Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to bring to the floor H.R. 3979. This is the agreement between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The House of Representatives passed the bill last week by a vote of 300 to 119. If we succeed in the Senate, it will mark the 53rd year in a row that we have enacted this bill that is so essential to the defense of our Nation and to our men and women in uniform and their families. I thank all the members of the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, especially our subcommittee chairs for the hard work they have done to get us to the finish line on this bill. I thank Senator Inhofe for his close partnership. Before this Congress I had been fortunate to serve with a series of Republican chairmen and ranking members, including John McCain, John Warner, and Strom Thurmond. They understood and appreciated the traditions of our committee and the importance of the legislation we enact every year for our men and women in uniform. That is what this is all about. Jim Inhofe, our ranking Republican in this Congress, has upheld that tradition of bipartisanship and dedication to enacting this important legislation through particularly challenging circumstances. Our bill includes hundreds of important provisions to authorize the activities of the Department of Defense and to provide for the well- being of our men and women in uniform and their families. The bill will enable the military services to continue paying special pay and bonuses needed for recruitment and retention of key personnel. It strengthens survivor benefits for disabled children of servicemembers and retirees. It includes provisions addressing the employment of military spouses, job placement for veterans, and military child custody disputes. It addresses military hazing, military suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and mental health problems in the military. It provides continuing impact to support military families and local school districts. The bill includes 20 provisions to continue to build on the progress we are starting to make in addressing the scourge of sexual assault in the military. Key provisions will eliminate the so-called good soldier defense, give victims a voice in whether their case is prosecuted in military or civilian courts, give victims the right to challenge court- martial rulings that violate their rights at the court of criminal appeals, and would strengthen the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Last week we received the welcome news that the number of incidents of unwanted sexual contact in the military is down and that more incidents are being reported so victims can receive the care and assistance they need and perpetrators can be brought to justice. With the enactment of the legislation before us and the commitment of military leaders, we hope to build on these trends. The bill provides continued funding and authorities for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and for our forces conducting operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria called ISIS. As requested by the administration, it authorizes the Department of Defense to train and equip vetted members of the moderate Syrian opposition and to train and equip national and local forces who are actively fighting ISIS in Iraq. It establishes a counterterrorism partnership fund that provides the administration new flexibility in addressing emerging terrorist threats around the world. In addition, the bill extends the Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa Program, providing for 4,000 new visas, and addresses a legal glitch that precluded members of the ruling parties in Kurdistan from receiving visas under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The authority provided in this bill to train and equip local forces in Iraq and Syria to take on ISIS is particularly important because our military leaders and intelligence experts have uniformly told us airstrikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat ISIS. American air power has changed the momentum on the ground somewhat and given moderates in the region an opportunity to regroup, but ISIS cannot be defeated without an opposing force to take the fight to it on the ground. To do that, our Arab and Muslim partners must be in the lead because the fight with ISIS is primarily a struggle within Islam for the hearts and minds of Muslims. Training and equipping our moderate Muslim allies gives us a way to move beyond the use of air power to support them in this fight. Our bill takes steps to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine by authorizing $1 billion for a European Reassurance Initiative to enhance the U.S. military presence in Europe and build partner capacity to respond to security threats, of which no less than $75 million would be committed for activities and assistance to support Ukraine by requiring a review of U.S. and NATO force posture, readiness and contingency plans in Europe and by expressing support for both nonprovocative defense military assistance--both lethal and non lethal--to Ukraine. The bill adds hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to improve the readiness of our Armed Forces across all branches--Active, Guard, and Reserve--to help blunt some--and I emphasize some--of the negative effects of sequestration. It includes provisions increasing funding for science and technology, providing women-owned small businesses the same sole-source contracting authority that is already available to other categories of small businesses, expanding the No Contracting With the Enemy Act to all government agencies and requiring governmentwide reform of information technology acquisition. Although we were unable to bring the Senate-reported bill to the floor for amendment, we established an informal clearing process pursuant to which we were able to clear 44 Senate amendments--roughly an equal number of Democratic and Republican amendments--and include them in the new bill which is before us. I am pleased the bill also includes a half dozen provisions to address the growing cyber threat to critical information systems of the Department of Defense and the Nation. One provision which was added to the bill was the Levin-McCain amendment, which requires the President to identify nations that engage in economic or industrial espionage against the United States through cyber space and provides authority to impose trade sanctions on persons determined to be knowingly engaged in such espionage. A second provision which arose out of a committee investigation of cyber threats to the Department of Defense requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for identifying contractors that are operationally critical to mobilization, deployment or sustainment of contingency operations and to ensure that such contractors report any successful penetrations of their computer networks. Much more remains to be done, but these are important first steps as we begin to respond to the serious threat posed to U.S. interests by cyber attacks. With regard to military compensation reform, we adopted a number of proposals to slow the growth of personnel costs in fiscal year 2015, as needed to enable the Department of Defense to begin to address readiness shortfalls in a fiscal environment constrained by sequestration-level budgets, while deferring further changes to be made in future years if sequestration is not adequately addressed. In particular, the Department requested pay raises below the rate of inflation for 5 years. This bill provides a pay raise below the rate of inflation for fiscal year 2015, deferring decisions on future pay raises to later bills. The Department requested that we slow the growth of the basic allowance for housing by permitting adjustments below the rate of inflation for 3 years. This bill would slow the growth of the basic allowance for housing for fiscal year 2015, deferring decisions on future increases to later bills. The Department requested that we gradually increase copays for TRICARE pharmaceuticals over 10 years. This bill includes a proportionate increase in copays for fiscal year 2015, deferring decisions on future increases to later bills. These are not steps any of us want to have to take; however, the Budget Control Act of 2011 cut $1 trillion from the planned Department of Defense budget over a 10-year period. Our senior military leaders told us they simply cannot meet sequestration budget levels without structural changes--canceling programs, retiring weapon systems, and reducing the growth in benefits--to reduce the size and cost of our military. A year and a half ago when sequestration was first triggered, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that sequestration ``will severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with men and women in uniform.'' At a hearing this spring, he told us that ``delaying adjustments to military compensation will cause additional, disproportionate cuts to force structure, readiness, and modernization.'' The Department of Defense budget proposal also proposed to retire several weapon systems in an effort to meet sequestration-level budget ceilings. For example, the Department proposed to take half of the Navy's fleet of cruisers out of service and to retire the Army's entire fleet of scout and training helicopters. With regard to Navy cruisers, our bill allows the Navy to take two cruisers out of service this year, deferring a decision on additional ships until next year's budget. With regard to Army helicopters, the National Guard objected to the plan to consolidate Apache attack helicopters in the Active component so they can operate at the higher operational tempo needed to both fill their own mission and replace the Kiowa mission. The Guard maintains that the Army should be able to achieve needed savings and meet mission requirements without transferring Apaches from the Reserve components to the Active Army. Our bill establishes an independent commission on the future of the Army to examine Army force structure and make recommendations as to the best way forward for Army helicopters. Because the Army needs the savings generated by the helicopter restructuring now, the bill would allow the transfer of 48 Apache helicopters--as called for in both the Army plan and the alternative National Guard plan--before the commission reports. Additional transfers would depend on the recommendations of the commission and subsequent Department or congressional action. Sequestration is damaging enough to our military, but the damage will be far worse if we insist that the Department conduct business as usual without regard to the changed budget circumstances. The budget caps imposed by sequestration mean that every dollar we choose to spend on a program that we refuse to cancel or reduce has to come from another higher priority program. Our senior military leaders have told us that this will mean planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are not properly trained and equipped for the mission we expect them to accomplish. As the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us in January, sending troops into harm's way without training, equipment, or the latest technology is a breach of trust with the troops and their families. The painful measures included in this bill are just a downpayment on the changes that will be needed if sequestration is not repealed. Delaying these changes will only make the pain worse later on while damaging the readiness of our troops to carry out their missions when we call upon them. I am disappointed that we were unable to make further progress in this bill toward the objective of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo, Cuba. The Senate committee-reported bill included a provision that would have allowed the Department of Defense to bring Gitmo detainees to the United States, subject to a series of legal protections, for detention and trial. The provision also included an amendment--this is the provision in the Senate committee-passed bill-- which was offered by Senator Graham that would require the President, before authorizing the transfer of any detainees to the United States, to present a plan to Congress and that Congress would be afforded an opportunity to disapprove the plan using expedited procedures. It would have been a joint resolution. I continue to believe the Gitmo facility undermines our interests around the world and has made it more difficult to try to convict the terrorists who are detained there, and I am disappointed that the House leadership refused to consider this provision even with the Graham amendment. Finally, our bill includes a lands package that Senator Inhofe and I agreed to include based on the bipartisan, bicameral request of the committees of jurisdiction and the overwhelming support of our colleagues. The contents of the lands package were worked out by the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will be managing that part of the bill on the Senate floor. We have been assured that all provisions have been cleared and that the package has been cleared by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the relevant committees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the names of our majority and minority staff members, who have given so much of themselves and their families, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Inhofe for his friendship, most importantly, but also for the great partnership we have enjoyed. It has been a real pleasure working with the Senator from Oklahoma. I should perhaps also say we are confident our successors will carry on this tradition as well. Senator McCain, the new chairman, and Senator Jack Reed will be the new ranking member and they will be carrying on this tradition that we have done everything we know how to do to maintain. I wish to again thank my good friend Jim Inhofe and his staff who worked so well with the staff on this side. We talk about this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. In this bill obviously there will be differences--very rarely, by the way, on a partisan basis, even when there are differences. But the aisle sort of disappears when it comes to the Defense authorization bill, and that is the way it should be. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Oklahoma is speaking for both of us, I can assure him, with his comments and so many other comments he made. I will yield to the Senator from Colorado, but first I wish to thank him for the great contribution he has made to our committee. I think he is planning on speaking on a different subject. He has played a major role on the Intelligence Committee. I look forward to reading, if not hearing, his remarks on the subject on which I know he has spent a good deal of time. Although he has had perhaps more visibility in terms of the Intelligence Committee, he has been a major contributor on the Armed Services Committee. I can't say we will miss him because I will not be here, but they will miss the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to thank both Senator Reed and Chairman Johnson for working with our committee to include the HAVEN Act within the bill we are considering today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 14 years ago, Congress made a grave mistake. In the dead of night, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Congress passed a little-noticed provision that prohibited all meaningful oversight and regulation of swaps, which then were the latest financial product in the fast-growing financial derivatives market. In that new regulatory void, the swaps markets grew to unprecedented size and complexity. It was the swaps market that ultimately lead to unprecedented taxpayer bailouts of some of the largest financial institutions in the world. Some have estimated that the cost of the last crisis was $17 trillion--with a ``t''. To the families across the country, it meant lost jobs, home foreclosures and reduced home values for those who did not lose their homes. Far too many of my constituents, far too many Americans, are still struggling to recover. It was all enabled by Congress passing a financial regulatory provision with little consideration, tucked inside a funding bill. We enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, in part, to address the significant risks posed by swaps and other financial derivatives. Section 716 was a key component of the financial reforms. That provision is titled ``Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities.'' It explicitly prohibited taxpayer bailouts of banks that trade swaps. It set out a plan to help achieve that goal, by requiring bank holding companies to move much of their derivatives trading outside of their FDIC-insured banks. This provision has come to be known as the ``swaps push out'' provision. Four years after its enactment, however, banking regulators have yet to finalize a rule to enforce compliance. Before they do, some in Congress want to relieve them of the obligation altogether. Some of the largest bank holding companies prefer to conduct their swaps trades in their government-backed, FDIC-insured banks because they have better credit ratings, which means lower borrowing costs and therefore higher profits. But because the activity is within the bank, it puts the Federal Government--and taxpayers--directly on the hook for those bets that, as we saw in the financial crisis, can be unlimited in number, because banks can create an unlimited number of ``synthetic'' derivatives related to a particular financial asset. A couple years ago, JPMorgan Chase lost billions of dollars on a bad bet in the credit derivatives markets. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, conducted an extensive investigation and issued a 300-page bipartisan report with its findings. JPMorgan's risky trading by its bank was a disaster--costing the bank over $6 billion. It was receiving the taxpayer subsidy the whole time. To be clear, Section 716 does not cure all the risks posed by swaps. But it was an important part of the effort to protect us from another crisis. Along with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Merkley-Levin provisions on proprietary trading and conflicts of interest, these reforms form the backbone of the Dodd- Frank Act's safeguards. By repealing this provision, we would ignore the lessons of the last financial crisis and weaken Dodd-Frank's protections against the next crisis. American families and businesses deserve better than this. If there are provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that need to be improved or reformed, the appropriate Senate committees should review, evaluate, and modify them. They should be given time on the Senate floor for further review and improvement. The proponents of this legislation should explain why they think that deregulating swaps--before we ever started re-regulating them--is the right course of action. They should explain why taxpayers should run the risk of bailing out risky swaps trades gone bad. They should explain why, despite the loss of millions of jobs and trillions of dollars the last time Congress deregulated derivatives, this time will be different. A legislative vehicle is the right place for considering these issues, not an urgent appropriations bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the report released today by the Intelligence Committee is an important addition to the public's knowledge about the CIA's use of torture, euphemistically described by some as ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' in the period following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The use of these techniques was a failure, both moral and practical. These tactics violated the values this Nation has long stood for, while adding little benefit to our security. As GEN David Petraeus and others have pointed out, their use has placed U.S. personnel at greater risk of being tortured. They have tarnished America's standing in the world and undermined our moral authority to confront tyrants and torturers. I am glad this report will fully inform a public debate with facts that have remained classified for too long, and I hope it ensures that our Nation never again resorts to such brutal and misguided methods. The report lays out clearly that, contrary to claims by former CIA and Bush administration officials, these techniques did not produce uniquely valuable intelligence that saved lives. The report examines 20 such specific representations that were used frequently by the CIA to make the case to policymakers for continued use of abusive techniques. In all 20 cases, the CIA's claims about the value of intelligence gathered through torture were inaccurate. At the same time the CIA was making false claims about the effectiveness of these techniques, it was failing to mention that some detainees subjected to these techniques provided false, fabricated information--information that led to time-consuming wild-goose chases. This is not at all surprising when we consider the origin of these abusive interrogation techniques. In 2008 the Senate Armed Services Committee produced a detailed investigative report into the treatment of detainees in military custody. That report traced the path of techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity from the military's survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training, or SERE training, the path to interrogations of U.S. detainees. SERE training was not designed to train U.S. personnel to torture detainees. Rather, it was designed to prepare U.S. personnel to survive torture at the hands of our enemies. SERE training simulated techniques that were used by the Chinese interrogators during the Korean War--techniques designed to elicit a confession--any confession--whether true or false. Those who tortured U.S. troops were not after valuable actionable intelligence. They were after confessions they could use for propaganda purposes. Defenders of the CIA's actions have claimed that abusive techniques produced key intelligence on locating bin Laden that couldn't have been acquired through other means. This is false, as the Intelligence Committee's report demonstrates in detail. Not only was the key information leading to bin Laden obtained through other means not involving abusive interrogation techniques by the CIA, but, in fact, the CIA detainee who provided the most significant information about the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to abusive interrogation. There has been a great deal of conversation, and rightly so, about the need for effective congressional oversight of our intelligence community and the obstacles that exist to that oversight. This report highlights many such obstacles. In one case, this report makes public the likely connection between the Senate's efforts to oversee intelligence and the destruction of CIA tapes documenting abusive interrogation of detainees. In 2005 I sponsored a resolution, with the support of ten colleagues, to establish an independent national commission to examine treatment of detainees since 9/11. According to emails quoted in the report released today, Acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo wrote on October 31, 2005, that the commission proposal ``seems to be gaining some traction,'' and argued for renewed efforts ``to get the right people downtown''--that is, at the White House--``on board with the notion of our destroying the tapes.'' Does it sound a little bit like Watergate? The videos were destroyed at the direction of Jose Rodriguez, then the head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, just 1 day after the November 8, 2005, vote on our commission proposal in the Senate. It is just one striking example of the CIA's efforts to evade oversight. Some have argued against releasing this report, suggesting that it could spark violence against American interests. Fundamentally, the idea that release of this report undermines our security is a massive exercise in blame shifting. Telling the truth about how we engaged in torture doesn't risk our security. It is the use of torture that undermines our security. Release of this report is hopefully an insurance policy against the danger that a future President, a future intelligence community, and a future Congress might believe that we should compromise our values in pursuit of unreliable information through torture. If a future America believes that what America's CIA did in 2001, 2002, and 2003 was acceptable and useful, we are at risk of repeating the same horrific mistakes. That is a threat to our security. Torture is never the American way. Concealing the truth is never the American way. Our Nation stands for something better. Our people deserve something better--they deserve an intelligence community that conducts itself according to the law, according to basic human values, and with the safety of our troops always in mind. They deserve better than intelligence tactics that are likely to produce useless lies from people trying to end their torture being used against them, instead of producing valuable intelligence. I thank Chairman Feinstein for her leadership in completing and releasing this report. I thank Senator Rockefeller for his longstanding effort in this regard. I thank Senator McCain and others for speaking out on the need to ensure that the United States never again repeats these mistakes. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday evening Senator Inhofe and I announced that we had reached an agreement with the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee on a new national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2015. The text of the bill and report were published on the Web site of the House Rules Committee that evening, and on Wednesday morning we put out a press release detailing the provisions of the bill. The bill passed the House earlier this afternoon by a vote of 300 to 119, and we expect to take it up in the Senate next week. Our bill includes hundreds of important provisions to authorize the activities of the Department of Defense and provide for the well-being of our men in uniform and their families. The bill will enable the military services to continue paying special pays and bonuses which are needed for recruitment and retention of key personnel. It provides continued impact aid to support military families and local school districts. It strengthens survivor benefits for disabled children of servicemembers. It includes provisions addressing the employment of military spouses, job placement for veterans, and military child custody disputes. It addresses military hazing, military suicides, post-traumatic stress disorder, and mental health problems in the military. And it includes 20 provisions to continue to build on the progress we are starting to make in addressing the scourge of sexual assault in the military. The bill provides continued funding and authorities for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and for our forces conducting operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, so-called ISIS. As requested by the administration, it authorizes the Department of Defense to train and equip vetted members of the moderate Syrian opposition and to train and equip national and local forces who are actively fighting ISIS in Iraq. It establishes a counterterrorism partnership fund to provide the administration new flexibility in addressing emerging terrorist threats around the world. In addition, the bill extends the Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa Program, providing for 4,000 new visas, and addresses a legal glitch that precluded members of the ruling parties in Kurdistan from receiving visas under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our bill takes steps to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine by authorizing $1 billion for a European reassurance initiative to enhance the U.S. military presence in Europe and build partner capacity to respond to security threats of which no less than $75 million would be committed for activities and assistance to support Ukraine, by requiring a review of the U.S. and NATO force posture, readiness, and contingency plans in Europe, and by expressing support for both lethal and nonlethal military assistance to Ukraine. The bill adds hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to improve the readiness of our Armed Forces across all branches--Active, Guard, and Reserve--to help blunt some of the negative effects of sequestration. It includes provisions addressing the threat of cyber warfare, providing woman-owned small businesses the same sole-source contracting authority that is already available to other categories of small businesses, expanding the No Contracting With the Enemy Act to all government agencies, and requiring governmentwide reform of information technology acquisition. And although we were unable to bring the Senate-reported bill--a bill that was reported by our committee--to the floor for amendment, we established an informal clearing process, pursuant to which we were able to clear 44 Senate amendments--roughly an equal number on each side of the aisle--and to include them in our new bill. When the bill comes to the floor, I will have a lot more to say about some of the more difficult issues in the bill, such as provisions addressing military compensation reform, Army force structure, and Guantanamo detainees, as well as the so-called lands package that we included in our bill based on a bipartisan, bicameral request of the committees of jurisdiction. I hope our colleagues will take the opportunity to review our bill. It is obviously a long bill. There are going to be enough days, we believe, to review the bill so our colleagues can have a fair opportunity to see what is in our bill. We are proud of the bill. We think it is a good bill. It would be the 42nd or 43rd straight year we will have passed a military authorization bill, a Defense authorization bill, if we are able to pass the bill next week. I hope our colleagues will take the opportunity over the next few days to review the bill and hopefully give it the kind of broad support it deserves and that it received today in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a 2 day hearing entitled, ``Wall Street Bank Involvement With Physical Commodities.'' After a 2 year bipartisan investigation, the subcommittee will hold a hearing examining the extent to which banks and their holding companies own physical commodities like oil, natural gas, aluminum and other industrial metals, as well as own or control businesses like power plants, oil and gas pipelines, and commodity warehouses. The Subcommittee hearings have been scheduled for Thursday, November 20, 2014, and Friday, November 21, 2014. The hearing will begin on both days at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. A witness list will be available on Monday, November 17, 2014. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the provision in the continuing resolution before us authorizes the President to train and equip friendly forces whose interests and objectives are aligned with ours so that they can fight on their own behalf, much as we have done elsewhere in the world--for example, a number of African countries which we have helped support their own freedom and independence, their own efforts to go after the terrorists who terrorized them. We have done that pursuant to provisions we have included in previous Defense authorization bills. This year, as our Presiding Officer knows as a very important member of our committee, when the Armed Services Committee marked up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, we approved a similar Syria train-and-equip provision by a bipartisan vote of 23 to 3. While ISIS is currently focused on building an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East, its poisonous ideology is hostile not only to the region but to the world, and there is a real risk that the area it controls could become a launching pad for future terrorist attacks against the United States and its friends and allies. ISIS is terrorizing the Iraqi and the Syrian people, engaging in kidnappings, killings, persecutions of religious minorities, and attacking schools, hospitals, and cultural sites. The threat to Americans and American interests was dramatically and tragically brought home recently by the brutal beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines. The President has announced a four-pronged strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS. Those four prongs are as follows: first, increased support to Iraqi, Kurdish, and Syrian opposition forces on the ground; second, a systemic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS; third, improved intelligence and efforts to cut off ISIS's funding and recruiting; and fourth, continued humanitarian assistance to ISIS's victims. Our senior military leaders support the President's strategy. When General Dempsey testified before the Armed Services Committee, I asked whether he personally supports the President's strategy, and of course I asked the question exactly that way--``Do you personally support the President's strategy?''--so that we would get his own answer and not simply the answer he might feel he has to give because of his Commander in Chief's position. When we ask military officers for their own personal position, that is what they must give us. When we have confirmation hearings, we ask them that question: Will you give us your own personal opinion when you come before us even though it might differ from the administration in power? That is one of the questions we ask on every confirmation, and, of course, if we don't get the answer that they will, there will not be a confirmation. So we asked and I asked as my first question a few days ago whether General Dempsey as Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff personally supports the President's strategy, and his response was, ``I do.'' He explained that the best way forward runs ``through a coalition of Arab and Muslim partners and not through ownership of this fight by the United States.'' Training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition is a critical step. As General Dempsey explained, we need to build ``a force of vetted, trained moderate Syrians to take on ISIL in Syria'' because ``as long as ISIL enjoys the safe haven in Syria, it will remain a formidable force and a threat.'' Some colleagues have expressed the concern that this new military effort could lead us back into a quagmire that we entered with the Iraq invasion in 2003, but what we are voting on here is virtually the opposite of what was voted on in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. I voted against the Iraq authorization in 2002. I am voting for this train-and-equip authority today. The differences are huge between what was voted on in 2002 and what we are voting on today. First, in 2003, we invaded Iraq and threw out Saddam Hussein's government. This year, by contrast, the Iraqi Government has requested our assistance against ISIS. This request has been joined by leaders of Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other religious minorities. The global community will provide support in response to this request, but ISIS remains a problem that only Iraqis and Syrians can solve. They can solve it with our help, but only they can solve it. I am continuing on the differences. Indeed, the contrast between what we are voting on today and what was voted on in 2002 is relative to the same country, but what a difference. In 2003, the United States and Britain invaded Iraq with token support from a handful of Western partners. It was a unilateral approach without visible participation or support from Arab or Muslim nations. It helped spawn Iraqi resistance, including Al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor to ISIS. Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS didn't exist before our invasion of Iraq in 2003. They are a direct response to our unilateral action in Iraq. This year, by contrast--and what a contrast--we are seeing the participation of key Arab and Muslim States in the region and their active, visible role will be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition. Our senior military and civilian leaders recognize, as General Dempsey testified before our committee, that ISIS ``will only be defeated when moderate Arab and Muslim populations in the region reject it.'' The recent international conferences in Jeddah and Paris were a good start, with a number of Arab States declaring their shared commitment-- and this was a public statement--to develop a strategy ``to destroy ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria,'' and joining in an international pledge to use ``whatever means necessary'' to achieve this goal. The contrast to the Iraq invasion of 2003 is particularly sharp with regard to ground combat troops. In 2003, almost 200,000 American and British combat troops invaded Iraq. Only after years of relentless ground combat operations were we able to get our troops out. This year, by contrast, the President's policy is that ground combat operations in Iraq and Syria will not be carried out by us, but by Iraqis, Kurds, and Syrians. While the United States and a broad coalition of nations, including Arab and Muslim countries, will support this effort, there is no plan to have American combat forces on the ground. As General Dempsey explained to the Armed Services Committee, U.S. forces ``are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention for them to do so.'' You wouldn't know that if you read the press coverage of his testimony, so I will repeat it in the wan hope that maybe this time his statement will be covered. General Dempsey said we ``are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention for them to do so.'' General Dempsey was talking about the U.S. Armed Forces. General Dempsey added a caveat that if circumstances change, he might, for instance, recommend to the President that U.S. advisers be authorized to accompany Iraqi security forces into combat. He was clear that these comments were focused on how our forces could best and most appropriately advise the Iraqis on their combat operations. Senator Graham asked General Dempsey whether he thought they could defeat ISIL without us being on the ground. The question he asked was: ``If you think they can [defeat ISIL] without us being on the ground, just say yes,'' and General Dempsey responded, ``Yes.'' I saw that in all of one newspaper article across the country. Our senior military leaders, of course, reserve the right to reconsider their recommendations based on conditions on the ground. I would expect that General Dempsey would say, just as any general would say, we must be free to change a recommendation to the President if circumstances on the ground change. That is a very different statement from what the press put into General Dempsey's mouth when they said General Dempsey suggested we may need U.S. combat forces. The direct answer of General Dempsey was: We have no plan to do it. We believe they can do it without us, and, of course, if conditions change, I must make a different recommendation, or at least might make a different recommendation to the Commander in Chief. At the end of the day, of course, the President, who is the Commander in Chief, and not the military, will establish policy. Even if conditions change and even if General Dempsey decided to recommend a different role for U.S. ground combat troops, it would just be that, a recommendation. The struggle against ISIS in Iraq and in Syria will be a long and hard one and we should give it our support. We cannot take the place of Iraqis and Syrians. They must purge the poison they have in their country. These extremist groups, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, must be purged by the people they plague, but we can help these people get rid of this poison. We are already working with Muslim and Arab countries that are openly uniting against a poisonous strain of Islam. It threatens them even more than it threatens us. This has to be an Iraqi and Syrian fight--an Arab and a Muslim fight--and not a Western fight if it is going to be successful. It will be highly destructive to our efforts to bring about a broad coalition if Congress and the President appear disunited. We are asking Arab and Muslim countries to openly take on a plague, a cancer, a poison in their midst. That is what we are asking of them. There has been too much behind-the-scenes support, too much quiet support or opposition, too much inconsistency from a number of Arab and Muslim countries. So what the President and Secretary Kerry are doing is not just helping to organize a broad coalition of Western and Muslim countries to go after this stain, this threat that is in their midst, what we are asking them to do is to do it openly so their people see that their governments, and indeed their people, are threatened by this terror poison in their midst. What is critical, and what is so hugely different is this time it will be an international coalition going after terrorists and not just a Western invasion of a Muslim country. It would be, again, destructive of our efforts to get open support in the Muslim and Arab world for going after these terrorists--this stain called ISIS--if Congress and the President are disunited. So we should give our support to the provision authorizing the training and equipping of vetted, moderate Syrian opposition forces. I hope we do it on a bipartisan basis here, making it then not only bipartisan but also bicameral. What an important statement that will be to the very countries that are seeking to help rid themselves of this cancer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the Laurium Manor Inn in Houghton County, MI, which was celebrated on September 14, 2014. I extend my heartiest congratulations to Dave and Julie Sprenger, who purchased a vacant historic mansion 25 years ago with the intention of opening a bed and breakfast. The Sprenger's vision resulted in a small business success building on the rich history of Michigan's Copper Country to attract today's travelers. Nestled in the heart of the Keweenaw Peninsula's copper country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and built for Thomas H. Hoatson, Jr., owner of the Calumet and Arizona Mining Company, this mansion started off as a 13,000-square-foot home for the Hoatson family. It remains the largest mansion in the western portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The extravagance of the structure was by far its best known feature. From the embossed elephant leather on the walls, to the grand staircase which spans three floors, to the hand-painted wall mural, stained glass windows, and giant Corinthian columns, the Hoatson mansion was the epitome of opulence. Mr. Hoatson, Jr., a Houghton County native of Scottish decent, made his fortune in the copper mining and banking industries. He spent $50,000 building the mansion at a time when miners were making 25 cents an hour. Undaunted by the prospect of restoring this enormous and ornate structure, Dave and Julie Sprenger bought the mansion in September of 1989, opened it as a bed and breakfast, listed it as the Laurium Manor Inn on the National Register of Historic Places, and established it as a heritage site within the Keweenaw National Historical Park. This has been no easy task. In addition to the constant renovations and repairs, the remote location of the village of Laurium, the harsh winters of the Upper Peninsula, and the changeable nature of tourism have all challenged the Sprenger's small business. However, throughout all of this, the Sprengers have persevered and continue to provide quality service to the local community and visitors from around the world. As a senior member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I recognize the important role small businesses play in creating jobs and growing the economy, and this bed and breakfast is no exception. I am delighted to congratulate Dave and Julie Sprenger on the 25th anniversary of their flourishing small business, which contributes to the local economy and enriches historical experiences for tourists and residents alike. I wish them many more decades of success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Tax Audits of Large Partnerships.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine IRS audits of large partnerships, including trends and audit issues identified in a Government Accountability Office report to be released at the hearing. Witnesses will include representatives of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Government Accountability Office. A witness list will be available Tuesday, September 16, 2014. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is almost no measure Congress should consider more carefully than a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States. Such amendments are reserved only for issues that relate to the foundations of our great American experiment. The value of each American vote is one such issue. Our system of government depends on this basic principle, that every American, whether they are rich or poor, weak or strong, whether they were born in Michigan or Mississippi, has an equal voice in the selection of their elected representatives. Time and again, Congress has amended our Constitution to protect this principle. But recently, a succession of Supreme Court rulings has unleashed a tide of unlimited and secret special-interest money into our elections. This unregulated money drowns the voices of the public. It threatens to transform our government of the people, by the people, and for the people into one of campaign donors, by campaign donors, and for campaign donors. That is not democracy, and it is not America. That is why I support this amendment to the Constitution concerning contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. This amendment would allow Congress to do what we have always done, and what our Founders intended us to do: take action to protect the integrity of our Nation's government and electoral processes. Posterity vindicates the moments in our Nation's history when Congress simply did what was right. We honor those who voted to ensure that the right to vote cannot be denied based on race, color, previous condition of servitude or gender. We honor those who voted to ensure that a poll tax could never again prohibit an American from voting for their own representatives. I urge my colleagues to act in this tradition, to simply do what is right, and to join me in supporting this proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the President will lay out a strong approach against ISIL tonight. That approach will include going after them wherever they are located, including Syria. The President and Secretary Kerry are making every effort to help lead a broadly based coalition which is so critically important to avoid the consequences of a Western go-it-alone approach which was mistakenly used when we invaded Iraq. This President, like all Presidents, will welcome bipartisan Congressional support, even though he has the authority in this situation to act without explicit Congressional authority. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will lay aside partisan attacks and make a true effort to find a way to take on ISIL in a united manner. A strong bipartisan approach here in the United States will help the President and Secretary Kerry attain the explicit open support of a broad cross section of this world, including Arab and Muslim countries. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this summer marks the 40th year since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the division of the island into Greek and Turkish zones. That division has led to great hardships on both sides of the divide and been a source of some instability in a part of the world--the eastern Mediterranean--that already is far too unstable. It is profoundly in the interests of the United States, our friends and allies in the region, and the Cypriot people, both Greek and Turkish, to resolve this dispute and achieve the goal of a unified Cyprus. The division of Cyprus has had profoundly negative consequences for its people and the region. Cyprus has been a source of ongoing tension between two important NATO allies, Greece and Turkey. The division has stunted Cyprus economically and politically. Tragically, the line has divided families for four decades. None of this is in the interests of Greece, Turkey, the United States, our allies, or the world. That is why the United States supports the creation of a bizonal, bicommunal federation as envisioned by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is unfortunate that, four decades after the island's division, we have yet to achieve that goal. It is long overdue that Cyprus be unified. And there are reasons today to believe that goal is closer. In February, U.N.-sponsored talks between Greek and Turkish leaders restarted after a 2-year halt. They agreed to a roadmap for further negotiations and, importantly, committed to build a positive atmosphere surrounding the talks, including important confidence-building measures designed to help ease 40 years of mistrust. Little over a week ago negotiators met and committed to progress on outstanding issues in advance of their next meeting on September 2. It is vitally important that negotiators continue to build momentum toward peace and unity on the island because so much is at stake. The discovery of large natural gas reserves off the island's coast promises a newly prosperous future for Cyprus and its people, but it will be far more difficult, if not impossible, to fully capitalize on that opportunity in the absence of peace and unity. The United States should continue to work closely with all sides in pursuit of the peaceful reunification of Cyprus that is so long overdue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, studies have estimated that over one in three American women will face some form of domestic abuse in their lifetime, and that when guns are present during incidents of domestic violence, the risk of homicide escalates over 500 percent. As the statistics suggest, the combination of domestic violence and firearms can lead to horrific tragedies. Like in May 2014, when Lori Jackson of Oxford, CT filed for a restraining order against her abusive, estranged husband. The court granted her a temporary restraining order while she waited 2 weeks for a hearing to obtain a permanent restraining order. In the meantime, fearful of her husband, Ms. Jackson took her twin 18-month-olds and fled. But before Ms. Jackson could obtain a permanent order, her husband found her, stormed the house where she was staying, fatally shot her and wounded her mother. This is a tragedy that could have been prevented. The Violence Against Women Act, which Congress first passed in 1994, included a common-sense provision to prevent people subject to a permanent restraining order from buying or possessing a gun. Since 1994, this provision has saved countless lives. But there is a critical loophole in this law: while people subject to a permanent restraining order are prohibited from having a weapon, this safeguard does not apply to those subject to a temporary restraining order. This loophole left Ms. Jackson, who had obtained a temporary restraining order against her husband and was awaiting a permanent order, perilously vulnerable in the dangerous days immediately after she left her spouse. It is long past time to close this loophole. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act of 2014. This bill would prevent individuals subject to temporary restraining orders--like Ms. Jackson's husband--from buying or possessing a gun for the duration of that temporary order. It also would expand the legal definition of `intimate partner' to include individuals who are simply dating partners. But closing the temporary restraining order loophole is just the first step. Sadly, a patchwork of inadequate State and local resources hamstrings the effectiveness of these lifesaving laws. In reality, just issuing a permanent restraining order that legally disqualifies a person from purchasing a firearm does not necessarily mean the person's name will be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check, NICS system. Nor does it mean that law enforcement will be notified of the urgent need to remove firearms from that dangerous person's possession. That is why I am also a cosponsor of the Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act. This bill would establish new grants to assist States in carrying out policies that, among other things, encourage State and local courts to account for whether a domestic abuser possesses a gun that they may use against their victims and to order the recovery of those guns, when appropriate. The grants created by this bill would provide vital assistance to the law enforcement professionals we trust with the safety of our communities, and would go a long way toward better enforcement of the gun safety laws we already have on the books. The decision to flee from an abusive partner or spouse is extraordinarily difficult and courageous. Congress should honor the people who have taken this step by passing common-sense legislation to protect those who may need to do it in the future. I urge my colleagues to move quickly to pass these urgently-needed measures.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the world was united in horror at the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. Subsequent events have only intensified that horror, as we have learned the airliner and its nearly 300 passengers and crew were shot out of the sky by a sophisticated missile and radar system, a system operated from territory that rebels occupy in eastern Ukraine. We do not know if Russia played any direct role in downing the jetliner, but we do know that Russia supplied the equipment, and that it fomented the unlawful insurrection that led to this horrific event. The world has been unified in its condemnation of this atrocity. There is strengthened support, both in the United States and among our allies, for stronger action to confront Russian aggression, restore stability in Ukraine, reassure our friends in the region, and allow the Ukrainian people a future they choose, rather than one dictated from Moscow. I commend President Obama's action this week to lead a coalition that has further strengthened sanctions against Russia and those who seek to destabilize Ukraine. But we need to do more. We need to do more because so far, every time President Putin has had the opportunity to veer off his destructive course, he has chosen instead obfuscation, denial and further aggression. The United States has already provided some nonlethal military support to Ukraine. But I believe it is time for us and our allies to intensify that support, and to help Ukraine exercise sovereignty and maintain its territorial integrity while dissuading Russia from further intervening. The Ukrainian military has achieved important successes in recent weeks against the rebels who would dismantle Ukraine, significantly shrinking rebel-controlled territory. Left on its own, it appears the Ukrainian government will be able to reassert control over eastern Ukraine. But this job has been more difficult because of the backing of Russia for the rebels, including its provision of heavy weapons. It will become all but impossible if Russia decided to cross the border with its own troops. We should take additional steps to help Ukraine reclaim sovereignty in eastern Ukraine and try to deter Russia from crossing the border. As part of this effort we should provide Ukraine with defensive weapons--such as anti-tank weapons--that can help Ukraine reclaim its territory and deter Russian aggression, without being needlessly provocative to the Russians. These are defensive weapons, not provocative weapons. There is a clear path out of this violence, violence whose impact we now tragically know is not limited to Ukraine's borders. Russia can end its backing for rebels whose fighting capabilities are wholly dependent on Russian support. Russia can join the world in calling on those rebels to participate in the Ukrainian's government's good-faith efforts to resolve political disputes by peaceful means. Russia can allow Ukraine to exercise sovereignty over territory it lawfully controls. Russia can choose that path. But we may not know its choice until it is too late. We should provide the military assistance that can help Ukraine defend itself, reclaim its sovereign territory and hopefully deter further Russian intervention.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN. May I inquire of the Senator from Pennsylvania how long he intends to speak?

Mr. LEVIN. After the Senator from Pennsylvania concludes, I would ask that the Senator from Oklahoma and I be recognized for 20 minutes, evenly divided, to talk about the need to get the Defense authorization bill to the floor, and each one of us would control 10 minutes under this unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with Senator Inhofe--Senator McCain was here before--to express the hope that the Senate will be able to take up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 during our September work period. In June Senator Inhofe and I came here to urge Senators to begin the process to file amendments to our bill, and many amendments have been filed. We have been working to clear as many amendments as possible in preparation for Senate consideration of our bill. The amendment described just a few moments ago by the Senator from Pennsylvania is the type of amendment that we believe we can clear and would strengthen our bill and strengthen the position of our Nation. When the Defense authorization bill is brought to the floor, our goal is first to be in a position to offer a package of cleared amendments. Our second goal--probably as important, perhaps more important than our first--is to see if we can identify specific relevant amendments that could be included in an unanimous consent agreement ready to be debated and voted on or, in the alternative, to craft the unanimous consent agreement with a limited number of relevant amendments, leaving it to the managers and the leaders to identify which relevant amendments would be brought to a vote. Given the small number of days that are left for legislative action in this Congress, we must all--all of us individually and as a body-- pull together if we are going to get our Defense bill completed. In my judgment, the course I have outlined will facilitate that conclusion. I know there is a backlog of important nominations the Senate must still address, and these nominations have been taking up much of the Senate's time. But we have enacted a national defense authorization act every year for 52 years. The bill this year--S. 2410--was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the 2nd day of June with a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 1. It provides critical authorities, funding, assistance, and guidance for our military, for our men and women in uniform and their families, at a time when they face a wide array of threats around the world. In our national defense authorization bill, we enact authorities and programs that would create important initiatives that would be unnecessarily delayed if we do not adopt this bill. If we fail to enact this bill, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will not receive many important special pays and bonuses. These include the critical skills retention bonus; enlistment and reenlistment bonuses; bonus and special pays for health professions, including those in critically short wartime specialties; and many other bonus and special pays that enable the military services to shape the force as we draw down that force. If we fail to enact this bill, we will not be able to slow the growth of military personnel costs and the Department will not be able to use the savings, as planned, to make up for readiness shortfalls that undermine our military's ability to respond to emerging national security crises. The committee-reported bill includes over $1.8 billion in savings in 2015 and over $20 billion in savings over the Future Years Defense Program. If this bill doesn't pass, those savings will not be achieved and the readiness and modernization accounts will be even further depleted. If we fail to enact this bill, we will risk delaying the implementation of programs to address the mental health of our Armed Forces by developing a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide and attempted suicide data for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our Presiding Officer is very active in that particular area, in trying to address the suicide problems we have in our Armed Forces. If we fail to enact this bill, we will delay a much needed reorganization of the Department's prisoner of war/missing in action community to enable the Department to more effectively accomplish its mission of accounting for POWs and MIAs. If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all over the United States that rely on our supplemental impact aid to help them educate military children will no longer receive that money. If we fail to enact this bill, we are unlikely to authorize the National Commission on the Future of the Army--a critical step to enable the Army to ensure that its forces--including its Active-Duty, Reserves, and Army National Guard components--are properly structured and supported to meet current and future threats. If we fail to enact this bill, no new military construction projects will be authorized for fiscal year 2015 and our Armed Forces will too often continue to live, train, and work in substandard facilities. Previous years' national defense authorization acts have been strengthened and enhanced through a debate on the Senate floor, and that includes the opportunity for Members to offer amendments. Debating and enacting those authorizations are critical not only to our national security but to ensure that our Nation keeps its sacred vow to provide for our armed servicemembers and their families. Senator Inhofe and I will do our part, but we urge our colleagues to continue to file amendments colleagues would like to see in the bill, and we will do our best to clear them. We will also do our utmost to draft a unanimous consent agreement for consideration by our leadership that would provide for some contested relevant amendments so that we can show our leaders we can deal with this bill in a day or two. We will do all that we can, but we need 98 other Senators to help us. So we urge our colleagues, please continue to bring amendments to us. Please help us craft a unanimous consent agreement that would allow for a reasonable number of contested relevant amendments to be debated and voted on. This is the best way we are going to be able to persuade our leaders and our colleagues that we can bring the bill to the floor, have a reasonable period for debate, dispose of at least some relevant amendments, and pass the critically needed National Defense Authorization Act. Our troops and their families deserve maximum effort on the part of all of us. I hope that will be forthcoming so we will not miss in the 53rd year a passage of a bill that is so critical to our national security. Before I yield, I wish to thank my good friend from Oklahoma, our ranking member, who has worked so closely with me. Our staffs worked so hard on this bill. Together, as partners, we have been able to bring this bill to the floor. I thank him for the very strong leadership he has shown in the security area and on this bill. I yield the floor.