of

it can be declassified and released to the american people. mr. president, i felt that i needed to come to the floor today to correct the public record and to give the american people the facts about what the dedicated committee staff have been working so hard for the last several years as part of the committee's investigation. i also want to reiterate to my colleagues my desire to have all updates to the committee report completed this month and approved for declassification. we're not going to stop. i intend to move to have the findings conclusions and the executive summary of the report sent to the president for declassification and release to the american people. the white house has indicated publicly and to me personally that it supports declassification and release.

if the senate can reclassify this report, we will be able to ensure that an un-american, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted. but, mr. president, the recent actions that i have just laid out make this a defining moment for the oversight of our intelligence committee. how congress and how this will be resolved will show whether the intelligence committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation's intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee. i believe it is critical that the committee and the senate reaffirm our oversight role and our independence under the constitution of the united states. mr. president, i thank you very much for your patience and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, while the distinguished senator from california is on the floor i would tell her through the chair, i've had the privilege of serving in this body now my 40th -- 40th year. i've heard thousands of speeches on this floor. i cannot think of any speech by any member of either party as important as the one the senator from california just gave. what she is saying is if we're going to protect the separation of powers and the concept of congressional oversight, then she has taken the right steps to do that. i think back, mr. president, the very first vote i cast in this body was for the church committee, which went into the excesses of the c.i.a. and others of our agencies,

everything from assassinations to spying on those who were protesting the war in vietnam. there was a famous george tames picture where then chairman of the armed services committee, john stennis was berating senator frank church for proposing this committee saying that he, senator stennis, could find out what he wanted to find out but didn't really want to know everything. i was -- i stand behind george stennis when he took that picture in my first caucus. there was pressure on our junior members, i was the most junior member of the senate at the time, not to vote for the church committee. senator mike mansfield told me as senator fritz mondale did others, that the senate is bigger than any one senator. we come and go. the senate lasts. if we do not assistant -- stand up for the protection of the

separation of powers and our ability to do oversight, especially when conduct has happened that is in all likelihood criminal conduct on the part of a government agency, then what do we stand for? we are supposed to be the conscience of the nation. the senator from california, senator feinstein, has spoken to our conscience, to every one of us, 100 senators, men and women, both parties. she has spoken to our conscience now let's stand up for this country. let's stand up as united states senators should and as the sena >> now we will get a reaction from director brendan. he spoke with the council on foreign relations. this is a 50 minute portion.

>> while we are proud of the work we do, we have not been a perfect organization. far from it. we have made mistakes. we have tried to make corrective actions wherever appropriate. that many things the agency has done, things it was asked to do, that it was directed to do that it alone had the authority and responsibility to do remain subject to controversy. the interrogation program of nearly a decade ago is a case in point. there've been many things written and many thing said. some fact. and some are fiction.

these are related to the report on the program. i want to take this opportunity to say two things. believeolleagues and i oversight.e we are far better organization because of it. as long as i'm director i will do whatever i can to be responsible. the overseers ask us the tough questions. they want to make sure that it is being set affectively to keep our country strong. most important they want to make sure that the cia and other intelligence organizations are caring out there responsibilities in full accordance with the law. i do not always agree with that. 202-585-3880spirited

the cia has enough challenges on its plate. cia wants to put the interrogation chapter of the history behind it. president obama ended the program five years ago by which time the cia had ceased those activities. there've been numerous internal and x terminal reviews. to find therked deficiencies the became evident in those reviews. is a review that the cia has supported over the last several years.

we've tried to work as collaboratively as possible with the report. i've spoken with feinstein about the report and the way forward. the cia agrees with many whining of the report and disagrees with others. we have acknowledged and learned from the program's shortcomings to prevent such mistakes from happening again. we owe it to the men and women who executed this program to make sure any historical record of it is a balanced and accurate one. we have worked closely with the committee to resolve outstanding issues and look forward to working with the committee. even as we have learned from the past, we must be able to put the past behind us to devote ourselves to the challenges ahead of us. i was sworn in as a g.s.-9

officer never believing that one day i would have the honor and privilege of leading the courageous, dedicated and exceptional talented men and women of c.i.a. i go to the main lobby once a month to administer the oath of office to our newest employees. many speak several languages. some have had successful careers in the private sector and want to give something back to their country. for all of them, this moment is a culmination of years of hard work and see the enthusiasm in their eyes. as i watched them raise their right hands, i feel a sense of obligation to these officers. they have chosen a profession that is filled with great rewards but also have challenges and sometimes grave danger and it's my job to prepare them for it. from day one, i want them to understand they are joining more than an organization but a tradition of service and sacrifice unlike any in government. i always administer the oath of office in front of our memorial wall.

there are 107 stars on that wall. each one representing an agency hero who made the sacrifice on behalf of our nation and i emphasize that we all have the responsibility to remember the officers and sacrifices represented by their stars and carry on their work in a way that would make them proud. it underscores the defining trait of c.i.a. and our commitment that we serve. the women and men have devoted themselves to protecting our nation and advancing american interests around the globe. their contributions often go unrecognized but no doubt, they are essential to the strength and security of our republic. thank you and i look forward to taking your questions.

>> thank you all very much. \[applause] >> thank you, director. we are going to have a conversation here and obviously bring the audience in. first of all, the topic of the morning, which you have addressed here, you said you want to get the past practices behind you, but senator feinstein went to the floor and said she did it reluctantly and dealing with you privately trying to resolve this since january and only went public today because of the referrals from the inspector general and because a lawyer in c.i.a. had referred a crimes report separately accusing the senate of going in improperly into c.i.a. computers. her claim in a scathing speech was that the c.i.a. has hacked into the senate intelligence committee staff computers to

thwart an investigation by the committee into those past practices. she also alleges that the panetta-era report was very similar to the conclusions of those past practices. but you, who were involved in that era in the program itself and the c.i.a. currently was trying to thwart the full review of the harshness of the interrogation and practices, can you respond? >> we are not trying to thwart this report's progression release. as i said in my remarks. we want this behind us. we know the committee has invested a lot of time, money and effort into this report. and they are determined to put it forward. we have engaged with them

extensively over the last year. we had officers sit down with them and go over the report and point out where we believe there are factual errors or errors in judgment or assessments. we are not trying to prevent its release. as far as the allegations of c.i.a. hacking into senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. we wouldn't do that. that is just beyond the scope of reason. >> she says there are potentially illegal and unconstitutional breaches by the c.i.a. >> there are appropriate authorities right now inside c.i.a. as well as c.i.a. -- >> justice department. >> as what the staff members did and i defer to them to determine whether there was any violation of law or principle and i referred the matter, myself to the c.i.a. inspector general to make sure he was able to look honestly and objectively what the c.i.a. did there. when the facts come out, i think a lot of people claiming that there has been this spying, monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.

>> you said at your confirmation hearing you wanted to restore the trust of the c.i.a. and overseers in the senate. this is pretty major goal. if it is proved that the c.i.a. did do this, would you feel that you would have to step down? >> i am confident that the authorities will review this appropriately. and i will deal with the facts as uncovered in the appropriate manner. i would just encourage some members of the senate to take their time to make sure that they don't overstate what they claim and what they probably believe to be the truth. these are some complicated matters. we have worked with the committee over the course of many years. this review done by the committee was done at a facility where c.i.a. had the

responsibility to make sure they had the computer wherewithal to carry out their responsibilities. if there were any inappropriate actions either by the c.i.a. or the staff, i will be the first one to say we will get to the bottom of this. if i did something wrong, i will go to the president, i will explain what i did and what the findings were. and he can ask me to stay or to go. >> malaysia air and the

investigation, a lot of people have been shocked that two years after passports were stolen and reported stolen that people using stolen passports whether or not there was a terror linching could still board airlines. what flaw is still in this system post-9/11 that permits stolen passports to be used so commonly around the world? >> when you think of people who get on airlines around the world it is hundreds of thousands. since 9/11 there have been strides to share as much information as possible not only threats but individuals who are trying to carry out attacks, to include stolen passports. the authorities are looking what went wrong, why they were not aware of it and all of us have to make sure we are doing everything possible. it's close to 13 years since 9/11. the tragedies of 9/11 are still in the minds of many people and this is not the time to relax because we know there are terrorist groups that are still determined to carry out attacks especially against air raft craft. >> is there any chatter? >> i think there is a lot of speculation right now. some claim responsibility that have not been confirmed or

corroborated at all. we are looking at it closely with the c.i.a. and f.b.i. and others and our malaysian counterparts are doing everything to put the pieces together. but this is a mystery that is very disturbing and until we can find out, we will have to do a forensic analysis. >> at this point you are not ruling out it could be a terrorist organization? >> not at all. >> what is the state of al qaeda in malaysia. in the 1990's, they were very active. and there were plots as well. is al qaeda still active as a cell in malaysia? >> al qaeda, which had its -- first in the afghan-pakistan area, earlier in sudan, has spread over the years. it is found throughout africa and southeast asia. there are a number of areas in southeast asia where al qaeda has tried to develop contacts and cells and put in place the infrastructure, whether for fundraising activities or support and facilitation.

there is no place in the globe where al qaeda said they weren't going to seek some type of presence. southeast asia is where al qaeda has had a historical presence. >> \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> he said that a resolution condemning russia should pass the house unanimously. this is 25 minutes. >> i think there are several aspects of this resolution we are passing today. clearlyhe aspects is looking at what we can do to

leverage russia to stand down, not to accelerate the crisis. one of the warriors we have is in the eastern ukraine, and the fact that there are many machinations on the part of the russians in east ukraine. the leverage we have is the 52% of the budget for the russian from theirmes control of gas and oil carried at the same time, you have six countries in europe that are totally dependent upon gas from russia. russia's ability to shut down those valves in winter grade or do what they are doing right now in ukraine, what they did to try to create this crisis, by putting pressure on the ukraine, can be offset considerably if the united states were to ship natural into.

upset the monopoly that russia possesses. that would be a threat to income that russia uses to maintain its military. part of the resolution calls for doing just that. some of the other steps would be to have treasury, to have other institutions look at the money laundering aspects of what russia has done a legally because that then gives us additional leverage on all regards that are close to the russian government. the last aspect of this is isolation internationally. level, that at the u.n. we should have a resolution, veto russia would be to -- , but all other nations would support. boundaries ofe ukraine. our intent here with this resolution, which we think will pass unanimously, is to bring that additional pressure so that

russia will step back and say, we have something to lose in this conflict. and perhaps we should wend us down. whining this down is the endgame right now. -- winding this down is the endgame right now. do you expect to release that this week? >> that is something we are doing in tandem with our colleagues in the senate. >> our hope is to have a unified voice on a sanctions package. we need something that will threaten the russian monopoly on , and will cause the russians to read think -- do have second thoughts about further accelerating this crisis and try

to get them to the table to lower the tensions and reach an and diffuse the crisis and the potential for additional problems, obviously with the current environment. when this might flareup with an unforeseen accident, when you have ships in the black sea that our ukrainian flags and russian flags playing cat and mouse. when you have populations that the typesworked up by of broadcasting they are hearing out of russia. this presents a real challenge. >> is there realistic scenario in which russia leaves ukraine? >> we do not know the answer to that. what i can share with you is there is a realistic chance that

russia takes into account the pressure that is rod to bear and the consequences on its own budget, and therefore, would negotiate in and what is the important point right now is congress moves together. that is why this is brought up with bipartisan support. resolution.of the important to both of us is the fact that it passed out of our community -- committee unanimously. that is going to send a message to moscow. thank you. >> health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius testifying about the 2015 budget request for hhs. she is effected to take

questions about delays in fomenting the health care law. live coverage starts at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. secretary of state john kerry testifies about his department's 2015 budget proposal. live coverage from the senate foreign relations committee begins at 2:30 eastern. you can join the conversation during both of these hearings on facebook and twitter. >> the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr. speaker, on this historic day, the house of representatives opens its doors for the first time for televised coverage. who has worked so hard under the leadership of congressman charles rolls to make this a reality. television will change these institution. just as it has changed the

executive branch. the goodwell the goodwill outweigh the bad. every member of this body must ask himself or herself how many americans are listening to the debates which are made. the news media will be allowed to bring their own cameras into this chamber. there is no censorship. every word is available for broadcast coverage. journalists will be able to use it as they see fit. the solution for the lack of confidence in government is more open government at all levels. >> find more highlights on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable company's 35 years ago, brought to you as a public service. >> david jolly won a special

13thion in florida's district special election. jolly is a former lobbyist. the district -- includes parts of st. petersburg. whistleblowers in washington state participated in a discussion with senators. some of the workers were fired after reporting about safety concerns. later, testimony from energy department officials and executive are visiting contractors working at hanford.

subcommittee chairman senator claire mccaskill is holding a roundtable discussion. this is live coverage on c-span3. >> -- welcoming all of you to this discussion. i'm really pleased that you are able to be here today. i know you've come a long way. i appreciate that. this discussion represents the intersection of the subcommittee's ongoing oversight of whistle-blower protections, and the department of energy's contract management. both areas that i have done, and this subcommittee, has done a significant amount of work around both of those issues. after the conclusion of this discussion, we'll proceed to the third subcommittee hearing on these topics that we have actually had in this subcommittee. the focus of today's discussion is the safety culture at hanford, and the allegations of whistle-blower retaliation that resulted when safety and technical concerns were brought to the attention of the department of energy and contractor management. hanford has been in the news

again lately because yet another contractor employee at the waste treatment plant, who raised safety concerns, was fired. these actions contribute to a strong perception, both within hanford, and outside of it, that the contractors and the department of energy are failing to put an adequate emphasis on creating a strong safety culture in hanford. today, i wanted to give fellow members of congress and the public an opportunity to hear from some of those individuals familiar with this situation at hanford. donna bushy. >> yes, ma'am. >> is the former environmental and nuclear safety manager at the waste treatment plant. she has over 20 years of experience in nuclear safety, she was fired by urs in february of this year. dr. walter tamacidis is the former research and technology manager and assistant chief process engineer for the waste treatment plant. he has over 40 years of experience in the chemical and nuclear industries. he was fired by urs in december of 2013. and tom carpenter is the executive director of the

advocacy group hanford challenge. mr. carpenter has decades of experience in policy oversight of the nuclear field and whistle-blower advocacy. he helped establish and is a member of the hanford concerns council. let me turn it over to senator johnson, if you would like to say a few words, and then we would love to ask each of you to give a brief statement and then we'll have some questions. >> okay, thank you. well certainly, madam chair i certainly appreciate your efforts, trying to get to the bottom of what this government needs to do, what the u.s. has to do in terms of cleaning up these nuclear sites. i'm relatively new to the issue. and so i really don't come to this issue with any biases or any assumptions. i think my assumption would be that nobody at the table here companies, not the current government employees, caused the problem. that was done decades ago and it is a huge problem. it's an incredibly complex problem. i'm not an engineer. i'm not a nuclear engineer.

my guess is because of the complexity, because of the difficult nature of this problem, there's going to be certainly differences of opinion in terms of how to approach it. i really, you know, i would like to think, whether it's the government employees, whether it's the contractors that are basically agreeing to take on this task and try to grapple with this very difficult situation, my guess is everybody's trying to solve this problem but it's incredibly enormous, complex and difficult issue. so i certainly want to get all the information. i appreciate you coming here today. and with that just want to hear what you have to say. >> why don't we begin with you, miss bushy and take a few minutes to say whatever you'd like to say in terms of where you find yourself and what you think is relevant knowing that our concern is whistleblower protections and contract management. those are basically the two cornerstones that this hearing that we're going to have in another hour or so are really

about. so why don't you each take a few minutes and then i've got some questions and i'm sure senator johnson may have some questions. >> i'll keep my remarks pretty brief so that we can actually, i think, afford you the opportunity with questions so that we might be able to help your investigation. so i think everyone knows me. my name is donna busche he was the former manager of environmental and nuclear safety at the waste treatment plants. my responsibilities included making sure that the dangerous waste permit that is actually one of the governing documents for the environmental cleanup mission, that we provided and complied with the terms and conditions of that dangerous waste permits, and the more controversial side was the nuclear safety side. where, i would summarize my job as making sure that we adequately implement the department of energy's requirements to integrate safety into the design. so, most people resonate with fukushima, right? i'm not advocating that we're going to have a fukushima. we're not going to have an earthquake and a tsunami. but the parallels from the department of energy's regulations are very similar to

the nuclear regulatory commission. so we analyze hazards and then we must make sure that there's controls adequate to handle the hazards 6 the highly radioactive and toxic waste in the waste tanks. my journey i believe started at the waste treatment plant in 2009 and i was on good rapport with the company, urs, bechtel, the department of energy, until a fortuitous meeting with the doctor where we identified some key issues, at that time a highly controversial technical issue of mixing and i think that was the subtd of one of your previous hearings. in that meeting it was not received well. it being the 56 comments and questions that dr. tamacitis raised. when i reviewed that list i identified, these are my words, holy moley, there's quite a few of these that have not been adequately analyzed to understands hazards and what needs to go into the design. from that point forward i was requested to attend a public

meeting from the defense nuclear facility safety board, where i provided testimony in three panels that were quite controversial, where i took positions technically that made them differing opinions, as you put it. senator johnson. but, in the nuclear business we must have unwavering commitment to making sure that we comply with the regulations, and execute the public trust that has been endeared to us. so i took a conservative stance. the defense nuclear facility safety board supported that stance and so did many other in the technical community. after that i was requested to be deposed. i was subpoenaed for a closed testimony for the nuclear safety board and miraculously after that i now have performance issues. and i would characterize, if you disagree with urs or bechtel in making sure that we build the waste treatment plant, not design it safely, build the waste treatment plant, that you're labeled with performance

issues, attitude issues, don't get along with colleagues. so, i stayed until i was terminated from my employment on february 18th. >> i'm going to interrupt if you don't mind and give my colleague ron wyden who i know has been interested and acted on this issue and give him a few moments to make comments. we've just donna busche just finished explaining her situation. and then the other two witnesses, we're going to give an informal presentation and we're just going to have informal questioning between -- >> chairman mccaskill, thank you first of all for doing this. this is extraordinarily important. because if we're going to have the kind of safety agenda that we need in this country, we've got to get the truth out. that's the bottom line and i'm particularly pleased that you have three individuals that i've had a chance to talk to in the

case of mr. carpenter for practically two decades now, and dr. tamacitis and mrs. busche as well. getting the real story at the department of energy's hanford site is tujly important for our part of the world. as some of you know, hanford essentially adjoins the columbia river. which is our life blood. for our quality of life, and recreation, and business, and a whole host of needs. and the reality is, hanford is is a lasting and dangerous legacy of the federal government's nuclear weapons production activitieactivities,g millions of gallons of high level radioactive waste. and for decades secrecy was a way of life at hanford. first because it was necessary to protect nuclear weapons secrets, but later, it became a way of hiding the true

environmental impacts of decades of plutonium production. and what you're going to hear from these three today, and hopefully a number of times in the days ahead, because working with my colleagues, i'm glad to see senator johnson here, as well, we really need to gig in and get the truth out of the problems at the site. we're talking about contamination of groundwater, the safety problems at the waste treatment plant, and the reality is, and i say this to our chair and our colleague senator johnson, the only way these serious matters have become public knowledge is because courageous, committed employees like these two individuals, have come forward to tell us and to tell the american people. and i'll close up senator mccaskill with just two last points. first independent reviews

essentially corroborate their point of view. both the defense nuclear facility safety board and the department's own safety inspector inspectors found that hanford maintained a culture that at best thwarted the ability of employees to come forward, and at worst has threatened their careers, and livelihoods. the fact that with respect to dr. tamosaitis and miss busche that they were fired after this issue has gotten so much attention by the independent observers, by you, as our chair, senator mccaskill, and myself when i was chair of the energy committee, in my view, underscores the fact that nothing has really changed at hanford. and that's what we've got to turn around and i will just say to the chair and my staff wrote these really long address, i think i can maybe spare you the fulfill buster and just thank

you very much for what -- what you're doing. this is important for our part of the world, but it is important because all over the country at other sites this is being followed and employees are saying what are the consequences of coming forward and speaking the truth, influential policymakers. i thank you very much for your work. if you as chair senator mccaskill have any questions, softdball questions are especially welcome but i better get back pretty quick to finance committee deliberations, and i just thank you very much. >> absolutely. thanks for coming. >> thank you. o >> dr. tamosaitis? >> the retaliation against me started after i raised technical issues that had nuclear safety implications. my concerns centered around the buildup of hydrogen gas, which could cause a hydrogen explosion, the buildup of plu

tone upat the bottom of the tanks which could cause a criticality and the plugging of pipelines which could render the plant inoperable for years. the issues i raised not only had nuclear safety implications, but could have major impacts on the plant design. and i believe that is the root of the problem. the issues stood in the way of bechtel and urs earning their award fees, and more importance, getting additional funding from congress. the problem of the wtp, i would offer, is not the complexity of the process, or actually how the process should operate. there are many good people at hanford that are working very hard on it. the problem is, the mismanagement. the management's objective, the contractor's objective is to keep the project moving, and get their funding, regardless of whether they're moving behind, moving backwards, moving forwards, or standing still.

as long as they're there, they get their funds. the concerns i raised led to my firing from the wtp by bechtel. i want to say that this issue is much bigger than me. and i don't want the issue to be judged solely by my input. by firing me, putting me in the basement, and then releasing me, urs firing me, both bekting and urs are sending a clear message to all employees, don't do what walt did. and from what i hear, from people calling me, talking to people, they're doing a dog gone good job of getting that message out. urs claims they laid me off for downsizing reasons. i can tell you that i see no difference in how i was handled when i was fired from the wtp by bechtel versus being, quote, laid off by urs. and urs held my severance pay hostage for me to give them legal immunity, and we are

talking a significant amount of money. i did not sign the agreement to give the legal immunity so i foregoed my severance pay. i consider the withholding of my severance pay by urs to be akin to extortion. with the contractor's focus on profits, the employees received punitive treatment, and retaliation if they raised safety issues. because, it could impact the plant. the contractors then, if they cannot blame doe, bear the cost of the repairs. their performance decreases cost and schedule performance. and there's nothing wrong with making money. the companies need to make money. but when the focus on profits trumps safety, quality, and building -- doing the right thing, you have a problem. and i would submit that you have a major problem in the wtp when

the cost goes from an initial estimate by bekting of $4.6 billion and today the estimate would be over $25 billion for hire. the start-up was going to be in seven years, '01 to '08. and now the start-up is talking about being in the late 2020s. i mean the plant would have been further ahead, closer to start-up, if they'd have done nothing. they'd be only seven years from start-up with the '01 to '08. but nothing gets done with the contractors despite that abuse. because they continue to get the funding, lobby congress for additional money, and they continue to get their funding and stay there. their objective is to keep the funding coming. the contractors, especially bechtel, will use intimidation and pressure to get the answer they want. this is evidenced by the information we found in their dealings with the savannah river national lab. they also put tremendous

pressure on bechtel and the pacific northwest national lab. their ceo -- mr. ogleby, of bechtel corporate, leaned on dr. wadsworth the ceo of betle in order to get betle to give the answer they wanted. betle's ethics prevented them from doing that. to make matters worse, the government is fuelling funding and supporting these contractor actions. now is the time, in my mind, for congress to make changes. all the companies in the doe system are watching to see what happens. with the visibility of my case, donna's case, the cost growth, the schedule overrun, it will be katie bar the door if no action is taken to rein the contractors in. as an example, of how congress is funding the contractor

performance, all legal expenses incurred by bechtel and urs to fight employee legal actions are reimbursed on an ongoing basis via taxpayer money. then if the company is found guilty, they may be asked to pay back. well, what do they do? they settle before they pay back. they're not found guilty, no payment. all their attorneys and the people that are here today will be reimbursed for their expenses to come here. and that comes from taxpayer money. so what do they do? they -- they have no incentive, the companies have no incentive to do the right thing. let the employee file a concern. we'll drag the thing out. the government's paying us to fight them. they hire outside attorneys. the outside attorneys are paid by the hour. they have no incentive to settle quicker. so the system provokes, supports, the contractors doing

what they do, and continuing to get paid. there's no incentive to do the right thing or to settle quicker. and guess who pays for the cost of us, for our legal expenses? us. another problem in the wtp is that the bechtel is the design agent and the design authority. that means they decide what they need to do, and how they need to do it. and then they're rewarded for cost and schedule performance. that's akin to giving the fox the henhouse. i would even say it's worse. it's a license to steal. to keep the project going. to keep that funding stream going. and if somebody raises a technical issue, and it could stand in the way of their funding, they're going to retaliate. they're going to take punitive action. and that's what happened with m-3, the mixing issue, back in 2010, when not only was there a

$5 million award fee on the line, but behind the scenes they were lobbying congress for an extra $50 million in funding, of which they got because they quote closed m-3. but today, as senator wyden said, the department of energy's conducted surveys, they supported and found the negative culture. the defense board, in an in-depth study, and found -- and found issues and issued two recommendations, outside groups have identified issues, and if you don't believe all that, and say you know, that's all kind of hoo-doo, we don't believe old walter, sector of energy, former secretary chu, shut the place down. so the problems are well-known. but the contractors continue to get their funding because they misrepresent and mislabel the information. my termination occurred on the heels of secretary mennees

issuing a statement for harassment free workplace. he issued that statement about the third week of september. i was fired by or laid off by urs, quote, laid off, on october 2nd. less than two weeks after he issued that statement. now, with the visibility of my case, several lawsuits and mennees issuing that statement, if urs would blatantly just lay me off, dismiss me, get rid of me, right after the secretary issued such a cultural statement, what does it say about what they would do if there was no statement. i mean, they will, if you stand in the way of their progress to keep the funding going, there are problems. and with that i'll say, in my mind, the wtp and the doe culture are at a tipping point. now is the time to make a change.

if no change is made, i feel real bad for the future generation of workers. because i don't want anybody to go through what i've gone through. it's tough. >> thank you, doctor. mr. carpenter. >> thank you for inviting me. my comments today, thank both of you, senators, for supporting whistle-blower rights. i know you're strong advocates and we really appreciate that and this hearing is -- is very welcome oversight on what's happening. my name is tom carpenter. i'm the executive director of hanford challenge. our mission is the safe and effective cleanup of the hanford site. for both present and future generations. we work with insiders, we hope they don't become whistle-blowers, unless they need to tell the truth. but we don't want employees to become whistle-blowers. these folks didn't want to become whistle-blowers. they simply were doing their jobs. and that's the case for most

people out there and then suddenly they're finding themselves on the wrong side of their company. we'd like to change that culture so that concerns are welcomed. addressed. and we move on and we have a better plant because of that. it's the third anniversary of the fukushima accident today. and i think it's fitting and appropriate that we're here talking about protecting nuclear whistle-blowers, and talking about nuclear safety. at the fukushima plant, engineers there wanted to build and recommended the building of a higher tsunami wall. to protect the plant against that event. and they also recommended that the emergency diesel generators be moved from the flood plain to on the hill behind the plant. engineers tell us that the earthquake itself did not cause the fukushima accident. it was the tsunami. and so, because the utility that

runs fukushima didn't listen to, and suppressed the testimony of these engineers about the tsunami effects, we have one of the worst nuclear accidents, still raging out of control. we still have three meltdowns in process there. two spent fuel pools have had hydrogen gas explosions, and there's 300,000 gallons a day of radioactive water pouring into the ocean. we can prevent that kind of thing happening in our own country, at the hanford site. but only if we listen to our experts. it's not just donna dushy and walt tamosaitis who are both acknowledged experts with good degrees, the top in their country. it's why they were recruited for these positions. donna the manager of safety. walt the manager of research and technology. but you sls on record the chi engineer of the facility a guy named gary bronson who recommended the shutdown of the

waste treatment plant until the safety issues are resolved. that did not happen. he resigned in protest. you also have don alexander the chief scientist for the facility raising safety concerns, going to "usa today" and trying to find some avenue, and eventually these folks did get through to secretary chu, the former energy secretary. he listened to their concerns, and that resulted in the suspension of all nuclear work at the plant. and that's been that way for a year and a half and it remains that way. we're grateful that that's happening. however, it could have been earlier. it could have been years ago, when these folks were listened to, and right now, our major concern is that the treatment of these folks and others like them have sent a message throughout the safety culture that it's not safe to raise an issue. that's a message that cannot be allowed to stand. and it's really up to the

department of energy to make sure that that message is countered. because right now we see that bechtel and urs are winning the battle to silence employees out there. and people who are younger in their careers, who see a safety issue, they need to be encouraged to raise those concerns and the system does not tolerate that right now. so, we're asking that congress take some action to subject -- do some independent oversight for nuclear safety. we've been doing this now for 25 years trying to get the department of energy to take steps to protect whistle-blowers and to have a better nuclear safety culture out there. it's not working. they're not going to. there needs to be independent oversight for nuclear safety, and for the safety culture at the site. so we'd like to ask congress to consider taking some steps in that direction. in the practice of reimbursing attorney's fees. the public shouldn't be

reimbursing what amounts to a legal retaliation against whistle-blowers out there. it's not in their interest. it's in the interest of the public to hear the safety concerns, not suppress and silence them. so i'm hoping this committee also takes on that challenge. and, we're also looking for meaningful remedies and protections for whistle-blowers. right now there's really not much there to avail for these folks to avail themselves of protection. thank you very much for considering my statement today, and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> let me start with asking, was there ever any issue documented issue on your job performance? either one of you, prior to you saying things out loud and publicly that raised safety concerns concerning hanford. >> you want me to start off? i received three letters. the first one was titled corrective action letter, where, in summary it told