Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along with Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015.

Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would not exist.

The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in sex trafficking.

Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14. Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims in the United States are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department of Justice.

I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January and June of last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered 168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation Cross Country.''

I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are ``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues unabated.

Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from their exploitation.''

The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015 would address this problem by incentivizing Federal and State law enforcement officers to target buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the crime of sex trafficking.

First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the Federal commercial sex trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this precedent.

Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age. Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact, subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be prosecuted. Period.

Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be punished the same.

Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would provide additional data and encourage State and local governments to increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked victims.

Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would strengthen training programs operated by the Department of Justice for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who investigate and prosecute sex trafficking offenses. Under the bill, such training programs must include components on effective methods to target and prosecute the buyers of sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip prosecutors with the tools they need to target buyers, encouraging prosecution of these perpetrators. Training programs must also train law enforcement in connecting trafficking victims with health care providers, so that victims receive the health care services they need to recover.

In addition, the bill requires that training programs for federal prosecutors include components on seeking restitution for victims of sex trafficking. An October 2014 study by The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that federal prosecutors did not seek restitution in 37 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases brought between 2009 and 2012, even though restitution for trafficking victims is mandatory under federal law. When the prosecutor did not seek restitution, it was granted in only 10 percent of cases.

These results make clear that prosecutors play a critical role in providing justice for trafficking victims. Our bill would ensure that prosecutors are specifically trained to seek restitution for victims.

The bill would also require the Federal Judicial Center to provide training to judges on ordering restitution for human trafficking victims, so that judges are fully aware that federal law mandates that restitution be ordered for these victims. Overall, restitution was awarded in only 36 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases brought between 2009 and 2012, according to The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center's study. Too many trafficking victims are not receiving the compensation they need to rebuild their lives and to which they are entitled under the law.

Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, or child pornography production. Our bill would fix those omissions.

Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims' rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights.

The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court. Regrettably, six appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims' Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable error''. Three other circuits have applied the correct standard: the ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.''

I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Fraternal Order of Police, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for Girls, Survivors for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope International, Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, Breaking Free, Equality Now, National Organization for Victim Assistance, Seraphim Global, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, City of Oakland, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition, and Casa Cornelia Law Center. These groups are on the forefront in the fight against sex trafficking, and I am proud to have their support.

Many of the provisions in the Combat Human Trafficking Act were included in the substitute amendment to the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, S. 2646, 113th Congress, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last September. However, that bill was not enacted into law before Congress adjourned. I am hopeful that we can pass the bipartisan Combat Human Trafficking in this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

This bill will ensure that communities and businesses will continue to have the insurance protection they need to quickly recover after major terrorist attacks.

You see, the September 11, 2001 attacks resulted in approximately $32.5 billion in claims paid by insurers to terrorism risk insurance policyholders, which makes the deadly terrorist attack the second most costly insurance event in the history of the Nation.

Due to the catastrophic damage, the record breaking insurance payout, and the threat of future attacks, the private insurance industry stopped offering terrorism risk insurance. The aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks sent a shockwave through the insurance industry and the lack of the availability of terrorism risk insurance contributed to the economic recession that followed the attacks.

To address the issue, Congress established the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program in 2002. The program is federally backed so private insurers can continue to offer terrorism risk insurance. The Federal Government only pays out when damage from a terrorist attack exceeds $100 million. The program is also designed so the Federal Government recoups any funds that it pays out. I also want to note that the Federal Government has not paid out a single dollar since the creation of the program in 2002.

Congress has created other federally backed insurance programs to address market failures where the risk of damage due to a disaster is so large it makes insurance unaffordable. The best example of this being done at the national level is the National Flood Insurance Program. At a State level, California created a State-backed program for earthquake insurance.

Since 2002, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program has worked well to make sure the Nation, and California, is prepared to rebuild in the aftermath of a major terrorism attack.

Terrorism insurance is particularly important for California, due to my State's many large metropolitan areas, its public transit systems, and its many public events. The program makes sure communities and businesses across California are resilient and are prepared for the risk of a terrorist attack.

The recent World Series held in California, which drew over 40,000 fans to each game at the AT&T Park in San Francisco, is a prime example of how terrorism risk insurance works to protect California. The U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building west of the Mississippi River, is protected by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. Terrorism risk insurance provides workers' compensation protection to many of the 14.6 million members of California's labor force. California is also home to many major airports, tourist attractions, and sporting venues that all benefit from the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

The math is simple: terrorism risk insurance means businesses and local governments will have the resources to repair and rebuild should another major terrorist attack occur in the United States.

I also want to point out several positive changes in the reauthorization being considered on the floor today. First, this legislation will gradually increase the ceiling at which the Federal Government would provide payments after a terrorist attack from $100 million to $200 million. It will also increase the amount of money the Federal Government would recoup after any payout from 133 percent to 135 percent.

These smart reforms gradually place more risk in the hands of the private market. Due to these changes, the Congressional Budget Office actually estimates that the reauthorization of the program will save the government $450 million over the next 10 years.

I do want to express my disappointment that a provision was included in the House-passed bill which would make changes to Dodd-Frank's approach to the regulation of the swaps market. Swaps, a kind of derivative instrument, played a key role in the financial crisis and we should tread carefully when considering any revisions to our swaps regulatory regime.

The provision in question prevents regulators like the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission from imposing collateral requirements on counterparties to swaps transactions with commercial end users. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of commercial end users, preventing regulators from acting to impose collateral requirements on their counterparties could result in more costly risks building up in our financial system. This is the wrong approach.

However, terrorism risk insurance is critically important to California and to the Nation. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

Mr. President, I am in strong support of Sen. Warren's amendment to strike the unrelated swaps provision from this very important TRIA legislation.

While I am sympathetic to the concerns of commercial end users about increased transactions costs, it is simply the wrong approach to prevent regulators from acting, if needed, to protect our financial system from risky transactions.

We must afford our financial regulators with sufficient discretion to act to prevent more financial crises. The financial market regulators have already acted to provide relief for counterparties to swaps transactions with commercial end users. That makes the inclusion of this swaps provision in the TRIA legislation unnecessary. Sen. Warren's amendment would preserve the current regulatory approach to uncleared swaps transactions with commercial end users, while also allowing for sufficient regulatory discretion to impose margin requirements on the counter parties to these transactions in the future should it become necessary to protect our financial system.

The inclusion of the swaps provision in this critically important terrorism risk insurance bill is a part of a disturbing trend. Some policymakers believe that Dodd-Frank should be undone. They believe that the derivatives reforms which for the first time regulated a market that contributed to the financial crisis should be dismantled piece by piece. Just last month, a major reform was repealed in a must pass appropriations bill, despite being an objectionable policy which would not have passed were it considered on its own merits. This is a troubling trend because the derivatives reforms are in place to protect our financial markets and protect the taxpayer.

Title VII of Dodd-Frank introduced historic reforms of the derivatives market establishing transparency and accountability. Those who would dismantle Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms should explain to the American people why they should once again be on the hook for deep systemic losses caused in part by these high risk financial products. It does not make sense to undo this important set of reforms. I am pleased to stand with Senator Warren and with any other Senator on either side of the aisle to defend these important reforms and defend the taxpayer.

Dodd-Frank's swaps reforms are critically important to addressing the regulatory gaps in the swaps markets which contributed to the magnitude of the crisis and the costs of the response to it. We should not roll back these needed reforms. Regulators have already provided sufficient relief to counterparties on this matter and moving forward with the provision, as it is creates new risks that are unnecessary and which we may one day regret. There is no need to tie their hands on this point.

I firmly support Senator Warren's important amendment because it protects the critical swaps reforms made by Dodd-Frank at a time when financial stability is important in our economic recovery. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a ten year period.

I have been a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years. I have witnessed its political struggle and sadly the deterioration of its ready-made garment industry.

The Nepal Trade Preferences Act bill will promote much-needed economic development and contribute to lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Allow me to go over some basic facts of everyday life in Nepal.

Nepal has a per capita income of $730.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $2 a day.

The 2005 phase-out of the Micro-Fiber Arrangement, which established export quotas from developing nations, has deeply damaged Nepal's apparel industry.

Instead of continuing to import garments from Nepal, U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, Bangladesh and other low-cost labor markets.

In fact, the number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 90,000 people to less than 5,000 today; textile and apparel exports from Nepal to the United States fell from approximately $95 million in 2005 to $45 million in 2013; and the number of garment factories plummeted from 212 to 30.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the near-collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garment imports are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are unfairly taxing the imports of a highly impoverished country that cannot afford it. Taxing textile and apparel imports from Nepal, which constitute .01 percent of all U.S. imports, makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the policies of the European Union, Canada, and Australia, which all allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the ``Nepal Trade Preferences Act'' is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal. I was proud to support the President's budget request of $77 million for Nepal in fiscal year 2015.

But assistance is no substitute for organic economic development. We should help the Nepalese people help themselves by reopening the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

There is no doubt that Nepal has struggled to draft a new constitution and coalesce around a governing majority.

While only Nepal can chart its political course, passing this measure would undoubtedly help regenerate Nepal's stagnant economy.

Let us show our solidarity with the people of Nepal by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a ten year period.

I have been a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years. I have witnessed its political struggle and sadly the deterioration of its ready-made garment industry.

The Nepal Trade Preferences Act bill will promote much-needed economic development and contribute to lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Allow me to go over some basic facts of everyday life in Nepal.

Nepal has a per capita income of $730.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $2 a day.

The 2005 phase-out of the Micro-Fiber Arrangement, which established export quotas from developing nations, has deeply damaged Nepal's apparel industry.

Instead of continuing to import garments from Nepal, U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, Bangladesh and other low-cost labor markets.

In fact, the number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 90,000 people to less than 5,000 today; textile and apparel exports from Nepal to the United States fell from approximately $95 million in 2005 to $45 million in 2013; and the number of garment factories plummeted from 212 to 30.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the near-collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garment imports are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are unfairly taxing the imports of a highly impoverished country that cannot afford it. Taxing textile and apparel imports from Nepal, which constitute .01 percent of all U.S. imports, makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the policies of the European Union, Canada, and Australia, which all allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the ``Nepal Trade Preferences Act'' is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal. I was proud to support the President's budget request of $77 million for Nepal in fiscal year 2015.

But assistance is no substitute for organic economic development. We should help the Nepalese people help themselves by reopening the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

There is no doubt that Nepal has struggled to draft a new constitution and coalesce around a governing majority.

While only Nepal can chart its political course, passing this measure would undoubtedly help regenerate Nepal's stagnant economy.

Let us show our solidarity with the people of Nepal by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Due Process Guarantee Act, which passed the Senate in 2012 with 67 votes as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.

Unfortunately, the amendment was taken out in the Conference Committee that year. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation again this year, and this time the House will support it so that it can finally be enacted into law to protect Americans from being detained indefinitely.

The bipartisan bill I am introducing today, with Senator Lee as the lead co-sponsor, is almost identical to the amendment that passed the Senate in December 2012 with 67 votes. The previous version of this bill had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on February 29, 2012.

This legislation is necessary to prevent the U.S. Government from detaining its citizens indefinitely.

Unfortunately, indefinite detention has been a part of America's not- too-distant past. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remains a dark spot on our Nation's legacy, and is something we should never repeat.

To ensure that this reprehensible experience would never happen again, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non- Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statue that explicitly allowed the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained the

United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

Despite the shameful history of indefinite detention of Americans and the legal controversy over the issue since 9/11, during debate on the defense authorization bill in past years, some in the Senate have advocated for allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Proponents of indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF, that was enacted shortly after 9/11 is, quote, ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the Non-Detention Act of 1971, that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they are captured.

They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. However, the Hamdi case involved an American captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The divided Court did effectively uphold his military detention, so some of my colleagues use this case to argue that the military can indefinitely detain even American citizens who are arrested domestically here on U.S. soil, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan.

However, the Supreme Court's opinion in the Hamdi case was a muddled decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.

In particular, the Court limited its holding to citizens captured in an area of, quote, ``active combat operations'', unquote, and concluded that even in those circumstances the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause guarantees U.S. citizens certain rights, including the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

The plurality's opinion stated:

It [the Government] has made clear, however, that, for

purposes of this case, the `enemy combatant' that it is

seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was `part

of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or

coalition partners' in Afghanistan and who `` `engaged in an

armed conflict against the United States'' there. Brief for

Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question

before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within

that definition is authorized.''

The opinion goes on to say at page 517 that ``we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe . . .''

Indeed, the plurality later emphasized that it was discussing a citizen captured on a foreign battlefield. Criticizing Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, the opinion says, ``Justice Scalia largely ignores the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign combat zone.'' The plurality italicized and emphasized the word ``foreign'' in that sentence.

Thus, to the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances, namely citizens taking an active part in hostilities, who are captured in Afghanistan, and who are afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum.

Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the current state of legal ambiguity when it comes to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago in 2002. He was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and later designated as an ``enemy combatant'' who conspired with al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks including a plot to detonate a ``dirty bomb'' inside the U.S.

Padilla was transferred to the military brig in South Carolina where he was detained for three and a half years while seeking habeas corpus relief. Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the ``dirty bomb'' plot. Instead, Padilla was released from military custody in November 2005 and transferred to Federal civilian custody in Florida where he was indicted on other charges in Federal court related to terrorist plots overseas.

While he was indefinitely detailed by the military, Padilla filed a habeas corpus petition which was litigated at first in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and then in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court of Appeals held that the AUMF did not authorize his detention, saying: ``we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 4001(a) the ``Non-Detention Act'', prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, . . . passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization.''

This requirement for ``clear congressional authorization'' to detain is known as the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule.''

However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the AUMF did authorize his detention. It is worth pointing out, however, that their analysis turned entirely on the disputed claims that ``Padilla associated with forces hostile to the United States in Afghanistan,'' and, ``like Hamdi, Padilla took up arms against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the same extent as did Hamdi.''

Facing an impending Supreme Court challenge and mounting public criticism for holding a U.S. citizen arrested inside the U.S. as an enemy combatant, the Bush administration relented, and ordered Padilla transferred to civilian custody to face criminal conspiracy and material support for terrorism charges in Federal court.

I believe that the time is now to end the legal ambiguities, and have Congress state clearly, once and for all, that the AUMF or other authorities do not authorize indefinite detention of Americans apprehended in the U.S.

To accomplish this, we are introducing legislation again this year which affirms and strengthens the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

It amends the Non-Detention Act to provide clearly that no military authorization allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or Green Card holders who are apprehended inside the U.S.

Like the amendment that passed with 67 votes in 2012, the bill creates a new subsection (b) of the Non-Detention Act which clearly states: ``A general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States.''

Like the previous version, this bill amends the Non-Detention Act to codify the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule'' from the Padilla case. So new subsection (a) will read, ``No citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and pursuant to an act of Congress that expressly authorizes such imprisonment or detention.''

Making the Clear Statement Rule part of subsection (a) strengthens the Non-Detention Act even more by requiring Congress to be explicit if it wants to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. Subsection (b) clarifies that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority does not authorize the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S., also known as a Green Card holder.

Some may ask why this legislation protects Green Card holders as well as citizens. And others may ask why the bill does not protect all persons'' apprehended in the U.S. from indefinite detention.

Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in this amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully present. But the question comes, is there enough political support to expand this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens and Green Card holders?

Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow anyone apprehended on U.S. soil to be detained without charge or trial.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven, time and again, that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having successfully arrested, detained and convicted hundreds of these heinous people, both before and after 9/11.

Specifically, there have been 556 terrorism-related convictions in federal criminal court between 9/11 and the end of 2013, according to the Department of Justice.

Also, it is important to understand that suspected terrorists who may be in the U.S. illegally can be detained within the criminal justice system using at least the following 4 options:

They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held; they can be held for violating immigration laws; they can be held as material witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and they can be held for up to 6 months under Section 412 of the Patriot Act.

I want to be very clear about what this bill is and is not about. It is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla, or others who would do us harm, should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be.

But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers.

As President Obama said when referring to the indefinite detention of non-Americans at Guantanamo:

``Imagine a future--10 years from now or 20 years from

now--when the United States of America is still holding

people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land

that is not part of our country. . . . Is that who we are? Is

that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America

we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is

stronger than that.''

The same questions could be asked of those who would indefinitely detain Americans arrested on U.S. soil.

Is that who we are?

Does that reflect the America we want to leave to our children?

Now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens and Green Card holders captured inside this country without trial or charge.

The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal of our core values.

Let us not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015, which I authored along with my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham.

This bill will allow the Federal Government to crack down on poachers and transnational criminal organizations involved in the global trade in illegal wildlife products.

Wildlife trafficking has become a global crime that the State Department estimates is valued at between $8 to $10 billion annually. This ranks it as one of the most lucrative types of organized crime in the world, along with drug and human trafficking.

Besides being a major international crime, wildlife trafficking is a morally repugnant practice that threatens some of our world's most iconic species with extinction.

The most disturbing example is that of elephants and rhinoceroses. A recent study estimates that over 100,000 elephants were illegally poached in Africa from 2010 to 2012. At this rate, the African elephant is being killed faster than the species can reproduce, putting it at risk of being wiped off the face of the earth.

Most disturbingly, poachers are slaughtering very young and juvenile elephants for their tusks due to the record high demand for ivory in places like China and the United States.

But the illicit ivory trade is not just a threat to African elephants; it is also a problem for global security. The State Department reports that there is increasing evidence that wildlife trafficking is funding armed insurgencies like Al Shabaab and the Lord's Resistance Army. The illegal ivory trade fuels corruption and violence in Africa.

The rhinoceros has also been decimated by poaching due to record high demand for its horn. Conservation organizations estimate that hundreds of rhinoceroses are illegally slaughtered in Africa each year. It is deeply concerning that the poaching rate for rhinoceroses in Africa appears to be increasing.

Some populations of rhinoceroses are on the brink of extinction. The population of the Sumatran rhinoceros has plummeted by over 50 percent in the last two decades due to poaching, and it is estimated that only about 100 remain in existence. It is estimated that fewer than 10 Northern White Rhinoceroses remain alive in the wild.

The problem is not just confined to elephants and rhinoceroses. Tigers, leopards, endangered sea turtles, and many other wildlife species are being decimated by poaching.

At its core, this legislation increases criminal penalties for wildlife trafficking crimes. The federal government needs stiffer penalties in order to go after organized and high volume traffickers. The President asked for this authority in the National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking released last year.

Specifically, this bill makes violations of the Endangered Species Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act that involve more than $10,000 of illegal wildlife products predicate offenses under the money laundering and racketeering statutes and the Travel Act.

Currently, each of these wildlife laws carries a maximum prison sentence of only one year for a violation. Under this bill, wildlife trafficking violations can be subject to up to a 20-year prison sentence, as well as increased fines and penalties of up to $500,000 for an offense.

These new penalties will allow the government to change the equation on wildlife crimes. Wildlife trafficking has increased at dramatic rates because the crime is high value and low risk due to weak penalties across the world. Under the new authorities, the Federal Government will have a full range of tools to prosecute the worst wildlife trafficking offenders and to put them behind bars with significant sentences. The new authorities will also act as a deterrent to the criminal organizations currently trafficking illicit wildlife products into and through the United States.

As one of the largest markets for products of illicit poaching in the world, the United States has a responsibility to step up and help to combat this scourge. With this legislation, the United States will set an example for other countries on the need for each country to strengthen penalties for wildlife trafficking. It is critical that other nations around the world with large markets for illicit wildlife products step up to tackle this global problem.

The Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015 will also allow fines, penalties, forfeitures, and restitution recovered through use of the bill's new authorities to be transferred to established conservation funds at the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce. This will enable the Federal Government to use the monetary penalties from a wildlife trafficking conviction to benefit the species that was harmed. Thus, the bill will both act to punish and deter criminals while supporting the conservation of those species that are directly harmed by poaching.

Addressing the issue of wildlife trafficking speaks to our values and morals as a Nation. We have a responsibility to help prevent these endangered species, which have existed for thousands of years, from becoming extinct in our lifetime. It is also clear that Federal law's weak penalties for wildlife crimes have been exploited by poachers and transnational criminals.

I therefore ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to enact this legislation this year. The stakes for endangered species like elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses could not be higher. If we don't crack down on wildlife trafficking, we will be complicit in the slaughter.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, Klobuchar, Murray, Udall, Franken, Wyden and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2015.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that: cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a wide area.

But, in reality, they pose a far more deadly threat to innocent civilians.

According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past fifty years, there have been 19,419 documented cluster munitions deaths in 31 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people.

While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians have accounted for 94% of cluster munition casualties.

Death and injury from unexploded ordnance left behind by cluster munitions continues to kill civilians to this day. Today, 23 States remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance left from cluster munitions.

Last year, nine of these countries suffered casualties from unexploded ordnance. They were: Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.

More tragically, despite the risk they pose to civilians, cluster bombs continue to be used in conflicts.

Since July 2012, Syrian government forces have used cluster munitions in 10 of the country's 14 governates.

Human Rights Watch has documented that the Syrian government has used seven types of cluster munitions to date, six of which were manufactured in the former Soviet Union and the seventh of which is Egyptian-made.

In 2012 and 2013, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded 1,584 deaths from government-launched cluster munitions in Syria. Approximately 97 percent of the deaths directly linked to cluster munitions were civilians.

For the first time, Human Rights Watch has also obtained evidence that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, has also used cluster bombs.

According to witness testimony and photographic evidence, ISIL used cluster bombs on at least two occasions near the besieged town of Kobani.

Terrorist groups and other non-state actors would not be able to obtain and use cluster bombs if the world adopted the Oslo Treaty on Cluster munitions.

The Oslo Treaty bans the production, sale, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions. It came into effect in 2010 and to date has been ratified by 88 nations.

Under the Treaty, 22 nations have destroyed 1.16 million cluster bombs and nearly 140 million submunitions.

Unfortunately, the United States is neither a signatory nor state party to the Oslo Treaty.

In fact, the United States maintains a stockpile of 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

Rather than adopting the increasing international consensus that cluster bombs should be banned, the Pentagon continues to assert that they are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

I respectfully disagree. The benefit of using cluster bombs is outweighed by the continuing threat they pose to civilians long after the cessation of hostilities.

The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would immediately ban cluster bombs with unacceptable unexploded ordnance rates and in areas where civilians are known to be present.

Passing this legislation would move the United States closer to abiding by the requirements of the Oslo Treaty, which has been ratified by many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Since 2008 the Congress has banned the export of cluster munitions with a greater than one percent unexploded ordnance rate. While banning the export of these indiscriminate weapons was a positive first step, I strongly believe the United States can do better.

This body cannot compel the administration to sign the Oslo Treaty. However, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would do exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and ensure that married same-sex couples are accorded equal treatment by the federal government.

When I first introduced this bill in 2011, only 5 States and the District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage.

Today, due to a combination of actions by legislatures, voters, and the courts, 36 States and D.C. recognize same-sex marriage. Florida joined the group just this week.

This progress is nothing short of amazing. Over 70 percent of Americans now live in a State where same-sex couples can marry.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, has caused most federal agencies to accord equal rights and responsibilities to married same-sex couples.

But, despite this progress, the mission of ensuring full equality under Federal law for married same-sex couples is still unaccomplished.

This bill will accomplish that mission. It will strike DOMA from Federal law, and ensure that legally married same-sex couples are treated equally by the federal government, period.

I want to thank my 41 colleagues who have cosponsored this bill.

For my colleagues who have not yet supported this bill: if you believe that couples who are married should be treated that way by the federal government, you should cosponsor this bill. It is as simple as that.

Two major agencies, which serve millions and millions of Americans-- the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs-- still deny benefits to some married couples depending on where the couple has lived. This bill would fix that problem.

Let me address Social Security first. An example of the discrimination married same-sex couples still face is the case of Kathy Murphy and Sara Barker. According to a legal filing, this couple married in Massachusetts and shared a ranch house in Texas for nearly 30 years.

In 2010, when Sara was 60 years old, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Sara went through several surgeries and chemotherapy, and Kathy was Sara's caregiver.

Sara passed away on March 10, 2012. As the complaint states: ``Kathy lost her partner of more than thirty years and the love of her life.''

In July 2014--over a year after she applied--Kathy's application for survivor's benefits from Social Security was denied because they lived in Texas together, and Texas does not recognize them as married.

This cost her an estimated $1,200 per month in Federal survivor's benefits.

Veterans and active-duty military personnel in same-sex marriages also are being denied equal treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Many of these brave individuals have served our country overseas or in war zones, but they may nevertheless be denied a huge range of benefits our nation grants to those who have served in the Armed Forces.

A court filing by the American Military Partners Association explains that:

lesbian and gay veterans and their spouses and survivors .

. . will be denied or disadvantaged in obtaining spousal

veterans benefits such as disability compensation, death

pension benefits, home loan guarantees, and rights to burial

together in national cemeteries.

This is wrong. Our married gay and lesbian soldiers put their lives on the line for our country the same way other soldiers do.

We owe them the same debt of gratitude we owe to all other men and women who serve, and this bill would ensure that we fulfill that solemn obligation.

Continued discrimination against married same-sex couples is not limited to these benefits programs.

Other Federal laws are not part of programs administered by agencies, but they nevertheless are designed to protect families, including spouses.

Let me just give one example--Section 115 of Title 18. Among other things, this law makes it a crime to assault, kidnap, or murder a spouse of Federal law enforcement officer, with the intent to influence or retaliate against the officer.

This law protects the ability of people like FBI agents and federal prosecutors to serve the public knowing there is protection from violence against their families.

These agents and prosecutors investigate and prosecute people like drug kingpins, terrorists, and organized crime figures.

But, even today, it is not clear whether this vital protection for these officers covers those in lawful same- sex marriages everywhere in the country.

These public servants, who protect all of us, should not have to worry that they lack the full protection we provide to their colleagues--but that is the situation we confront today. This bill would fix it.

In addition, Section 2 of DOMA--which was not expressly addressed by the Supreme Court--continues to pose a serious risk to legal relief received by victims of crime and civil wrongs. This bill would repeal it.

Section 2 of DOMA is the full faith and credit provision of DOMA, and it has been the subject of many misconceptions.

When DOMA was enacted, some claimed Section 2 was designed to prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution from forcing a state to recognize a marriage from another state.

But states have never needed permission from Congress to decide whether to recognize an out-of-state marriage. States have done that under their own laws, subject to other constitutional guarantees like the Equal Protection Clause.

Thus, repealing Section 2 of DOMA simply would not force a State, or a religious institution, to recognize a particular marriage.

While it is on the books, Section 2 may have a very serious impact: it may nullify legal relief awarded to victims of crime and other civil wrongs.

There is a general rule that the judgments of one state's courts will be enforced in another state's courts.

But Section 2 purports to exempt any ``right or claim arising from'' a same-sex marriage from this rule.

Imagine a woman killed by a drunk driver. Her surviving spouse would have a civil claim for wrongful death, or might obtain restitution in a criminal case.

But DOMA could prevent the court judgments in those cases from being enforced in the perpetrator's home State, allowing him to avoid the consequences of his actions.

The same problem could arise in numerous types of cases, such as assaults, batteries, and insurance claims.

Same-sex married couples are the only class of people who are burdened by this sort of legal disability, which hinders the court system from protecting them the same way that it does other citizens.

This is wrong, and it must be repealed.

As a Senator from California, I come to this bill with a strong sense of history.

In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to find that a ban on interracial marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause. At the time, 29 states still prohibited interracial marriage.

Prohibitions on interracial marriage then were eliminated in 13 other states, so that when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 16 states retained bans on interracial marriage.

I very much hope that is where we are today on same-sex marriage.

People of all stripes have come to believe that loving and committed same-sex couples are worthy of the same dignity and respect other couples receive. Public opinion has changed dramatically, and 36 states now recognize same-sex marriage.

The tide has shifted, I hope irreversibly so.

But here, in Congress, we still have work to do.

We must end the discrimination married same-sex couples continue to face at the federal level.

DOMA remains on the books, where it should never have been placed. It could be revived by a different Supreme Court majority.

A future administration also could interpret other laws differently than this Administration has done, potentially restricting the availability of key benefits even further.

The solution is simple: pass this bill, which would eliminate DOMA and accord equal treatment under Federal law for married same-sex couples.

Let me again thank my cosponsors for joining me in this effort, and to urge my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015 with my colleagues and friends, Senators Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, Heidi Heitkamp, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Udall.

This bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, supports the Obama Administration's Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial tools to combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we cannot allow them to exploit loopholes because our laws lag behind.

This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold to reasonable cause to believe.

The Department of Justice has informed my office that, it sees drug traffickers from countries like Colombia, Bolivia and Peru who produce cocaine but then outsource transportation of the cocaine to the United States to violent Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Under current law, our ability to prosecute source-nation traffickers from these countries is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United

States. But let me be clear: drugs produced in these countries fuel violent crime throughout the Western Hemisphere as well as addiction and death in the United States.

Second, this bill puts in place penalties for precursor chemical producers from foreign countries, such as those producing pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine, who illegally ship precursor chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be used to make illegal drugs.

Third, this bill makes a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act, which increases penalties for the trafficking of counterfeit drugs. The fix, requested by the Department of Justice, puts in place a ``knowing'' requirement which was unintentionally left out of the original bill. The original bill makes the mere sale of a counterfeit drug a Federal felony offense regardless of whether the seller knew the drug was counterfeit. Under the original bill, a pharmacist could be held criminally liable if he or she unwittingly sold counterfeit drugs to a customer. Adding a ``knowing'' requirement corrects this problem.

As Co-Chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and as a public servant who has focused on narcotics issues for many years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new ways to circumvent our laws. The illegal drug trade is constantly evolving and it is critical that our legal framework keeps pace. We must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2015, with my colleagues, Senators Kelly Ayotte, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Rob Portman, Charles Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen and Sheldon Whitehouse. This legislation addresses the significant harm that synthetic drugs cause our communities.

When Congress outlawed several synthetic drugs in 2012, traffickers did not stop producing them. Instead, they slightly altered the drugs' chemical structure to skirt the law, producing ``controlled substance analogues'' which are dangerous, chemically similar to Schedule I substances, and mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, PCP, and LSD.

Manufacturers of synthetic drugs often prey upon youth, selling products such as Scooby Snax, Potpourri, and Joker Herbal. But make no mistake: these products are dangerous. In the first ten months of 2014 alone, poison centers nationwide responded to approximately 3,900 calls related to synthetic drugs.

Under current law, determining whether a substance meets the vague legal criteria of a ``controlled substance analogue'' results in a ``battle of experts'' inside the courtroom. Significantly, a substance ruled to be an analogue in one case is not automatically an analogue in a second case.

The Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetics Drug Act addresses these issues. This bill creates an interagency committee of scientists that will establish and maintain an administrative list of controlled substance analogues. The Committee is structured to respond quickly when new synthetic drugs enter the market.

Because virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrive in bulk from outside our borders, the bill makes it illegal to import a controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is intended for non-human use.

Finally, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines for violations of the Controlled Substances Act pertaining to controlled substance analogues.

In sum, this bill sends a strong message to drug traffickers who attempt to circumvent our Nation's laws: no matter how you alter the chemical structure of synthetic drugs to try to get around the law, we will ban these substances to keep them away from our children.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Due Process Guarantee Act, which passed the Senate in 2012 with 67 votes as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.

Unfortunately, the amendment was taken out in the Conference Committee that year. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation again this year, and this time the House will support it so that it can finally be enacted into law to protect Americans from being detained indefinitely.

The bipartisan bill I am introducing today, with Senator Lee as the lead co-sponsor, is almost identical to the amendment that passed the Senate in December 2012 with 67 votes. The previous version of this bill had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on February 29, 2012.

This legislation is necessary to prevent the U.S. Government from detaining its citizens indefinitely.

Unfortunately, indefinite detention has been a part of America's not- too-distant past. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remains a dark spot on our Nation's legacy, and is something we should never repeat.

To ensure that this reprehensible experience would never happen again, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non- Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statue that explicitly allowed the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained the

United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

Despite the shameful history of indefinite detention of Americans and the legal controversy over the issue since 9/11, during debate on the defense authorization bill in past years, some in the Senate have advocated for allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Proponents of indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF, that was enacted shortly after 9/11 is, quote, ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the Non-Detention Act of 1971, that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they are captured.

They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. However, the Hamdi case involved an American captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The divided Court did effectively uphold his military detention, so some of my colleagues use this case to argue that the military can indefinitely detain even American citizens who are arrested domestically here on U.S. soil, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan.

However, the Supreme Court's opinion in the Hamdi case was a muddled decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.

In particular, the Court limited its holding to citizens captured in an area of, quote, ``active combat operations'', unquote, and concluded that even in those circumstances the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause guarantees U.S. citizens certain rights, including the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

The plurality's opinion stated:

It [the Government] has made clear, however, that, for

purposes of this case, the `enemy combatant' that it is

seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was `part

of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or

coalition partners' in Afghanistan and who `` `engaged in an

armed conflict against the United States'' there. Brief for

Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question

before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within

that definition is authorized.''

The opinion goes on to say at page 517 that ``we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe . . .''

Indeed, the plurality later emphasized that it was discussing a citizen captured on a foreign battlefield. Criticizing Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, the opinion says, ``Justice Scalia largely ignores the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign combat zone.'' The plurality italicized and emphasized the word ``foreign'' in that sentence.

Thus, to the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances, namely citizens taking an active part in hostilities, who are captured in Afghanistan, and who are afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum.

Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the current state of legal ambiguity when it comes to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago in 2002. He was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and later designated as an ``enemy combatant'' who conspired with al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks including a plot to detonate a ``dirty bomb'' inside the U.S.

Padilla was transferred to the military brig in South Carolina where he was detained for three and a half years while seeking habeas corpus relief. Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the ``dirty bomb'' plot. Instead, Padilla was released from military custody in November 2005 and transferred to Federal civilian custody in Florida where he was indicted on other charges in Federal court related to terrorist plots overseas.

While he was indefinitely detailed by the military, Padilla filed a habeas corpus petition which was litigated at first in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and then in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court of Appeals held that the AUMF did not authorize his detention, saying: ``we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C.

Sec. 4001(a) the ``Non-Detention Act'', prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, . . . passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization.''

This requirement for ``clear congressional authorization'' to detain is known as the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule.''

However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the AUMF did authorize his detention. It is worth pointing out, however, that their analysis turned entirely on the disputed claims that ``Padilla associated with forces hostile to the United States in Afghanistan,'' and, ``like Hamdi, Padilla took up arms against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the same extent as did Hamdi.''

Facing an impending Supreme Court challenge and mounting public criticism for holding a U.S. citizen arrested inside the U.S. as an enemy combatant, the Bush administration relented, and ordered Padilla transferred to civilian custody to face criminal conspiracy and material support for terrorism charges in Federal court.

I believe that the time is now to end the legal ambiguities, and have Congress state clearly, once and for all, that the AUMF or other authorities do not authorize indefinite detention of Americans apprehended in the U.S.

To accomplish this, we are introducing legislation again this year which affirms and strengthens the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

It amends the Non-Detention Act to provide clearly that no military authorization allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or Green Card holders who are apprehended inside the U.S.

Like the amendment that passed with 67 votes in 2012, the bill creates a new subsection (b) of the Non-Detention Act which clearly states: ``A general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States.''

Like the previous version, this bill amends the Non-Detention Act to codify the Second Circuit's ``Clear Statement Rule'' from the Padilla case. So new subsection (a) will read, ``No citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and pursuant to an act of Congress that expressly authorizes such imprisonment or detention.''

Making the Clear Statement Rule part of subsection (a) strengthens the Non-Detention Act even more by requiring Congress to be explicit if it wants to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. Subsection (b) clarifies that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority does not authorize the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S., also known as a Green Card holder.

Some may ask why this legislation protects Green Card holders as well as citizens. And others may ask why the bill does not protect all persons'' apprehended in the U.S. from indefinite detention.

Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in this amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully present. But the question comes, is there enough political support to expand this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens and Green Card holders?

Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow anyone apprehended on U.S. soil to be detained without charge or trial.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven, time and again, that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having successfully arrested, detained and convicted hundreds of these heinous people, both before and after 9/11.

Specifically, there have been 556 terrorism-related convictions in federal criminal court between 9/11 and the end of 2013, according to the Department of Justice.

Also, it is important to understand that suspected terrorists who may be in the U.S. illegally can be detained within the criminal justice system using at least the following 4 options:

They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held; they can be held for violating immigration laws; they can be held as material witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and they can be held for up to 6 months under Section 412 of the Patriot Act.

I want to be very clear about what this bill is and is not about. It is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla, or others who would do us harm, should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be.

But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers.

As President Obama said when referring to the indefinite detention of non-Americans at Guantanamo:

``Imagine a future--10 years from now or 20 years from

now--when the United States of America is still holding

people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land

that is not part of our country. . . . Is that who we are? Is

that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America

we want to leave to our children? Our sense of justice is

stronger than that.''

The same questions could be asked of those who would indefinitely detain Americans arrested on U.S. soil.

Is that who we are?

Does that reflect the America we want to leave to our children?

Now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens and Green Card holders captured inside this country without trial or charge.

The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal of our core values.

Let us not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015, which I authored along with my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham.

This bill will allow the Federal Government to crack down on poachers and transnational criminal organizations involved in the global trade in illegal wildlife products.

Wildlife trafficking has become a global crime that the State Department estimates is valued at between $8 to $10 billion annually. This ranks it as one of the most lucrative types of organized crime in the world, along with drug and human trafficking.

Besides being a major international crime, wildlife trafficking is a morally repugnant practice that threatens some of our world's most iconic species with extinction.

The most disturbing example is that of elephants and rhinoceroses. A recent study estimates that over 100,000 elephants were illegally poached in Africa from 2010 to 2012. At this rate, the African elephant is being killed faster than the species can reproduce, putting it at risk of being wiped off the face of the earth.

Most disturbingly, poachers are slaughtering very young and juvenile elephants for their tusks due to the record high demand for ivory in places like China and the United States.

But the illicit ivory trade is not just a threat to African elephants; it is also a problem for global security. The State Department reports that there is increasing evidence that wildlife trafficking is funding armed insurgencies like Al Shabaab and the Lord's Resistance Army. The illegal ivory trade fuels corruption and violence in Africa.

The rhinoceros has also been decimated by poaching due to record high demand for its horn. Conservation organizations estimate that hundreds of rhinoceroses are illegally slaughtered in Africa each year. It is deeply concerning that the poaching rate for rhinoceroses in Africa appears to be increasing.

Some populations of rhinoceroses are on the brink of extinction. The population of the Sumatran rhinoceros has plummeted by over 50 percent in the last two decades due to poaching, and it is estimated that only about 100 remain in existence. It is estimated that fewer than 10 Northern White Rhinoceroses remain alive in the wild.

The problem is not just confined to elephants and rhinoceroses. Tigers, leopards, endangered sea turtles, and many other wildlife species are being decimated by poaching.

At its core, this legislation increases criminal penalties for wildlife trafficking crimes. The federal government needs stiffer penalties in order to go after organized and high volume traffickers. The President asked for this authority in the National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking released last year.

Specifically, this bill makes violations of the Endangered Species Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act that involve more than $10,000 of illegal wildlife products predicate offenses under the money laundering and racketeering statutes and the Travel Act.

Currently, each of these wildlife laws carries a maximum prison sentence of only one year for a violation. Under this bill, wildlife trafficking violations can be subject to up to a 20-year prison sentence, as well as increased fines and penalties of up to $500,000 for an offense.

These new penalties will allow the government to change the equation on wildlife crimes. Wildlife trafficking has increased at dramatic rates because the crime is high value and low risk due to weak penalties across the world. Under the new authorities, the Federal Government will have a full range of tools to prosecute the worst wildlife trafficking offenders and to put them behind bars with significant sentences. The new authorities will also act as a deterrent to the criminal organizations currently trafficking illicit wildlife products into and through the United States.

As one of the largest markets for products of illicit poaching in the world, the United States has a responsibility to step up and help to combat this scourge. With this legislation, the United States will set an example for other countries on the need for each country to strengthen penalties for wildlife trafficking. It is critical that other nations around the world with large markets for illicit wildlife products step up to tackle this global problem.

The Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement Act of 2015 will also allow fines, penalties, forfeitures, and restitution recovered through use of the bill's new authorities to be transferred to established conservation funds at the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce. This will enable the Federal Government to use the monetary penalties from a wildlife trafficking conviction to benefit the species that was harmed. Thus, the bill will both act to punish and deter criminals while supporting the conservation of those species that are directly harmed by poaching.

Addressing the issue of wildlife trafficking speaks to our values and morals as a Nation. We have a responsibility to help prevent these endangered species, which have existed for thousands of years, from becoming extinct in our lifetime. It is also clear that Federal law's weak penalties for wildlife crimes have been exploited by poachers and transnational criminals.

I therefore ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to enact this legislation this year. The stakes for endangered species like elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses could not be higher. If we don't crack down on wildlife trafficking, we will be complicit in the slaughter.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, Klobuchar, Murray, Udall, Franken, Wyden and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2015.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that: cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a wide area.

But, in reality, they pose a far more deadly threat to innocent civilians.

According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past fifty years, there have been 19,419 documented cluster munitions deaths in 31 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people.

While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians have accounted for 94% of cluster munition casualties.

Death and injury from unexploded ordnance left behind by cluster munitions continues to kill civilians to this day. Today, 23 States remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance left from cluster munitions.

Last year, nine of these countries suffered casualties from unexploded ordnance. They were: Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.

More tragically, despite the risk they pose to civilians, cluster bombs continue to be used in conflicts.

Since July 2012, Syrian government forces have used cluster munitions in 10 of the country's 14 governates.

Human Rights Watch has documented that the Syrian government has used seven types of cluster munitions to date, six of which were manufactured in the former Soviet Union and the seventh of which is Egyptian-made.

In 2012 and 2013, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded 1,584 deaths from government-launched cluster munitions in Syria. Approximately 97 percent of the deaths directly linked to cluster munitions were civilians.

For the first time, Human Rights Watch has also obtained evidence that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, has also used cluster bombs.

According to witness testimony and photographic evidence, ISIL used cluster bombs on at least two occasions near the besieged town of Kobani.

Terrorist groups and other non-state actors would not be able to obtain and use cluster bombs if the world adopted the Oslo Treaty on Cluster munitions.

The Oslo Treaty bans the production, sale, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions. It came into effect in 2010 and to date has been ratified by 88 nations.

Under the Treaty, 22 nations have destroyed 1.16 million cluster bombs and nearly 140 million submunitions.

Unfortunately, the United States is neither a signatory nor state party to the Oslo Treaty.

In fact, the United States maintains a stockpile of 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

Rather than adopting the increasing international consensus that cluster bombs should be banned, the Pentagon continues to assert that they are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

I respectfully disagree. The benefit of using cluster bombs is outweighed by the continuing threat they pose to civilians long after the cessation of hostilities.

The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would immediately ban cluster bombs with unacceptable unexploded ordnance rates and in areas where civilians are known to be present.

Passing this legislation would move the United States closer to abiding by the requirements of the Oslo Treaty, which has been ratified by many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Since 2008 the Congress has banned the export of cluster munitions with a greater than one percent unexploded ordnance rate. While banning the export of these indiscriminate weapons was a positive first step, I strongly believe the United States can do better.

This body cannot compel the administration to sign the Oslo Treaty. However, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would do exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and ensure that married same-sex couples are accorded equal treatment by the federal government.

When I first introduced this bill in 2011, only 5 States and the District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage.

Today, due to a combination of actions by legislatures, voters, and the courts, 36 States and D.C. recognize same-sex marriage. Florida joined the group just this week.

This progress is nothing short of amazing. Over 70 percent of Americans now live in a State where same-sex couples can marry.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, has caused most federal agencies to accord equal rights and responsibilities to married same-sex couples.

But, despite this progress, the mission of ensuring full equality under Federal law for married same-sex couples is still unaccomplished.

This bill will accomplish that mission. It will strike DOMA from Federal law, and ensure that legally married same-sex couples are treated equally by the federal government, period.

I want to thank my 41 colleagues who have cosponsored this bill.

For my colleagues who have not yet supported this bill: if you believe that couples who are married should be treated that way by the federal government, you should cosponsor this bill. It is as simple as that.

Two major agencies, which serve millions and millions of Americans-- the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs-- still deny benefits to some married couples depending on where the couple has lived. This bill would fix that problem.

Let me address Social Security first. An example of the discrimination married same-sex couples still face is the case of Kathy Murphy and Sara Barker. According to a legal filing, this couple married in Massachusetts and shared a ranch house in Texas for nearly 30 years.

In 2010, when Sara was 60 years old, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Sara went through several surgeries and chemotherapy, and Kathy was Sara's caregiver.

Sara passed away on March 10, 2012. As the complaint states: ``Kathy lost her partner of more than thirty years and the love of her life.''

In July 2014--over a year after she applied--Kathy's application for survivor's benefits from Social Security was denied because they lived in Texas together, and Texas does not recognize them as married.

This cost her an estimated $1,200 per month in Federal survivor's benefits.

Veterans and active-duty military personnel in same-sex marriages also are being denied equal treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Many of these brave individuals have served our country overseas or in war zones, but they may nevertheless be denied a huge range of benefits our nation grants to those who have served in the Armed Forces.

A court filing by the American Military Partners Association explains that:

lesbian and gay veterans and their spouses and survivors .

. . will be denied or disadvantaged in obtaining spousal

veterans benefits such as disability compensation, death

pension benefits, home loan guarantees, and rights to burial

together in national cemeteries.

This is wrong. Our married gay and lesbian soldiers put their lives on the line for our country the same way other soldiers do.

We owe them the same debt of gratitude we owe to all other men and women who serve, and this bill would ensure that we fulfill that solemn obligation.

Continued discrimination against married same-sex couples is not limited to these benefits programs.

Other Federal laws are not part of programs administered by agencies, but they nevertheless are designed to protect families, including spouses.

Let me just give one example--Section 115 of Title 18. Among other things, this law makes it a crime to assault, kidnap, or murder a spouse of Federal law enforcement officer, with the intent to influence or retaliate against the officer.

This law protects the ability of people like FBI agents and federal prosecutors to serve the public knowing there is protection from violence against their families.

These agents and prosecutors investigate and prosecute people like drug kingpins, terrorists, and organized crime figures.

But, even today, it is not clear whether this vital protection for these officers covers those in lawful same- sex marriages everywhere in the country.

These public servants, who protect all of us, should not have to worry that they lack the full protection we provide to their colleagues--but that is the situation we confront today. This bill would fix it.

In addition, Section 2 of DOMA--which was not expressly addressed by the Supreme Court--continues to pose a serious risk to legal relief received by victims of crime and civil wrongs. This bill would repeal it.

Section 2 of DOMA is the full faith and credit provision of DOMA, and it has been the subject of many misconceptions.

When DOMA was enacted, some claimed Section 2 was designed to prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution from forcing a state to recognize a marriage from another state.

But states have never needed permission from Congress to decide whether to recognize an out-of-state marriage. States have done that under their own laws, subject to other constitutional guarantees like the Equal Protection Clause.

Thus, repealing Section 2 of DOMA simply would not force a State, or a religious institution, to recognize a particular marriage.

While it is on the books, Section 2 may have a very serious impact: it may nullify legal relief awarded to victims of crime and other civil wrongs.

There is a general rule that the judgments of one state's courts will be enforced in another state's courts.

But Section 2 purports to exempt any ``right or claim arising from'' a same-sex marriage from this rule.

Imagine a woman killed by a drunk driver. Her surviving spouse would have a civil claim for wrongful death, or might obtain restitution in a criminal case.

But DOMA could prevent the court judgments in those cases from being enforced in the perpetrator's home State, allowing him to avoid the consequences of his actions.

The same problem could arise in numerous types of cases, such as assaults, batteries, and insurance claims.

Same-sex married couples are the only class of people who are burdened by this sort of legal disability, which hinders the court system from protecting them the same way that it does other citizens.

This is wrong, and it must be repealed.

As a Senator from California, I come to this bill with a strong sense of history.

In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to find that a ban on interracial marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause. At the time, 29 states still prohibited interracial marriage.

Prohibitions on interracial marriage then were eliminated in 13 other states, so that when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 16 states retained bans on interracial marriage.

I very much hope that is where we are today on same-sex marriage.

People of all stripes have come to believe that loving and committed same-sex couples are worthy of the same dignity and respect other couples receive. Public opinion has changed dramatically, and 36 states now recognize same-sex marriage.

The tide has shifted, I hope irreversibly so.

But here, in Congress, we still have work to do.

We must end the discrimination married same-sex couples continue to face at the federal level.

DOMA remains on the books, where it should never have been placed. It could be revived by a different Supreme Court majority.

A future administration also could interpret other laws differently than this Administration has done, potentially restricting the availability of key benefits even further.

The solution is simple: pass this bill, which would eliminate DOMA and accord equal treatment under Federal law for married same-sex couples.

Let me again thank my cosponsors for joining me in this effort, and to urge my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015 with my colleagues and friends, Senators Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, Heidi Heitkamp, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Udall.

This bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, supports the Obama Administration's Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial tools to combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we cannot allow them to exploit loopholes because our laws lag behind.

This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold to reasonable cause to believe.

The Department of Justice has informed my office that, it sees drug traffickers from countries like Colombia, Bolivia and Peru who produce cocaine but then outsource transportation of the cocaine to the United States to violent Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Under current law, our ability to prosecute source-nation traffickers from these countries is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United

States. But let me be clear: drugs produced in these countries fuel violent crime throughout the Western Hemisphere as well as addiction and death in the United States.

Second, this bill puts in place penalties for precursor chemical producers from foreign countries, such as those producing pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine, who illegally ship precursor chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be used to make illegal drugs.

Third, this bill makes a technical fix to the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act, which increases penalties for the trafficking of counterfeit drugs. The fix, requested by the Department of Justice, puts in place a ``knowing'' requirement which was unintentionally left out of the original bill. The original bill makes the mere sale of a counterfeit drug a Federal felony offense regardless of whether the seller knew the drug was counterfeit. Under the original bill, a pharmacist could be held criminally liable if he or she unwittingly sold counterfeit drugs to a customer. Adding a ``knowing'' requirement corrects this problem.

As Co-Chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and as a public servant who has focused on narcotics issues for many years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new ways to circumvent our laws. The illegal drug trade is constantly evolving and it is critical that our legal framework keeps pace. We must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2015, with my colleagues, Senators Kelly Ayotte, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Rob Portman, Charles Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen and Sheldon Whitehouse. This legislation addresses the significant harm that synthetic drugs cause our communities.

When Congress outlawed several synthetic drugs in 2012, traffickers did not stop producing them. Instead, they slightly altered the drugs' chemical structure to skirt the law, producing ``controlled substance analogues'' which are dangerous, chemically similar to Schedule I substances, and mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, PCP, and LSD.

Manufacturers of synthetic drugs often prey upon youth, selling products such as Scooby Snax, Potpourri, and Joker Herbal. But make no mistake: these products are dangerous. In the first ten months of 2014 alone, poison centers nationwide responded to approximately 3,900 calls related to synthetic drugs.

Under current law, determining whether a substance meets the vague legal criteria of a ``controlled substance analogue'' results in a ``battle of experts'' inside the courtroom. Significantly, a substance ruled to be an analogue in one case is not automatically an analogue in a second case.

The Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetics Drug Act addresses these issues. This bill creates an interagency committee of scientists that will establish and maintain an administrative list of controlled substance analogues. The Committee is structured to respond quickly when new synthetic drugs enter the market.

Because virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrive in bulk from outside our borders, the bill makes it illegal to import a controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is intended for non-human use.

Finally, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines for violations of the Controlled Substances Act pertaining to controlled substance analogues.

In sum, this bill sends a strong message to drug traffickers who attempt to circumvent our Nation's laws: no matter how you alter the chemical structure of synthetic drugs to try to get around the law, we will ban these substances to keep them away from our children.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss an important matter related to H.R. 83, the omnibus bill, with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. As you know, section 111 of this bill for the Corps of Engineers discusses the agricultural exemptions under section 404(f)(1)(A),(C) of the Clean Water Act.

There has been some confusion as to exactly what this provision does and doesn't do. I would like to clarify that this provision does not expand or modify the current agricultural exemptions that are contained in the Clean Water Act nor does it impact the ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2).

Mr. President, can the Senator from Maryland provide a further explanation of the issue?

I thank my colleague so much for this clarification. This is a very important clarification.

lead content regulation

Senator Chambliss, my remarks are personal. We worked together for the past 8 years on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For 4 years we have worked as chair and cochair. We have exchanged views, we have negotiated bills, and we have shared information. We have been there through very tough times and some very pleasant times. It is very hard for me to see you go.

I have learned to trust you. I respect you. We have worked together. The committee put together a Benghazi report. We worked very hard. We found areas of agreement.

Senator Collins of the committee is here, and Senator Warner is here. Am I missing anyone else from the committee? There is Senator Burr, who will be the new chairman, and Senator Coats, Senator Coburn. We were able to come together and put together a report unanimously, and it was really because of your leadership.

As I watched, what became very apparent is that maybe your side isn't as fractious as my side is. You were able to say yes, we can do this or no, we can't do that, and you reflected your Members. That made it very easy for me, and I am very grateful.

Yesterday we disagreed. You have never taken a cheap shot. We worked together at the same time to move our intelligence authorization bill. There was one last glitch which you worked out, and that bill passed unanimously last night.

Together we have worked to put together an information-sharing bill for what is probably our No. 1 defensive issue, which is cyber and the attacks that have taken 97 percent of our businesses into difficulties.

You have compromised, and I have compromised. Unfortunately, on our side, we have some unsolved issues. So, hopefully, I will be able to pick up with Senator Burr where we left off, and we will be able to get that job done next year.

What I want you to know--and I said this to you in another way--that it was such a wonderful experience for me to work with you. This is the hard part. We are only here for an instant in eternity, and the only thing that matters is what we do with that instant.

What I want you to know is you have really done yeoman's work in that instant, and I am very grateful to have the pleasure of working with you. I have learned from you, and I wish you all good things.

Thank you very much, Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, I want to thank the leader for his words and for his support. They are extraordinarily welcome and appreciated.

Today, a 500-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 5\1/2\ year review of the CIA's detention and interrogation program, which was conducted between 2002 and 2009, is being released publicly. The executive summary, which is going out today, is backed by a 6,700-page classified and unredacted report with 38,000 footnotes which can be released, if necessary, at a later time.

The report released today examines the CIA's secret overseas detention of at least 119 individuals and the use of coercive interrogation techniques, in some cases amounting to torture.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have gone through a great deal of introspection about whether to delay the release of this report to a later time. This clearly is a period of turmoil and instability in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, that is going to continue for the foreseeable future whether or not this report is released.

There are those who will seize upon the report and say ``See what the Americans did,'' and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or incite more violence. We can't prevent that, but history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say ``never again.''

There may never be the right time to release this report. The instability we see today will not be resolved in months or years. But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely.

My determination to release it has also increased due to a campaign of mistaken statements and press articles launched against the report before anyone has had the chance to read it. As a matter of fact, the report is just now, as I speak, being released. This is what it looks like.

Senator Chambliss asked me if we could have the minority report bound with the majority report. For this draft that is not possible. In the filed draft it will be bound together. But this is what the summary of the 6,000 pages looks like.

My words give me no pleasure. I am releasing this report because I know there are thousands of employees at the CIA who do not condone what I will speak about this morning and who work day and night, long hours, within the law, for America's security in what is certainly a difficult world. My colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and I are proud of them, just as everyone in this Chamber is, and we will always support them.

In reviewing the study in the past few days, with the decision looming over the public release, I was struck by a quote found on page 126 of the executive summary. It cites a former CIA inspector general, John Helgerson, who in 2005 wrote the following to the then-Director of the CIA, which clearly states the situation with respect to this report years later as well:

We have found that the Agency over the decades has

continued to get itself in messes related to interrogation

programs for one overriding reason: we do not document and

learn from our experience--each generation of officers is

left to improvise anew, with problematic results for our

officers as individuals and for our Agency.

I believe that to be true. I agree with Mr. Helgerson. His comments are true today. But this must change.

On March 11, 2009, the committee voted 14 to 1 to begin a review of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Over the past 5 years a small team of committee investigators pored over the more than 6.3 million pages of CIA records the leader spoke about to complete this report or what we call the study. It shows that the CIA's actions a decade ago are a stain on our values and on our history. The release of this 500-page summary cannot remove that stain, but it can and does say to our people and the world that America is big enough to admit when it is wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes. Releasing this report is an important step to restore our values and show the world that we are, in fact, a just and lawful society.

Over the next hour I wish to lay out for Senators and the American public the report's key findings and conclusions. I ask that when I complete this, Senator McCain be recognized. Before I get to the substance of the report, I wish to make a few comments about why it is so important that we make this study public.

All of us have vivid memories of that Tuesday morning when terrorists struck New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. Make no mistake--on September 11, 2001, war was declared on the United States. Terrorists struck our financial center, they struck our military center, and they tried to strike our political center and would have had brave and courageous passengers not brought down the plane. We still vividly remember the mix of outrage, deep despair, and sadness as we watched from Washington--smoke rising from the Pentagon, the passenger plane lying in a Pennsylvania field, and the sound of bodies striking canopies at ground level as innocents jumped to the ground below from the World Trade Center. Mass terror that we often see abroad had struck us directly in our front yard, killing 3,000 innocent men, women, and children.

What happened? We came together as a nation with one singular mission: Bring those who committed these acts to justice. But it is at this point where the values of America come into play, where the rule of law and the fundamental principles of right and wrong become important.

In 1990 the Senate ratified the Convention against Torture. The convention makes clear that this ban against torture is absolute. It states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever--

Including what I just read--

whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political

instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as

a justification of torture.

Nonetheless, it was argued that the need for information on possible additional terrorist plots after 9/11 made extraordinary interrogation techniques necessary.

Even if one were to set aside all of the moral arguments, our review was a meticulous and detailed examination of records. It finds that coercive interrogation techniques did not produce the vital, otherwise unavailable intelligence the CIA has claimed.

I will go into further detail on this issue in a moment, but let me make clear that these comments are not a condemnation of the CIA as a whole. The CIA plays an incredibly important part in our Nation's security and has thousands of dedicated and talented employees.

What we have found is that a surprisingly few people were responsible for designing, carrying out, and managing this program. Two contractors developed and led the interrogations. There was little effective oversight. Analysts, on occasion, gave operational orders about interrogations, and CIA management of the program was weak and diffused.

Our final report was approved by a bipartisan vote of 9 to 6 in December of 2012 and exposes brutality in stark contrast to our values as a nation.

This effort was focused on the actions of the CIA from late 2001 to January of 2009. The report does include considerable detail on the CIA's interactions with the White House, the Departments of Justice, State, and Defense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The review is based on contemporaneous records and documents during the time the program was in place and active. These documents are important because they aren't based on recollection, they aren't based on revision, and they aren't a rationalization a decade later. It is these documents, referenced repeatedly in thousands of footnotes, that provide the factual basis for the study's conclusions. The committee's majority staff reviewed more than 6.3 million pages of these documents provided by the CIA, as well as records from other departments and agencies. These records include finished intelligence assessments, CIA operational and intelligence cables, memoranda, emails, real-time chat sessions, inspector general reports, testimony before Congress, pictures, and other internal records.

It is true that we didn't conduct our own interviews, and I wish to state why that was the case. In 2009 there was an ongoing review by the Department of Justice Special Prosecutor, John Durham. On August 24, Attorney General Holder expanded that review. This occurred 6 months after our study had begun. Durham's original investigation of the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes was broadened to include possible criminal actions of CIA employees in the course of CIA detention and interrogation activities.

At the time, the committee's vice chairman, Kit Bond, withdrew the minority's participation in the study, citing the Attorney General's expanded investigation as the reason.

The Department of Justice refused to coordinate its investigation with the Intelligence Committee's review. As a result, possible interviewees could be subject to additional liability if they were interviewed, and the CIA, citing the Attorney General's investigation, would not instruct its employees to participate in interviews.

Notwithstanding, I am very confident of the factual accuracy and comprehensive nature of this report for three reasons:

No. 1, it is 6.3 million pages of documents reviewed, and they reveal records of actions as those actions took place, not through recollections more than a decade later.

No. 2, the CIA and CIA senior officers have taken the opportunity to explain their views on CIA detention and interrogation operations. They have done this in on-the-record statements in classified committee hearings, written testimony and answers to questions, and through the formal response to the committee in June 2013 after reading this study.

No. 3, the committee had access to and utilized an extensive set of reports of interviews conducted by the CIA inspector general and the CIA's oral history program.

So while we could not conduct new interviews of individuals, we did utilize transcripts or summaries of interviews of those directly engaged in detention and interrogation operations. These interviews occurred at the time the program was operational and covered the exact topics we would have asked about had we conducted interviews ourselves.

These interview reports and transcripts included but were not limited to the following: George Tenet, Director of the CIA when the Agency took custody and interrogated the majority of detainees; Jose Rodriguez, Director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, a key player in the program; CIA General Counsel Scott Mueller; CIA Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt; CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo; CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin; and a variety of interrogators, lawyers, medical personnel, senior counterterrorism analysts, and managers of the detention and interrogation program.

The best place to start on how we got into this situation--and I am delighted that the previous Chairman Senator Rockefeller is on the floor--is a little more than 8 years ago, on September 6, 2006, when the committee met to be briefed by then-Director Michael Hayden.

At that 2006 meeting the full committee learned for the first time-- the first time--of the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques or EITs.

It was a short meeting, in part because President Bush was making a public speech later that day disclosing officially for the first time the existence of CIA black sites and announcing

the transfer of 14 detainees from CIA custody to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It was the first time the interrogation program was explained to the full committee, as details had previously been limited to the chairman and vice chairman.

Then, on December 7, 2007, The New York Times reported that CIA personnel in 2005 had destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two CIA detainees--the CIA's first detainee Abu Zubaydah, as well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The committee had not been informed of the destruction of the tapes.

Days later, on December 11, 2007, the committee held a hearing on the destruction of the videotapes. Director Hayden, the primary witness, testified the CIA had concluded the destruction of videotapes was acceptable, in part because Congress had not yet requested to see them. My source is our committee's transcript of the hearing on December 11, 2007. Director Hayden stated that if the committee had asked for the videotapes, they would have been provided. But of course the committee had not known the videotapes existed.

We now know from CIA emails and records that the videotapes were destroyed shortly after CIA attorneys raised concerns that Congress might find out about the tapes.

In any case, at that same December 11 committee hearing, Director Hayden told the committee that CIA cables related to the interrogation sessions depicted in the videotapes were `` . . . a more than adequate representation of the tapes and therefore, if you want them, we will give you access to them.'' That is a quote from our transcript of the December 11, 2007, hearing.

Senator Rockefeller, then-chairman of the committee, designated two members of the committee staff to review the cables describing the interrogation sessions of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri. Senator Bond, then-vice chairman, similarly directed two of his staffers to review the cables. The designated staff members completed their review and compiled a summary of the content of the CIA cables by early 2009, by which time I had become chairman.

The description in the cables of CIA's interrogations and the treatment of detainees presented a starkly different picture from Director Hayden's testimony before the committee. They described brutal, around-the-clock interrogations, especially of Abu Zubaydah, in which multiple coercive techniques were used in combination and with substantial repetition. It was an ugly, visceral description.

The summary also indicated that Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri did not, as a result of the use of these so-called EITs, provide the kind of intelligence that led the CIA to stop terrorist plots or arrest additional suspects. As a result, I think it is fair to say the entire committee was concerned and it approved the scope of an investigation by a vote of 14 to 1, and the work began.

In my March 11, 2014, floor speech about the study, I described how in 2009 the committee came to an agreement with the new CIA Director, Leon Panetta, for access to documents and other records about the CIA's detention and interrogation program. I will not repeat that here. From 2009 to 2012, our staff conducted a massive and unprecedented review of CIA records. Draft sections of the report were produced by late 2011 and shared with the full committee. The final report was completed in December 2012 and approved by the committee by a bipartisan vote of 9 to 6.

After that vote, I sent the full report to the President and asked the administration to provide comments on it before it was released. Six months later, in June of 2013, the CIA responded. I directed then that if the CIA pointed out any error in our report, we would fix it, and we did fix one bullet point that did not impact our findings and conclusions. If the CIA came to a different conclusion than the report did, we would note that in the report and explain our reasons for disagreeing, if we disagreed. You will see some of that documented in the footnotes of that executive summary as well as in the 6,000 pages.

In April 2014, the committee prepared an updated version of the full study and voted 12 to 3 to declassify and release the executive summary, findings and conclusions and minority and additional views.

On August 1, we received a declassified version from the executive branch. It was immediately apparent the redactions to our report prevented a clear and understandable reading of the study and prevented us from substantiating the findings and conclusions, so we obviously objected.

For the past 4 months, the committee and the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House have engaged in a lengthy negotiation over the redactions to the report. We have been able to include some more information in the report today without sacrificing sources and methods or our national security.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks a letter from the White House, dated yesterday, transmitting the unclassified parts of report, and it also points out that the executive summary is 93 percent complete and that the redactions amount to 7 percent.

Mr. President, this has been a long process. The work began 7 years ago when Senator Rockefeller directed committee staff to review the CIA cables describing the interrogation sessions of Abu Zubaydah and al- Nashiri. It has been very difficult, but I believe documentation and the findings and conclusions will make clear how this program was morally, legally, and administratively misguided and that this Nation should never again engage in these tactics.

Let me now turn to the contents of the study. As I noted, we have 20 findings and conclusions which fall into four general categories: First, the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were not an effective way to gather intelligence information; second, the CIA provided extensive amounts of inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to the White House, the Department of Justice, Congress, the CIA inspector general, the media, and the American public; third, the CIA's management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed; and fourth, the CIA program was far more brutal than people were led to believe.

Let me describe each category in more detail. The first set of findings and conclusions concern the effectiveness or lack thereof of the CIA interrogation program. The committee found that the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques were not an effective means of acquiring accurate intelligence or gaining detainee cooperation.

The CIA and other defenders of the program have repeatedly claimed the use of so-called interrogation techniques was necessary to get detainees to provide critical information and to bring detainees to a ``state of compliance,'' in which they would cooperate and provide information. The study concludes both claims are inaccurate.

The report is very specific in how it evaluates the CIA's claims on the effectiveness and necessity of its enhanced interrogation techniques. Specifically, we used the CIA's own definition of effectiveness as ratified and approved by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. The CIA claimed that the EITs were necessary to obtain ``otherwise unavailable'' information that could not be obtained from any other source to stop terrorist attacks and save American lives, that is a claim we conclude is inaccurate.

We took 20 examples that the CIA itself claimed to show the success of these interrogations. These include cases of terrorist plots stopped or terrorists captured. The CIA used these examples in presentations to the White House, in testimony to Congress, in submissions to the Department of Justice, and ultimately to the American people.

Some of the claims are well known: the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the prevention of attacks against the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and the takedown of Osama bin Laden. Other claims were made only in classified settings to the White House, Congress, and Department of Justice.

In each case, the CIA claimed that critical and unique information came from one or more detainees in its custody after they were subjected to the CIA's coercive techniques, and that information led to a specific counterterrorism success. Our staff reviewed every one of the 20 cases and not a single case holds up.

In every single one of these cases, at least one of the following was true: One, the intelligence community had

information separate from the use of EITs that led to the terrorist disruption or capture; two, information from a detainee subjected to EITs played no role in the claimed disruption or capture; and three, the purported terrorist plot either did not exist or posed no real threat to Americans or U.S. interests.

Some critics have suggested the study concludes that no intelligence was ever provided from any detainee the CIA held. That is false and the study makes no such claim. What is true is that actionable intelligence that was ``otherwise unavailable'' was not obtained using these coercive interrogation techniques.

The report also chronicles where the use of interrogation techniques that do not involve physical force were effective. Specifically, the report provides examples where interrogators had sufficient information to confront detainees with facts, know when they were lying and when they applied rapport-building techniques that were developed and honed by the U.S. military, the FBI, and more recently the interagency High- Value Detainee Interrogation Group, called the HIG, that these techniques produced good intelligence.

Let me make a couple of additional comments on the claimed effectiveness of CIA interrogations. At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of intelligence on an imminent threat that many believe was the justification for the use of these techniques. The committee never found an example of this hypothetical ticking timebomb scenario.

The use of coercive technique methods regularly resulted in fabricated information. Sometimes the CIA actually knew detainees were lying. Other times the CIA acted on false information, diverting resources and leading officers or contractors to falsely believe they were acquiring unique or actionable intelligence and that its interrogations were working when they were not.

Internally, CIA officers often called into question the effectiveness of the CIA's interrogation techniques, noting how the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate information.

The report includes numerous examples of CIA officers questioning the agency's claims, but these contradictions were marginalized and not presented externally.

The second set of findings and conclusions is that the CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the program and its effectiveness to the White House, the Department of Justice, Congress, the CIA inspector general, the media, and the American public.

This conclusion is somewhat personal for me. I remember clearly when Director Hayden briefed the Intelligence Committee for the first time on the so-called EITs at that September 2006 committee meeting. He referred specifically to a ``tummy slap,'' among other techniques, and presented the entire set of techniques as minimally harmful and applied in a highly clinical and professional manner. They were not.

The committee's report demonstrates that these techniques were physically very harmful, and that the constraints that existed on paper in Washington did not match the way techniques were used at CIA sites around the world.

Of particular note was the treatment of Abu Zubaydah over a span of 17 days in August 2002. This involved nonstop interrogation and abuse, 24/7, from August 4 to August 21, and included multiple forms of deprivation and physical assault. The description of this period, first written up by our staff in early 2009 while Senator Rockefeller was chairman, was what prompted this full review.

But the inaccurate and incomplete descriptions go far beyond that. The CIA provided inaccurate memoranda and explanations to the Department of Justice while its Office of Legal Counsel was considering the legality of the coercive techniques.

In those communications to the Department of Justice, the CIA claimed the following: The coercive techniques would not be used with excessive repetition; detainees would always have an opportunity to provide information prior to the use of the techniques; the techniques were to be used in progression, starting with the least aggressive and proceeding only if needed; medical personnel would make sure that interrogations wouldn't cause serious harm, and they could intervene at any time to stop interrogations; interrogators were carefully vetted and highly trained, and each technique was to be used in a specific way without deviation, and only with specific approval for the interrogator and detainee involved.

None of these assurances, which the Department of Justice relied on to form its legal opinions, were consistently or even routinely carried out.

In many cases, important information was withheld from policymakers. For example, foreign intelligence committee chairman Bob Graham asked a number of questions after he was first briefed in September of 2002, but the CIA refused to answer him, effectively stonewalling him until he left the committee at the end of the year.

In another example, the CIA, in coordination with White House officials and staff, initially withheld information of the CIA's interrogation techniques from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. There are CIA records stating that Colin Powell wasn't told about the program at first because there were concerns that ``Powell would blow his stack if he were briefed.'' Source: Email from John Rizzo dated July 31, 2003.

CIA records clearly indicate, and definitively, that after he was briefed on the CIA's first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, the CIA didn't tell President Bush about the full nature of the EITs until April 2006. That is what the records indicate.

The CIA similarly withheld information or provided false information to the CIA inspector general during his conduct of a special review by the IG in 2004.

Incomplete and inaccurate information from the CIA was used in documents provided to the Department of Justice and as a basis for President Bush's speech on September 6, 2006, in which he publicly acknowledged the CIA program for the first time.

In all of these cases, other CIA officers acknowledged internally that information the CIA had provided was wrong.

The CIA also misled other CIA and White House officials. When Vice President Cheney's counsel David Addington asked CIA General Counsel Scott Muller in 2003 about the CIA's videotaping the waterboarding of detainees, Muller deliberately told him that videotapes ``were not being made,'' but did not disclose that videotapes of previous waterboarding sessions had been made and still existed. Source: E-mail from Scott Muller dated June 7, 2003.

There are many more examples in the committee's report. All are documented.

The third set of findings and conclusions notes the various ways in which CIA management of the Detention and Interrogation Program--from its inception to its formal termination in January of 2009--was inadequate and deeply flawed.

There is no doubt that the Detention and Interrogation Program was, by any measure, a major CIA undertaking. It raised significant legal and policy issues and involved significant resources and funding. It was not, however, managed as a significant CIA program. Instead, it had limited oversight and lacked formal direction and management.

For example, in the 6 months between being granted detention authority and taking custody of its first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, the CIA had not identified and prepared a suitable detention site. It had not researched effective interrogation techniques or developed a legal basis for the use of interrogation techniques outside of the rapport- building techniques that were official CIA policy until that time.

In fact, there is no indication the CIA reviewed its own history-- that is just what Helgerson was saying in 2005--with coercive interrogation tactics. As the executive summary notes, the CIA had engaged in rough interrogations in the past.

In fact, the CIA had previously sent a letter to the Intelligence Committee in 1989--and here is the quote--that ``inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.''

That was a letter from John Helgerson, CIA Director of Congressional Affairs, dated January 8, 1989.

However, in late 2001 and early 2002, rather than research interrogation practices and coordinate with other parts of the government with extensive expertise in detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects, the CIA engaged two contract psychologists who had never conducted interrogations themselves or ever operated detention facilities.

As the CIA captured or received custody of detainees through 2002, it maintained separate lines of management at headquarters for different detention facilities.

No individual or office was in charge of the Detention and Interrogation Program until January of 2003, by which point more than one-third of CIA detainees identified in our review had been detained and interrogated.

One clear example of flawed CIA management was the poorly managed detention facility referred to in our report by the code name COBALT to hide the actual name of the facility. It began operations in September of 2002. The facility kept few formal records of the detainees housed there, and untrained CIA officers conducted frequent unauthorized and unsupervised interrogations using techniques that were not, and never became, part of the CIA's formal enhanced interrogation program.

The CIA placed a junior officer with no relevant experience in charge of the site. In November 2002, an otherwise healthy detainee--who was being held mostly nude and chained to a concrete floor--died at the facility from what is believed to have been hypothermia.

In interviews conducted in 2003 by the CIA Office of the Inspector General, CIA's leadership acknowledged that they had little or no awareness of operations at this specific CIA detention site, and some CIA senior officials believed, erroneously, that enhanced interrogation techniques were not used there.

The CIA, in its June 2013 response to the committee's report, agreed that there were management failures in the program, but asserted that they were corrected by early 2003. While the study found that management failures improved somewhat, we found they persisted until the end of the program.

Among the numerous management shortcomings identified in the report are the following: The CIA used poorly trained and nonvetted personnel.

Individuals were deployed--in particular, interrogators--without relevant training or experience. Due to the CIA's redactions to the report, there are limits to what I can say in this regard, but it is a clear fact that the CIA deployed officers who had histories of personnel, ethical, and professional problems of a serious nature. These included histories of violence and abusive treatment of others that should have called into question their employment with the U.S. Government, let alone their suitability to participate in a sensitive CIA covert action program.

The two contractors that CIA allowed to develop, operate, and assess its interrogation operations conducted numerous ``inherently governmental functions'' that never should have been outsourced to contractors. These contractors, referred to in the report in special pseudonyms, SWIGERT and DUNBAR, developed the list of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA employed.

They developed a list of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA employed. They personally conducted interrogations of some of the CIA's most significant detainees, using the techniques including the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and al- Nashiri.

The contractors provided the official evaluations of whether detainees' psychological states allowed for the continued use of the enhanced techniques, even for some detainees they themselves were interrogating or had interrogated. Evaluating the psychological state of the very detainees they were interrogating is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of professional guidelines.

The CIA relied on these two contractors to evaluate the interrogation program they had devised and in which they had obvious financial interests. Again, it is a clear conflict of interest and an avoidance of responsibility by the CIA.

In 2005, the two contractors formed a company specifically for the purpose of expanding their work with the CIA. From 2005 to 2008, the CIA outsourced almost all aspects of its detention and interrogation program to this company as part of a contract valued at more than $180 million. Ultimately, not all contract options were exercised. However, the CIA has paid these two contractors and their company more than $80 million.

Of the 119 individuals found to have been detained by the CIA during the life of the program, the committee found that at least 26 were wrongfully held. These are cases where the CIA itself determined that it had not met the standard for detention set out in the 2001 Memorandum of Notification which governed the covert action. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined they should have been released. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees.

Due to poor recordkeeping, a full accounting of how many specific detainees were held and how they were specifically treated while in custody may never be known. Similarly, in specific instances we found that enhanced interrogation techniques were used without authorization in a manner far different and more brutal than had been authorized by the Office of Legal Counsel and conducted by personnel not approved to use them on detainees.

Decisions about how and when to apply interrogation techniques were ad hoc and not proposed, evaluated, and approved in a manner described by the CIA in written descriptions and testimony about the program. Detainees were often subjected to harsh and brutal interrogation and treatment because CIA analysts believed, often in error, that they knew more information than what they had provided.

Sometimes CIA managers and interrogators in the field were uncomfortable with what they were being asked to do and recommended ending the abuse of a detainee. Repeatedly in such cases they were overruled by people at CIA headquarters who thought they knew better, such as by analysts with no line authority. This shows again how a relatively small number of CIA personnel--perhaps 40 to 50--were making decisions on detention and interrogation despite the better judgments of other CIA officers.

The fourth and final set of findings and conclusions concerns how the interrogations of CIA detainees were absolutely brutal, far worse than the CIA represented them to policymakers and others.

Beginning with the first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, and continuing with others, the CIA applied its so-called enhanced interrogation techniques in combination and in near nonstop fashion for days and even weeks at a time on one detainee. In contrast to the CIA representations, the detainees were subjected to the most aggressive techniques immediately--stripped naked, diapered, physically struck, and put in various painful stress positions for long periods of time. They were deprived of sleep for days--in one case up to 180 hours; that is 7\1/2\ days, over a week, with no sleep--usually in standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands tied together over their heads, chained to the ceiling.

In the COBALT facility I previously mentioned, interrogators and guards used what they called rough takedowns in which a detainee was grabbed from his cell, clothes cut off, hooded, and dragged up and down a dirt hallway while being slapped and punched.

The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to Abu Zubaydah that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. That is from a CIA cable on August 12, 2002.

According to another CIA cable, CIA officers also planned to cremate Zubaydah should he not survive his interrogation. Source: CIA cable, July 15, 2002.

After the news and photographs emerged from the U.S. military detention of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, the Intelligence Committee held a hearing on the matter on May 12, 2004. Without disclosing any details of its own interrogation program, CIA Director John

McLaughlin testified that CIA interrogations were nothing like what was depicted at Abu Ghraib, the U.S. prison in Iraq where detainees were abused by American personnel. This, of course, was false.

CIA detainees at one facility, described as a dungeon, were kept in complete darkness, constantly shackled in isolated cells with loud noise or music and only a bucket to use for human waste.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons personnel went to that location in November 2002 and, according to a contemporaneous internal CIA email, told CIA officers they had never ``been in a facility where individuals are so sensory deprived.'' Source: CIA email, sender and recipient redacted, December 5, 2002.

Throughout the program, multiple CIA detainees subjected to interrogations exhibited psychological and behavioral issues including hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia, and attempts at self-harm and self- mutilation. Multiple CIA psychologists identified the lack of human contact experienced by the detainees as a cause of psychiatric problems.

The executive summary includes far more detail than I am going to provide here about things that were in these interrogation sessions, and the summary itself includes only a subset of the treatment of the 119 known CIA detainees. There is far more detail--all documented--in the full 6,700-page study. This briefly summarizes the committee's findings and conclusions.

Before I wrap up, I wish to thank the people who made this undertaking possible. First, I thank Senator Jay Rockefeller. He started this project by directing his staff to review the operational cables that described the first recorded interrogations after we learned that the videotapes of those sessions had been destroyed. That report was what led to this multiyear investigation, and without it we wouldn't have had any sense of what happened.

I thank other Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one of whom is on the floor today, from the great State of New Mexico. Others have been on the floor who voted to conduct this investigation and to approve its result and make the report public.

Most importantly, I want to thank the Intelligence Committee staff who performed this work. They are dedicated and committed public officials who sacrificed a significant portion of their lives to see this report through to its publication. They have worked days, nights, and weekends for years in some of the most difficult circumstances. It is no secret to anyone that the CIA does not want this report coming out, and I believe the Nation owes them a debt of gratitude. They are Dan Jones, who has led this review since 2007, and more than anyone else, today's report is a result of his effort. Evan Gottesman and Chad Tanner, the two other members of the study staff, each wrote thousands of pages of the full report and have dedicated themselves and much of their lives to this project. Alissa Starzak, who began this review as co-lead, contributed extensively until her departure from the committee in 2011.

Other key contributors to the drafting, editing, and review of the report were Jennifer Barrett, Nick Basciano, Mike Buchwald, Jim Catella, Eric Chapman, John Dickas, Lorenzo Goco, Andrew Grotto, Tressa Guenov, Clete Johnson, Michael Noblet, Michael Pevzner, Tommy Ross, Caroline Tess, and James Wolfe; and finally, David Grannis, who has been a never-faltering staff director throughout this review.

This study is bigger than the actions of the CIA. It is really about American values and morals. It is about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law. These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime, and if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our Nation a great one.

There is a reason why we carry the banner of a great and just nation. So we submit this study on behalf of the committee to the public in the belief that it will stand the test of time, and with it the report will carry the message: ``Never again.''

Madam President, I know the time for recess for caucus is approaching and I know there are other Members on the Democratic side who want to speak. It is now time for a Member from the Republican side to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that the recess be delayed for 5 minutes so the distinguished Senator from South Carolina might speak.

I yield back our time.