[Pages S4173-S4185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1735, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require additional information supporting long-range plans
for construction of naval vessels.
Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require reporting on energy security issues involving Europe
and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of
Congress regarding ways the United States could help
vulnerable allies and partners with energy security.
Vitter modified amendment No. 1473 (to amendment No. 1463),
to limit the retirement of Army combat units.
Markey amendment No. 1645 (to amendment No. 1463), to
express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to
United States allies and partners should not be determined to
be consistent with the national interest if those exports
would increase energy prices in the United States for
American consumers or businesses or increase the reliance of
the United States on imported oil.
Reed (for Blumenthal) modified amendment No. 1564 (to
amendment No. 1463), to enhance protections accorded to
servicemembers and their spouses.
McCain (for Paul) modified amendment No. 1543 (to amendment
No. 1463), to strengthen employee cost savings suggestions
programs within the Federal Government.
Reed (for Durbin) modified amendment No. 1559 (to amendment
No. 1463), to prohibit the award of Department of Defense
contracts to inverted domestic corporations.
Feinstein (for McCain) amendment No. 1889 (to amendment No.
1463), to reaffirm the prohibition on torture.
Fischer/Booker amendment No. 1825 (to amendment No. 1463),
to authorize appropriations for national security aspects of
the Merchant Marine for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
Lee amendment No. 1687 (to amendment No. 1473), to provide
for the protection and recovery of the greater sage-grouse,
the conservation of lesser prairie-chickens, and the removal
of endangered species status for the American burying beetle.
McCain (for Ernst/Boxer) amendment No. 1549 (to amendment
No. 1463), to provide for a temporary, emergency
authorization of defense articles, defense services, and
related training directly to the Kurdistan Regional
Government.
Reed (for Gillibrand) amendment No. 1578 (to amendment No.
1463), to reform procedures for determinations to proceed to
trial by court-martial for certain offenses under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Metal Theft
Prevention Act, which was filed as an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act. In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
make this amendment pending, but first I wish to explain why this
amendment is so important.
I have been working on this legislation for years. Senator Schumer is
a cosponsor. In the past, I have had support for this bill as
cosponsors in Senator Hatch, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator
Hoeven. Why has there been bipartisan support in the past for this
bill? I think we all know that this is a public safety issue. Metal
thieves have targeted labs, power stations, and gas lines, causing
blackouts, service disruptions, and even dangerous explosions.
In September of 2013, four people were injured in an explosion at a
University of California, Berkeley, electrical station. Officials
blamed it on copper theft that occurred 2 hours before the explosion.
Georgia Power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a
substation that feeds the entire Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. The
airport was getting hit two to three times a week, and surveillance
didn't lead to any arrests.

[[Page S4174]]

The crime has also hurt the dignity of our veterans. Last year in my
home State of Minnesota, the metal thieves robbed dozens of veterans'
graves, taking the brass rods that hold their symbol of service. It is
a crime that is almost too callous to comprehend, but sadly this wasn't
the first time. On Memorial Day in 2012--this is just in Minnesota--
thieves stole more than 20 Bronze Star markers from veterans' graves in
Isanti County. That is why this bill is supported by the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America, as well as major law enforcement organizations and
business groups.
The bill is really quite simple. It will help combat the shameless
crime across State lines by putting modest recordkeeping requirements
on scrap metal dealers and recyclers in place. It will limit the value
of cash transactions to $100 and require sellers in certain cases to
prove they actually own the metal.
All we are trying to do is stop scrap metal dealers from taking
stolen metal. And the reason we can't just do it State by State is that
a lot of States are doing this but a lot of States aren't, and what the
thieves are doing is crossing State lines, stealing the metal in one
State and selling it in another.
This is an important bill, and it has been heavily lobbied against by
the scrap metal dealer association.
The Democratic side of the aisle has cleared this bill. We are ready
to go forward with this amendment. There are objections on the
Republican side. But I think people better step back and realize, the
next time there is a major explosion, the next time something happens
like this, which is happening on a weekly basis across the country--
that they understand we could have done something to prevent it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment in order to call up my amendment No. 1555.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
object, I object on behalf of the Judiciary Committee. This would
criminalize stealing metal. It makes it a Federal offense; therefore,
the Judiciary properly has jurisdiction. It would also establish civil
penalties enforceable by the Attorney General. It directs review of
this crime by the Federal sentencing commission. It has no tie to the
national security or the National Defense Authorization Act. So I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am disappointed that there is an
objection to calling up this commonsense amendment that has so much
support from veterans, law enforcement, and businesses. I have stood in
front of small businesses all over my State, including with Senator
Hoeven in Fargo, a number of electric companies that have been
repeatedly broken into.
I believe this does have national security implications because there
is a provision in the bill about critical infrastructure and creating a
felony-level crime when they are stealing from that critical
infrastructure. And I believe it is very important that we debate and
vote on this issue as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
I will continue to work to get a vote on this amendment during this
entire year. I worry that at some point we are going to have major
damage to our infrastructure as a result of metal theft, and everyone
will look back and wonder why we didn't listen to every major law
enforcement group in our country or to every single business that has
been affected or to the electric companies that are being broken into
all the time or to our veterans groups, that just want their final
resting places to be respected. Despite the lobby of the scrap metal
dealers, I will not let this rest.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would point out to the Senator from
Minnesota that we started on this legislation in the committee in May.
We are now well into June--many weeks. We are 2 weeks into the
consideration of this legislation, and the Senator from Minnesota comes
to the floor with a compelling amendment.
I suggest the next time around the Senator from Minnesota raise the
issue with the authorization committee and with others when the bill
first comes to the floor rather than waiting 2 weeks before having a
compelling interest in this very serious issue.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President----
Mr. McCAIN. I still have the floor, I would say to the Senator from
Minnesota. The rules of the Senate are that we usually don't like to be
interrupted.
Mr. President, we are going to embark on the McCain-Feinstein
amendment, which I understand is going to be voted on at 11:30; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would like to note that I have been
attempting to pass this legislation now for 3 years. Senator Hatch was
my first cosponsor, then Senator Graham, and then Senator Hoeven. Every
step of the way I have been stymied by the scrap metal dealer lobby.
I believe this is an important bill. It is a simple bill. It will
greatly help because these thieves are crossing State lines with the
stolen copper. I appreciate, obviously, Senator McCain's viewpoint,
being the manager of this bill on the floor, but I think the record
should reflect that I have tried many times to get this amendment up on
other bills and to work with the committee, but every single time I get
stopped in my tracks by this lobby. At some point I would like to have
a vote on this so that people can vote their heart and vote with their
law enforcement or vote with the scrap metal dealers. They can decide.
For now, our side has cleared this amendment, and the Republicans are
objecting to this.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
spent be equally divided while in a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Chicago Blackhawks Win Stanley Cup

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are serious matters on the floor of
the Senate involving the Defense authorization bill, and I just asked
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for 5 minutes to speak
on an issue totally unrelated to it but one which is critically
important to the future of America and critically important today to
the city of Chicago, IL.
Last night, I stayed up late to watch the Chicago Blackhawks win the
Stanley Cup. They were playing the Tampa Bay Lightning--an
extraordinarily good team--and in the sixth game they won 2 to zip.
That is three Stanley Cups in 6 years.
I can tell you that you can't visit Chicago, go to any street corner
or anyplace without seeing evidence of loyalty to the Chicago
Blackhawks. It is an incredible story of a storied franchise in the
National Hockey League that has become a premier sports story in the
great sports city of Chicago. And last night was so much fun for all of
us to watch that victory.
Any child who has ever laced up an old pair of skates or put tape on
a stick has thought about what happened last

[[Page S4175]]

night. From Springfield, IL, to Saskatoon, from Moose Jaw to Miami, if
you have spent any time at all around the game of hockey, you wonder
what it must feel like to stand at the end of a very long season, after
three long periods of total effort white-knuckled moments, before tens
of thousands of elated fans, and hoist up the most storied trophy in
all of sports--Lord Stanley's Cup. The goal of every team in the
National Hockey League is to hoist up that cup at the end of the
season.
I rise today to pay tribute to the players, coaches, staff, and fans
of the Chicago Blackhawks, the 2015 Stanley Cup champions, whose
season-long mantra of ``One Goal'' was realized last night at the
United Center in Chicago.
Last night, the Blackhawks won their sixth Stanley Cup in franchise
history and the third in the last 6 years, with the 2-to-0 victory over
the Tampa Bay Lightning, a formidable team as well.
Fans at the Madhouse on Madison, as we call the United Center,
witnessed Duncan Keith and Patrick Kane score show-stopping goals while
goaltender Corey Crawford seemed incredible in his defense, stopping
all of the 25 shots that he faced.
I congratulate especially owner Rocky Wirtz, head coach Joe
Quenneville, who is known as Coach Q, ``Captain Serious,'' Jonathan
Toews, the Blackhawks front office, the players, and, most of all, the
legions of Blackhawks fans as they celebrate another Stanley Cup
Championship.
Those who know the history of this team, and those who have followed
them for decades know that in the past 7 years there has been a
transformation in the Blackhawks. With Rocky Wirtz taking over as the
owner, this team went on television just at the moment when they were
reaching this level of perfection, and they started winning over
thousands of fans--not just across Chicago but across Illinois and the
Midwest.
Blackhawks fans, I think, are the best fans in hockey, and you can
understand if a lot of them are a little tired this morning. The
Blackhawks began the playoffs with a remarkable double-overtime victory
against the Nashville Predators, another excellent team. They were down
3 to 0 after the first period. The Hawks stormed back to tie the game
and won on a Duncan Keith goal. That victory set the tone for a great
run through the playoffs. A goal by Brent Seabrook in triple overtime
in game 4 helped the Hawks defeat Nashville in six games.
A sweep of the Minnesota Wild followed, setting up a showdown with
the Anaheim Ducks in the Western Conference Finals. The Hawks were
behind in the series one game to none, 2 to 1, and 3 to 2, but they
earned double- and triple-overtime victories on their way to winning in
seven games, clinching a berth in the Stanley Cup Final.
The Hawks followed a familiar pattern in dropping games 1 and 3 of
the final, but they took a 3-to-2 series lead into Monday night's Game
6 on home ice. It was another close contest as Kane's one-timer with
5:14 remaining marked the first time either team led by more than one
goal in the entire series.
The time slowly ticked down until 22,424 fans at the United Center
were finally able to erupt in celebration. It was a great night for
Blackhawks fans and the culmination of a tremendous team effort.
Antoine Vermette, acquired at the trade deadline, scored two game-
winning goals in the Stanley Cup Final. Goaltender Scott Darling stood
tall in the net when his team needed him the most, in relief of Corey
Crawford when called upon against Nashville. Duncan Keith was an iron
man, earning the Conn Smythe Trophy for playoff MVP, while logging more
than 700 minutes of ice time in 23 games. Nicklas Hjalmarsson blocked
shots left and right and seemed to be in the right place all the time.
I can't tell you how happy I am for those Blackhawks and for all of
their amazing fans on their Stanley Cup championship. It has been a
thrill to watch this team throughout the years, and I look forward to
seeing President Obama host the Stanley Cup champion Blackhawks yet
another time at the White House.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have serious concerns with the
language that was tacked on to the House FISA reform bill that passed
the Senate, and at the end of my remarks I am going to offer a
unanimous consent request. I say that because maybe other Members of
the Senate would like to be heard or would like to maybe reject my
unanimous consent request, and I want to give them the privilege of
knowing I am doing this.
The language in the FISA bill made changes to the Federal criminal
code to implement four important multilateral treaties relating to
nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
It is good that these treaties are finally being implemented. The
Senate gave its advice and consent to these treaties back in 2008. In
the years since then, however, the Senate leadership repeatedly failed
to bring bills to the floor that would implement them.
The language which is now law omits a number of key provisions that
were requested by both the Obama administration and the Bush
administration. So I want my colleagues to know this has had support
from both Republican and Democrat Presidents, in the present and in the
past.
My amendment No. 1786 restores these provisions, which are important
tools to combat the gravest of threats to our national security. I am
happy to note that Senator Whitehouse, the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, has joined
me in offering this amendment.
First, the amendment adds the authority for prosecutors to seek the
death penalty for these newly created crimes in appropriate cases.
Under the criminal code, similar crimes already carry the possibility
of the death penalty. Singling out these new offenses under this
treaty, which is intended to stop terrorists from threatening us with
the world's most dangerous weapons, for lesser punishment simply makes
no sense.
For example, section 2280 and 2281 of the code, which criminalizes
various acts of violence on the high seas, already provide for the
possibility of the death penalty. So it is only logical that new
sections 2280a and 2281a, which criminalize acts of terrorism on the
high seas related to weapons of mass destruction, should as well. The
newly created offenses of nuclear terrorism, now codified in section
2332i, should as well. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of an
offense for which the death penalty might be more appropriate than
nuclear terrorism.
Terrorists who kill Americans--especially nuclear terrorists--should
be eligible for the death penalty. This shouldn't at all be
controversial, and I think the support of both former President Bush
and President Obama speaks to that point. Terrorists who kill
Americans--especially nuclear terrorists--should be eligible for the
death penalty. I can't repeat too often that this shouldn't be
controversial.
Second, the amendment makes these newly created criminal offenses
material support predicates. In other words, the amendment would
provide the government the ability to prosecute those who finance or
otherwise provide material support to these terrorists. Naturally,
these are complex crimes that aren't committed by just one person. They
involve entire networks that need to be stopped in their tracks. This
provision will help do that by making sure that those who provide
materiel support to terrorists don't escape justice.

Third, the amendment would add these offenses to the list of those
crimes that are predicates for wiretap applications. As the law now
stands, prosecutors can't request a traditional criminal wiretap
against a terrorist suspected of breaking these new laws, but at the
same time, they can get a wiretap to investigate a long list of less
serious offenses. Again, this doesn't make sense. In fact, this is a
dangerous omission. Our government needs the ability to listen in on
calls of suspected nuclear terrorists. So this provision would permit
prosecutors to request the authority to do so from a Federal judge.
Once again, I use the term ``common sense.'' These are commonsense
fixes, supported by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, fixing
and harmonizing these recently created crimes with the rest of the
criminal code, fixing and harmonizing these recently

[[Page S4176]]

created crimes with the rest of the Criminal Code. They were requested
by both the Obama and Bush administrations because they will help
protect us from the catastrophe that could result from terrorists
seeking to use the ultimate weapons against us. So I urge my colleagues
to support Grassley-Whitehouse amendment No. 1786.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and call up and make pending Grassley-Whitehouse amendment
No. 1786.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
First, the Senator is chairman of the committee which has
jurisdiction for this particular amendment, so he has complete--in
fact, more than complete--authority to bring it up in regular order and
bring it forward to the floor. In addition, we have been advised by the
Department of Justice that these provisions are not necessary, given
the scope of existing law with respect to terrorists and with respect
to anyone who conducts a terrorist act. Perhaps an example of that is
the Boston bombing, where there is now someone condemned to death for
terrorist activities--not involving a nuclear device, but I hardly
think he would get any less of a sentence regardless of the device he
used.
So for all these reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I accept the good-faith effort to listen
to my point of view, even though there is a rejection, but I would like
1 minute to react to the objection.
This amendment only does what both the Bush and Obama administrations
asked Congress to do, to make clear that the death penalty could apply
to any active nuclear terrorism. It is not enough that other criminal
statutes might also apply to nuclear terrorists and might also carry
the death penalty. It is quite the opposite; that terrorists who use
guns and explosives to kill can face the death penalty means that
nuclear terrorists certainly should as well. It does not take too much
imagination to come up with a situation which, under current law, the
death penalty might not clearly apply.
We are all aware of the threat of cyber terrorism. If a terrorist
used a computer to take over a nuclear powerplant and caused a deadly
nuclear meltdown, it is not clear that his crime would be eligible for
the death penalty under any other Federal Criminal Code. We simply
shouldn't accept this potential gap in the law which my amendment
fixes.
So, once again, I am sorry there was an objection. I am not done with
this. We will continue it in some other environment. I respect my
colleagues, however, for objecting.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1889

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Congress has some unfinished business
before it. When the President took office, he issued an Executive order
banning torture. It is regrettable that such a step was even necessary
for a country that has been a signatory to the Convention Against
Torture since 1988, more than 25 years ago. But it was the right thing
for the President to do and consistent with our values as Americans. In
particular, the President ordered that all U.S. Government personnel
and contractors must comply with the interrogation standards in the
Army Field Manual and that the International Committee of the Red Cross
should have notice of and access to detainees held by the U.S.
Government.
Now it is time for Congress to adopt these same requirements--to
enshrine them in law and ensure that America never again employs
torture, no matter what the threat.
Senators McCain and Feinstein have offered an amendment that mirrors
these requirements of the Executive order. It would require all
government personnel and contractors, across all agencies and
departments, to abide by the rules and regulations contained in the
Army Field Manual. It also would ensure that the International
Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, is provided access to all
individuals detained by the United States.
These requirements have already been in place for 6 years, and this
amendment is consistent with current practice. The Army Field Manual
provides clear guidelines on acceptable and effective interrogation
practices. It reinforces explicit prohibitions in existing law against
torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment. It is relied upon by
our military personnel when they conduct high-risk interrogations on
the battlefield. There is no reason why these rules should not apply to
all government personnel and contractors, in all places, and at all
times.
This is a critically important amendment. We know from the historic
report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA engaged in
horrific acts of torture during the Bush administration. We must be
unequivocal to the world and to ourselves that torture is wrong and
that it is never permitted.
An Executive order is not enough. Congress must act. We must codify
these safeguards into law. When it comes to our core values--the things
that make our country great and that define America's place in the
world--they do not change depending on the circumstances. The
Convention Against Torture does not make exceptions. We must be clear
that there are no instances when torture is acceptable.
I urge Senators to support the anti-torture amendment, and I commend
Senators McCain and Feinstein for their enduring leadership on this
issue. We must ensure that America never allows this to happen again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak out at a time when our
world is on fire: Putin's Russia is on the march, invading a sovereign
neighbor in a bid to rebuild the Soviet empire; China asserts its
growing strength in aggressive and provocative ways in the Pacific;
Iran presses ahead in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons
capability, a development that threatens to put the deadliest weapons
known to man in the hands of a maniacal rogue state; the Islamic State
continues to expand its barbaric reign of terror and endanger
everything our brave men and women in uniform fought and died for long
ago in Iraq; terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula and Al-Shabab, use the refuge of failed states to plot
attacks on our homeland; and, across the globe, our allies look to the
United States to provide the leadership necessary to confront these
threats to peace.
One of the foundational purposes of our Constitution was to establish
a Federal Government to--in the words of the preamble--provide for the
common defense. In facilitating this purpose, the Congress is charged
with two particularly crucial duties: establishing the legal authority
for our military to operate and funding our military's activities. For
53 years in a row, Congress has fulfilled these responsibilities with
an annual National Defense Authorization Act and accompanying funding
through the appropriations process. Despite the gridlock that has so
often beset the legislative process in recent years, Congress has
consistently risen to the call of its constitutional duty every year to
authorize and appropriate on behalf of our brave men and women in
uniform.
This year, our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have lived
up to the finest traditions of this body in crafting the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This bill provides for
our national security needs across a wide variety of fronts, including
programs to aid allies such as Ukraine and Iraq that face aggression,
compensation for the men and women who put their lives on the line to
defend our freedom, restructuring to improve readiness, authority to
procure a wide range of new weapons systems such as the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter that are crucial to maintaining our defense
capabilities, and acquisition reform to restore accountability to
defense contracting and make the money we spend go further.
These aren't Republican or Democratic priorities, they are American
priorities. They are concrete steps we need to take in order to ensure
our safety and security for years to come, and they should earn the
support of every single Senator.
The bill before us authorizes $604 billion in spending for the
Defense Department in the coming year. That is essentially the very
same amount requested by President Obama himself.

[[Page S4177]]

President Obama and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee did
not come up with that number out of thin air. In testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee this year, all four of the military
service chiefs testified that American lives are being put at risk if
we cap defense spending at the sequester levels. The amount proposed by
President Obama and embraced by the Armed Services Committee is the
amount that both Republican and Democratic, as well as nonpartisan,
experts believe is crucial to the Defense Department's ability to
preserve our national security. Surely, such an approach on such a
critical measure should win broad support from both parties.
Nevertheless, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are threatening a filibuster of the bill over the amount of funding it
authorizes. They are considering the prospect of defeating the National
Defense Authorization Act for the first time in 53 years unless we
agree to their demands to increase spending on domestic programs. Put
another way, they are aiming to condition the ability of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines to defend our Nation on their demand for
more funding for the wasteful Federal bureaucracy that already costs
too much.
Let me be absolutely clear. To roll back what progress we have made
in restoring fiscal discipline after years of profligate spending is
seriously misguided, to do so by hijacking the Defense bill at a time
of serious danger--when we face so many crises around the world--
represents the height of irresponsibility, and to make such a ``my way
or the highway'' demand as a condition of fulfilling one of the
Senate's basic duties is unworthy of the great traditions of this body.
Many of us have worked toward various solutions to replace the
sequester going forward. Republicans and Democrats alike have their
preferred alternatives to the current funding arrangements.
Nevertheless, we simply cannot shirk our duty to provide for the common
defense in the present. Political reality demands that we reject
partisan grandstanding in favor of working together on this must-pass
bill.
Over the past 2 weeks, the majority leader and the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee have led a debate on this bill that represents
the Senate at its finest. We have considered the bill on time--a needed
change from recent years that restores the Senate's proper voice in our
national defense. We have held hours upon hours of debate on the floor,
and we have held a fair and open amendment process for Members on both
sides of the aisle.
As part of that open amendment process, the Senate considered an
amendment from the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee that
would condition the funding level on the domestic spending increases
sought by our Democratic colleagues.
Despite my disagreements on the substance, I want to commend the
ranking member for his sincere advocacy and for his determination to
put his plan before this body for an up-or-down vote. But as that vote
result showed, a majority of this body strongly disagrees with the
minority's preferred alternative. Having fully aired this issue and
voted on it, it is time for the Senate to wrap up our debate and pass
this bill. To exploit the supermajority threshold to demand a
concession rejected by a majority of Senators on a bill of such vital
importance to our national defense would represent a gross dereliction
of duty and a tragically irresponsible choice.
I urge my friends in the minority: do not give in to the temptation
of partisan grandstanding, do not let this become another exercise in
political brinksmanship, do not place a desire to fight the majority
over our shared duty to keep this country safe, and do not jeopardize
our men and women in uniform to win concessions for yet more domestic
spending.
Work with us. Embrace the funding levels the Obama administration
believes are necessary to keep us safe and keep alive our proud
tradition of placing national security ahead of partisan politics.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know there is important debate, but I wish
to take a few minutes and talk about America losing one of its finest
entrepreneurs and citizens.

Remembering Kirk Kerkorian

Mr. President, last night, at 10:30, my friend Kirk Kerkorian died.
What a wonderful man. He was 98 years old, and when history books are
written, they will say a lot about this good man.
I had the good fortune as a young lawyer to meet him. I didn't do any
of his mergers and acquisitions and all the stock stuff. I didn't do
any of that. But when we first met, he was a businessman with an
airline called Trans International Airlines. I will talk about that in
a minute, but it started out as one airplane.
I knew that Kirk was failing because he and I were supposed to go
watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, and he said he couldn't go. I knew
then that his days were numbered, for lack of a better description.
I had kept in touch with him all these many years. As I said, I am
not one to boast about all the great legal work I did for Kirk. I
didn't do much. But I did do a lot of work for his brother, a man by
the name of Nish Kerkorian, and Kirk never forgot all the work I did
for his brother.
Kirk had two siblings: One woman who was a sweet, sweet lady,
vibrant, named Rose, his sister Rose. She died not long ago. I called
Kirk. It was really hard on him; he cried, and we shed a tear together.
He was born in 1917 in Fresno, CA. His parents were Armenian
immigrants. He grew up at a very difficult time. He didn't graduate
from the eighth grade. He became a prize fighter, became the Pacific
amateur welterweight champion, and his name was ``Rifle Right''
Kerkorian.
His brother Nish, whom I talked about, was also a fighter and a
boxer, and he fought a lot. Kirk didn't fight too much.
On the floor is one of ours--if not the hero we have in the Senate
for military endeavors--the senior Senator from Arizona.
It is important to talk about Kirk Kerkorian for just a minute and
about what he did for our country in the military, using that term
broadly--``in the military.'' He had learned to fly, while milking cows
and looking after a woman's cattle, at an air strip near now what is
Edwards Air Force Base. That is where he learned to fly, at a place
called Happy Bottom Riding Club. That is where he learned to fly. He
loved to fly. He got his pilot's license in just a few months, and he
wanted to go into the military, but he couldn't at the time because we
weren't in the war yet.
The British Royal Air Force was ferrying Canadian-built de Havilland
Mosquitoes over the North Atlantic because England was desperate for
help. The Nazis were after them, Hitler was sweeping Europe, and the
submarines were sinking the ships trying to take supplies to England.
So out of desperation, Canada, which was part of Great Britain at the
time, decided they would help. The problem was that to fly those
airplanes over the North Atlantic was really very, very difficult. They
had two routes. One was 1,400 miles. The other was shorter but
extremely more dangerous. Kirk Kerkorian agreed to take the one more
dangerous. It was dangerous because the North Atlantic is very brutal.
The wings would ice. But he got a lot of money for each flight--almost
$1,000 for each flight. He delivered 33 planes to England. Every one of
those flights was a nightmare, but he did it.
He was truly an American patriot. There is a documentary on what he
did--flying across the North Atlantic with some other gallant men who
did that and helped preserve freedom in the world and take on the
Nazis.
After the war, he had saved a lot of his money, and he bought a
Cessna. It was expensive at the time--$5,000. He worked in general
aviation. He first visited Las Vegas in 1944. In 1947 he paid $60,000
for the airline where I first met him. He was dealing with Trans
International Airlines, which was a small air charter service that
basically flew gamblers between L.A. and Las Vegas. He, of course, was
a very frugal man. He operated the airline until 1968, when he sold it
for $104 million. He paid $60,000 for it and sold it for $104 million.
That was him. He was an entrepreneur.

[[Page S4178]]

He moved into Las Vegas quickly. He bought a piece of land across
from the Flamingo Hotel for $960,000. It was 80 acres. That is now
where Caesars Palace is. He was originally the landlord for that
property. He made $9 million on that deal.
He then, shortly thereafter, paid $5 million cash for an off-Strip
property--the first one that had ever been done. That is something I
was involved with. It was quite interesting. That transaction showed to
me his absolute honesty. I have said publicly--I am not going into
detail here--but I will end by saying that the lawyer with whom I
worked, Bill Singleton, said: No, Kirk doesn't do business that way,
and he walked out of the room. He wound up buying the property. That
was where the International Hotel was built, and it was a very, very
expensive property at the time. It was off-Strip. The first two people
to appear in the showroom were Barbra Streisand and Elvis Presley, and
that was the beginning of Kirk Kerkorian's ascension to power broker,
to say the least, in Las Vegas.
He bought and sold MGM movies two different times. In the process, of
course, he built the MGM hotel in Las Vegas. He was really an
interesting, wonderful man. He is one of the personalities I will never
forget, and my relationship with him is one of the special things in my
life. I feel so fortunate to be able to talk on a personal basis about
this man. He was one of a kind.
I am so disappointed. His No. 1 person, Tony Mandekik, called me and
told me that Kirk had died. To be honest with you, the tears on the
other side of the phone connection from Tony ended the conversation
because he couldn't talk anymore. Now he is responsible, among others--
but principally him--for disposing of this man's wealth.
He did not make all of his money in movies or hotels and casinos. He
branched out. He made a number of fortunes. People would say: How does
he know anything about the automobile industry? He wound up owning
large chunks of General Motors. He was one of the chief players in
Chrysler. He no longer made in those propositions millions of dollars
but billions. He made about $5 billion on this Chrysler Corporation
deal, where people said: What a fool--why would he do that?
You know that deal.
Not too long ago, about 3 years ago, I met him for lunch in Los
Angeles. I said: I have to get going. He pulled out of his pocket his
watch.
Kirk, what is that?
He says: It is my watch.
It was a Timex with no band on it.
He said: It keeps perfect time.
He came to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. He drove himself in a little
jeep--a jeep with the top partially down. That was him. He was a very
private man. He rarely gave interviews. I mean, he rarely gave
interviews. Even though he was one of the richest men in Los Angeles,
he was probably one of the most private. He simply did not do things in
public.
With all of the hotels that he owned--for those people who have a
little bit of knowledge of Las Vegas, a lot of stuff is done with
complimentary privileges. If you are a hotel owner, you get a lot of
stuff for nothing--not Kirk Kerkorian. He would not take a comp for
anything. Everything he paid for.
One of the last times we went to a fight, he also would not sit
ringside. He always wanted to be up away from everybody.
In 2008 he was worth $16 billion. I am not sure how much he was worth
when he died. But he has given huge amounts of his wealth away. His job
for Tony Mandekik and others was to give away the rest of his money.
It is a sad day for me and for the people who knew Kirk Kerkorian. He
lived a good, full life. He has two daughters. He always went out of
his way and paid his help well.
I wish I had the ability to articulate what a wonderful human being
Kirk Kerkorian was. I will always remember him. When I talk to people
who know something about business, I will always interject the name
Kirk Kerkorian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 1889

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from California have 15 minutes and I have 10 minutes and that the vote
be delayed until completion of the 15 minutes and the 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank the distinguished chairman for this time. I do not think I
will take 15 minutes. We have worked it down.
I join Senator McCain and Ranking Member Reed--as well as Senator
Collins and the other cosponsors, Senators Leahy, Paul, King, Flake,
Heinrich, Whitehouse, Mikulski, Wyden, Murphy, Hirono, Warner, Baldwin,
Brown and Markey--in offering an amendment that will help ensure the
United States never again carries out coercive and abusive
interrogation techniques or indefinite secret detentions.
I am very pleased that the Senate will consider this amendment, and I
urge an aye vote.
The amendment we are offering today is really very simple. It applies
the authorizations and restrictions for interrogations in the Army
Field Manual to the entire U.S. Government.
It extends what Congress did in 2005, by a vote of 90 to 9, with the
Detainee Treatment Act--which I believe Senator McCain authored--which
banned the Department of Defense from using techniques not authorized
by the Army Field Manual and also banned the government from using
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment.
The amendment also requires prompt access by the International
Committee of the Red Cross to any detainee held by the U.S. Government.
Both of these provisions are consistent with United States policy for
the past several years, but this amendment would codify these
requirements into law.
President Obama banned the use of coercive and abusive interrogation
techniques by Executive order in his first few days in office, actually
on January 22, 2009.
That Executive order formally prohibits--as a matter of policy--the
use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized by the Army
Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
This amendment places that restriction in law. It is long overdue.
The amendment also codifies another section of President Obama's
January 2009 Executive order, requiring access by the International
Committee of the Red Cross to all U.S. detainees in U.S. Government
custody--access which has been historically granted by the United
States and other law-abiding nations and is needed to fulfill our
obligations under international law, such as the Geneva Conventions.
It is also important to understand that the policies in the 2009
Executive order are only guaranteed for as long as a future President
agrees to leave them in place. This amendment would codify these two
provisions into law.
Current law already bans torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment.
However, this amendment is still necessary because interrogation
techniques were able to be used, which were based on a deeply flawed
legal theory, and those techniques, it was said, did not constitute
``torture'' or ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.''
These legal opinions could be written again.
In 2009, President Obama's Executive Order settled the issue as
formal policy, and this amendment will codify a prohibition on a
program that was already defunct at the end of the Bush administration.
CIA Director John Brennan has clearly stated that he agrees with the
ban on interrogation techniques that are not in the Army Field Manual.
Director Brennan wrote the following to the Intelligence Committee in
2013 about the President's 2009 Executive order:

I want to reaffirm what I said during my confirmation
hearing: I agree with the president's decision, and, while I
am the Director of the CIA, this program will not under any
circumstances be reinitiated. I personally remain firm in my
belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an
appropriate method to obtain intelligence and that their use
impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in
the world.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that the Senate and the
House both

[[Page S4179]]

required the use of the Army Field Manual across the government in the
fiscal year 2008 Intelligence authorization bill. Unfortunately,
President Bush vetoed that legislation.
Whatever one may think about the CIA's former detention and
interrogation program, we should all agree that there can be no turning
back to the era of torture.

Interrogation techniques that would together constitute torture do
not work. They corrode our moral standing, and ultimately they
undermine any counterterrorism policies they are intended to support.
So before I close, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a series of letters and statements in support of this amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 9, 2015.
Dear Senator: As retired generals and admirals who believe
that American ideals are a national security asset, we urge
you to support the amendment to the 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act that solidifies the ban against torture and
cruel treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
While international and domestic law, including the 2005
Detainee Treatment Act, prohibit such cruelty, high-level
officials in the Executive Branch still managed to evade
congressional intent by using loophole lawyering to authorize
torture and cruel treatment. We need to make sure this never
happens again. The United States should have one standard for
interrogating detainees that is effective, lawful, and
humane.
The McCain-Feinstein amendment would ensure lawful,
effective, and humane interrogations of individuals taken
into custody by requiring all agencies and departments to
comply with the time-tested requirements of the Army Field
Manual (``Human Intelligence Collector Operations''). It
would also codify existing Department of Defense (DOD)
practice of guaranteeing timely notification and access to
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for
detainees taken into custody--an important bulwark against
abuse.
We strongly urge you to support this legislation to help
move our country towards decisively rejecting the use of
torture or cruel treatment against detainees held in our
custody.
Thank you for your commitment to upholding our national
security and American values.
Sincerely,
General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.); General Charles Krulak,
USMC (Ret.); General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.);
Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.);
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.);
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.); Lieutenant
General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant
General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General
Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.); Vice Admiral Joe Sestak,
USN (Ret.); Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA
(Ret.); Lieutenant General Keith J. Stalder, USMC
(Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Rear
Admiral John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Major General
J. Michael Myatt, USMC (Ret.); Major General William L.
Nash, USA (Ret.).
Major General Eric T. Olson, USA (Ret.); Major General
Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret.); Major General Walter L.
Stewart, Jr., USA (Ret.); Major General Antonio M.
Taguba, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John Adams, USA
(Ret.); Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC
(Ret.); Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.);
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.);
Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret.);
Brigadier General Leif H. Hendrickson, USMC (Ret.);
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.);
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.); Brigadier
General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier
General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).
____

[From Peaceful Tomorrows, June 10, 2015]

September 11th Families Support the Reinforcement of Ban on Torture

(Posted by Katharina)

As family members of those killed on September 11th we have
strong opinions regarding torture. The use of enhanced
interrogation techniques, or torture by another name, was
wrongly justified by some as means to prevent another
terrorist attack. Torture is never justified. September 11th
Families for Peaceful Tomorrows applauds the legislation
being offered by Senators McCain and Feinstein to reinforce
the ban on torture. Any assertion of torture as effective
must be repudiated. Any loophole suggesting torture as a
justifiable means to security must be closed. Any ethical
principle that finds torture morally permissible must be
challenged.
American legislators must clearly and forcefully codify
policy that rejects and criminalizes torture in all its
forms. Only then will trust in the rule of law be restored,
and the people of this nation truly safe.
____

June 9, 2015.
Dear Senator: As intelligence and interrogation
professionals who have offered our collective voice opposing
torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, we strongly encourage you to support the amendment
to the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act that
solidifies the ban against torture and cruel treatment of
detainees in U.S. custody.
While international and domestic law, including the 2005
Detainee Treatment Act, prohibit such cruelty, sadly high-
level officials in the Executive Branch exploited loopholes
and still authorized torture and cruel treatment. The
interrogation methods that have kept America safe for
generations are sophisticated, humane, lawful, and produce
reliable, actionable intelligence in any interrogation
scenario. To promote a return to that respected level of
professionalism, there must be a single well-defined standard
of conduct--consistent with our values as a nation--across
all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation
of people anywhere in U.S. custody.
The amendment would ensure lawful, effective, and humane
interrogations of individuals taken into custody by requiring
all agencies and departments to comply with the time-tested
requirements of the Army Field Manual (``Human Intelligence
Collector Operations''). It would also require a review of
the Army Field Manual to ensure that best practices and the
most recent evidenced-based research on humane interrogation
are incorporated. It would also codify existing Department of
Defense (DOD) practice of guaranteeing timely notification
and access to the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) for detainees taken into custody--an important bulwark
against abuse.
We strongly urge you to support this legislation to help
move our country forward and reaffirm that there is no
conflict between adhering to one of our nation's essential
and founding values--respect for inherent human dignity--and
our ability to obtain the intelligence we need to protect the
nation.
Sincerely,
Frank Anderson, CIA (Ret.); Donald Canestraro, DEA
(Ret.); Glenn Carle, CIA (Ret.); Jack Cloonan, CIA
(Ret.); Barry Eisler, Formerly CIA; Eric Fair, Formerly
U.S. Army; Mark Fallon, NCIS (Ret.); Charlton Howard,
NCIS (Ret.); David Irvine, Brigadier General, U.S. Army
(Ret.); Timothy James, NCIS (Ret.); Steve Kleinman,
Colonel, USAFR (Ret.); Marcus Lewis, Formerly U.S.
Army; Brittain Mallow, Colonel, USA (Ret.); Mike Marks,
NCIS (Ret.);
Robert McFadden, NCIS (Ret.); Charles Mink, Formerly U.S.
Army; Joe Navarro, FBI (Ret.); Torin Nelson, Formerly
U.S. Army; Carissa Pastuch, Formerly U.S. Army; William
Quinn, Formerly U.S. Army; Ken Robinson, U.S. Army
(Ret.); Rolince, Mike, FBI (Ret.); Ed Soyster,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.).
____

Committee on International

Justice and Peace,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2015.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator, As deliberations over the FY 2016 National
Defense Authorization Act continue, I write to express
support for an amendment offered by Senators John McCain and
Dianne Feinstein that would prohibit all U.S. government
agencies and their agents from using torture as an
interrogation technique.
The amendment would:
Require all U.S. government agencies (including the CIA) to
limit interrogation techniques to those set out in the Army
Field Manual;
Require the Army Field Manual be updated regularly and
remain available to the public to reflect best interrogation
techniques designed to elicit statements without the use or
threat of force; and
Require the International Committee of the Red Cross be
given access to all detainees.
These provisions are ones that the Committee on
International Justice and Peace of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops have long supported in trying
to ban the practice of torture by the U.S. government.
The Army Field Manual 2-22.3 prescribes uniform standards
for interrogating persons detained by the Department of
Defense. A guiding principle of the Field Manual echoes the
Golden Rule: ``In attempting to determine if a contemplated
approach or technique should be considered prohibited, and
therefore should not be included in an interrogation plan,
consider . . . if the proposed approach technique were used
by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, would you
believe the soldier had been abused?'' (5-76)
The McCain-Feinstein amendment seeks to ensure that Army
Field Manual's standard is also the same standard used by
other governmental agencies, including the CIA. Adhering to
these standards and ensuring access by the International
Committee of the Red Cross to visit detainees in
international armed conflicts would make a substantial
contribution to our nation's efforts to uphold our
international obligations under the Geneva Conventions and
the Convention Against Torture. The amendment would help
restore the moral credibility of the United States.
In Catholic teaching, torture is an intrinsic evil that
cannot be justified under any

[[Page S4180]]

circumstances as it violates the dignity of the human person,
both victim and perpetrator, and degrades any society that
tolerates it. We urge all Senators to support the McCain-
Feinstein amendment that would help to ensure that laws are
enacted so that our government does not engage in torture
ever again.
Sincerely yours,
Most Reverend Oscar Cantu,
Bishop of Las Cruces, Chair, Committee on International
Justice and Peace.
____

Protecting U.S. Security Upholding American Values

The United States detainee interrogation policy can live up
to American values and, at the same time, protect our
national security. This policy, supported by overwhelmingly
bipartisan legislation in 2005, states: ``No individual in
the custody or under the physical control of the U.S.
Government, regardless of nationality or physical location,
shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment.'' Such principles can be attained by following
the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector
Operations. We believe these lawful, humane, and effective
techniques will produce actionable intelligence while
adhering to our founding principles.
To ensure the integrity of this critical process, Congress
should conduct effective, real-time oversight on America's
intelligence communities. Failure to live up to these
internal safeguards adversely affects the nation's security
and damages America's reputation in the world.
Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, 2001-2005;
Howard Berman, U.S. Congressman (D-CA), 1983-2013;
David Boren, U.S. Senator (D-OK), 1979-1994, Governor
of Oklahoma, 1975-1979; Harold Brown, Secretary of
Defense, 1977-1981; David Durenberger, U.S. Senator (R-
MN), 1978-1995; Lee Hamilton, U.S. Congressman (D-IN),
1965-1999; Gary Hart, U.S. Senator (D-CO), 1975-1987;
Rita Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute,
1992-Present; Carla Hills, U.S. Trade Representative,
1989-1993; Thomas Kean, Governor of New Jersey, 1982-
1990, 9/11 Commission Chairman.
Richard C. Leone, Senior Fellow and former President of
the Century Foundation; Carl Levin, U.S. Senator (D-
MI), 1979-2015; Richard Lugar, U.S. Senator (R-IN),
1977-2013; Robert C. McFarlane, National Security
Advisor, 1983-1985; Donald McHenry, Ambassador to the
United Nations, 1979-1981; William Perry, Secretary of
Defense, 1994-1997; Charles Robb, U.S. Senator (D-VA);
1989-2001; Governor of Virginia, 1982-1986; Ken
Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, 2009-2013, U.S.
Senator (D-CO), 2005-2009; George Shultz, Secretary of
State, 1982-1989; William H. Taft IV, Deputy Secretary
of Defense, 1984-1989.
____

National Association

of Evangelicals,

Washington, DC, June 8, 2015.
Dear Senator: As you authorize FY16 appropriations for the
Department of Defense, please approve language in an
amendment to be offered by Senators McCain and Feinstein that
would strengthen the prohibition of torture in U.S. law and
apply the Army Field Manual interrogation policies and
standards to all personnel and facilities operated or
controlled by our government.
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) opposes the
use of torture as a violation of basic human dignity that is
incompatible with our beliefs in the sanctity of human life.
The use of torture is also inconsistent with American values,
undermines our moral standing in the world and may contribute
to an environment in which captured U.S. personnel are
subjected to torture.
The NAE's position is set forth in ``An Evangelical
Declaration Against Torture,'' available at <a href='http://nae.net/
an-evangelical-dec'>http://nae.net/
an-evangelical-dec</a>
laration-against-torture/, and reaffirmed in a recent NAE
statement (<a href='http://nae.net/nae-affirms-u-s-army-prohibition-
of-torture/'>http://nae.net/nae-affirms-u-s-army-prohibition-
of-torture/</a>).
While the use of torture is currently prohibited across all
government agencies by executive order, this fundamental
principle must be enshrined in law, to ensure that no future
President may authorize the use of torture.
We are grateful for your leadership and pray that God will
guide you as you consider how best to defend our nation.
Sincerely,
Leith Anderson,
President.
____

National Council of Churches,

June 11, 2015.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: As you consider amendments to the National
Defense Authorization Act, please support the McCain-
Feinstein amendment on torture. The amendment would prohibit
torture by requiring the CIA and other agencies to follow the
guidelines in the Army Field Manual when conducting
interrogations, and by ensuring that the International
Committee of the Red Cross is given access to all detainees.
The amendment also provides a means to update the Field
Manual to reflect the best legal, humane, and effective
interrogation techniques.
As Christians we believe that all people are created in the
image of God, endowed by our Creator with an inalienable
dignity and worth. Torture is a deeply degrading violation of
that image and to us it is never morally acceptable. As the
most powerful country on earth, we should set an example for
humane treatment of prisoners; we should never allow our
nation's practices to be used to justify torture.
Passing the McCain-Feinstein amendment would strengthen the
legal prohibition against torture and thereby prevent the CIA
from ever resuming its torture program. Please support
McCain-Feinstein and help begin to put the CIA's brutal and
degrading use of torture behind us.
Sincerely,
Jim Winkler,
President and General Secretary.
____

American Civil Liberties Union; Human Rights; National
Religious Campaign Against Torture; The Constitution
Project; Physicans for Human Rights; Open Society
Policy Center; The Center for Victims of Torture

(For Immediate Release: June 9, 2015)

Human Rights Groups Applaud Legislation Reaffirming U.S. Prohibition on
Torture

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, Senators McCain, Feinstein, Reed,
and Collins introduced legislation to make the U.S. Army
Field Manual on Interrogations the standard for all U.S.
government interrogations to make sure that the United States
never uses torture again. Seven human rights and civil
liberties organizations, including the ACLU, the Center for
Victims of Torture, The Constitution Project, Human Rights
First, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, the
Open Society Policy Center, and Physicians for Human Rights,
announced their strong support for the legislation via the
joint statement below.
Washington, DC.--We applaud Senators McCain, Feinstein,
Reed and Collins for offering bipartisan legislation to
ensure that the United States never uses torture again.
Senator McCain's prior legislation (the Detainee Treatment
Act) was approved by the Senate in 2005 with strong
bipartisan support and was a positive game-changer by
mandating among other things that interrogations conducted by
all Department of Defense personnel had to follow the U.S.
Army Field Manual on Interrogation (the Interrogation
Manual). The McCain-Feinstein amendment extends and improves
the Detainee Treatment Act by making the Interrogation Manual
the standard for all U.S. government interrogations, and by
mandating that the Manual be reviewed and updated regularly
to insure that it reflects the very best evidence-based
interrogation practices and complies with all U.S. legal
obligations. The McCain-Feinstein amendment also requires
that the International Committee of the Red Cross have access
to every prisoner in U.S. custody no matter where or by whom
they are held.
We believe that the CIA's ``enhanced interrogation''
techniques and ``black sites'' were clearly illegal under the
law that existed on 9/11, under the 2005 Detainee Treatment
Act and also under the relevant provisions of the 2006
Military Commissions Act. But the overwhelming evidence that
has emerged of shocking brutality employed by the CIA
notwithstanding these laws--including waterboarding, nudity,
stress positions, sleep deprivation, forced rectal feeding,
beatings and other abuses--demonstrates that additional
protections are still essential. Had the McCain-Feinstein
amendment been in place following the 9/11 attacks we believe
it would have significantly bolstered other prohibitions on
torture and made it far more difficult, if not impossible,
for the CIA to establish and operate their torture program.
Among other things, the Interrogation Manual explicitly
prohibits waterboarding, forced nudity and other forms of
torture employed by the CIA and it specifies that only
interrogation methods that are expressly described in the
Interrogation Manual are permitted. In addition, under the
McCain-Feinstein legislation no prisoner could have been
hidden away at CIA ``black sites'' without access to the Red
Cross.
More can and should be done to pursue accountability for
past brutal and illegal interrogations and to improve the
Interrogation Manual. But the McCain-Feinstein Amendment is a
vital and welcome step toward ensuring that the United States
never again uses torture.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and by
doing so, we can recommit ourselves to the fundamental precept that the
United States does not torture--without exception and without
equivocation--and ensure that the mistakes of our past are never again
repeated in the future.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4181]]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to, if they wish,
disregard my statement with the exception of the statement by GEN David
Petraeus. I don't know of a military leader who is more respected in
America and throughout the world than GEN David Petraeus. I don't have
to remind my colleagues that he was the commander of U.S. forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan and Director of the CIA. He arguably has more
experience dealing with foreign detainee issues across the U.S.
Government than any other American. These are the words of GEN David
Petraeus:

I strongly support the extension of the provisions of the
U.S. Army Field Manual that currently govern the actions of
the U.S. military to all U.S. Government personnel and
contractors. Our Nation has paid a high price in recent
decades for the information gained by the use of techniques
beyond those in the field manual, and in my view, that price
far outweighed the value of the information gained through
the use of techniques beyond those in the manual.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the words of David Petraeus.
Here is a letter I received this month from former intelligence
interrogation professionals, the U.S. military, the CIA, and the FBI.
Here is an excerpt from the letter they sent to me this month:

As intelligence and interrogation professionals who have
offered our collective voice opposing torture and other forms
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, we strongly
encourage you to support the amendment. . . . The
interrogation methods that have kept America safe for
generations are sophisticated, humane, lawful and produce
reliable, actionable intelligence in any interrogation
scenario. To promote a return to that respected level of
professionalism, there must be a single well-defined standard
of conduct--consistent with our values as a nation--across
all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation
of people anywhere in U.S. custody.

This is supported by some of our most experienced military leaders.
They expressed their views in a letter I received this month, 30 of
whom are retired, including a former Commandant of the Marine Corps,
former commander of Centcom, former commander and chief of U.S. Army
Europe--they wrote the following:

This amendment not only solidifies America's stance against
torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment. It also ensures that interrogation methods used by
all U.S. personnel are professional and reflect the
government's best practices. In that way, we not only ensure
that these interrogations are humane and lawful, but also
that they produce reliable intelligence on which we depend if
we are to fight and win against the current terrorist threat.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letter from those individuals dated June 9, 2015.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

June 9, 2015.
Dear Senator: As intelligence and interrogation
professionals who have offered our collective voice opposing
torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, we strongly encourage you to support the amendment
to the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act that
solidifies the ban against torture and cruel treatment of
detainees in U.S. custody.
While international and domestic law, including the 2005
Detainee Treatment Act, prohibit such cruelty, sadly high-
level officials in the Executive Branch exploited loopholes
and still authorized torture and cruel treatment. The
interrogation methods that have kept America safe for
generations are sophisticated, humane, lawful, and produce
reliable, actionable intelligence in any interrogation
scenario. To promote a return to that respected level of
professionalism, there must be a single well-defined standard
of conduct--consistent with our values as a nation--across
all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation
of people anywhere in U.S. custody.
The amendment would ensure lawful, effective, and humane
interrogations of individuals taken into custody by requiring
all agencies and departments to comply with the time-tested
requirements of the Army Field Manual (``Human Intelligence
Collector Operations''). It would also require a review of
the Army Field Manual to ensure that best practices and the
most recent evidenced-based research on humane interrogation
are incorporated. It would also codify existing Department of
Defense (DOD) practice of guaranteeing timely notification
and access to the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) for detainees taken into custody--an important bulwark
against abuse.
We strongly urge you to support this legislation to help
move our country forward and reaffirm that there is no
conflict between adhering to one of our nation's essential
and founding values--respect for inherent human dignity--and
our ability to obtain the intelligence we need to protect the
nation.
Sincerely,
Frank Anderson, CIA (Ret.); Donald Canestraro, DEA (Ret.);
Glenn Carle, CIA (Ret.); Jack Cloonan, CIA (Ret.); Barry
Eisler, Formerly CIA; Eric Fair, Formerly U.S. Army; Mark
Fallon, NCIS (Ret.); Charlton Howard, NCIS (Ret.); David
Irvine, Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret.); Timothy James,
NCIS (Ret.); Steve Kleinman, Colonel, USAFR (Ret.); Marcus
Lewis, Formerly U.S. Army; Brittain Mallow, Colonel, USA
(Ret.); Mike Marks, NCIS (Ret.); Robert McFadden, NCIS
(Ret.); Charles Mink, Formerly U.S. Army; Joe Navarro, FBI
(Ret.); Torin Nelson, Formerly U.S. Army; Carissa Pastuch,
Formerly U.S. Army; William Quinn, Formerly U.S. Army; Ken
Robinson, U.S. Army (Ret.); Rolince, Mike, FBI (Ret.); Ed
Soyster, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.).

Mr. McCAIN. In a letter this month, the National Association of
Evangelicals wrote the following in support of this amendment:

While the use of torture is currently prohibited across all
government agencies by executive order, this fundamental
principle must be enshrined in law to ensure that no future
President may authorize the use of torture.

Again, that is from the National Association of Evangelicals.
The Committee on International Justice and Peace at the United States
Conference of the Catholic Bishops wrote the following in support of
the amendment:

In Catholic teaching, torture is an intrinsic evil that
cannot be justified under any circumstances as it violates
the dignity of the human person, both victim and perpetrator,
and degrades any society that tolerates it. We urge all
Senators to support the McCain-Feinstein amendment that would
help to ensure that laws are enacted so that our government
does not engage in torture ever again.

I respect the dedication and services of those charged with
protecting this country. For 14 years, America's security professionals
in the military, intelligence community, and beyond have lived every
day with a dogged determination to protect their fellow Americans. But
at the same time, we must continue to insist that the methods we employ
in this fight for peace and freedom must always be as right and
honorable as the goals and ideals we fight for.
I believe past interrogation policies compromised our values, stained
our national honor, and did little practical good. I don't believe we
should have employed such practices in the past, and we should never
permit them in the future. This amendment provides greater assurances
that never again will the United States follow that dark path of
sacrificing our values for our short-term security needs.
I also know that such practices don't work. I know from personal
experience that the abuse of prisoners does not produce good, reliable
intelligence. Victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading
information if they think their captors will believe it.
I firmly believe that all people, even captured enemies, possess
basic human rights which are protected by international standards often
set by America's past leaders. Our enemies act without conscience. We
must not. Let's reassert the contrary proposition that it is essential
to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to
remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how
nations should be governed and should remember this when they conduct
their relations with others, even our enemies.
Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our
Nation's highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to
protect them, and by our respect for human dignity to make clear that
we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We
need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror
of war, when facing cruelty, suffering, and loss, that we are always
Americans and different, stronger, and better than those who would
destroy us.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand as a very proud cosponsor, along
with Senator McCain and Senator Feinstein, on this amendment. I
particularly wish to commend both Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain
because they have really been the leaders in this Senate and in this
country in expressing our fundamental values when

[[Page S4182]]

it comes to the techniques we employ for those we detain in combat
zones. Both their words and personal example have set an extraordinary
standard for us to respond to, and this amendment is typical of what
they have done. It would codify the terms of President Obama's
Executive order 13491 that applies to the Army Field Manual on
interrogations not only for the U.S. military but also for the
interrogation of detainees by other U.S. Government agencies.
What I think is so critical to this debate, this amendment, and the
service of these two Senators is that the humane treatment standard we
set for those who are in our custody also serves to protect our men and
women if they fall into the hands of our opponents. We then can say
with complete sincerity and complete fidelity that we demand our troops
receive humane treatment when in the custody of hostile forces because
that is what we do. When we deviate from that standard, we imperil the
safety and lives of our men and women in uniform who may fall into
hostile hands.
As we adhere to these standards, we are not only setting a very high
bar for the treatment of those whom we may hold, but we are innately
protecting the safety, health, welfare, and well-being of those who
serve in the uniform of the United States, and for that reason in
particular, I commend the sponsors of this amendment and urge all of my
colleagues to support it.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank both Senator McCain and
Senator Reed for their remarks. I particularly wish to thank Senator
McCain, whose life experience, for me, has been a guidepost. I don't
know anyone in this body who is more standup--and can sometimes be more
stubborn, but this all comes into play as an important thing--and
stands for the real, true, major issues this country faces.
I will never forget a conversation I had with him on the plane back
from Guantanamo. When he spoke in the Kennedy Caucus Room and used the
tap language he learned as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and to see this
man, so many years since that time, tap out messages that were meant
for prison mates in other cells with such speed and alacrity certainly
indicated that this was a very deep impression which was made on his
life. I think the fact that he has shared that with others, including
me, is very important.
I want Senator McCain to know how much I appreciate his work on this
and how grateful we are for his service to this country. He has unique
courage and unique stamina, and maybe that is just all-American. Again,
I thank the Senator from Arizona very much for his work, and the same
for Senator Reed, the ranking member on this committee. Senator Reed is
military-American through and through. Having his support has been
terrific.
Again, I thank both of them very much. It was a pleasure to work with
both of my colleagues, and I hope this passes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for her very
kind words and her friendship and leadership. I hope that in return for
all of this, she will send back all the water to Arizona that
California has stolen from our State. My beloved former colleague,
Senator Barry Goldwater, used to say that in Arizona, we had so little
water that the trees chased the dogs, so we would like to get the water
back from California, and I hope that can be part of the wonderful
friendship we have enjoyed now for many years.
I thank the Senator from California.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 1889, offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

YEAS--78

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--21

Barrasso
Blunt
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hatch
Inhofe
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Vitter

NOT VOTING--1

Rubio

The amendment (No. 1889) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise for a special request. I just
returned from a military trip overseas with four other Members just a
matter of minutes ago to find out that the two amendments that I was
trying to get pending--and I would really settle for just one of those
two. I was not here when all of these UCs were made and the
arrangements were put together between the parties.
So I ask the leader on the other side--or the handler on the other
side, Senator Jack Reed--if he would consider a waiver of his
commitment to allow me to bring up one of these to get in the queue.
I yield to the Senator.
Mr. REED. To the Senator from Oklahoma, we have been trying to move
forward on an equal basis in terms of pending amendments. At this
juncture, I am not able to agree to make another amendment pending.
There is a possibility that we spoke about, briefly, of including
these amendments in the manager's package or, since it is germane, of
trying to arrange for consideration after cloture, along with another
germane amendment. So at this point I would not be prepared to--
Mr. INHOFE. Regaining the floor, I would only say to my good friend
that as the second ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, I
have talked about these for a long time. I tried to do them before I
left for 4 days on business. Also, Senator Mikulski is my cosponsor on
amendment No. 1728.
So I have to make a motion to lay the pending amendment aside for the
purpose of consideration of amendment No. 1728.
Mr. REED. Have you made the motion?
Mr. INHOFE. I just did.
Mr. REED. I would object.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending
business aside for the purpose of considering the Inhofe-Mikulski
commissary amendment No. 1728.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, at this time, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to make a comment, because first,
this is something beyond anyone's control. No one could have controlled
this. We had four Members who were gone. It couldn't be helped. We were
on business.
I have 41 amendments, almost equally divided, Democrat and
Republican, on an issue that is probably the most significant issue to
the spouses of our kids who are over there, overseas. What it does is
that it lets us do an assessment before we close any of the
commissaries--not close them but privatize them, instead of privatizing
them and then seeing how it works. I think we have a vast majority of
people who do support that.

[[Page S4183]]

It is something that is offered on a bipartisan basis, and it is
something that a lot of people--over 100 organizations are sponsoring
this amendment--spoke very strongly in support of and consider this
amendment to be the most significant amendment in the everyday lives of
our troops. Anyone who travels overseas and travels to these various
areas knows that when they go through a commissary, they see--
particularly in areas where there are no other opportunities out
there--that there is almost no competition. It is something like a
club. It is something that the wives, the husbands, the families, and
the kids do. They go to the commissary. Taking that away would be
taking away a tradition.
Again, the bill doesn't state that it goes away, but it does
temporarily privatize five major commissaries. Now, when that happens,
you have started the ball rolling. And the bill also states--and we
discussed this in committee--that this gives us time to look and
evaluate to see whether we want to privatize them.
So everyone who is on here as a cosponsor has made the statement: Why
don't we find out first.
So that is all we want to do--instead of closing or transferring five
and then finding out whether we did the right thing, go ahead and have
the study and then go ahead and proceed however we think is in the best
interest.
So it is a very serious amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New York.

Amendment No. 1578

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to
support my amendment No. 1578, the Military Justice Improvement Act, to
ensure that survivors of military sexual assault have access to an
unbiased, trained, military judicial system.
Last year, despite the support of 55 Senators, a coalition spanning
the entire ideological spectrum, including both the majority and
minority leader, our bill to create an independent military justice
system free of inherent biases and conflicts of interest within the
chain of command was filibustered by this body.
But as we said then: We will not walk away. The brave men and women
in uniform who are defending this Nation deserve a vote. That is our
duty. It is our oversight role. It is Congress's responsibility to act
as if the brave survivors of sexual assault are our sons, our
daughters, our husbands, our wives, who are being betrayed by the
greatest military on Earth. We owe them that at the very least.
Over the last few years, Congress has forced the military to make
many incremental changes to address this crisis. And after two decades
of complete failure and lip service to zero tolerance, the military now
says, essentially: Trust us this time; we have it.
They misrepresent data to claim that their mission is accomplished,
but when you dig below the service of their top lines, you will find
that the assault rate is exactly where it was in 2010--an average of 52
cases every single day--and 3 out of 4 servicemember survivors still
don't think it is worth the risk of coming forward to report crimes
committed against them.
Seventy-five percent don't trust the current system. One in seven
victims was assaulted by someone in their chain of command. And in 60
percent of the cases, a supervisor or unit leader is responsible for
either sexual harassment or sexual discrimination. This is not the
climate our military deserves. It is no surprise, then, that one in
three survivors believes that reporting would hurt their career.
For those who do report, they are more likely than not to experience
retaliation. Despite a much touted reform that made retaliation a
crime, the DOD made zero progress on improving the 62-percent
retaliation rate that we had in 2012.
According to a Human Rights Watch report, the DOD cannot provide a
single example of serious disciplinary action taken against those who
retaliated against a victim of sexual assault. A sexual assault
survivor is 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than to see
their offender get convicted of a sex offense.
In my close review of 107 cases--from the largest domestic military
bases and one from each service--in 2013, I found that nearly half of
those who did move forward and report ended up dropping out of their
cases. Survivors still have little faith in this system. Under any
metric the system remains plagued with distrust and does not provide
the fair and just process that our men and women in the military
deserve.
Simply put, the military has not held up to the standard posed by
General Dempsey 1 year ago when he said:

We are on the clock, if you will . . . the President said
to us in December, you've got about a year to review this
thing . . . and if we haven't been able to demonstrate we are
making a difference, you know, then we deserve to be held to
the scrutiny and standard.

I urge my colleagues to hold the military to that higher standard.
Enough is enough with the spin, with the excuses, and the false
promises.
Just yesterday I received a letter from a survivor of military sexual
assault who is serving Active Duty. She says:

The reason I am writing on her behalf is because I fear she
will be retaliated against for speaking out.
While the military is on the Hill lobbying Senators not to
support the Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA), I am
asking you to take a stand with survivors and their families.
These military lobbyists have good intentions; however, I
am doubtful any of them will represent my perspective.
I have experienced the anguish of a child who has been
raped by another servicemember, a fellow brother-in-arms whom
she should have been able to trust.
Please support the Military Justice Improvement Act, a
commonsense law that significantly improves the military
justice system. Our military sons and daughters who survive
these heinous crimes carry high rates of post-traumatic
stress disorder and suicide. I believe that if the MJIA is
passed, it could save lives and will positively affect the
lives of survivors, both victims and their families.
No one should have to worry about retaliation from their
chain of command when they report these crimes. Retaliation
happens so often that a majority of these assaults go
unreported. Every military victim of sexual assault deserves
due process, professional treatment by a trained military
individual, and equal opportunity to seek and receive
justice.
Our military has promised improvement and has had adequate
time in which to improve, but the numbers show that the
military has failed to live up to its promise.
The Department of Defense has admitted that it made no
progress since 2012. It is time for the chain of command to
be removed from decision-making in sexual assault cases and
replaced by those trained, non-biased military personnel,
educated in the law and experienced in handling sexual
assault cases.
Further, MJIA specifically carves out sexual assault and
other serious crimes, with the remainder of military crimes
being left in the chain of command.
Please hold the military to a higher standard by voting yes
to an unbiased military system, promoted in MJIA.

We have to listen to our victims, our survivors, the men and women
who give their lives to this country, who will sacrifice anything for
this country. America's military, if they do these reforms, will have
fewer dangerous criminals and far more heroes. The brave men and women
we send to war to keep us safe deserve nothing less than a justice
system equal to their sacrifice. By listening to the victims, we can
deliver that.
I urge everyone here to listen to our brave survivors, support our
bill, and do the right thing.
I would now like to yield the floor to one of the authors of the
Military Justice Improvement Act, the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gillibrand for her
leadership in this area over a long period of time, and I add my voice
to the support of her amendment. She has been a great leader on the
issue. As you can see, she has a lot of passion in her dogged pursuit
of justice.
Last year, when I spoke in favor of this measure, I made the point
this was not a new issue that required further study or incremental
reforms. We had been hearing promises for years and years that there
would be zero tolerance and a real crackdown on military sexual
assault. Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act included a
lot of commonsense reforms, but it did not include any fundamental
reform of the military justice system. We were told to give these new
adjustments to the current system a chance to work and come back next
year.

[[Page S4184]]

At the time, I made the point that we had already tried working
within the current system to no avail. I am not one to advocate for
major sweeping reform if less will address the problem, but what we
have been doing has not worked.
Last year, after Congress passed the package of more modest reforms
but not our Military Justice Improvement Act amendment, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said: ``We have been given
about a year to demonstrate both that we will treat this with the
urgency it deserves and that we can turn the trend lines in a more
positive direction.'' He made clear that if we didn't see real
progress, he wouldn't stand in the way of more major reforms. Well, we
have not seen significant movement.
In terms of the number of sexual assault cases and the shocking rate
of retaliation against those who report, we simply don't see progress.
That is probably because the current system is part of the problem. The
fact that victims of sexual assault cannot turn to an independent
system to get justice, combined with the very real fear of retaliation,
acts as a terrible deterrent to reporting sexual assault. If sexual
assault cases are not reported, they then cannot be prosecuted. If
sexual assault isn't prosecuted, it leads to predators remaining in the
military and a perception that this sort of activity is going to be
tolerated.
By allowing this situation to continue, we are putting at risk the
men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line. We
are also seriously damaging military morale and readiness.
Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to
professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command
will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our Armed
Forces. This would in no way take away the ability of commanders to
punish troops under their command for military infractions. Commanders
also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their
command, but the point here is the sexual assault is a law enforcement
matter, not a military one.
This isn't some reform that came out of the blue either. We have an
advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense himself which
came out in support of reforms. On September 27, 2013, the Defense
Advisory Committee on Women in the Services--which goes by the acronym
DACOWITS--voted overwhelmingly in support of each of the components of
the Military Justice Improvement Act amendment.
DACOWITS was created way back in 1951 by then-Secretary of Defense
George C. Marshall. The committee is composed of civilian and retired
military men and women who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to
provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to
the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and
well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces.
Historically, this committee's recommendations have been very
instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to
military women.
The bottom line is, this isn't some advocacy group or fly-by-night
panel. It is a longstanding advisory committee handpicked by the
Secretary of Defense and it supports the substance of our amendment to
a tee.
We have tried reforming the current system and it didn't work. When
we are talking about something as serious and life-altering as sexual
assault, we cannot afford to wait any longer. So I urge my colleagues
to join us in supporting this amendment.
As we approach this from the outside, it gives me an opportunity to
reiterate what I see so wrong in so many bureaucracies. We are always
promised change, but as I have looked back over a couple or three
decades of this problem of the culture of the various bureaucracies,
nothing really happens from within. It has to happen from without. In
this particular case of national defense being the No. 1 responsibility
of the Federal Government, this change has to happen from without
because it hasn't happened from within, regardless of the promises.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, last year we gathered here to debate
this issue, and I think it is really important to point out that
everyone in this body has the same heart when it comes to this issue;
that is, that we want to make sure victims who are assaulted in our
military are protected and supported, that the system is highly trained
and professional, and that perpetrators have due process but also are
put in prison if the system finds them guilty. This difference is an
honest policy difference over which system would better accomplish
those goals.
Now, we have agreed on so much, I think it is important to point out
the work the Congress has done reforming sexual assault in the
military. Last year, we had over 26 different provisions that were
enacted into law. This year, we haven't stopped. We have 13 more
provisions in this piece of legislation. There is simply a disagreement
over which system would protect victims better.
There have been historic reforms, such as commanders having been
stripped from their ability to overturn convictions. They are being
held accountable under rigorous new standards and oversight. Every
victim who reports now gets their own independent lawyer to protect
their rights and fight for their interests. It is now a crime for any
member to retaliate against a victim who reports a sexual assault. The
``good soldier'' defense has been removed, along with dozens and dozens
more.
Yes, there were panels that looked at this issue, as the one just
referenced by my colleague from Iowa--DACOWITS. They heard no testimony
from expert witnesses. They heard a brief presentation by myself and
Senator Gillibrand, but they didn't spend days on it; whereas, the
system's response panel, put in place by this Congress, spent weeks and
weeks examining this and heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses from
every side of the issue. By the way, this panel was made up of a
majority of civilians--the majority of them women--and it voted
overwhelmingly to reject an approach that removes commanders from their
responsibility and their duties and, therefore, their accountability.
One of the members of this Commission, the woman who runs the victims
center at the Department of Justice for the entire country, said: ``I
went into this thinking Senator Gillibrand's legislation made sense . .
. but when you hear the facts, it doesn't hold up.''
She was joined by the liberal icon--a feminist icon--Elizabeth
Holtzman, who was the author of the rape shield statute in the Congress
when she served as a Representative. She, too, spoke out, saying that
once she understood the system and understood the facts, she agreed
that keeping commanders accountable was crucial.
Now, have we seen progress? It is one thing to have anecdotal
information, it is another to have a statistically valid survey. The
same survey that shows retaliation is still a stubborn problem that we
can't give up on also shows some very important data. So if you are
going to argue retaliation is a continuing problem, you are relying on
the very same survey that tells us the following: incidents are down--
that is meaningful progress--dropping 29 percent just in the last 2
years. Reporting continues to go up, which was our stated goal as we
began these reforms. Reports are up 70 percent from 2012. Back in 2012,
only 1 in 10 victims were reporting. We have that down to one in four.
That is not spin, that is fact. These victims are coming forward
because they have renewed confidence they will have support, they will
get good information, and that the system is not stacked against them.
Increased reporting occurred in all categories. The number of
unrestricted reports are up, restricted reports are up, and,
importantly, the number of reports that victims converted from
restricted to unrestricted.
Furthermore, they went around the country and did focus groups with
victims. This was RAND. This wasn't the military, this wasn't the
Department of Justice, this was the RAND Corporation--well known for
its ability to do statistical information--that went around the country
and did focus groups--11 different focus groups--on different bases
with just victims and asked victims to come forward and participate in
the survey.
In that survey--and this is really important--82 percent agreed their
unit

[[Page S4185]]

commander supported them, 73 percent were satisfied with their unit
commander's response, and 73 percent said they would recommend others
report if they were a victim of sexual assault.
And this is really important: The Gillibrand amendment does nothing
to combat retaliation. The recent RAND survey found that the majority
of reported retaliation does not come from commanders; it comes from
peers. This is a cultural problem we have to get after, and certainly I
would stand ready to work with Senator Gillibrand, Senator Grassley,
and all of my colleagues to look to see what we have to do to get at
this peer-to-peer retaliation, which is the vast majority of what was
reported.
Finally, the Gillibrand amendment actually weakens punishment for the
crime of retaliation. By moving retaliation from article 92 to article
93 of the UCMJ, it would actually reduce the maximum punishment for
this crime, and it, finally, prohibits the resources necessary to get
at this problem. The amendment says we cannot add any additional
resources to get after this.
Historic reforms have been made. They are working, based on data.
Talking to dozens and dozens of prosecutors and untold victims, as a
former sex crimes prosecutor who cares about nothing more than taking
care of victims and making sure they have due process and are respected
and deferred to, I must urge this body to reject the Gillibrand
approach, which removes commanders from being held accountable where
they must be held accountable.
Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Gillibrand amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the last point
and the first point that my colleague made that somehow this reform
makes commanders less responsible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that all time for
debate has expired.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent to continue the debate for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, this statement that somehow
commanders are removed from responsibility and that we are not keeping
commanders responsible, that couldn't be further from the truth. Today,
commanders are the only ones responsible for good order and discipline
at every level. The unit commander is responsible for order and
discipline. Every aspect of the chain of command is responsible. It is
their jobs to train troops, to maintain good order and discipline, to
prevent rapes and crimes from being committed under their command, and
to punish retaliation. They have failed in that duty.
In this chain of command, 97 percent of commanders are responsible
and do not have the convening authority we would like to give to
prosecutors--97 percent, their job doesn't change one iota.
So to say you are making commanders less responsible is a false
statement that has no bearing. In fact, they are 100 percent
responsible for good order and discipline, for training their troops,
to prevent these rapes, and to prosecute retaliation. In 1 year--they
have been on notice for years about this, 25 years, and we have this
zero tolerance. They are super on notice now--in 1 year, not one
prosecution of retaliation.
This guy can prosecute retaliation under article 15. This guy can do
something about retaliation. This guy, this guy, this guy. Only 3
percent have the right to convening authority, and that 3 percent needs
to be moved to someone who is actually a lawyer, who is trained, who
knows how to weigh evidence and can make the right decision, and that
is not what is happening today.
So right now this supervisor and unit leader--in 60 percent of the
cases where there is alleged gender discrimination or sexual
harassment, it is the unit leader. One in seven of the alleged rapists
is one of these commanders--chain of command.
There is a perspective by a survivor that this chain of command
``does not have my back.'' So I would like to give it to another chain
of command--senior military prosecutors--to make this decision, so her
perspective can be: Someone has my back. This chain of command may well
be tainted for her if her unit commander is harassing her and her
rapist is in the chain of command. We need to professionalize the
system.
We are trying to make the military the best prosecutorial system in
the world, and they can do this mission. We need to give them the
tools, and having this current status quo--the status quo that has been
in charge of no retaliation and no rape for 25 years--is failing. To
have the same rate of retaliation we had 2 years ago when the
commanders said: You must trust us to do this--every one of these
commanders does not have convening authority, but every one of these
commanders could have stopped retaliation.
When you say it is just peer-to-peer, it is dishonest. Thirty percent
of the cases of retaliation are administrative, 30 percent of the cases
are professional. Only a commander can administer administrative or
professional retaliation.
This culture must change, and if Congress doesn't take their
responsibility to hold the Department of Defense accountable, no one
will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2015 NDAA passed last year
included 34 new provisions dealing with sexual assault. Commanders have
barely had time to implement these provisions, let alone assess their
effectiveness.
The fiscal year 2014 NDAA included more than 50 individual
provisions, the most comprehensive set of changes to the Uniform Code
of Military Justice since 1968.
Cumulative, the last three NDAAs included 71 sections of law
containing more than 100 unique requirements, including 16
congressional reporting requirements. This year's bill builds on that
progress with 12 military justice provisions, including every proposal
that was offered by Senator Gillibrand during the committee's markup of
this legislation.
It is true that sexual assaults have been reduced. That is a fact.
That is a fact. So to somehow allege that nothing has been done--her
proposal is rejected by literally every member of the military whom I
know who has years of experience.
We cannot remove the commanding officer from the chain of command,
and that is what Senator Gillibrand's amendment and effort has been--to
remove the commanding officer from responsibility--and I will
steadfastly oppose it.
I hope that at some point the Senator from New York would acknowledge
that we took in this bill every provision that she offered during the
markup of the legislation.
So with respect and appreciation for Senator Gillibrand's passion and
for her dedication on this issue, I respectfully disagree and urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Order of Procedure

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum call with respect to the cloture vote on the substitute
amendment No. 1463 be waived; further, that there be 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided, prior to each vote in the 2:15 p.m. series.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________