Floor Statements

Madam President, the principle of ``net neutrality'' to protect an open Internet has found its way into the public consciousness like few other regulatory issues that I have seen in my time in the Senate. Over 3.5 million Americans have submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, during its consideration of replacement net neutrality rules this year. The reason for this record-setting level of public engagement is simple: The net neutrality debate is fundamentally about how we want the Internet to operate. Millions of Americans have made their voices heard because they want an open and free Internet that works for everyone, not simply those with deep pockets. I could not agree more.

An Internet that is split into the haves and have-nots is unacceptable. That is why the FCC should enact clear and enforceable rules to prevent ``paid prioritization'' agreements that would allow some content providers to outbid smaller competitors to gain fast-lane service to customers online. At the same time, the country's leading broadband providers should unequivocally commit that they will not engage in this type of detrimental deal. We need meaningful pledges from our Nation's broadband providers that they share the American public's commitment to an Internet that remains open and equally accessible to all.

In October, I wrote to the major Internet service providers, ISPs-- Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, Verizon, and AT&T--asking them to make exactly that commitment. They all maintained that they do not currently plan to engage in paid prioritization--an assertion I welcome. What they did not do was answer my call for a firm commitment that they will never engage in that behavior in

the absence of clear rules prohibiting such deals.

This is disappointing. As Comcast noted in its letter, voluntary commitments from individual companies would not serve as a substitute for rules applicable to all broadband providers. Such pledges would, however, send a strong signal to the American people that broadband providers share their commitment to an open and equal Internet. It is unfortunate that these companies were unwilling to make that commitment--presumably because they know that if fast lanes are allowed in the future, market forces may drive them and other ISPs to consider such deals to maximize profits at the expense of competition online. This ``race to the bottom'' scenario is exactly why we need clear rules in place prohibiting such agreements. I appreciate that Comcast went further than the other ISPs by expressing support for my legislation with Representative Doris Matsui of California, which would require the FCC to ban paid prioritization agreements so that all ISPs are subject to such a rule.

The concern over a pay-to-play Internet that advantages the largest corporations over smaller players is very real. I was disappointed that some Internet service providers in their responses brushed aside these concerns dismissively. It is not ``demagoguery,'' as Verizon suggested in its response, when small business owners like Cabot Orton of the Vermont Country Store say that they simply want to see an Internet that continues to treat all businesses equally. It is not a ``phantasm'' when independent content creators like actress Ruth Livier acknowledge that they would not have been able to start their Web sites if they had to pay for priority access to reach viewers online or compete against players who did. These are real concerns, shared by millions of Americans. Their voices should not be casually and callously dismissed because they cannot afford to pay lobbyists to advocate on their behalf at the FCC.

The FCC is continuing its important work to craft new open Internet rules. For months, I have been clear that I will not support any rules that do not ban Internet fast lanes. I have spent much of this year listening to Vermonters and others to hear firsthand about how a pay- to-play world would harm the Internet ecosystem.

The responses to my letter highlight one element that unites all of those involved in the net neutrality debate--the need for certainty. Broadband providers understandably want to know the rules by which their actions will be governed, and consumers want certainty that their Internet service will continue to provide them unfettered access to lawful content online. Recently, some broadband providers like AT&T have threatened to stop investing in further innovation and deployment of broadband in the name of uncertainty. Of course, they could decide to provide certainty on issues like paid prioritization at any time regardless of the FCC's actions by making the pledge to consumers I have called on them to make.

I will continue my call for broadband providers to listen to their customers and pledge to never engage in paid prioritization. While they did not do so in response to my letters, it is never too late for them to make that commitment to the American people.

Madam President, there is no shortage of attorneys here in Washington, DC, but some of the most talented lawyers work in the Office of Legislative Counsel here in the Senate. Drafting legislation is often a complicated exercise. It takes years under the mentorship and tutelage of others to grasp the difficult process of drafting complicated bills. At the end of this Congress, after nearly 40 years of service, legislative counsel Jim Fransen will retire. His family's gain will be the Senate's loss.

Jim first joined the Office of Legislative Counsel in 1975--the same year Vermonters elected me to the Senate. He served as an assistant counsel and a senior counsel, rising to become the finance and tax team leader. For the last 15 years, he has served as legislative counsel. He is the second longest serving legislative counsel, and his career has seen many accomplishments.

Jim has been one of the key drafters of Federal tax legislation since joining the office in 1975. He has had a hand in drafting such monumental bills as the Tax Reform Acts of 1976 and 1986, the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He helped to draft the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and he was a key drafter of the most sweeping health reform legislation in generations, the Affordable Care Act.

Through Republican and Democratic administrations, Republican and Democratic Senate majorities, Jim has been a true public servant. I know in his retirement, he will enjoy spending time with his family: his wife Margaret, his three daughters and his two grandsons. Wherever his retirement travels may take him, Marcelle and I wish him the best.

Madam President, one of Vermont's most dedicated public employees, Brian Searles, is retiring after 45 years of service to both State and local government. As a police chief, city manager, airport director, and two tenures as the Vermont secretary of transportation, Brian is a model of commitment both to his work and to his State.

For the past 4 years Brian and his team at the Vermont Agency of Transportation have overseen vast improvements in the State's infrastructure. In 2008 nearly 20 percent of Vermont's bridges were structurally deficient. By 2013 that number was reduced to just 8 percent. Additionally, in 2008, 36 percent of Vermont's pavement was rated in ``very poor'' condition, but through his work and the support of Governor Shumlin, Brian and his team were able to improve that number to 21 percent. Brian has also remained committed to supporting Vermont's rail infrastructure, spending the time necessary to apply for and win Federal grants. This necessary funding allowed Vermont to realize the final stages of completing the Western Rail Corridor project designed to connect Rutland to Burlington, as well as upgrade track to complete high speed rail service between Saint Albans and Montreal. The success of these projects could not have happened without Brian's leadership.

Brian and I have tackled many projects together, always working to accomplish big goals for Vermont's transportation and infrastructure needs. In August of 2011, Tropical Storm Irene hit the State, wiping out 500 miles of roadway and forcing 33 bridges to close in Vermont's worst natural disaster in recent history. Brian helped to bring our rural devastation to a national stage by testifying before the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works and then led his team to successful rebuilding efforts. For this, Vermonters will always be grateful.

About a year ago, Brian approached Governor Shumlin with a resignation letter in his pocket. Looking at the wealth of knowledge and historic improvements in the agency's work during Brian's tenure, the Governor prevailed upon him to remain at the helm until the end of the Governor's second term. Brian accepted the call, finished the year, and is now leaving the Vermont Agency of Transportation as a well- respected arm of Vermont's State government.

Marcelle and I join all Vermonters in thanking Brian for his years of service to the State and wish him and his family the very best as they begin a new chapter of their lives.

Madam President, Vermont is a national leader in sustainable energy. Green Mountain Power, with its CEO and President Mary Powell at the helm, is the perfect example of the progress our State has made and should serve as an example for the rest of the Nation.

Mary was recently named the 2014 Power-Gen Woman of the Year. Mary is a leader and trailblazer in the power industry. She took the reins of Green Mountain Power, GMP, in 2008 and has transformed it into Vermont's ``energy company of the future.'' Mary is truly committed to the idea that energy can spur socioeconomic change for

Vermonters and strives to help people save money and move toward more renewable sources. Under her leadership, GMP has launched successful initiatives to improve the company's quality of service, through providing low carbon, low cost, and reliable power to Vermonters.

Recently, Mary led Green Mountain Power in becoming the first utility in the world to receive B corporation certification. B corporations use the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. Mary wants Green Mountain Power to not only be the best utility in the world but the best for the world.

Mary is among the very few women who have achieved this level of success in the utility industry. I am grateful for the work she has done for the State of Vermont. She is redefining success in the energy industry, and I congratulate her on receiving the 2014 Power-Gen Woman of the Year Award.

I ask unanimous consent that the Burlington Free Press article ``Mary Powell Named Woman of the Year'' recognizing Mary for her achievements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I have been in the Senate just a few weeks shy of 40 years. For the past 2 years I have had the distinct honor of serving this Chamber as the President pro tempore. Just four Senators from Vermont have held this title. I am the first in more than a century.

It has been among my greatest privileges to represent Vermont in the U.S. Senate, something I dreamed about as a child, and it has been day after day after day a privilege to represent my very special State of Vermont in this body.

It has also been an honor and privilege to serve as the President pro tempore in this institution, the U.S. Senate. This is an institution for which I will always have the greatest respect and affection.

When I assumed the position of President pro tempore, something I had not realized would happen, Marcelle and I welcomed into our family over time nearly 20 invaluable members of the U.S. Capitol Police. As President pro tempore and third in the line of succession, the office comes with a security detail. It is not something I had asked for. In fact, I said, well, I don't really need that, and they said: You don't get any choice in the matter.

I got to know them well. I had a background in law enforcement before I came to the Senate, but I have never served with such professionals as those who comprise this team. They sacrifice time at home. They sacrifice time with their families and weekends and holidays. I could not be more grateful for their dedication to public service and for their professionalism and good nature. They are an example of what the best in law enforcement should be.

The U.S. Capitol should be very proud of our U.S. Capitol Police and especially of those who are in this unique dignitary protection division. Those who serve on such details are trained to blend into the background. You might forget they are there, but they are, and they miss nothing. When I try to give them credit for the work they do, they say: Well, that is just our job. It is a lot more than their job. It is true professionalism and it is something that makes everybody in law enforcement and should make everybody in the U.S. Senate proud.

I want to recognize their commitment and acknowledge their service. The members of this detail include Sergeant David Ribb, Thomas Andriko, Henry Smith, Shane Powell, Eric Boggs, Robert Schultz, Antonio Carofano, Amy McDaniel, John Jastrzebski, Ryan Rayball, Ryan Andrews, Jay Schmid, Austin Reinshuttle, Sean Keating, Anthony Ravenel, Gideon Maran, John Brito, Luis Pimentel, Jose Ramirez, Jr., Robert Leh, James Melenson, Edward Wojciechowski, and Marc DesJames, who recently retired.

Next year when Congress reconvenes, we will elect a new President pro tempore, my friend Senator Orrin Hatch. I will continue as dean of the Senate, and a future President pro tempore emeritus. I wish Orrin Hatch the best, and I know he is going to be in safe hands with the dedicated members of the President pro tempore's security detail.

Again, having served in law enforcement, having considered that a very significant part of my career, I have never seen more professional police officers than these men and women. Every one of us as Senators should be glad they are there.

Madam President, on another matter, after 9 months of hearings and briefings, many long days and nights of negotiations, this past weekend the Appropriations Committee completed work on the fiscal year 2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act.

Earlier this year many of us came to the floor and praised Chairwoman Mikulski for her heroic efforts to pass the fiscal year 2014 omnibus. While many in Washington thought that feat could not be repeated 2 years in a row, as the most senior Member of the Appropriations Committee I knew she would prove them wrong, and she did. Chairwoman Mikulski rallied her 12 subcommittees and reached across the aisle to negotiate this omnibus and avoid another shutdown. Without her, this would not have been possible.

Similar to Chairwoman Mikulski, my friend Senator Shelby from Alabama, the committee's vice chairman, also deserves a great deal of praise for the role he played. Without Senator Shelby's recognition of the importance of passing appropriations bills rather than continuing to fund the government on autopilot, we would not have reached this point.

As chairman of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee, I also wish to thank the ranking member, Lindsey Graham, chairwoman Kay Granger, and ranking member Nita Lowey in the other body. They were always able partners, whose wealth of experience--I will emphasize that--wealth of experience is invaluable to the subcommittee's work, and it is reflected throughout the final agreement.

I look forward to working with the incoming subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham next year to continue to fund the diplomacy and foreign aid programs that are essential to protecting U.S. interests around the world in a manner that reflects American values.

The State, Foreign Operations portion of this omnibus was negotiated with the full participation of representatives of both parties in both Houses of Congress as a balanced, bipartisan bill. Every word was discussed and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats, and our respective subcommittee bills have been publicly available since they were reported out of committee in June.

My Democratic clerk of the subcommittee, Tim Rieser, made sure everybody in both parties were kept apprised of everything we did. I want to thank him, Janet Stormes and Alex Carnes of the Democratic staff, as well as Paul Grove, the Republican clerk, and Adam Yezerski of the Republican staff. They all played an essential role.

Others who were indispensable and deserve our thanks are Valerie Hutton, Celina Inman, Elmer Barnes, and

Penny Myles of the editorial and printing office, who worked long hours to produce draft after draft of the bill. They do an outstanding job.

Division J of this omnibus for the Department of State and Foreign Operations provides a total of $51.8 billion in discretionary budget authority to protect U.S. security, humanitarian, and economic interests around the world.

Anybody who doubts that these funds are important should think about the devastation being wrought by ISIL in Syria and Iraq and its impact on neighboring Lebanon and Jordan, in addition to what is happening in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and other areas where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by ethnic and tribal violence. Part of this funding will support aid for refugees and other victims of disasters, and we provide $1.5 billion above the budget request. The bill also includes additional funds to help Ukraine and other former Soviet republics counter Russian aggression.

It provides $2.5 billion in emergency funding to respond to the Ebola epidemic, which reminds us all that a deadly virus is often only one airplane trip away from our shores.

The bill includes full funding for diplomatic security, which unfortunately we need today.

As far as U.N. peacekeeping, the bill provides funding and authorities to fully meet our commitments.

It includes an increase above the budget request for PEPFAR and other global health programs, which I was very pleased about considering that those increases did not require cuts to other critical programs.

The bill includes additional funding for educational and cultural exchanges. It provides funding to address the gang violence and poverty that contribute to the migration of unaccompanied children from Central America. That problem ebbs and flows but cannot be ignored. We have seen the flood of young children across our southern border, risking their lives rather than staying and being attacked and raped in their own country, or forced into gangs and made to shoot and kill and rob.

I am very pleased we were able to include the amounts requested for programs to protect biodiversity and tropical forests, support clean energy and reduce global warming, combat wildlife poaching and trafficking. These are important national security issues.

I am also pleased that provisions relating to our commitments to the international financial institutions, particularly relating to evaluations, beneficial ownership, human rights, industrial-scale logging, and financing for large dams, were included. I look forward to discussing them with the Treasury Department, State, and USAID.

The provisions relating to a Small Grants Program to provide small, multi-year USAID grants to small entities, timely feedback from beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance, and reforms to provide incentives for Foreign Service Officers to support sustainable, locally-driven development, are also important.

There is a lot more in this bill to support friends and allies so they can combat disease, hunger, poverty, strengthen the rule of law, and protect human rights. These are all programs that are directly linked to our national security. They fulfill our moral obligation as Americans, as members of the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth.

There are some things that I wish were not included, particularly a House provision carried from last year that would weaken limits on carbon emissions from projects financed by the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Our European partners are wisely ending public subsidies for coal in favor of cleaner, healthier, renewable energy, but the House continues to block such progress here.

I am very disappointed the Senate provision to bring the United States into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was rejected again this year by the House. The Bush administration spoke of the necessity of this, as has the Obama administration.

Mr. President, no bill is perfect, and this one is no exception. But the State, Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus is a whole lot better than a continuing resolution that ignores the changing global realities and challenges we face.

It was a collaborative effort from beginning to end with Republicans and Democrats alike, and it should be supported overwhelmingly.

I see my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the floor seeking recognition, so I will yield the floor.

Madam President, once again, the Senate has an opportunity to consider the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is named for the two retiring chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Buck McKeon. Carl Levin has been a fierce defender of Michigan, strong advocate for the men and women of our armed services, and a friend. When the Senate passes this bill, and the President signs it into law, it will be a fitting tribute to Senator Levin's storied legacy of public service.

This compromise--a comprehensive authorization of the Nation's military arm--is far from perfect. No bill is. But this authorization provides support and resources for the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, who defend our Nation, and whose families sacrifice so much in the name of public service. The bill prepares our country to face future challenges, and promotes the goals and values that have become a hallmark of our national defense.

Of primary importance to me, this defense authorization bill protects the Leahy law, the requirements by which we vet the individuals and units of foreign security forces we train and equip. While one component of the Leahy law, traditionally incorporated annually in the Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill as it relates to the activities of the State Department, was made permanent in 2012 as section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act, this Defense authorization bill makes the component of the law as it relates to Defense Department activities permanent law.

This provision permits human rights training, which is narrowly defined, for individuals who are members of units of foreign security forces that have been deemed ineligible under the Leahy law. However, those individuals must not have been involved in violations, the training must have the concurrence of the State Department, it may only occur in the individuals' home countries, the State Department must be consulted on the content, methodology, and intended beneficiaries, and the training is not sufficient for meeting the accountability requirement for purposes of the exception in the law.

Some in the Pentagon have suggested that the Leahy law has impeded their ability to engage with foreign security forces. Not only do the facts prove otherwise, that is the same discredited claim of those who have argued that the CIA's torture of prisoners was legal and made us safer.

The United States may have the most powerful military, but that power is immeasurably weakened if we fail to uphold the values and principles this Nation was founded on: due process, respect for the rule of law, and respect for the laws of war.

We should learn from history. When we abandon those values and principles and support or associate ourselves with foreign forces who commit atrocities, we pay a heavy price.

This defense authorization also includes a provision I authored with Senator Lindsey Graham to establish a commission on the future of the army. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal reflected many tough choices about the future size and shape of each of the services. It also included decisions about the U.S. Army that would irreversibly change the nature of that branch. Most dramatically, the proposal included a plan to eliminate the Nation's reserve of Apache helicopters by consolidating all of them within the active component. Such a move raises serious questions about the ability to sustain long-term operations or be ready for unexpected contingencies. As cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Graham and I, with the support of 47 other Senators, proposed legislation to minimize the budgetary impact of these decisions by providing for additional review while allowing tough, but noncontroversial changes to go forward. I am grateful to Senator Levin and our partners in the House for supporting its inclusion in this broader bill.

This authorization bill will provide important support to the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. While I do not support some of the included changes to benefits, those that are part of this final bill are far less severe than originally proposed. With the Military Compensation and Retirement Commission soon to report, I hope we can finally put an end to what has become an annual effort by the Department of Defense to draw back benefits already earned by our servicemembers. There should be no bait and switch.

Unrelated to defense policy, I am grateful that this legislation includes

an important designation for Vermont. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System recognizes and preserves rivers with remarkable scenic and recreational value. With the passage of this legislation, Vermont will join 40 other States with designated national wild and scenic rivers. This designation of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers is the capstone of more than 7 years of work, including intense study and planning by the local communities that want to protect the natural, cultural, and recreational qualities of these rivers.

This defense authorization bill is not perfect; politics as much as policy makes that the case. I am disappointed that this authorization fails to build on important progress made last year to streamline the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay and move closer to finally shuttering the detention facility there. This compromise bill will maintain the status quo by continuing to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States for detention or trial. I am disappointed that a provision contained in the Senate Armed Services Committee version of the authorization that would have provided exceptions to this prohibition was removed during negotiations. However, I am pleased that the bill does not contain the statutory ban on detainee transfers to Yemen that also was contained in the Senate bill.

As long as the detention facility at Guantanamo remains open, it serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and tarnishes America's historic role as a champion of human rights. The prison facility at Guantanamo remains a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars--costing this country billions of dollars at a time when budgets are tight and that money is needed elsewhere. Closing Guantanamo is the morally responsible thing to do; my commitment on that has not wavered.

With regard to some of the provisions included in this bill that relate to combatting the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), I expect the Department of Defense to abide by the Leahy law. These terrorists pose a threat to the United States and to our partners; they must be stopped and brought to justice. But we cannot ignore our own laws or permit the United States to be implicated, either directly or indirectly, in gross violations of human rights when we support either governments or irregular forces in the fight against

Mr. President, James Baker has served the State of Vermont with great distinction over many years, and I was saddened when he announced his retirement in 2009 after 3 decades with the Vermont State Police. To no one's surprise, he finished his tenure there at the top, as commander.

But we knew retirement would not last long for a man of his talents.

In 2010, Jim Baker answered the call to step in where he was most needed, taking the helm of the Rutland City Police Department when the department and the community were beset by turmoil. Chief Baker's leadership and loyalty was infections, and his plan to serve for only a few months turned into a few years.

During that time, Chief Baker pulled together a team of committed neighbors, businesspeople and community organizers to face the challenges head-on. They tackled blighted neighborhoods and encouraged new investment. They sent a strong message to drug dealers: NOT in our community. And they developed a statistical mapping system to reduce crime in the city's worst-hit blocks. This effort, known as ``Project VISION,'' has shown great success.

With Rutland now on a steady course, one might think Chief Baker would again be thinking of retirement, but that will not be the case. Instead, Jim Baker will be bringing his leadership talents to Washington D.C., where he will serve as director of law enforcement and support with the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Rutland's loss is our Nation's gain. I look forward to a continued working relationship with Jim, and thank him for his dedication and leadership to the State of Vermont. I ask that the following profile of Jim Baker, which recently appeared in the Vermont weekly Seven Days, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senators have finally come together to pass the Death in Custody Reporting Act, which will provide important transparency to law enforcement efforts and our prison system. At a time

when our Nation is having an important conversation about police encounters that result in the loss of life, we know that hundreds of police-related deaths are unaccounted for in Federal statistics. The Death in Custody Reporting Act will require that State and Federal law enforcement officials report deaths in their custody, including those that occur during arrest. The Justice Department will then have the opportunity to analyze the data and see what we can learn from it. The American people deserve as much.

Too many communities across our country are losing faith in our justice system. This bill provides a step toward accountability, and it is my hope that it may ultimately lead to restoring some measure of trust in these communities. If we are ever able to truly embody the words engraved in Vermont marble above the United States Supreme Court building, ``Equal Justice Under the Law,'' then more of course must be done. I look forward to continuing these efforts in the next Congress.

The prior authorization for the Death in Custody Reporting Act expired in 2006, and after too many years of inaction, I am glad that Democrats and Republicans have come together and sent this reauthorization bill to the President for signature. My appreciation goes to Congressman Bobby Scott, who sponsored and has long championed this legislation, as well Senator Richard Blumenthal, who sponsored a Senate version.

This has been an important week for transparency. On Monday, the Senate came together to pass my bipartisan FOIA Improvement Act and I hope the House will soon take up this bill. On Tuesday, I spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. Both of these actions did not come easily, but in both instances the interests of the American public and our values as a democracy prevailed. Today, we have again come together in the interest of transparency for the betterment of our Nation.

Mr. President, I am looking at the clock, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be able to continue in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the Congressional Record will show the introduction of and prayer by our visiting Chaplain today, Father Claude Pomerleau of Portland, OR, a member of the Holy Cross priests. That is as much of a thumbnail as saying any one of us is a U.S. Senator, period. There is a lot more to it.

Claude Pomerleau has been nearly 50 years a priest. I know because he is my brother-in-law, and my wife Marcelle and I, as well as his wonderful parents, Phil and Cecile Pomerleau, joined him in Rome nearly 50 years ago when he was ordained a priest. My family--my parents, my brothers and sisters, and also our children--has always had such a wonderful relationship with Father Pomerleau. It is great now to see the young grandchildren come in and give him a hug and say: Hi, Uncle Claude.

I also look at his distinguished career. He is not just a brother and brother-in-law, an uncle and friend, he is a man who has taught, speaks many languages, and who has a Ph.D. from the University of Denver. He teaches now at the University of Portland even in semiretirement and also in Santiago, where he is a well-respected visiting professor, and where I am told his Spanish is like that of a native.

He was born in Vermont. His parents are French Canadians, two people who strongly practiced their religion, believed in it, and brought up their children speaking French at home. They instilled in him the values that really make our country great and make a human being even greater.

He has been a mentor. He has been a moral anchor for our family for decades. I think of him being on the altar as a young altar boy at the time Marcelle and I were married 52 years ago, and he has been part of our lives and our marriage ever since. He is the man we turn to when we want guidance. He is a man both of us love greatly. And I would like to say, as the longest serving Member of the Senate, what an honor it was to have him open with the prayer.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.

I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.

I see the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the floor seeking recognition. I have been told to come here at 3:30 p.m., but obviously I yield to my friend from Texas and ask unanimous consent that when he completes his remarks I be recognized.

Mr. President, I listened with interest to the tremendous statement made by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, earlier today. She has spoken of this issue on other occasions, and we Americans should listen.

More than a decade ago the Central Intelligence Agency began detaining and torturing human beings in the name of the war on terrorism. Then employees and contractors of the U.S. Government, paid for by our taxpayers' dollars, abused and degraded, dehumanized people. They stripped them of their basic humanity. But more than stripping them of their basic humanity, they stripped America of its standing in the world as the leader of promoting and protecting human rights. Instead of protecting us as Americans, by their actions they hurt all Americans.

President Obama banned torture and cruel treatment when he took office, but only now, because of the courage and conviction of Senator Feinstein and the other members of the Intelligence Committee and their staffs, do we have a full and public accounting of the CIA's actions-- an accounting the American people deserve.

The decision to release this historic report, as Senator Feinstein has courageously said, has been difficult, but it was the right and moral thing to do. If something is right and something is moral, no matter how difficult it is, you should do it. Releasing the report demonstrates that America--the America I love--is different. As Americans, we cannot sweep our mistakes under the rug and pretend they did not happen. We have to acknowledge our mistakes. We have to learn from our mistakes. In this case, we as Americans must and will do everything we can to ensure that our government never tortures again.

Five years ago, in 2009, I called for a commission of inquiry to review the Bush administration's detention and interrogation program and other sweeping claims of executive power by the Bush administration. I believe that in order to restore America's moral leadership, we have to acknowledge what happened in our name because much of the leadership we can show around the world is not based on our wealth or on the power of our military but on our moral leadership. Our Nation needed back then a full accounting of the CIA's treatment of detainees, and we need it today. With this report, at long last we have it.

This is not the first report to record or condemn the detention and interrogation policies and practices that were used during the last administration, but it is the first to fully chronicle the actions of the most secretive of our government agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency. The final report lays bare the dark truth about their program. That truth is far worse and it is far more brutal than most Americans ever imagined.

We have all seen the shocking pictures from Abu Ghraib. We have read the cold, clinical description of ``harsh'' or ``enhanced'' techniques written by Department of Justice attorneys to justify such treatment. We know that what was done at Abu Ghraib terribly diminished the image of the United States throughout the world. It did not make us safer by one iota. In fact, many would argue it made us less safe.

The report makes clear one fundamental truth: The CIA tortured people. That is the bottom line. No euphemistic description or legal obfuscation or pettifoggery can hide that fact any longer. The Intelligence Committee report shows that techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation were used in ways far more frequent and cruel and harmful than previously known. It shows that gross mismanagement by those in charge at the CIA and a shocking indifference to human dignity led to horrendous treatment and conditions of confinement that went far beyond even what they had been approving. It turns out that the senior CIA leadership did not even know that ``enhanced'' techniques were being used at one CIA detention facility. In fact, in one instance, one of their prisoners died as a result, left shackled on a concrete floor in a dungeon room, and likely died of hypothermia.

This is America? This is what we stand for? This is the image we want to give the rest of the world? This American does not think so. This American does not think so. It is not what brought my grandparents and great-grandparents to this country.

These so-called ``enhanced'' interrogation techniques were not just used on the worst of the worst either. In some instances, the CIA did not even know whom it was holding. CIA records show that at least 26 people detained by the CIA did not meet the CIA's own standard for detention. Some of these individuals were subjected to--and this is a wonderful slogan--``enhanced'' techniques. What an evil slogan. Some detainees were determined not even to be members of Al Qaeda.

Moreover, the CIA relied on contractors--not even CIA personnel but contractors--who had no experience as interrogators to develop this program. They were happy to take American taxpayers' money. They did not know what they were doing, but they said: Give us the money. Eventually the CIA outsourced all aspects of the program to the company these contractors set up. Did they make a few thousand dollars? No. They made $80 million. This was a program out of control. It is yet another reason why Congress has to exercise its oversight responsibility.

The report also disproves CIA claims that torture programs were necessary to protect our Nation, and that it thwarted attacks. How many times have we heard it before--that we need this to protect us; we need this to protect us from another 9/11? We had all of the evidence we needed to stop 9/11, but the government had not even bothered to translate some of the material that our intelligence people had already obtained. After the fact, they decided: We should really translate some of that material we have. Then we found it could have been stopped.

This program of torture did not make us safer. As laid out in meticulous detail in the report, the use of these techniques did not generate uniquely valuable intelligence. In fact, the report thoroughly repudiates each of the most commonly cited examples of plots thwarted and terrorists captured. That should not come as a surprise.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held numerous hearings on the Bush administration's interrogation policies and practices. What we heard time and again from witness after witness is that torture and other cruel treatments do not work. But there are still some who continue to argue, even in the face of overwhelming testimony and actually now hard evidence to the contrary, that the program thwarted attacks and saved lives. They defend the CIA's action. They argue that the report does not tell the full story. But these are often the same people who participated in the rampant misrepresentations detailed in this report.

The report shows that CIA officials consistently misled virtually everyone outside the Agency about what was actually going on and about the results of the CIA interrogations--very similar to what we heard leading up to the war in Iraq after 9/11. I remember being in those hearings. I remember listening to the then-Vice President. I remember listening to others in those secret hearings and thinking: It does not ring true. I stated to others that I thought some of the things they were telling us did not ring true.

I remember walking early one morning with my wife near our home and two joggers coming up, calling us by name. These were people we had never seen before in the neighborhood.

One of them said, ``I hear you have some questions.'' He asked whether I had asked to see a particular document.

I said, ``I haven't. I didn't know there was such a thing.''

He said, ``You might find it interesting to read.''

So I did. Then I raised even more questions about what I read there, which totally contradicted what the Vice President and others were saying. I mentioned that to some.

A few days later we are out walking again. Both joggers--my wife remembers this so well--they said, ``I see you read the document.''

I said, ``I did.''

``But did they tell you about this other document?''

I said, ``I didn't know there was such a document.''

``You may find it interesting.''

And so I then reviewed it. It was obvious from what I read that they were withholding evidence that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/ 11, contrary to what the Vice President and others were saying; that there were no weapons of mass destruction; and that in fact, they were actually well penned in by the no-fly zone we had set up. But instead we rushed into war because we sought to avenge 9/11, even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. Now almost $3 trillion later, look at the mess we are in.

The report released today details how, like the run-up to the war in Iraq, material that was held back from people who should have seen it. This included Members of Congress, White House officials, even Justice Department lawyers who were being asked to review the legality of CIA techniques.

In the coming weeks, as we go into the new Congress, we are going to hear a lot about the need for oversight. I would hope the new leadership would look at the report Senator Feinstein and her committee have come out with, because this is where oversight should be--at the top of the list. So too should the unprecedented spying by the CIA on the congressional staff investigating this program. Just think about that. They investigated Members of Congress who were asking them about things they had done wrong. Then there is also the troubling pattern of intimidation, which includes the CIA referring its own congressional overseers to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. My God, we are going back to the Joseph McCarthy days with things like this. This report and those actions show a CIA out of control. It is incumbent upon all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--in the Congress to hold the Agency accountable.

The Judiciary Committee should take a hard look at the role of the Department of Justice and its legal justifications for this program. Much ink has been spilled criticizing the OLC opinion written during the Bush administration by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury. The OLC has always had a good reputation, but these opinions sullied the reputation of that office, and they have been rightly repudiated. But the report also demonstrates that even those opinions were the result of key misrepresentations by the CIA about the seniority of the people subjected to these techniques, the implementation of the techniques, and the intelligence resulting from them.

As an institution, if we truly represent 325 million Americans, do we not have a responsibility to examine the systemic failure that allowed this to happen and then to ensure that it does not happen again?

Those who attack the credibility of this report are wrong. This report is not based on conjecture or theory or insinuation. Anyone who reads it can see that this careful, thorough report was meticulously researched and written. It is based on more than 6 million pages of CIA cables, emails, and other documents containing descriptions that CIA employees and contractors themselves recorded.

I believe Senator Feinstein and the other members of the Intelligence Committee who worked on this deserve our respect and our appreciation.

Intelligence Committee staffers, too, have dedicated years of their lives to this report. They have demonstrated courage and dedication in the face of enormous challenges, because they thought first and foremost about the United States of America.

In the past year they were even threatened with criminal prosecution. Why? For doing the job they are supposed to do for the United States of America. But they would not allow themselves to be intimidated. They have served their country well, and they have my deepest appreciation for bringing us this truly historic study.

I thank their families, because they couldn't tell their families the things they were reading. I imagine the families knew of some of these attacks on them. Their families too deserve our thanks.

I am disappointed that those same honorable staffers had to spend so many months arguing with this White House about redactions to this report--a White House that is supposed to be dedicated to transparency. This report should have been issued months ago, and it still contains more redactions than it should. I can think of some who will wonder why the redactions are there, but I am gratified that we can finally shed light on this dark chapter.

Among the many lessons we can take from this report is that Americans deserve more government transparency, and that is essential to a strong democracy. Just yesterday the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill, the Leahy-Cornyn FOIA Improvement Act. It significantly improves the Freedom of Information Act. Today's release of this report is another important victory for greater government transparency.

I strongly disagree with those who argue that the reports should not come out and who have tried to pressure and silence Senator Feinstein. Don't place the blame on those who are telling the truth. Place the blame squarely where it belongs: on those who authorized and carried out a systematic program of torture and secret detention, which is in violation of domestic law, and in violation of international law. But more importantly it is in violation of the fundamental principles of morality on which our great Nation was founded.

In trying times, such as those we faced after September 11 and those we face now, we look to our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals to keep us safe. We are fortunate to have so many dedicated and talented people serving in the intelligence community, military, and law enforcement. But one lesson for their sake, our sake, and our country's sake, is that we should never become so blinded by fear that we are willing to sacrifice our own principles, laws, and humanity.

We are the greatest, most powerful Nation on Earth. We cannot turn our backs on our laws, our history, and our Constitution because we are afraid. This Senator is not afraid.

No matter what, our enemies are human beings. And no matter how hardened and evil they are, no matter how repulsive their actions--and many are--no matter how horribly they have treated their own victims, we do not torture them--because we don't join them on that dark side of history. We stand on the other side of history as Americans. Generations of men and women have given their lives and many have even endured torture themselves in order to protect this Nation. They did so not to protect our way of life, but to protect our principles, our understanding of right and wrong, of humanity, of evil.

The shameful actions uncovered by this report dishonored those men and women who have fought to protect what is the best of our Nation, as well as the men and women even today who continue to put their lives at risk for this country.

Americans know, throughout this country, that we are better than this. As we heard after Abu Ghraib and we will hear now, we are better than this and we should never let this happen again. Let's show the rest of the world, too.

I have spoken much longer than I normally do, but this is important to me.

I yield the floor.

I would like to acknowledge the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for highlighting important concerns of the agencies his committee works with closely. This legislation seeks to further the goal of government transparency; but we also understand the need for government agencies to dutifully and carefully fulfill their responsibilities.

At Senator Rockefeller's request we have included language in the committee report on the abuse of discretion standard and its application to make clear that it is the intent of Congress that judicial review of agency decisions to withhold information relating to current law enforcement actions under the foreseeable harm standard be subject to an abuse of discretion standard.

I thank Senator Johnson for his remarks and for his interest and support for this legislation. I agree that it is important to ensure that our financial regulators are able to do the work required to maintain the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. I also agree that the free flow of information between regulators and financial institution is important to this process. Exemption 8 was intended by Congress, and has been interpreted by the courts, to be very broadly construed to ensure the security of financial institutions and to safeguard the relationship between financial institutions and their supervising agencies. The proposed amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, are not intended to undermine the broad protection in Exemption 8 or to undermine the integrity of the supervisory examination process. Moreover, much of the information that the government is permitted to withhold under Exemption 8, is also protected under Exemption 4, which exempts from disclosure commercial and financial information that is privileged or confidential. Exemption 4 covers information prohibited from disclosure under the Trade Secrets Act and similar laws, and as such does not provide for discretionary disclosure under FOIA. As with other exemptions that are based on separate legal restrictions, it is understood that the foreseeable harm standard will not apply to most of the information falling under Exemption 4. I will address these concerns, and I appreciate all the time and attention the Senator from South Dakota has given to this important legislation.