Floor Statements

Madam President, I submit this statement for the Record to clarify several provisions in my Browns Canyon national monument and wilderness bill, S. 1794. I have asked President Obama to use this bill as the model for a designation of 22,000 acres of Browns Canyon as a national monument under the Antiquities Act because it contains many specific provisions that were developed in careful consultation with the community.

I introduced my bill over a year ago after 18 months of working side- by-side with Chaffee County residents and other stakeholders. I held public listening sessions, received thousands of written comments, and my staff and I conducted over 50 meetings. The resulting bill was emblematic of how public lands bills should be done: from the bottom up and based on what the community wants.

Browns Canyon is a unique natural resource. Hundreds of thousands of visitors come to Browns Canyon year after year to raft or kayak the canyon's exciting whitewater rapids or to fish the Gold Medal trout waters of the Arkansas River. But there is a lot more to this landscape than just the river. The rugged and remote lands to the east feature quiet canyons and rock formations, outstanding habitat for bighorn sheep and elk, and sweeping views of the Collegiate Peaks and Arkansas Valley.

Protecting Browns Canyon has a wide base of support, including more than 200 local businesses and sportsmen who welcome the area's Gold Medal trout waters and big game hunting opportunities. Both the town of Buena Vista and the city of Salida passed resolutions of support, and a majority of the Chaffee County commissioners support the proposal with its carefully crafted conditions. The Denver Post and local Salida Mountain Mail have editorialized in favor of an Executive action. Indeed, I hosted a public meeting in Salida last weekend--attended by senior State and Federal officials, including U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell and Bureau of Land Management Deputy Director Steve Ellis--to gauge public support for protecting this nationally significant landmark. The more than 500 attendees at the standing-room-only meeting overwhelmingly endorsed the idea, noting how a national monument designation would boost the local economy, support Main Street businesses and help protect Colorado's special way of life.

The intent of my Browns Canyon national monument bill is to preserve this special place just as it is now--for us and future generations. Therefore, I submit this statement to clarify the intent behind several key passages related to the role of the State of Colorado, water rights, and livestock grazing.

First, I want to recognize the model partnership between the Bureau of Land Management and the State of Colorado that has been in place since 1989 to manage the 148 miles of the Arkansas River corridor. This partnership is known as the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, AHRA, and includes Browns Canyon. The intent is that the Browns Canyon National Monument will have no impact on this partnership. However, it is also the intent that the Federal agencies will closely consult with the State of Colorado on the development of a comprehensive management plan for the national monument, and that the State could be a cosignatory to the plan. The State of Colorado has interests beyond just the AHRA because it will manage the wildlife in the National Monument and has a stake in maintaining the economic viability of associated industries, such as outdoor recreation and agriculture.

Second, the intent is that the Browns Canyon National Monument shall not have any impact on the existing water rights of any party. It is also the intent that the national monument will not have any effect on how river flows are managed and administered, such as the current Voluntary Flow Management Program in place for the Arkansas River.

Finally, as I have stated previously before the National Parks Subcommittee, it is critical that local ranchers maintain flexibility to run livestock in the national monument and transfer their grazing allotments to future generations. To address this, I included legislative language that all existing laws continue to apply just as they did before the monument was designated. Colorado's farms and ranches are an important part of my State's economy and identity--and produce food and fiber for the world. In particular, cattlemen and women play a critical role in the economy, culture, and heritage of the Arkansas River Valley. Therefore, Browns Canyon National Monument must support that industry and educate visitors about its role.

Browns Canyon National Monument is an idea whose time has come, and I am proud to have led this most recent effort in a 20-year campaign to protect this spectacular and nationally significant resource.

Madam President, it is humbling to stand here to speak one final time with my colleagues as a United States Senator.

As a lifelong mountain climber, I have learned far more from the mountains I did not summit, than those I did. Every climb, I have found, offers a

chance to look back and reflect, and standing here today gives me a unique opportunity to appreciate just how far we have come.

For the past 18 years, my most rewarding challenge has been exercising the power lent to me by the people of Colorado to fight on their behalf, first in the State House and then in the U.S. Congress. Throughout my career in public service--my 6 years in the U.S. Senate being but one chapter--I have always been guided by the rugged independence, strength and cooperative spirit that defines who we are as Coloradans and as Westerners.

That spirit helped me craft solutions to long-standing problems in my home State of Colorado. From my very first week in the U.S. Senate, I worked at resolving the decades-long impasse between southern Colorado ranchers and the U.S. Army, which uses the land surrounding Pinon Canyon to train soldiers for deployment into war zones. After 5 years of listening and lots of hard work, we reached a deal that protects the property rights of landowners while ensuring our troops are prepared to defend our Nation. It was a teamwork-oriented approach that reflected Colorado's best problem-solving traditions.

I have said for years that Coloradans pull together come hell or high water. Little did I know that this saying would prove itself to be true during my time in the U.S. Senate, from wildfires that left thousands homeless to a biblical flood in 2013 that swept over much of the Front Range. Despite the partisan Federal Government shutdown of 2013, we delivered more than $770 million in emergency flood support and marshalled nearly $2.5 billion in additional Federal assistance so that Colorado could rebuild better and stronger than before. This disaster relief work includes conservation easements and watershed protection funds to ward off future floods and a series of next-generation air tankers to help us fight fires for decades to come. This is in addition to the more immediate support needed to rebuild roads, bridges, and the infrastructure that our communities depend on.

Our uniquely Western perspective holds that compromise is not capitulation, and that we are stronger when every member of the community has a seat at the table--not just the privileged. This is a cause that my family has championed for generations and it is a creed that should continue to drive all Coloradans who answer the call to serve.

At this point in our politics, Americans are rightly impatient with the willful, partisan gridlock and dysfunction in Washington. Yet, in Colorado, we know that by working together we have been able to keep our State moving forward and do our part to overcome Washington silliness for the good of the Nation.

But even as we keep our eyes on the horizon and the work we still have to do, it is also important that we protect our special way of life--and safeguard our land, water and air for future generations. I strongly believe that we do not inherit the earth from our parents--we borrow it from our children. That is why I have championed efforts to preserve our public lands and the special places and natural wonders that define Colorado. Those efforts include creating new wilderness areas around James Peak, ensuring that future generations can experience the beauty of the Great Sand Dunes and Chimney Rock, and turning Rocky Flats--a former nuclear weapons facility--into a wildlife refuge. I will continue working hard to protect Brown's Canyon, which I hope to see designated as a national monument in the days ahead.

Protecting these special places along with our clean air and water is just part of the larger fight to confront the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change. Colorado has long led the Nation's pursuit of a balanced, forward-thinking energy strategy. Much of the progress Colorado has made came after I fought alongside Republican Speaker of the Colorado House Lola Spradley in 2004 to pass our State's first renewable electricity standard. This was the Nation's first democratically-passed renewable energy policy, and one which has actually been strengthened and added to since it was created. Since then, Colorado's renewable electricity standard has increased from its start at 10 percent to the 30 percent it is today. It has become a model for the Nation in how to create good-paying clean energy jobs while fighting the causes of climate change.

I built on this effort in the U.S. Senate by successfully pushing to extend the Production Tax Credit for wind energy. This has been a years-long, bipartisan effort that I am proud to have led alongside Senator Grassley from Iowa. From coming to the floor more than two- dozen times to explain the importance of wind State-by-State and to demand an extension in 2012, to fighting to extend the wind tax credit again this year, I have never given up on Colorado's thriving wind- energy industry and the more than 5,000 jobs it supports across the State. This is the sort of common-sense, bipartisan policy that helps hardworking American families today but is also part of implementing a clean energy future for generations to come.

As a Nation, over the past few years, we have persevered through difficult times to continue building toward a more perfect union. When our country was faced with the possibility of another Great Depression, we took decisive action--avoiding financial collapse, supporting 6 straight years of job growth in private industry, and making smart investments in everything from repairing our crumbling roads to re- invigorating Denver's historic Union Station. That is something to be proud of. There's a lot more to be done--but it is important to pause and note the successful milestones we have already reached on the road to recovery.

Despite a flawed roll-out, the Nation's healthcare law has increased access to quality health coverage for more than 400,000 Coloradans, helped families lower expenses and plan their future with free contraceptive care, and kept costs down for the first time in decades. This is helping to keep families out of bankruptcy and making sure that all Americans--not just the wealthiest among us--receive the care they and their families deserve.

Thomas Jefferson once said that a true patriot loves her country not just for what it is . . . but for what it can be. I think a country where every family can rest easy knowing that they will never be left in the cold again when it comes to accessing health care is a cause worth fighting for, and I could not be more grateful to those who have fought alongside me to make that a reality. At the same time, we must also continue to monitor closely its implementation to ensure we identify and correct any unexpected and uneven impacts on Coloradans and Americans.

While protecting Americans from the abuses of an out-of-control healthcare system is an achievement we should all celebrate, I have been equally as passionate about upholding the Bill of Rights and protecting our freedom and right to equality. We still have a ways to go, but I am proud to have followed in the footsteps of so many great leaders, including many in my own family, who fought to make sure America lives up to the values enshrined in our Constitution.

Many of you may recall that my father, Mo, helped to integrate the University of Arizona, when it was beset by racial divisions. My grandfather, Levi, issued a famous court decision that recognized Native Americans' constitutionally protected right to vote in our elections. My uncle Stewart challenged discrimination in our Nation's capital when he confronted the Washington football team to demand they allow black athletes to play alongside white athletes. It has been these examples among so many others that inspired me to take action when I felt we were not living up to our constitutional ideals.

That includes leading the successful fight to repeal the military's discriminatory ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy that had so shamefully kept gay and lesbian Americans from openly serving their country in the Armed Forces. It includes passing landmark hate crimes prevention legislation and a law to make it easier for women to fight wage discrimination.

While there is much work left to be done to protect our constitutional rights, I am proud to have led the effort to reconcile the enormous power of our Nation's intelligence agencies with the bedrock principles of our democracy. We have proven that the choice

between ensuring our security and protecting our privacy is a false choice, and that we can keep faith with our Nation's founding principles while also safeguarding our communities. So when the CIA tortured people in the name of the Americans it was supposed to serve, we were strong enough as a Nation to admit our mistakes and commit to learning from this dark period in our Nation's history. That is why I led the fight on the Intelligence Committee to declassify the findings of our landmark report on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, to make sure that future presidents and intelligence community leaders do not violate the principles that make America so exceptional.

These are all important accomplishments--but I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that true leadership is a team sport. I have been fortunate to be surrounded by many people whose insights, counsel and contributions have made me a stronger and more effective advocate for Colorado. In particular, I want to point out that former Colorado U.S. Senator Gary Hart has been a key, trusted advisor and a dear friend throughout my 18 years of public service. I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Michael Sozan, who has guided my Senate office with a steady hand for the last 6 years . . . and my State Director, Jen Rokala, who I have had the pleasure of working with over the past 15 years as we served the people of Colorado. I also want to thank Joe Britton, my Deputy Chief of Staff; Jake Swanton, my Legislative Director; John Fossum, my administrative director; and Mike Saccone, my Communications Director, for ably guiding me and my office.

Even before coming to the Senate, I had the pleasure of working with many dedicated people who put everything on the line to better serve Colorado. I want to thank Alan Salazar, my former Chief of Staff, along with Laura Davis, Lisa Carpenter, Stan Sloss, Doug Young, Cookab Hashemi, and Tara Trujillo for their guidance, patience, and good humor. I also want to thank two staffers who have been with me from the start: Jennifer Barrett, one of my most trusted advisers, and Carter Ellison, my constituent services director. The list of talented and driven people who have worked with me over the years is too long to read but their commitment to serving Colorado and our Nation fills me with awe. I will miss my team greatly.

It also has been my honor to serve as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for the last 6 years--and on the House Armed Services Committee before that. During that time, I had the privilege of working on behalf of the tremendous men and women who defend our Nation. I have witnessed their great courage, professionalism and commitment in performing dangerous missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti and other places around the world. I have been humbled by the indomitable spirit of our wounded warriors recovering at Walter Reed, Bethesda and in Colorado. I have mourned our fallen. Their sacrifice, and the loss that is borne by their families and a grateful Nation, is never far from my mind. To all those who have served, and to all their loved ones, I offer my deepest thanks and my never ending gratitude.

When I first came to the U.S. Senate, I told my colleagues that we were not elected to solve Democratic or Republican problems, but to find uniquely American solutions to our toughest challenges. Just like mountain climbers who are all on the same rope, we know that we are all in this together--and that we are only truly successful when we all succeed together.

The great writer Wallace Stegner challenged us to build communities to match our scenery. In a narrow sense, that means that we should strive to make our society as beautiful and thriving as the natural landscape that surrounds us. But in a broader sense, it also means that our communities should bring out the best in us, and that we should never stop building on the uniquely independent yet cooperative spirit that makes Colorado great.

That is the spirit that has guided me throughout my time in public service, and it is the spirit that will continue to guide me as I find new ways to keep Colorado and our country moving forward.

It has been the greatest privilege of my life to be a United States Senator from Colorado and I will be forever grateful for having had the challenge and the opportunity to serve our great country.

Madam President, before I start my remarks on the historic day which was yesterday--when it comes to the publication of our long-in-the-making report on the CIA's torture program--I wish to thank the chairman for his leadership, his mentorship, and his friendship. I also am proud obviously to be a part of the Armed Services Committee and to have chaired the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Again, I extend my thanks to the good men and women in uniform, as did my good friend from Oklahoma. The NDAA bill is a crucial task in front of us. I look forward to one of my last votes as a Senator from the great State of Colorado, and I look forward to casting a vote in favor of the Defense authorization bill.

Again, I wish to thank my two friends who have mentored me and who have led our committee with great elan and intelligence.

SSCI Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program

Yesterday was a historic day. Almost 6 years after the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to conduct a study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program and nearly 2 years after approving the report, the American people will finally know the truth about a very dark chapter in our Nation's history.

My goal from the start has been twofold. First, I have been committed to correcting the public record on the CIA's multiple misrepresentations to the American people, to other agencies in the executive branch, the White House, and to Congress. Second, my goal has been to ensure that the full truth comes out about this grim time in the history of the CIA and of our Nation so that neither the CIA nor any future administration repeats the grievous mistakes this important oversight work reveals.

The process of compiling, drafting, redacting, and now releasing this report has been much harder than it needed to be. It brings no one joy to discuss the CIA's brutal and appalling use of torture or the unprecedented actions that some in the intelligence community and administration have taken in order to cover up the truth.

A number of my colleagues who have come to the floor over the past 24 hours and discussed this report have referred to 9/11. I, too, will never forget the fear, the pain, and the anger we all felt on that day and in the days that followed. Americans were demanding action from our government to keep us safe. Everyone, myself included, wanted to go to the ends of the Earth to hunt down the terrorists who attacked our Nation and to make every effort to prevent another attack. Although we all shared that goal, this report reveals how the CIA crossed a line and took our country to a place where we violated our moral and legal obligations in the name of keeping us safe. As we know now, this was a false choice. Torture didn't keep us safer after all. By releasing the Intelligence Committee's landmark report, we reaffirm we are a nation that does not hide from its past but must learn from it and that an honest examination of our shortcomings is not a sign of weakness but the strength of our great Republic.

From the heavily redacted version of the executive summary first delivered to the committee by the CIA in August, we made significant progress in clearing away the thick, obfuscating fog these redactions represented.

As Chairwoman Feinstein has said, our committee chipped away at over 400 areas of disagreement with the administration on redactions down to just a few.

We didn't make all the progress we wanted to and the redaction process itself is filled with unwarranted and completely unnecessary obstacles. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, what began as a bipartisan effort on the committee did not end as such, even after my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were repeatedly urged to participate with us as partners.

As my friends in the Senate know, I am a legislator who goes out of his way to form bipartisan consensus. However, it became clear that was not possible here and that is regrettable.

But all told, after reviewing this final version of the committee's study, I believe it accomplishes the goals I laid out and it tells the story that needs to be told.

It also represents a significant and essential step for restoring faith in the crucial role of Congress to conduct oversight. Congressional oversight is important to all of government's activities, but it is especially important for those parts of the government that operate in secret, as the Church Committee discovered decades ago. The challenge the Church Committee members discovered are still with us today: how to ensure that secret government actions are conducted within the confines of the law. The release of this executive summary is testament to the power of oversight and the determination of Chairman Feinstein and the members of this committee to doggedly beat back obstacle after obstacle in order to reveal the truth.

There are a number of thank-yous that are in order. I start by thanking the chairman for her courage and persistence. I also thank the committee staff director, David Grannis; the staff lead for the study, Dan Jones; and his core study team, Evan Gottesman and Chad Tanner. They toiled for nearly 6 years to complete this report. They then shepherded it through the redaction process, all the while giving up their nights, weekends, vacations, and precious time with family and friends in an effort to get to the truth of this secret program for the members of the committee, the Senate, and now the American people.

They have been assisted by other dedicated staff, including my designee on the committee, Jennifer Barrett. We would not be where we are today without them. I am grateful, beyond words, for their service and dedication. I want them to know our country is grateful too.

Let me turn to the study itself. Much has been written about the significance of the study. This is the study. It is a summary of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. I want to start by saying I believe the vast majority of CIA officers welcome oversight and believe in the checks and balances that form the very core of our Constitution.

I believe many rank-and-file CIA officers have fought internally for and supported the release of this report. Unfortunately, again and again, these hard-working public servants have been poorly served by the CIA's leadership. Too many CIA leaders and senior officials have fought to bury the truth while using a redaction pen to further hide this dark chapter of the Agency's history.

The document we released yesterday is the definitive, official history of what happened in the CIA's detention and interrogation program. It is based on more than 6 million pages of CIA and other documents, emails, cables, and interviews. This 500-page study, this document, encapsulates the facts drawn from the 6,700-page report, which is backed up by 38,000 footnotes.

This is a documentary that tells of the program's history based on the CIA's own internal records. Its prose is dry and spare, as you will soon see for yourself. It was put together methodically, without exaggeration or embellishment. This study by itself--using the CIA's own words--brings the truth to light, and that is what it was intended to do.

The study looked carefully at the CIA's own claims--most notably that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees elicited unique, otherwise unobtainable intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It debunks those claims conclusively.

The CIA repeatedly claimed that using these enhanced interrogation techniques against detainees was the only way to yield critical information about terrorist plotting. But when asked to describe this critical information and detail which plots were thwarted, the CIA provided exaggerated versions of plots and misattributed information that was obtained from traditional intelligence collection, claiming it came from the use of interrogation techniques that are clearly torture.

This study shows that torture was not effective, that it led to fabricated information, and its use--even in secret--undermined our security and our country more broadly. Our use of torture and I believe the failure to truly acknowledge it continues to impair America's moral leadership and influence around the world, creates distrust among our partners, puts Americans abroad in danger, and helps our enemies' recruitment efforts.

Senior CIA leaders would have you believe their version of the truth--promoted in CIA-cleared memoirs by former CIA Directors and other CIA and White House officials--that while there was some excesses in its detention and interrogation program, the CIA did not torture. Their version would have you believe that the CIA's program was professionally conducted, employing trained interrogators to use so- called enhanced interrogation techniques on only the most hardened and dangerous terrorists.

But as Professor Darius Rejali writes in his book ``Torture and Democracy,'' ``To think professionalism is a guard against causing excessive pain is an illusion. Instead, torture breaks down professionalism'' and corrupts the organizations that use it.

This is exactly what happened with the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Without proper acknowledgement of these truths by the CIA and the White House, it could well happen again.

In light of the President's early Executive order disavowing torture, his own recent acknowledgement that ``we tortured some folks'' and the Assistant Secretary of State Malinowski's statements last month to the U.N. Committee Against Torture that ``we hope to lead by example'' in correcting our mistakes, one would think this administration is leading the efforts to right the wrongs of the past and ensure the American people learn the truth about the CIA's torture program. Not so.

In fact, it has been nearly a 6-year struggle--in a Democratic administration no less--to get this study out. Why has it been so hard for this document to finally see the light of day? Why have we had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way? The answer is simple: Because the study says things that former and current CIA and other government officials don't want the American public to know. For a while I worried that this administration would succeed in keeping this study entirely under wraps.

While the study clearly shows that the CIA's detention and interrogation program itself was deeply flawed, the deeper, more endemic problem lies in the CIA, assisted by a White House that continues to try to cover up the truth. It is this deeper problem that illustrates the challenge we face today: reforming an agency that refuses to even acknowledge what it has done. This is a continuing challenge that the CIA's oversight committees need to take on in a bipartisan way. Those who criticize the committee's study for overly focusing on the past should understand that its findings directly relate to how the CIA operates today.

For an example of how the CIA has repeated its same past mistakes in more recent years, look at the section of the executive summary released yesterday that deals with the intelligence on the courier that led to Osama bin Laden. That operation took place under this administration in May of 2011. After it was over, the CIA coordinated to provide misinformation to the White House and its oversight committees suggesting the CIA torture program was the tipoff information for the courier. That is 100 percent wrong and signifies the Agency leadership's persistent and entrenched culture of misrepresenting the truth to Congress and the American people. This example also illustrates again the dangers of not reckoning with the past. So while I agree with my colleagues on the committee who argue that doing oversight in real time is critical, I believe we cannot turn a blind eye to the past when the same problems are staring us in the face in the present. Oversight by willful ignorance is not oversight at all.

In Chairman Feinstein's landmark floor speech earlier this year, she laid out how the CIA pushed back on our committee's oversight efforts. Thanks to her speech, we know about the history of the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes and about what motivated her and her colleagues to begin the broader committee study in 2009. We know about the CIA's insistence on providing documents to the committee in a CIA-leased facility and the millions of dollars the CIA spent on contractors hired to read, multiple times, each of the 6 million pages of documents produced before providing them to the committee staff. We know about the nearly 1,000 documents that the CIA electronically removed from the committee's dedicated database on two occasions in 2010, which the CIA claimed its personnel did at the direction of the White House. Of course we know about the Panetta review.

I turn to the Panetta review. I have provided more information on the events that led up to the revelation included in the Panetta review in a set of additional views that I submitted for the committee's executive summary, but I will summarize them.

From the beginning of his term as CIA Director, John Brennan was openly hostile toward and dismissive of the committee's oversight and its efforts to review the detention and interrogation program. During his confirmation hearing, I obtained a promise from John Brennan that he would meet with committee staff on the study once confirmed. After his confirmation, he changed his mind.

In December 2012, when the classified study was approved in a bipartisan vote, the committee asked the White House to coordinate any executive branch comments prior to declassification. The White House provided no comment. Instead, the CIA responded for the executive branch nearly 7 months later, on June 27, 2013.

The CIA's formal response to the study under Director Brennan clings to false narratives about the CIA's effectiveness when it comes to the CIA's detention and interrogation program. It includes many factual inaccuracies, defends the use of torture, and attacks the committee's oversight and findings. I believe its flippant and dismissive tone represents the CIA's approach to oversight--and the White House's willingness to let the CIA do whatever it likes--even if its efforts are armed at actively undermining the President's stated policies.

It would be a significant disservice to let the Brennan response speak for the CIA. Thankfully, it does not have to. There are some CIA officials and officers willing to tell it straight. In late 2013, then- CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston answered a series of questions that I asked about his thoughts on the Brennan response as part of his Armed Services Committee nomination hearing to be General Counsel of the Defense Department.

His answers to the questions about the program contrasted sharply with the Brennan response. For instance, he stated matter of factly that from his review of the facts, the CIA provided the committee with inaccurate information regarding the detention and interrogation program. I have posted on line my questions to Mr. Preston, along with his answers.

Stephen Preston was not alone in having the moral courage to speak frankly and truthfully about the CIA's

torture program. There were also other CIA officers willing to document the truth. In March 2009, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta announced the formation of a Director's review group to look at the agency's detention and interrogation program. As he stated at the time, ``The safety of the American people depends on our ability to learn lessons from the past while staying focused on the threats of today and tomorrow.''

The Director's review group looked at the same CIA documents that were being provided to our committee. They produced a series of documents that became the Panetta review. As I discussed in late 2013, the Panetta review corroborates many of the significant findings of the committee's study. Moreover, the Panetta review frankly acknowledges significant problems and errors made in the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Many of these same errors are denied or minimized in the Brennan response.

As Chairman Feinstein so eloquently outlined in her floor speech on March 11 of this year, drafts of the Panetta review have been provided by the CIA unknowingly to our committee staff years before within the 6 million pages of documents it had provided.

So when the committee received the Brennan response, I expected a recognition of errors and a clear plan to ensure that the mistakes identified would not be repeated again. Instead--this is a crucial point--instead, the CIA continued not only to defend the program and deny any wrongdoing but also to deny its own conclusions to the contrary found in the Panetta review.

In light of those clear factual disparities between the Brennan response and the Panetta review, committee staff grew concerned that the CIA was knowingly providing inaccurate information to the committee in the present day, which is a serious offense, and a deeply troubling matter for the committee, the Congress, the White House, and our country.

The Panetta review was evidence of that potential offense. So to preserve that evidence, committee staff securely transported a printed portion of the Panetta review from the CIA-leased facility to the committee's secure offices in the Senate. This was the proper and right thing to do, not only because of the seriousness of the potential crime, but also in light of the fact that the CIA had previously destroyed interrogation videotapes without authorization and over objections of officials in the Bush White House.

In my view, the Panetta review is a smoking gun. It raises fundamental questions about why a review the CIA conducted internally years ago and never provided to the committee is so different from the official Brennan response and so different from the public statements of former CIA officials. That is why I asked for a complete copy of the Panetta review at a December 2013 Intelligence Committee hearing.

Although the committee now has a portion of the review already in its possession, I believed then, as I do now, that it is important to make public its existence and to obtain a full copy of the report. That is why I am here today, to disclose some of its key findings and conclusions on the Senate floor for the public record, which fly directly in the face of claims made by senior CIA officials past and present.

For example, as I mentioned earlier, on a number of key matters, the Panetta review directly refutes information in the Brennan response. In the few instances in which the Brennan response acknowledges imprecision or mischaracterization relative to the detention interrogation program, the Panetta review is refreshingly free of excuses, qualifications, or caveats.

The Panetta review found that the CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Congress, the President, and the public on the efficacy of its coercive techniques. The Brennan response, in contrast, continues to insist the CIA's interrogations produced unique intelligence that saved lives. Yet the Panetta review identified dozens of documents that include inaccurate information used to justify the use of torture and indicates that the inaccuracies it identifies do not represent an exhaustive list. The Panetta review further describes how detainees provided intelligence prior to the use of torture against them.

It describes how the CIA, contrary to its own representations, often tortured detainees before trying any other approach. It describes how the CIA tortured detainees, even when less coercive methods were yielding intelligence. The Panetta review further identifies cases in which the CIA used coercive techniques when it had no basis for determining whether a detainee had critical intelligence at all.

In other words, CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they did not have intelligence, not because they thought they did. Again, while a small portion of this review is preserved in our committee spaces, I have requested the full document. Our request has been denied by Director Brennan. I will tell you, the Panetta review is much more than a ``summary'' and ``incomplete drafts,'' which is the way Mr. Brennan and former CIA officials have characterized it, in order to minimize its significance. I have reviewed this document. It is as significant and relevant as it gets.

The refusal to provide the full Panetta review and the refusal to acknowledge facts detailed in both the committee study and the Panetta review lead to one disturbing finding: Director Brennan and the CIA today are continuing to willfully provide inaccurate information and misrepresent the efficacy of torture. In other words, the CIA is lying. This is not a problem of the past but a problem that needs to be dealt with today.

Let me turn to the search of the Intelligence Committee's computers. Clearly the present leadership of the CIA agrees with me that the Panetta review is a smoking gun. That is the only explanation for the CIA's unauthorized search of the committee's dedicated computers in January. The CIA 's illegal search was conducted out of concern that the committee staff was provided with the Panetta review. It demonstrates how far the CIA will go to keep its secrets safe. Instead of asking the committee if it had access to the Panetta review, the CIA searched, without authorization or notification, the committee computers that the agency had agreed were off limits.

In so doing, the agency might have violated multiple provisions of the Constitution as well as Federal criminal statutes and Executive Order 12333.

More troubling, despite admitting behind closed doors to the committee that the CIA conducted the search, Director Brennan publicly referred to ``spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts.''

He even said such allegations of computer hacking were beyond ``the scope of reason.'' The CIA then made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice against the committee staff who were working on the study. Chairman Feinstein believed these actions were an effort to intimidate the committee staff, the very staff charged with CIA oversight. I strongly agree with her point of view.

The CIA's inspector general subsequently opened an investigation into the CIA's unauthorized search and found, contrary to Director Brennan's public protestations, that a number of CIA employees did, in fact, improperly access the committee's dedicated computers. The investigation found no basis for the criminal referral on the committee staff. The IG also found that the CIA personnel involved demonstrated a ``lack of candor'' about their activities to the inspector general.

However, only a 1-page unclassified summary of the IG's report is publicly available. The longer classified version was only provided briefly to Members when it was first released. I had to push hard to get the CIA to provide a copy for the committee to keep in its own records. Even the copy in committee records is restricted to committee members and only two staff members, not including my staff member.

After having reviewed the IG report myself again recently, I believe even more strongly that the full report should be declassified and publicly released, in part because Director Brennan still refuses to answer the committee's questions about the search.

In March, the committee voted unanimously to request responses from Director Brennan about the computer search. The chairman and vice chairman wrote a letter to Director Brennan, who promised a thorough response

to their questions after the Justice Department and CIA IG reviews were complete. The Chair and Vice Chair then wrote two more letters, to no avail. The Director has refused to answer any questions on this topic and has again deferred his answers, this time until after the CIA's internal accountability board review is completed, if it ever is.

So from March until December, for almost 9 months, Director Brennan has flat out refused to answer basic questions about the computer search; whether he suggested a search or approved it; if not, who did. He has refused to explain why the search was conducted, its legal basis, or whether he was even aware of the agreement between the committee and the CIA laying out protections of the committee's dedicated computer system. He has refused to say whether the computers were searched more than once, whether the CIA monitored committee staff at the CIA-leased facility, whether the agency ever entered the committee's secure room at the facility, and who at the CIA knew about the search both before and after it occurred.

I want to turn at this point to the White House. To date, there has been no accountability for the CIA's actions or for Director Brennan's failure of leadership. Despite the facts presented, the President has expressed full confidence in Director Brennan and demonstrated that trust by making no effort at all to rein him in.

The President stated it was not appropriate for him to weigh into these issues that exist between the committee and the CIA. As I said at the time, the committee should be able to do its oversight work consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers, without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it has and as it continues to do today. For the White House not to have recognized this principle and the gravity of the CIA's actions deeply troubles me today and continues to trouble me.

Far from being a disinterested observer in the committee-CIA battles, the White House has played a central role from the start. If former CIA Director Panetta's memoir is to be believed, the President was unhappy about Director Panetta's initial agreement in 2009 to allow staff access to operation cables and other sensitive documents about the torture program.

Assuming its accuracy, Mr. Panetta's account describes then- Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan and current Chief of Staff Denis McDonough--both of whom have been deeply involved in the study redaction process--as also deeply unhappy about this expanded oversight.

There are more questions that need answers about the role of the White House in the committee's study.

For example, there are the 9,400 documents that were withheld from the committee by the White House in the course of the review of the millions of documents, despite the fact that these documents are directly responsive to the committee's document request. The White House has never made a formal claim of executive privilege over the documents, yet it has failed to respond to the chairman's request to the documents or to compromise proposals she has offered to review a summary listing of them. When I asked CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston about the documents, he noted that ``the Agency has deferred to the White House and has not been substantially involved in subsequent discussions about the disposition of these documents.''

If the documents are privileged, the White House should assert that claim. But if they are not, White House officials need to explain why they pulled back documents that the CIA believed were relevant to the committee's investigation and responsive to our direct request.

The White House has not led on this issue in the manner we expected when we heard the President's campaign speeches in 2008 and read the Executive order he issued in January 2009. To CIA employees in April 2009, President Obama said:

What makes the United States special, and what makes you

special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold

our values and ideals even when it's hard--not just when it's

easy; even when we are afraid and under threat--not just when

it's expedient to do so. That's what makes us different.

This tough, principled talk set an important tone from the beginning of his Presidency. However, let's fast forward to this year, after so much has come to light about the CIA's barbaric programs, and President Obama's response was that we ``crossed a line'' as a nation and that ``hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.''

That is not good enough. We need to be better than that. There can be no coverup. There can be no excuses. If there is no moral leadership from the White House helping the public to understand that the CIA's torture program wasn't necessary and didn't save lives or disrupt terrorist plots, then what is to stop the next White House and CIA Director from supporting torture.

Finally, the White House has not led on transparency, as then Senator Obama promised in 2007. He said then this:

We'll protect sources and methods, but we won't use sources

and methods as pretexts to hide the truth. Our history

doesn't belong to Washington, it belongs to America.

In 2009 consistent with this promise, President Obama issued Executive Order 13526, which clarified that information should be classified to protect sources and methods but not to obscure key facts or cover up embarrassing or illegal acts.

But actions speak louder than words. This administration, like so many before, has released information only when forced to by a leak or by a court order or by an oversight committee.

The redactions to the committee's executive summary on the CIA's detention and interrogation program have been a case study in its refusal to be open. Despite requests that both the chairman and I made for the White House alone to lead the declassification process, it was given by the White House to the CIA--the same Agency that is the focus of this report. Predictably, the redacted version that came back to the committee in August obscured key facts and undermined key findings and conclusions of the study.

The CIA also included unnecessary redactions to previously acknowledged and otherwise unclassified information. Why? Presumably, to make it more difficult for the public to understand the study's findings. Content that the CIA has attempted to redact includes information in the official, declassified report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, other executive branch declassified official documents, information in books and speeches delivered by former CIA officers who were approved by the CIA's Publication Review Board, news articles, and other public reports.

It is true that through negotiations between the committee, the CIA, and the White House, many of these issues were resolved. However, at the end of the day, the White House and CIA would not agree to include any pseudonyms in the study to disguise the names of CIA officers. In 2009 the CIA and the committee had agreed to use CIA-provided pseudonyms for CIA officials, but in the summary's final version, the CIA insisted that even the pseudonyms should be redacted.

For an agency concerned about morale, this is the wrong approach to take, in my view. By making it less possible to follow a narrative threat throughout the summary, this approach effectively throws many CIA personnel under the bus. It tars all of the CIA personnel by making it appear that the CIA writ large was responsible for developing, implementing, and representing the truth about the CIA's detention and interrogation program. In fact, a small number of CIA officers were largely responsible.

Further, there is no question that the identities of undercover agents must be protected, but it is unprecedented for the CIA to demand--and the White House to agree--that every CIA officer's pseudonym in the study be blacked out. U.S. Government agencies have used pseudonyms to protect officers' identities in any number of past reports, including the 9/11 Commission report, the investigation of the Abu Ghraib detention facility, and the report of the Iran-Contra affair.

We asked the CIA to identify any influences in the summary wherein a CIA official mentioned by pseudonym would result in the outing of any CIA undercover officer, and they could not provide any such examples.

Why do I focus on this? The CIA's insistence on blacking out even the fake

names of its officers is problematic because the study is less readable and has lost some of its narrative thread.

But as the chairman has said, we will find ways to bridge that gap. The tougher problem to solve is how to ensure that this and future administrations follow President Obama's pledge not to use sources and methods as pretexts to hide the truth.

What needs to be done? Chairman Feinstein predicted in March--at the height of the frenzy over the CIA's spying on committee-dedicated computers--that ``our oversight will prevail,'' and generally speaking, it has. Much of the truth is out, thanks to the chairman's persistence and the dedicated staff involved in this effort. It is, indeed, a historic event.

But there is still no accountability, and despite Director Brennan's pledges to me in January 2013, there is still no correction of the public record of the inaccurate information the CIA has spread for years and continues to stand behind. The CIA has lied to its overseers and the public, destroyed and tried to hold back evidence, spied on the Senate, made false charges against our staff, and lied about torture and the results of torture. And no one has been held to account.

Torture just didn't happen, after all. Contrary to the President's recent statement, ``we'' didn't torture some folks. Real actual people engaged in torture. Some of these people are still employed by the CIA and the U.S. Government. There are, right now, people serving in high- level positions at the Agency who approved, directed or committed acts related to the CIA's detention and interrogation program. It is bad enough not to prosecute these officials, but to reward or promote them and risk the integrity of the U.S. Government to protect them is incomprehensible.

The President needs to purge his administration of high-level officials who were instrumental to the development and running of this program. He needs to force a cultural change at the CIA.

The President also should support legislation limiting interrogation to noncoercive techniques--to ensure that his own Executive order is codified and to prevent a future administration from developing its own torture program.

The President must ensure the Panetta review is declassified and publicly released.

The full 6,800-page study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program should be declassified and released.

There also needs to be accountability for the CIA spying on its oversight committee, and the CIA inspector general's report needs to be declassified and released to the public.

A key lesson I have learned from my experience with the study is the importance of the role of Congress in overseeing the intelligence community. It is always easier to accept what we are told at face value than it is to ask tough questions. If we rely on others to tell us what is behind their own curtain instead of taking a look for ourselves, we can't know for certain what is there.

This isn't at all to say that what the committee found in its study is a culture and behavior we should ascribe to all employees of the CIA or to the intelligence community. The intelligence community is made up of thousands of hard-working patriotic Americans. These women and men are consummate professionals who risk their lives every day to keep us safe and to provide the their best assessments regardless of political and policy considerations.

But it is incumbent on government leaders--it is incumbent on us--to live up to the dedication of these employees and to make them proud of the institutions they work for. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but as I have said before, for Director Brennan that means resigning. For the next CIA director that means immediately correcting the false record and instituting the necessary reforms to restore the CIA's reputation for integrity and analytical rigor.

The CIA cannot not be its best until it faces its serious and grievous mistakes of the detention and interrogation program. For President Obama, that means taking real action to live up to the pledges he made early in his Presidency.

Serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee for the past 4 years opened my eyes and gave me a much deeper appreciation of the importance of our role in the balancing of power in our great government. It also helped me understand that all Members of Congress, not only Intelligence Committee members, have an opportunity and an obligation to exercise their oversight powers.

Members who do not serve on the Intelligence Committee can ask to read classified documents, call for classified briefings, and submit classified questions.

This is my challenge today to the American people. Urge your Member of Congress to be engaged, to get classified briefings, and to help keep the intelligence community accountable. This is the only way that secret government and democracy can coexist.

We have so much to be proud of in our great Nation, and one of those matters of pride is our commitment to admit mistakes, correct past actions, and move forward knowing that we are made stronger when we refuse to be bound by the past.

We have always been a forward-looking Nation, but to be so we must be mindful of our own history. That is what this study is all about. So I have no doubt that we will emerge from a dark episode with our democracy strengthened and our future made brighter.

It has been an honor to serve on this committee, and I will miss doing its important work more than I can say.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is a historic day, as Senator Wyden made clear, Senator Feinstein, Senator Rockefeller, and many other Senators to follow.

Before I talk about my involvement in the efforts that were put forth to reach this day, I want to say to Senator Wyden, my good friend, you honor me with those comments. I want to acknowledge that when you are in a fight, it matters whom you are in the fight with. It has been my privilege and honor to fight on the side of transparency, on the side of protecting the Bill of Rights, and this has been a righteous cause. We are going to continue to work to find the right balance between privacy and security. As Ben Franklin famously implied, we can have both, but we don't end up with both if we set aside the Bill of Rights and those fundamental principles that are enshrined into the Bill of Rights. It has been my privilege to fight alongside you, and I wish you all the best. Yes, we westerners will stay in touch.

Turning back to the matter at hand, today, almost 6 years after the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to conduct a study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program and nearly 2 years after approving the report, the American people will finally know the truth about a very dark chapter in our Nation's history.

I had two goals at the beginning of this long process, and I still hold those two goals today. First, I have been committed to correcting the public record on the CIA's multiple misrepresentations to the American people, to other agencies, the executive branch, the White House, and to Congress.

Second, my goal has been to ensure that the truth comes out about the terrible acts committed in the name of the American people. Why? Because I want this to be our way of going forward, that neither the CIA nor any future administration repeats the grievous mistakes this important oversight work reveals.

This has been a careful and very deliberative process. We have compiled, drafted, redacted, and now released this report. It has been much harder than it needed to be. Senator Wyden and many others pointed it out.

It brings no joy to discuss the CIA's brutal and appalling use of torture or the unprecedented actions that some in the intelligence community and the administration have taken in order to cover up the truth. By releasing the Intelligence Committee's landmark report, we affirm that we are a nation that does not hide from its past but learns from it. An honest examination of our shortcomings is not a sign of weakness but of the strength of our great Republic.

We have made significant progress since the CIA first delivered its heavily--underline ``heavily''--redacted version of the executive summary to the committee in August. The report we released today cuts through the fog the CIA's redactions created and will give the American people a candid, brutal, and coherent account of the CIA's torture program.

As the chairman said earlier today, even when public tensions were high, our committee continued to work behind the scenes to successfully whittle down 400 instances of unnecessary redactions to just a few. We didn't make all the progress we wanted, and the redaction process was filled with unwarranted and completely unnecessary obstacles, but all told, after reviewing the final version, I believe our landmark report accomplishes the goals I laid out at the outset and tells the story that needs to be told. It also represents a significant and essential step toward restoring faith in the crucial role of Congress to conduct oversight of the intelligence community. Congressional oversight is important to all of government's activities, but it

is especially important to those parts of government that operate in secret, as the Church committee discovered decades ago.

The challenges the Church committee confronted four decades ago persists today--namely, how to ensure that those government actions which are necessarily conducted in secret are nonetheless conducted within the confines of the law.

The release of this executive summary is testament to the power of effective oversight and the determination of Chairman Feinstein and members of the committee to doggedly beat back obstacle after obstacle in order to reveal the truth to the American people. I have much more to say about these obstacles and about the critical importance of reforming an agency that refuses to even acknowledge what it has done. I will deliver those remarks soon. For now, I wish to congratulate the chairman and her staff on this very important achievement.

The document we are finally releasing today is the definitive history of what happened in the CIA's detention and interrogation program. We have always been a forward-looking nation, but to be so, we must be mindful of our own history. That is what this study is all about. That is why I have no doubt that we will emerge from this dark episode with our democracy strengthened and our future made even brighter.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to remember an upstanding Coloradan and accomplished mountaineer who passed away unexpectedly this year while doing what he was so passionate about: climbing. Mark Hesse was a man of exceptional character, exhibited a strong sense of adventure, and was a devoted admirer of nature; all of which are qualities of a true conservationist. He was an inspiration to many of us in the great State of Colorado.

Mark grew up in Colorado Springs, CO, where he became an Eagle Scout. Upon graduating from the University of Colorado at Boulder with a master's degree in special education and teaching, Mark took to traveling abroad in pursuit of climbing peaks around the world. In 1976, he became the first person to climb the completely vertical southeast face of Mount Asgard on Baffin Island. In 1986, he made the first ascent up the northeast buttress of Kangtega in Nepal, a prominent Himalayan peak with a summit of over 20,000 feet. These ascents, among countless others, inspired him to advocate for conservation and accomplish so much for Colorado's environment.

He is survived by Julie Asmuth, his wife of 30 years, his two daughters Hartley and Laurel, his mother Florence, brothers Jon, Paul, Phil, and sisters Anne Ness and Maria Hesse Vasey.

Mark was a loyal and devoted husband and father. He had a warm personality and a great sense of humor. He also had an amazing knack for turning ordinary outings into epic adventures, and thus was well known for adventure stories that seemed almost too absurd to be true. These qualities enabled him to inspire and educate his children and their peers, as well as the friends and colleagues he had through climbing and service projects he was part of. Mark was devoted to taking his family on trips to some of the most remote places possible, including the rainforests in South America and the ocean reefs of South East Asia. He believed in supporting ecotourism and educating himself and his family about different cultures and natural wonders of the world before they disappeared.

Mark loved the environment, believed in a higher standard for managing public spaces, and was committed to preserving the natural beauty of our great Nation. He received several distinguished awards for his work, such as the American Alpine Club's David Brower Award for Mountain Conservation in 1995, the Bob Marshall Champion of Wilderness Award presented by the U.S. Forest Service in 2005 and 2007, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Making a Difference National Volunteer Award for outstanding service on public lands in 2014. He was the co- founder and executive director of the Santa Fe Mountain Center from 1977 to 1980, the program director of the Southwest Outward Bound School, and co-founder of the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative Program. He worked with the Bureau of Land Management to preserve two popular climbing destinations: Shelf Road and Penitente Canyon. Perhaps most notably, Mark founded the Rocky Mountain Field Institute in 1982, which has engaged more than 16,000 volunteers to contribute 200,000 hours to public land stewardship projects. These efforts amounted to more than $4 million in on-the-ground restoration efforts.

One of Mark's final projects, and a dream he had been nurturing for many years, was to create a hot-shot trail crew with high-end rock working skills that could build climbing access trails in the steep, rocky, and unstable terrain where climbers travel. At the time of his passing, Mark was collaborating with the Boulder Climbing Community and the Access Fund, two non-profits based in Boulder, to develop the Front Range Climbing Stewards trail crew. The project moved forward, inspired by Mark's lifetime of work, and in 2014 the trail crew performed more than $120,000 worth of work, in both Eldorado Canyon and the Flatirons, including the spectacular rebuild of the iconic Royal Arch Trail that was destroyed in the flood of 2013.

Colorado lost an irreplaceable individual with the passing of Mark Hesse. I, along with many others, have lost a respected leader, visionary, and friend. Let his life be a reminder of what every American is capable of accomplishing.

I ask that my colleagues join me in remembering Mark Hesse for his passion for the outdoors, his vast wealth of experiences, and his leadership in showing us how to be good stewards of our public lands.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the four national winners of the U.S. Professor of the Year Award. Since 1981, this program has recognized outstanding undergraduate instructors throughout the country. A U.S. Professor of the Year was also recognized in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

This award is hailed as one of the most prestigious honors bestowed upon a professor. To be nominated for this award requires dedication to the art of education and excellence in every aspect of the profession. There is no doubt that professors who personally vest themselves in each student shape the leaders of tomorrow. These individuals should be proud of their accomplishments and contributions to a brighter future.

I am particularly proud of Dr. Branislav Notaros, the State winner from Colorado. As a professor of electrical and computer engineering and Director of the Electromagnetics Laboratory at Colorado State University, Dr. Notaros' research has been instrumental in advancing the field of electromagnetics. He has won numerous awards in recognition of his work, including the 2005 IEEE Microwave Prize and the 2009 CSU Excellence in Teaching Award.

I commend and thank Dr. Notaros and all the winners for their leadership and passion for educating our nation's young leaders. No doubt they have inspired an untold number of students. I wish all of the honorees the very best in all their endeavors. Congratulations and best regards.

The four national award winners are: Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor of the Year: Laurie Grobman, Professor of English and Women's Studies, Pennsylvania State University Berks; Outstanding Community Colleges Professor of the Year: John Wadach, Professor of Engineering Science and Physics, Monroe Community College; Outstanding Doctoral and Research Universities Professor of the Year: Sheri Sheppard, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University and Outstanding Master's Universities and Colleges Professor of the Year: Patricia H. Kelley, Professor of Geology, University of North Carolina Wilmington.

The 30 state and District of Columbia winners are:

Alabama--Eric J. Fournier, Professor of Geography, Samford

University;

Arizona--James Sousa, Mathematics Instructor, Phoenix

College;

California--Mitch Malachowski, Professor of Chemistry,

University of San Diego;

Colorado--Branislav M. Notaros, Professor of Electrical and

Computer Engineering, Colorado State University;

Connecticut--Hisae Kobayashi, Senior Lecturer in Japanese,

Connecticut College;

District of Columbia--Heidi Elmendorf, Associate Professor

of Biology, Georgetown University;

Delaware--Beth Morling, Professor of Psychological and

Brain Sciences, University of Delaware;

Florida--Rosany H. Alvarez, Mathematics Professor, Miami

Dade College;

Georgia--John A. Knox, Associate Professor and

Undergraduate Coordinator, Department of Geography,

University of Georgia;

Idaho--Karen Launchbaugh, Professor of Rangeland Ecology,

University of Idaho;

Illinois--Dan Gebo, Professor of Anthropology, Northern

Illinois University;

Indiana--Michelle A. Whaley, Teaching Professor, Biological

Sciences, University of Notre Dame;

Kentucky--Cindy S. Tucker, Associate Professor, Computer

and Information Technologies, Bluegrass Community and

Technical College;

Maryland--KenYatta Rogers, Professor of Theatre, Montgomery

College Rockville Campus;

Massachusetts--Beth McGinnis-Cavanaugh, Professor of

Physics and Civil Engineering Technology, Springfield

Technical Community College;

Michigan--Cynthia Wade, Math Professor, St. Clair County

Community College;

Minnesota--Kyja Kristjansson-Nelson, Professor of Film,

Minnesota State University Moorhead;

Mississippi--Kenneth Sufka, Professor of Psychology and

Pharmacology, University of Mississippi;

Missouri--Andrea Nichols, Professor of Sociology, St. Louis

Community College at Forest Park;

Nebraska--Greg W. Zacharias, Professor of English and

Director, Center for Henry James Studies, Creighton

University;

New Jersey--Darrin M. York, Professor of Chemistry,

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey;

New York--Cynthia Jones, Lecturer, English Department,

Hostos Community College of The City University of New York;

North Carolina--Karen Hornsby, Associate Professor of

Philosophy, North Carolina A&T State University;

Ohio--Elizabeth George, Professor of Physics, Wittenberg

University;

Oregon--Jennifer Corpus, Professor of Psychology, Reed

College;

Pennsylvania--Richard L. Wallace, Professor of

Environmental Studies, Ursinus College;

South Carolina--Milind N. Kunchur, Professor, Department of

Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina;

Texas--Collin Thomas, Professor of Biology, Collin College;

Virginia--Paul Hanstedt, Professor of English, Roanoke

College;

West Virginia--Kateryna A.R. Schray, Professor, Department

of English, Marshall University; and

Wisconsin, Scott Cooper, Professor of Biology and Director

of Undergraduate Research and Creativity, University of

Wisconsin--La Crosse.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 35th anniversary of the Latino Chamber of Commerce of Pueblo and its history of serving Latino-owned businesses in Pueblo County, CO. Created in 1979 by an influential group of Pueblo businessmen, the Latino chamber was organized to harness the Pueblo Latino community's significant economic force.

Demonstrating vast community representation, the Latino chamber's 35 inaugural members included influential local leaders such as Judge Joe Ulibarri, Dr. Tom Autobee, Dr. Thomas Duran, Dr. Joe Roybal and Victor Tony Navarro. This diverse and respected initial membership consisted of architects, attorneys, business owners, medical professionals and others.

Since 1979, the Latino chamber has expanded in big ways. With nearly 1,000 members today, the Latino chamber is a respected, dynamic business organization in the area. Its resources and expertise help the organization serve as a launching pad for Latino leaders. Willing and eager to respond to its community's challenges, the Latino chamber played instrumental roles in the development of the Pueblo Hispanic Education Foundation, the El Pueblo Inter-development Corporation, the Southern Colorado International Trade Center and the Human Relations Commission.

Moreover, the Latino chamber has developed longstanding and successful collaborative relationships with state and federal entities, as well as with the Greater Pueblo chamber and the Pueblo Economic Development Corporation. In addition, it established the Latino Chamber Development Corporation Foundation in 1997 to advocate and promote leadership development in Pueblo with an emphasis on the Latino community.

The Latino Chamber of Commerce of Pueblo has spent 35 years advocating for small businesses, networking its partnerships, developing members professionally and growing alongside its community. Pueblo--and the State of Colorado--are truly fortunate to have such a world-class organization to assist businesses and build our economy. On behalf of Pueblo and all of Colorado congratulations, and thank you to the Latino Chamber of Commerce of Pueblo and its board members. You have left a lasting legacy that will continue to help the community for generations to come.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking the Senator from Oregon. He has been a true leader in the Senate for many years and I know the Senator from New Mexico joins me in thanking him for his leadership and for his partnership.

I rise--as Senator Wyden has to celebrate the public lands of his State of Oregon--to celebrate the public lands of Colorado. I make the point right out of the gate that our public lands support thousands of jobs across Colorado and they strengthen our special way of life.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Wilderness Act. Both of these incredibly successful laws have been instrumental in protecting our public lands for future generations, growing our outdoor recreation economy, and ensuring access to public lands in Colorado and all across the country.

In sum, what I am saying is these landmark laws have touched every corner of Colorado over the past 50 years.

I am very pleased in that spirit to join Senator Wyden and Senator Sessions in submitting a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.

From the snowcapped peaks of the Eagles Nest Wilderness and the desert arches of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, to James Peak-- which I worked hard to establish--the Wilderness Act has protected more than 3.6 million acres in Colorado alone. These places have inspired generations of Coloradans and remind us that we don't inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.

Let me turn to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 1964, some 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson worked with the Congress to establish LWCF--the acronym for the Land and Water Conservation Fund-- to fulfill a basic promise to the American people.

That promise is, as we develop our oil and gas resources, we will also conserve other special places throughout our country for the next generations.

As we mark 50 years of the program, we can tangibly see, feel, and breathe its success in the 3 million acres LWCF has helped us to preserve as part of 40,000 local park and recreation development projects across all 50 States, as

well as over 4 million acres of public lands managed by the Federal Government.

In Colorado we have seen firsthand how LWCF dollars have helped protect access to the public lands that help define us as a State.

From my position as chairman of the national parks subcommittee, I have seen how these funds have been particularly useful to our parks.

After all, there is no better example than the creation of Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado. This magnificent place was protected by LWCF appropriations that were obtained with very strong local support. Great Sand Dunes National Park protects one of our Nation's great landmarks and is also a critical source of tourist dollars for the surrounding rural communities, and this economic boost is something we have seen all across our State and our Nation.

It is noteworthy that for every dollar coming out of the LWCF fund, we see four times that much created in economic value--$1 equals $4 in economic value--and this investment through the LWCF program is part of the reason we have seen strong growth in America's outdoor recreation industry. When I say the outdoor recreation industry, that is activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, skiing, biking--you name it--and those activities have generated over $13 billion. That supports over 124,000 jobs in Colorado alone.

In another vein, LWCF resources have helped States such as ours become more resilient when it comes to national disasters. Last weekend I was in Lyons, CO, one of the towns hardest hit by Colorado's historic 2013 floods. This photograph is one of numerous examples of what we faced for about 3 days last fall a year ago.

Trout Unlimited has shared a story of how LWCF funds were used to help recover from a similar flood in the neighboring Big Thompson Canyon 30 years ago. Back in 1976 local officials had the foresight to make an LWCF purchase of 80 flooded properties and to replace the damaged homes with new parkland which then provided fishing access to the community and critical floodplain protection. That $1 million investment in 1976 helped families who had lost their homes then and avoided an estimated $16 million in property damages in 2013 that would have happened without those preservation efforts.

The Big Thompson Canyon flooded in a similar fashion last year as it did in 1976, but because of the LWCF moneys and the fact that 80 flooded properties were purchased, there weren't buildings and there wasn't human activity in those areas, and we saw the result. It was a way to rebuild smarter and better in 1976, and we are going to do that going forward from 2013's flood.

As a part of that, I was really excited and pleased to hear that the town of Lyons recently received $350,000 of LWCF funding to repair and rebuild the spectacular St. Vrain River corridor trail. Before that trail was destroyed last fall in the flood, it had been used as a regional connector for anglers, cyclists, kayakers, mountain bikers, and many others. This project will now help restore a vital economic asset for the community, and it will ensure access to the river and the river corridor for many generations to come. That is a success story, pure and simple.

LWCF has helped in many other less obvious ways. As we fight to get our kids--and ourselves--to spend less time in front of the television, outdoor recreation is still the best way to stay physically fit and active and emotionally healthy.

This past July I rafted the Browns Canyon Wilderness Study Area of the Arkansas River. You can see here what a spectacular and unique place Browns Canyon is--an area I have proposed to preserve permanently as the Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness. Along on that rafting trip we had a group of veterans, and several of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, as we know it. They told me how they use their time outdoors as a part of their healing--again, a success story.

How do we keep LWCF strong? Even though LWCF has been successful by any measure, while enjoying strong bipartisan support, the program has only been fully funded two times since its enacting law in 1964 promised $900 million in annual funding. That is right--only two times out of the last 50 years. LWCF is a victim of the uncertainty of the annual appropriations cycle, which leaves a huge unmet need in Colorado and across our country. That is why I have been fighting--joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--for full, permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am very pleased to be working with Senator Wyden, Senator Heinrich, and others on a fix that would fulfill the LWCF promise. This is a promise to our kids, our grandkids, and all generations down the line, and we have an obligation to keep it.

The good news is that this potential fix would also reauthorize and fund two other programs that are critical to our rural communities: the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which is also known as PILT, and Secure Rural Schools. I will talk briefly about both of those programs.

For decades the PILT Program has provided critical funding to nearly 1,900 rural counties to make up for diminished tax revenues stemming from Federal land ownership within those county boundaries. PILT helps ensure rural communities have access to basic services such as law enforcement, education, and health services.

Let me share an example. Ouray County in southwestern Colorado is still recovering from the recent economic downturn and the corresponding 36 percent drop in property tax collection. The county has already cut staff time significantly by reducing county operations to only 4 days a week. Without PILT, that would drop to just 3 days a week. PILT also ensures that the county can hire a sheriff and that students can get to school.

Unfortunately, permanent funding for this program expired, and PILT now experiences the uncertainty of short-term fixes, creating significant planning challenges for Colorado and rural Americans. I was proud to lead the effort last year to extend PILT funding through the farm bill, which delivered $34.5 million to Colorado communities. But here in the Congress we have to do more. We have to confront this annual uncertainty over the future of the PILT Program. That is why I have championed a separate bill to permanently fund PILT. This is also a bipartisan effort, and it is why I have worked with Senator Wyden to include such certainty in this comprehensive bill today.

I mentioned the Secure Rural Schools Program, and the same could be said of it. Rural Colorado communities rely on the Secure Rural Schools Program to hire teachers and strengthen our education system. In 2013 alone Colorado communities--where one teacher can make or break a school--received $9.5 million through this vital program. So this important bill for our Secure Rural Schools Program would ensure that the Federal Government keeps its commitment to our rural counties to help offset the costs of public education, roads, and other essential services.

We have a dynamic trio of very important programs: LWCF, PILT, and Secure Rural Schools. They help support Colorado's rural communities and our special way of life.

I will conclude with this theme. We are a nation of risk-takers and explorers, always searching for the next challenge to overcome or the next mountain to climb. Our public lands are a reminder of that heritage, and finding the right balance for how to use our public lands is the next challenge to overcome. As we tackle problems such as growing our economy, disaster response, and taking care of our wounded warriors, let's not forget the important role of our public lands and the opportunities they provide for outdoor recreation, our economy, and our health. This year, let's reflect on what President Kennedy called ``intelligent use of natural resources.'' Let's celebrate 50 years of the Land and Water Conservation Fund with bipartisan action for full and permanent funding for LWCF, PILT, and Secure Rural Schools.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to mark the 225th anniversary of the United States Marshals Service. As America's oldest law enforcement agency, the U.S. Marshals Service has played a unique role in our history, serving our Nation in a variety of ways since 1789. In their 225 years of service, U.S. Marshals have been responsible for protecting the Federal judicial process, securing Federal facilities, and ensuring the safety of court officials: U.S. Marshals are also tasked with a number of law enforcement activities that keep our Nation safe and our judicial proceedings secure on a daily basis.

Operating in over 94 Federal court districts, U.S. Marshals serve with nearly 4,000 Deputy U.S. Marshals and criminal investigators to form the backbone of the agency. All of these individuals have provided a great service to our Nation by carrying out the dangerous and extraordinary missions asked of them by Congress, the President, and Governors.

The first U.S. Marshal for the Colorado Territory was appointed by President Lincoln and began his service on March 25, 1861. Today, the men and women of the U.S. Marshals Service for the District of Colorado maintain their core mission to serve and protect our Federal judiciary. In doing so, the Marshals ensure the survival of one of our Nation's most fundamental democratic principles--the Rule of Law. Marshals continually work together with other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to create safer cities and communities around the Nation.

On this anniversary, we must not forget to honor those Marshals who sacrificed their lives in pursuit of justice, integrity, and service. Their legacy of bravery continues with U.S. Marshals serving today. It is my privilege to mark this 225 year milestone with these outstanding and noble Americans. We are greatly indebted to all U.S. Marshals for their service to our Nation.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of a critical issue for Coloradans; that is, fighting, mitigating, and recovering from wildfire. Recent history has shown my State that there is no greater threat to our communities, water supplies, and our special way of life than wildfire. Successive megafires over the past few years have broken records faster than they can be written down.

Even today's flash floods in recently burned areas are a reminder that after the embers of wildfires have cooled, their destruction lingers for months and years. I used to joke that Coloradans were strong and prepared for anything, come hell or high water. But I had no idea that the past several years would bring both, with modern

megafires and floods devastating thousands of households and businesses. We have endured these tests, and we have communities all over the State, such as Black Forest, that are rebuilding. But these recent disasters and the fires burning today in Colorado, California, Washington, and across the West show that the status quo is unacceptable. The cost of inaction for homeowners and first responders alike is too high to not act. That is why I have come to the floor today to speak in favor of a few smart, bipartisan, and fiscally responsible bills that are in front of our Congress right now.

These bills, taken together, address wildfires in a comprehensive way by attacking the problem before, during, and after a fire. So if I might, I want to share some of the elements in these important pieces of legislation.

First, I want to focus on what we can do before a wildfire at the individual and community level to reduce risk. There are many studies, numerous studies, that single out the most important factor in protecting homes. That is, if you do mitigation work. You involve yourself with ignition-resistant construction techniques. You reduce hazardous fuels around your home.

That is one of the reasons I introduced the commonsense legislation that is entitled the Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013. It will help homeowners in communities better reduce the risk of wildfire damages upfront. I am very pleased that the bill is moving forward in a bipartisan fashion. I am working with Senator Inhofe as my Republican partner. In the House, two Members of our delegation from Colorado, Congressmen Polis and Tipton, have joined with their California colleagues to lead this bill through the House. That is what Coloradans expect from their elected representatives, collaboration for the good of our State and country.

This bill is a game changer, not just in my State but across fire- prone communities in the West and increasingly in other parts of our country, the upper Midwest, the Northeast, Florida. You name it, wildfire has continued to be a threat more broadly across our country.

What this act will do, the Wildfire Prevention Act, is it will allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to provide hazard mitigation grants to States and localities to implement these mitigation projects. These mitigation projects will help put Colorado communities and public lands managers on the offensive. We put our communities and our public lands managers in front of the threat of megafires. We can head them off before they even start. It is an idea that came from Colorado. It is more than just a commonsense idea; it is a fiscally responsible approach to dealing with the threat of wildfire.

Why do I say that? Well, studies show that for every dollar you put on hazard mitigation upfront, it saves an average of $4 down the line if you have to fight a fire. For that reason, and the other ones I mentioned, I am going to keep doing everything I possibly can to move this bipartisan bill to the President's desk this year.

The second point I want to make and discuss with colleagues is that we must fundamentally change and modernize how the Federal Government funds wildfire-suppression operations. That is another way of saying fighting fires, wildfire-suppression operations. The rising severity of modern fires has caused land management agencies to divert resources away from the critical fire prevention efforts I just described to fight fires that are already burning. This is a vicious self- perpetuating cycle that is called ``fire borrowing,'' which then only increases the risk of catastrophic fires later.

It is a backwards way of budgeting. It is classic robbing Peter to pay Paul and leaves us all to bear much larger costs, most notably our communities in Colorado. That is why I joined Senators Wyden and Crapo on their bipartisan bill that would finally separate wildfires like other natural disasters and help make sure that we are not fighting fires that could have been prevented. This is a sensible approach for many reasons. It has been cosponsored by 120 Members of Congress in the House and the Senate. It has been endorsed by over 150 groups, ranging from the timber industry, to the environmental community. That speaks volumes about the utility of this and the broad support, obviously.

My hometown State newspaper, the Denver Post, put it this way earlier this month, ``Using disaster fund money for wildfires could solve a lot of problems long-term, and we hope Congress sees it that way.'' I also hope my colleagues see it that way. If we are serious here about helping prevent future wildfires and reducing the threats to lives and property, we all join together and pass this legislation.

Proper wildfire budgeting and the use of disaster relief funds would help break this vicious cycle of fire borrowing and allow our natural resource agencies to manage healthy forests, instead of fighting megafires. I have the great privilege of chairing on the energy committee, which the Presiding Officer serves on, the National Parks Subcommittee. I know all too well the problems this bill could solve. If we adopted this measure, this new way of wildfire budgeting, we could ensure that the resources are available for our national forest supervisors to reduce hazardous fuels, provide quality recreation experiences, and provide the timber supply to sustain a diverse forest products industry. It would be there for the uses we need them to be there for.

We could do this also while upgrading our safe, modern air tanker fleet in such a way that would keep our communities and firefighters safe. So this legislation I just described is in the emergency supplemental appropriations measure before the Senate here today. We really need to pass it. It is crucial. It is an opportunity we have to grab. In the supplemental appropriations act before this body, there is $615 million to prevent fire borrowing this year, get resources on the ground fighting these blazes, and help our resource agencies plan unto the future.

I know House Appropriations Chairman Rogers. The Presiding Officer and I both know Chairman Rogers. He did say that he did not include wildfire funding in their supplemental because, in his words, ``there is no urgency for such money.'' I have to respectfully disagree with my friend Chairman Rogers. I know Coloradans, as well as people in Washington State, California, and many States across the West would not only disagree, they would strenuously disagree. I would invite Chairman Rogers to come out to the West and see firsthand how urgent the situation is for our communities.

Let me finish with a couple of remarks about other elements in this supplemental.

My colleague Senator Blunt from Missouri, just spoke of the Iron Dome system. The supplemental includes emergency funding for Israel's Iron Dome system. It has intercepted hundreds of Hamas rockets targeting civilian areas over the last several weeks. It has literally been a lifesaver for our Israeli allies many times over.

I chair the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has responsibility for the Iron Dome and working with Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces. I heard today from an Israeli who said the system is miraculous. As Hamas continues to rain rockets down, we need to ensure that this system continues to protect our friends and allies in Israel.

Finally, this supplemental includes critical resources to help address the root causes that have led to the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. So, in summary, I am glad we have moved forward on debating this crucial supplemental appropriations bill. Let's move to an up-or-down vote as soon as we possibly can. This is a timely debate. Passage of this bill is too important to allow partisan gridlock to interfere. So let's come together, let's show the American people we can meet our obligations and rise above partisanship.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding military service of a group of incredible Coloradans. At critical times in our Nation's history, these veterans each played a role in defending the world from tyranny, truly earning their reputation as guardians of peace and democracy through their service and sacrifice. Now, thanks to Honor Flight, these combat veterans came to Washington, DC to visit the national memorials built to honor those who served and those who fell. They've also come to share their experiences with later generations and to pay tribute to those who gave their lives. I am proud to welcome them here, and I join with all Coloradans in thanking them for all they have done for us.

I also want to thank the volunteers from Honor Flight of Northern Colorado who made this trip possible. These volunteers are great Coloradans in their own right, and their mission to bring our veterans to Washington, DC is truly commendable.

I wish to publicly recognize the veterans who visited our Nation's capital, many seeing for the first time the memorials built as a tribute to their selfless service. Today, I honor these Colorado veterans on their visit to Washington, DC, and I join them in paying tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty.

Veterans from World War II include: Norlin Akers, Joseph Arthur, Donald Carlstrom, William Culp, Robert Davidson, Victor Ebel, Reginold Edwards, Arthur Engler, John Eschbaugh, Daniel Flanagan, Anthony Gance, Robert Gittinger, Paul Glasgow, Gene Hansen, Dean Hecker, Henry Jesse, Benjamin Jones, Robert King, Virgil Kiser, Fred Knipschild, James McIver, Richard Minges, Jack Moss, Ronald Reidy, Robert Ryan, Herbert Shelton, J Spaulding, William Spearman, Charles Sutter, Howard Swartz, Arpad Szallar, Eugene Turnbull, William Worth, and George Zuniga.

Veterans from the Korean war include: Dean Amdahl, Alfred Apodaca, Jennings Barr, Earl Bartlow, Elmer Bartlow, James Beach, John Bergquist, Eugene Burmester, Larry Carpenter, Glenn Chapman, William Chrismer, Harl Clark, Leonard Cooper, Sr., LaVerne Dietz, Alfred Duchene, Emanuel Eckas, Thelma Eckas, Donald Eckert, Jessie Ellis, Edwin Ellstrom, Samuel Evans, Jr., Herman Friesenhahn, Henry Geisert, Paul Gill, Lloyd Gould, George Hare, Eugene Hemmerle, William Hock, Milton Hunholz, Willis Janssen, William King, Dean Kingcade, Wallace Kirchhoff, Lawrence Kopecky, Richard Kounovsky, John Kreman, Kenneth Lamp, Robert Larsen, Dennis Larson, Lawrence Lawler, James Lee, William Leppert, Murdo MacLennan, Philip Mahoney, Charles Markesbery, Gene Mitchell, Robert Nagel, Dale Nelson, George Niedermayr, Willard Nordick, Richard Ochsner, Gerald Pearson, Donald Piermattei, Reid Pope, Paul Shapard, Howard Smallwood, Richard Spaulding, Donald Sterling, Harold Sulzbach, Robert Swanstrom, Betty Taylor, John Waddell, Donald Webb, Louie Wells, Russel White, Norman Wikler, Egbert Womack, Jr., George Woodman, and James Yenter.

Veterans from the Vietnam war include: Jon Ackerman, Isidro Arroyo, Ronald Britton, Steven Drake, Vearlon Forbes, James Freeland, Jimmie Garcia, Kenneth Hedger, Kenneth Hollingshead, Kenneth Jacobsen, Mark Kauffman, Terry Keating, Robert Klausner, William Miller, William Ortega, Marvin Pruitt, Robert Taylor, and Gene Thim.

Our Nation asked a great deal of these individuals--to leave their families to fight in unknown lands and put their lives on the line. Each one of these Coloradans bravely answered the call. They served our country with courage, and in return, let us ensure they are shown the honor and appreciation they deserve. Please join me in thanking these Colorado veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Northern Colorado for their tremendous service.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a piece of commonsense legislation the Senate is preparing to consider this week. The bill, which is called the Bring Jobs Home Act, sets out to do just what that name implies--bring good-paying jobs back to America.

Our Tax Code has a fundamental flaw. Right now a U.S. company can decide to cut American jobs, move them overseas, and then claim those expenses as a tax deduction, thereby lowering the amount of taxes the company pays.

If a company decides to move 75 good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas, not only do we lose good American jobs, but taxpayers in Colorado and West Virginia and throughout the country are footing the bill for the cost of killing those jobs. American taxpayers literally get billed for the cost of shipping jobs overseas.

I don't think it is right to reward companies for cutting American jobs, and I don't think it is right to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of moving those jobs overseas. That is why I am cosponsoring the Bring Jobs Home Act in an effort to provide better incentives for U.S. businesses to bring good-paying jobs back to our country and keep them here. Our country is at its best when we produce here in America.

Simply put, the Bring Jobs Home Act is about looking out for the best interest of Coloradans and not the bottom lines of corporations that want to ship their jobs to places such as China and India.

What is best about this legislation is that not only would it end taxpayer subsidies for outsourcing, it would take the money that is saved and invest it in America by offering a 20-percent tax credit for businesses that decide to bring jobs back to the United States.

This legislation is one piece of a larger conversation Congress ought to have about what the Tax Code should look like in the 2lst century economy. What are the values it should reflect? What are the incentives it should provide? These are important questions we need to answer, and the Bring Jobs Home Act is an initial step to achieve fair and reasonable reform.

I have been a long-time proponent of tax reform to streamline and simplify the Federal Tax Code because I am convinced--as I believe the Presiding Officer is--that the certainty and predictability it will create will lead to job growth in our country.

Last week Colorado reported that its unemployment rate was 5.5 percent, the lowest since 2008. But we can do more, and this bill is one of the best places to start.

So let's join together and support this commonsense legislation so that we can reward companies that restore and create made-in-America jobs--jobs that shore up our economy and bolster our global competitiveness.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Gen. William L. Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force.

Over the course of his 38-year career in the U.S. Air Force, General Shelton has served with great distinction and made countless sacrifices for our country. I join with all Coloradans in commending his service, the sacrifices of his family--including his wife Linda and their two children, Sara and Joel--and I offer my great personal appreciation for his leadership and devotion to our Nation's security.

A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, General Shelton's selection as the commander of Air Force Space Command in January 2011 culminates a distinguished career that began in 1976 at the Space and Missile Test Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. In a career dedicated to the space enterprise, he commanded units at Falcon-Schriever, F.E. Warren, Offutt, Vandenberg, and Peterson Air Force Bases. He also provided valuable leadership and counsel to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Joint Staff during multiple headquarters U.S. Air Force assignments. His positive leadership had a direct and positive impact on countless men and women in our Armed Forces, and his legacy will benefit the United States and our space policy for generations to come.

Throughout his career, General Shelton has been a vigilant advocate for our national security space programs. As the commander of Air Force Space Command, he was responsible for organizing, training and equipping more than 40,000 military and civilian personnel to assure space and cyberspace capabilities for the combatant commands and for the Nation. While those capabilities clearly contribute to our military's technological and strategic superiority, they also have become essential in humanitarian and disaster relief efforts--and they are now vital assets for the global community and world economy. As a result of his leadership, the Air Force has established a truly impressive record of successful space launches while developing an acquisition regime that has led to greater mission assurance and simultaneous cost savings across the Department of Defense. Further, his vision of future space capabilities will position the military to provide resilient, capable, and affordable space operations for the joint forces and the Nation well into the future.

General Shelton established and sustained an unmatched level of success during a time of increasing challenges. He has worked closely with the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which I am proud to chair. It has been our great privilege to work with him. His frank and informed discussions of our space systems, including the global positioning satellite system, have helped leaders and citizens around the world appreciate the value and need to protect our Nation's foundational space capabilities. I am personally grateful for General Shelton's wise counsel and firm resolve to always do what is best for the Nation and for the airmen he has led. He is a leader of exceptional intellect, candor, and integrity, and his deeply held commitment to doing the right thing for the right reasons is clear to all who have been fortunate enough to work with him.

With nearly four decades of exemplary service to our Nation, Gen. William L. Shelton deserves our most heartfelt gratitude and praise. He and his family have my very best wishes for a long, happy, and well- deserved retirement. Our Nation and our Air Force are better for his leadership and distinguished service.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor every day this week to talk about my commonsense bill to keep corporate interference out of women's private health decisions.

On Monday when I was on the floor, I shared the concerns of a Denver- based OB/GYN who said that in light of the Supreme Court's split decision in the Hobby Lobby case, physicians might now have to consider an employer's religious beliefs when making a medical recommendation to ensure their patients are covered for very basic contraceptive treatments.

Yesterday I spoke about a Colorado mother whose college-aged daughter depended on contraception--prescribed by her doctor--to help her manage a debilitating health condition that often kept her from attending class. She told me that without that contraceptive coverage through her family's health plan, her daughter would not have had the coverage for a medically necessary treatment.

Women are sharing these stories with me every day. And Coloradans agree--they should not have to ask for a permission slip to be covered by the method of contraception that is best for them.

Women should be in charge of their health care, not their boss, and certainly not a corporation.

This week my colleague from Washington State and I called on our colleagues to join us in supporting our bill--the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act--or the ``Not My Boss's Business Act.'' Our bill is straightforward. It is common sense. It ensures that no boss can come between a woman and her access to affordable health care.

I thank my colleagues who have come to the Senate floor this week to highlight the importance of passing this bill. In just a few moments, we will be casting our votes as to whether we should bring this bill to the floor. So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can at least agree this is a debate worth having. It is a discussion I know women and men in every State are encouraging their representatives to have.

After bringing this legislation to the floor for a proper debate, if my colleagues then believe that this simple bill to keep a boss's religious beliefs from impacting access to essential health care for millions of American women is misguided, then they can vote against it.

Bosses have no business interfering in women's private health decisions. Women have asked us to act. Let's act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the repercussions of the Supreme Court's misguided Hobby Lobby decision which allows employers to refuse to cover contraception as a part of their employees' health plans under the false pretense that corporations can not only have religious beliefs but they can impose those beliefs on their employees.

Several days ago I was home in the great State of Colorado. I stood shoulder to shoulder with experts in women's health care who joined me to highlight how the Hobby Lobby decision is already negatively affecting women in our State.

One Denver-based OB-GYN explained how physicians might now have to consider an employer's religious beliefs when making medical recommendations. She said the Court's decision fundamentally interferes with health care decisions that should be based solely on a patient's well-being.

Because of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision, women across America are now facing the uncertainty that their bosses may restrict the health care benefits Federal law currently secures for them.

Birth control has been deemed an essential preventive health service by a nonpartisan independent group of doctors and other medical experts. Ninety-nine percent of American women have used birth control at some point in their lives. They use it for a variety of health reasons. In fact, just hours after Senator Murray and I introduced legislation in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, a Colorado mother called my office to share the story of how her college-age daughter was suffering from a health condition that was so debilitating that it kept her from attending class or really participating in any activities at school. As a result, her doctor prescribed a form of birth control that ended up managing her symptoms and getting her back on track. This Colorado mother wanted to make sure I knew that access to contraception is not just about birth control and that if her employer took away the contraception coverage in her family's health plan, her daughter would not have coverage for a medically necessary treatment.

Regardless of why women take birth control, none of those reasons have any connection to how they do their jobs. Their bosses have no business interfering in those decisions. But with the Court's ruling in Hobby Lobby, corporations and CEOs have been handed

the right to play the role of gatekeeper for what kind of health care employees and their families can access as a part of their health insurance plan. That is not acceptable to Coloradans.

I have heard the arguments from those who say the Supreme Court's decision narrowly protects religious freedom. I think we can all agree that where religious freedoms are being threatened, we as Americans have a duty to act swiftly to address it. But the fact is that actual religious institutions are already exempt from requirements that run contrary to their beliefs. Remember, the men and women who went to work for Hobby Lobby signed up to work at a craft store, not a religious organization.

This decision, in the words of Justice Ginsburg, is one of startling breadth. In the Hobby Lobby majority opinion, the Supreme Court said its decision only applied to ``closely held'' corporations, but up to 90 percent of American companies are considered closely held and over half of Americans work for a closely held company. To call this decision ``narrow'' is as wrong as the reasoning behind it.

Contrary to what supporters of the decision are saying, this is just not about contraceptives. We have been warned by legal experts, including Justice Ginsburg and the other three Justices who joined in her dissent, that this decision could lead to employers discriminating against women, minority groups, and others because a company's owner may object to any number of medications or procedures, such as vaccines or HIV treatment.

Just over 2 short weeks ago, before the Hobby Lobby decision, workers knew exactly what health services they had access to under their health plans. They did not need to be labor lawyers to figure out which benefits they would receive, which benefits they might be at risk of losing, or how much more they would have to pay out of pocket for prescription drugs or other critical health treatments. However, with the Hobby Lobby case, that has all changed.

Supporters of the Hobby Lobby decision want women to believe this is not a big deal. But let me be clear. This has the potential to change health coverage for millions of women. I am not--along with millions of Americans--going to stand for this kind of discrimination. I trust women to make their own health care decisions. I do not believe their employers should have a say in that. Through their hard work and insurance premiums, women have earned and already paid for coverage that includes copay-free contraception under Federal law. Health insurance is a part of their compensation packages. There is nothing free about it; they have earned it.

Not only does this case wedge bosses into private health care decisions, it unfairly burdens hard-working women, ignoring the fact that contraception can be crucial to women and families' economic success. The ability to decide when, how, and with whom to have a family is critical to the health and economic security of women and their families.

The Supreme Court even stated this in its opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. I wish to quote the Supreme Court from 1992:

The ability of women to participate equally in the economic

and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their

ability to control their reproductive lives.

That is what the Court said in 1992.

Today many employees are left wondering if that economic freedom is in jeopardy. Women are left to ask their bosses whether they will continue to cover their birth control--a topic of conversation which women should never be forced to bring up at work, an issue which is certainly not a boss's business.

Throughout my time in Congress I have long believed we all have the fundamental right to live our lives as we choose, free from needless intrusion, whether by the government, by bureaucrats, or by corporations and CEOs, and certainly free from intrusion by politicians. Indeed, a women should be free to make her own health decisions based on what is right for her and her family, not according to her employer's religious beliefs.

So the reason I am standing here today is to make very clear that this type of intrusion will not stand. I am proud to lead the effort with Senator Murray to ensure that employers cannot refuse to cover health services guaranteed to women under Federal law.

Our bill, the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act, would restore a woman's power to make personal health care decisions based on what is best for her and her family, free from corporate interference. I invite my colleagues of both parties to join this effort, and I thank my colleagues who will stand with Senator Murray and me this week to say: Women's health care is not your boss's business.

I yield the floor.