Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If the majority leader were to withdraw the Planned Parenthood amendment and put in the Roberts amendment, which has not been previously debated, would a vote on acceptance of that be a debatable issue?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. President, if my friend the majority leader were to be able to do what he has proposed, would the resolution of that matter, then, be a matter of debate before the body under the normal Senate of rules?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may I make a further----

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in response to the remarks of the senior Senator from Texas, I just wonder, if we had had a real conference where things were discussed, where would we be. That was impossible because the Republican leadership took the House of Representatives out of session. Had they stayed and done their work, as we are, I am sure we could have worked something out. But that, of course, was their decision. Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Mr. President, on another matter, this week marks a historic moment in Vermont. This coming Friday, July 1, Vermont's Act 120, the first- in-the-Nation labeling law for genetically engineered--so-called GE-- foods will take effect. But unfortunately for consumers everywhere, it could be a short-lived celebration. Late last week, a so-called deal was reached on a national mandatory labeling law. During the weekend, I had the chance to review this proposal closely. Vermonters have reviewed it closely. I can say this: It falls short. This is an extremely complex issue--from how we define genetically engineered foods, to how we treat animal products; from the impact on the organics industry, to how small businesses respond. It is actually not something you just talk about; the details matter here. That is why the Vermont Legislature, Republicans and Democrats working together, spent 2 years debating it. They had over 50 committee hearings featuring testimony from more than 130 representatives on all sides of the issue. The Senate has not held a single hearing on labeling. They had only one hearing on the issue of biotechnology, and they have had none on the issue of labeling foods or seeds. I would note that the proposal unveiled late last week--and we were able to review it this weekend--is an improvement over the legislation the Senate wisely rejected in March. That bill, the one we rejected, would continue the current status quo. It proposed a meaningless ``volunteer-only'' approach, a thinly veiled attempt to block Vermont's labeling law and to keep any other State from acting. This current proposal at least acknowledges that States like Vermont have enacted in this area. That is why I stayed on the floor and blocked that first bill. I thank those Senators who joined with me. We heard from the organic industry, expressing reservations about how they might be treated under a Federal GE-labeling program. Some of those concerns have been addressed, and the proposal reinforces that the USDA Organic seal remains the gold standard. The proposal follows what Vermont's Act 120 does with respect to animal products, and it addresses the gap in the Vermont law for processed foods inspected by USDA, specifically those foods with meat. The proposal now before us also acknowledges at long last what I have been saying for the past year. In many rural parts of this country, including most of Vermont, we have significant technological challenges that make it nearly impossible for consumers to access the electronic or digital disclosure methods allowed in this bill. By requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to complete a study on this issue, I believe these difficulties unavoidably will be recognized, and the Secretary should be given the authority the needs to require additional disclosure options. I do hope, however, that proponents of this proposal will not try to put the burden on our retail establishments to install costly digital scanners. The proponents of this deal were sent back to the drawing board after we derailed them on March 16. As I said, I was very proud to be the Vermonter leading that effort. While it is true that this new attempt is an improvement in several ways, it is clear that this revised proposal is driven more by the perspectives of powerful special interests, than by a commitment to honor consumers' right to know. Consumers' right to know merits only grudging acceptance in this plan; consumers are far from this plan's highest priority. We see evidence of that in the broad loopholes included in the definitions for which GE foods this proposal would apply to. While this proposal makes some positive, though modest, improvements, I remain deeply concerned that it is not going to offer transparency for consumers. Transparency is something that many companies have already opted to provide. Look at these products. I bet most Americans can go to their cupboards and find them. Campbell's, General Mills, Frito-Lay, Cheez- It, and the iconic Wonder Bread. All of them are already putting on their labels that they are produced with genetic engineering or partially produced with genetic engineering. It is easy. Just print it on there. Print it on there in the same way--if you have a child or a grandchild who has a peanut allergy or who requires gluten-free, you can go look for a label, and immediately, you know what you are feeding them. Thanks to the citizen-led efforts in Vermont, we are seeing more and more consumer-friendly information easily accessible to shoppers. No scanning some code. No calling an 800 number. You don't pick up a product and say, ``Gee, I have to scan a code in here'' or ``I have to call an 800 number.'' No. You just pick up the product and look, and you find out what it has in it, everything from water, to celery, corn, cottonseed, and genetic engineered ingredients. We have seen countless pictures sent in by shoppers finding these labels. Labeling is not complicated or cost-prohibitive in practice. They are constantly printing new labels. You just add a line. Of course, to make matters worse, the bill we have before us has absolutely no enforcement mechanism. The negotiators of this proposal seem to think public pressure would be enough to force these multimillion-dollar corporations to comply. What they are saying is ``You guys be the cop on the beat. You be the ones to tell them what to do.'' Surely families squeezing every minute out of every day will not have time to hold companies accountable in the court of public opinion. Public pressure is not enough. You cannot ask consumers to go around and try to figure out whether they can buy something and then bring pressure. That is what we have legislatures for. At the end of the day, each of us have different reasons for wanting to know what is in our food. The fact is that, without labeling of GE foods, consumers cannot make informed choices. This purported deal does not go far enough to give consumers what they are asking for, which is a simple, on-package label or symbol. Of course, the bill does more than just block States from enacting GE-food labeling laws like Vermont's Act 120; it also blocks a longstanding seed-labeling law in Vermont, one that Vermont's organic farmers appreciate, as do conventional farmers and even backyard-hobby gardeners. This is a law that has been on the books since 2004. It ensures clear, meaningful information for farmers to know exactly what they are buying, and that is why they buy it. Perhaps in a State such as Kansas, where the last organic farm survey in 2014 counted only 83 organic farms, or Michigan, a State which is 10 times the size of Vermont and has some 332 organic farms--maybe in States that don't have organic farms, having access to that seed information is not considered useful or important, but in a State such as Vermont with only 626,000 people, where, our Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont assures me, we now have over 600 organic farms, our seed-labeling law is important. The industry has complied with it the last 12 years; yet, with no hearings and no debate, this bill will block Vermont's seed law and will prevent any other State from enacting one. When I was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I was proud that I wrote the law that set the national organic standards and labeling program. I was proud of that. It started out following a discussion across the kitchen table with organic farmers in Vermont; it is now a $40 billion industry nationwide. I continue to closely monitor and work to protect the high standards for the organic program. They have given consumers confidence in the organic label. They have given organic producers the strong, clear, and meaningful standards they have demanded. They have worked hard to follow these standards, but they want to know what the standards are such that those who work hard and follow the rules are not going to have somebody come in and say, ``Well, we followed the rules,'' with no proof that they actually did. Labeling of genetically engineered products is an outgrowth of the organic movement. As a watchdog of the organic program, I simply cannot support this proposal. I don't support it. We are not saying you cannot have these genetically engineered foods; just let consumers know. Label it. Then they can decide whether to buy it, just as a parent with a child who may require a gluten-free product knows when they come in whether a product is gluten-free when it says so on the label. It doesn't say you outlaw products with gluten in them; it says to give people a choice--the same as those with a peanut allergy. In this case, people want to know how their food was produced, and they want it on the label, not in some electronic code. Vermonters have a long tradition of leading the debate on issues crossing the spectrum. Vermonters stand for transparency the consumer's right to know. Vermonters want to make informed decisions for their families and with their limited grocery budgets. I acknowledge--we Vermonters acknowledge that powerful interests are allied against Vermont's law and against the Nation's consumers, as has been the fact from the beginning. The proposal released last week does not respect the work that Vermont has painstakingly done in this space. This Vermonter reflects the feelings of my constituents. I will not and cannot support it. Vermonters deserve better and so do all Americans. Mr. President, I see my good friend from Oregon, Senator Merkley, on the floor. He knows how important Vermont's work has been in this national public debate. I have been proud to cosponsor his legislation that recognizes and respects Vermont's law. I yield to my good friend from Oregon.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt that women--women, not politicians--should make their own health care choices. This was an important decision for women's health and women's constitutional rights. But the fight to protect women's health continues. It is going to continue tomorrow here in the Senate when we have the first vote on the conference report to provide emergency funding to combat the Zika virus. We are voting on emergency funding. Whether it is flooding in the South, wildfires in the West, ice storms in the winters, or hurricanes in the summers, Congress has always responded to crises with emergency funds. No offsets were required. Now, despite the overwhelming need for funding to fight Zika, when the threat of Zika is real and here, when the threat is of great risk to pregnant women, when the World Health Organization is urging women in Zika-impacted areas to delay pregnancy, House and Senate Republicans want to cut other programs to offset emergency funding for Zika. House and Senate Republicans decided on a conference report that continues their attacks on women's health. The report restricts Zika emergency funding for family planning services-- limitations that will prevent some women from seeking health services from their own doctors or from primary care clinics that help serve women in rural areas, including in Puerto Rico, where there are already thousands of Zika cases. Just after the Supreme Court reaffirmed a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, Republicans in the Senate and the House want to take that away. So it should come as no surprise to anyone tomorrow when I vote against this needlessly limiting response to what is a public health crisis. Republicans should stop taking crises and using them to make attacks on women. Let's be honest about what we do here in the Senate. We have seen this kind of misguided leadership. We saw the Republicans' misguided leadership extend to the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The high cost of that obstruction was on full display last week when the Court's eight Justices deadlocked twice in one day. Since February, the Court--diminished by Republican inaction in this body--has been unable to issue a final decision on the merits in a total of seven cases. I cannot remember a time in my lifetime where that has happened in that short period of time. The Supreme Court's inability to serve its highest function under the Constitution has left millions of families across the country waiting for justice, and they are uncertain of what the law is. This is the devastating reality for vulnerable immigrant families who are wondering whether they are going to be torn apart, whether the parents will be taken out and deported, sometimes leaving innocent children behind-- after the Court deadlocked last week in a case concerning enforcement of the President's executive action on immigration. The immigration case demonstrates the real harm of this Republican obstruction. Three years ago today, after an extensive process in the Judiciary Committee where hundreds of amendments were debated, the Democratic-led Senate, backed by a number of Republicans, passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill on a vote of 68 to 32. Even though a majority of the House of Representatives would have passed that bill into law, the Republican Speaker of the House blocked the bill from even receiving a vote. Apparently, it would violate what they considered the revered Dennis Hastert rule. There were some Republicans who opposed it, even though it passed overwhelmingly. They had to show their reverence to the Dennis Hastert rule, so we did not get an immigration bill. Because the Speaker refused to act and because they would not allow it to come to a vote, the President--who would not have had an Executive action if it had been voted on--was forced to use Executive action. His Executive action deferred the deportation of parents and children to prioritize the deportation of dangerous criminals. Before that Executive action could be implemented, however, a Republican- appointed district court judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction--not just for Texas but for the whole Nation--blocking the order. It was the inaction of Republicans in Congress that led the President to take sensible action to improve our broken immigration system. After blocking immigration reform, Republican obstruction continued in the Senate with the unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. This left a hobbled Court of eight to consider this crucial immigration case. So from legislation, to Executive action, to the hobbled Court, Republicans are responsible for creating these crises points. Why can't we go back to the days with responsible Republican leaders, like one of the greatest I served with, Howard Baker, or Bob Dole, or others, who would say we should at least do our job? Now that the Supreme Court has finished its term, we can see the full scope of the damage caused by Republican obstruction. In addition to the nondecision in the immigration case, there have been six other cases where the Court could not reach a final decision on the merits. We still do not know whether lenders can discriminate against married women; whether consumers can sue companies for misuse of private information; whether employers can deny women employees access to contraception coverage; whether public-sector unions can recover fair- share costs for collective bargaining; whether a person can sue another State; or whether tribal courts can hold nontribal wrongdoers on tribal lands civilly liable. These are important questions, and the American people should have definitive answers. Our Constitution ensures equal justice for all; not a patchwork of different rights in different parts of the country. This is the result of Senate Republicans' refusal to do their job and provide a hearing and a vote for Chief Judge Garland. Chief Judge Garland is an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court, and Americans overwhelmingly want him to receive a public hearing. The American Bar Association formally weighed in last week announcing that it had reviewed Chief Judge Garland's nomination and unanimously awarded him its highest rating of ``Well-Qualified.'' To reach that rating, lawyers from across the country assessed his integrity, professional competence, and temperament. One said, ``Garland is the best that there is. He is the finest judge I have ever met.'' Another said, ``He is a judge's judge, with a very high standard and legal craftsmanship, a fine sense of fairness to all parties, a measured and dignified judicial temperament, and the highest respect for law and reasoned argument.'' One even said that Chief Judge Garland ``may be the perfect human being.'' Instead of scheduling a hearing for this impeccably qualified nominee, Republicans are holding Chief Judge Garland's nomination hostage in the hope that the Republican Party will nominate Donald Trump and they can then have Donald Trump make a different nomination. Of course, their nominee is the same candidate who has accused a sitting Federal judge of bias simply because his parents were Mexican- born. Come on. It is unfathomable to me that Senate Republicans would prefer to diminish the Supreme Court for two terms rather than give Chief Judge Garland a fair and public hearing, but that is exactly what they are doing. No leadership in this Senate--Republican leadership or Democratic leadership--has ever done this. In fact, the last time we had a vacancy in the last year of a President's term, it was President Reagan, and the Democrats controlled the Senate. We voted unanimously to confirm President Reagan's Republican nominee to the Senate. The Democrats moved that nomination. Senate Republicans are also failing to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to our district and circuit courts. In the 18 months that Senate Republicans have had a majority, they have allowed just 20 votes on judicial nominations--to disastrous results on our Federal courts as judicial vacancies have skyrocketed. Contrast this record to the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration, when Democrats were in control. During that time, Democrats confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees and reduced the number of judicial vacancies to 34. Today, however, Senate Republicans' obstruction has caused judicial vacancies to nearly double from 43 to 83. Of these, 30 have been designated as judicial emergencies where caseloads are unmanageably high and the administration of justice is strained. When you look at the facts, Senate Republicans' claim that they have treated the President's judicial nominees fairly is not supported by the evidence. But more importantly, their persistent and unprecedented obstruction is harmful to the American people who are finding justice delayed in our Federal courts. The nominee the Senate will finally vote on today, Robert Rossiter, is just one example of Republican obstruction. He was nominated over a year ago to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Despite his nomination being voice voted out by the Judiciary Committee last October, Mr. Rossiter has been awaiting a floor vote for almost 250 days. Robert Rossiter has been in private practice in Nebraska for over 30 years. He has tried more than 70 cases to verdict. I will vote to support his nomination. Even after today's vote, there will be 25 judicial nominations languishing on the Senate floor. Two of them were reported at the same time as Robert Rossiter and have also been awaiting a vote for 8 months. While there is an agreement to vote on the nomination of Judge Brian Martinotti to fill a vacancy in New Jersey, that vote will not happen until next month. And we do not have an agreement to vote on the nomination of Edward Stanton to the Western District of Tennessee. In 2010, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Mr. Stanton as the U.S. attorney for that district, and his current nomination is supported by his two Republican home State Senators, as well as by every Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Only because of the efforts of Senator Fischer is Mr. Rossiter's nomination receiving a vote today. I hope the Republican Senators of Tennessee will be able to persuade the majority leader to schedule a vote for Mr. Stanton's nomination before we leave for the July recess. Instead of voting on these nominees and instead of holding a hearing on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, Senate Republicans are already talking about shutting down the confirmation process for judicial nominees next month. This is wrong. Hard-working Americans put in long hours to get their jobs done, and they deserve a Senate that does the same. But Senate Republicans have ignored their constitutional responsibilities and continued, as their party's standard bearer has said, to ``delay, delay, delay.'' It is the Senate's duty to ensure that an independent judiciary can function. But based on the deadlocks and delays we have seen, it is clear that, unlike when Democrats controlled this body and we made it possible for President Reagan to move his nominees, today's Senate Republicans will not act responsibly. I would say these Senate Republicans should act on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, as well as the 25 judicial nominations that have been passed out by voice vote from the Judiciary Committee. They are languishing on the Senate floor day after day after day. These are men and women who are prepared to do their job if we will give them a vote. They can't understand and the American public can't understand why the Senate Republican leadership won't let us do our job. After all, we are paid to do it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters needn't look far to see evidence of the deep French roots running through our State. From towns such as Montpelier and Isle La Motte, to the apt naming of Vert Mont, the Green Mountain State, generations of Vermonters were raised in homes where the native language was not English, but French. Deep ties to our neighbors to the north in Canada continue this rich culture in Vermont communities today. It is no wonder then that I have such strong memories of stories about the ``Merci Train'' in Vermont. In the aftermath of World War II, Vermonters, like people across the country, rallied together to provide supplies for war-torn communities throughout France and Italy. Vermonters sent food and other gifts, through Burlington and Rutland, down to Boston, where they became part of ``the Friendship Train,'' a convoy of rail cars that traveled through France as part of one of the more remarkable humanitarian efforts after World War II. I well remember my mother and father bringing my older brother and my youngest sister and me to see it. As children, we may not have fully understood what it meant, but for years thereafter, I would go past it, being more and more aware. As a Montpelier native, I join with everybody else with in having pride having that the Merci Train was there. The Merci Train was France's response, a year later, thanking Americans for their support. Filled with trinkets from French citizens, crafts made by school aged children, and other items, cars from the Merci Train traveled to each State. One arrived in Vermont on February 10, 1949. Its arrival was heralded by the playing of our national anthem, as well as the French revolutionary hymn ``La Marseillaise'' by the Montpelier High School Band. Its contents, sincere expressions of appreciation from French families, were unpacked and distributed to Vermonters. While the Merci Train's freight represented the gratitude of a nation, the railroad car itself held the history of two World Wars. Displayed behind the Vermont Supreme Court in Montpelier for a number of years, the car originally served as a railroad boxcar to haul military cargo. Often referred to as ``40 and 8s,'' in reference to their 40-man or 8-horse capacities, the cars regularly transported American soldiers throughout Europe. Upon the car's arrival in Vermont, it was displayed temporarily behind Vermont's Supreme Court building, where it remained until the 1950s. Removed to the Vermont State Police headquarters, it faced deterioration. A movement in the 1980s--with the support of veterans, private companies, the Vermont National Guard, and ``40 and 8'' enthusiasts--led to the car's restoration. Today it remains preserved and on display at the Vermont National Guard Library and Museum, a fitting tribute to the strong ties between Vermont and France and another window into the fascinating history on which our great State is built. I ask unanimous consent that the May 30 article from the Times Argus, ``The Merci Train in Vermont,'' by Paul Heller, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Nora Jacobson, a documentary film maker from Norwich, VT, who recently was awarded the 2016 Herb Lockwood Prize in the Arts. Herb Lockwood, originally from upstate New York, moved to Vermont in 1982 where he became widely respected for the extraordinary breadth and depth of his artistic talents. He was a painter, writer, woodworker, sculptor, cartoonist, and a master guitar player who inspired people of all ages, and his untimely death from a workplace accident in 1987 at the age of 27 led his friends and fans to publish his music and writings and led to his brother Todd to create the prize that bears Herb's name. Each year, the prize is awarded to a Vermonter whose work demonstrates a high level of artistic achievement, coupled with originality, innovation, and imagination; whose creativity, drive and philosophy serve as inspiration to other artists; and who has had a beneficent influence on the Vermont community. The prize includes a cash award of $10,000. The Burlington City Arts Foundation administers the prize through the generosity of private donors. I commend Todd Lockwood for honoring his brother's life in this way and am very pleased that Nora Jacobson is this year's prize winner. Nora grew up on a hilltop farm in Norwich, and with the exception of a few years away, she has spent her life in Vermont. She has produced a number of documentary films, some of which took as long as a decade to shoot and edit, like ``Delivered Vacant,'' about gentrification in Hoboken, NJ, and ``Freedom and Unity: The Vermont Movie,'' a unique portrayal of memorable periods and individuals in Vermont's 225-year history. The film is the product of the collaboration of dozens of film makers, conceived and directed by Nora, and it was shown in town halls and other locations around the state. Throughout her career as an independent film maker, Nora Jacobson has demonstrated the same passionate devotion to film and recognition of the importance the arts have for Vermont communities that people so admired in Herb Lockwood. She is a well-deserving recipient of this year's Herb Lockwood Prize.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters have many heroes, among them the original Green Mountain Boy, Ethan Allen. Today marks an important milestone in both Vermont and U.S. history as we remember the many contributions of Ethan Allen. Both a political and military figure in the years leading up to the American Revolution, Ethan Allen played a key role in championing Vermont statehood, setting our State on the path to be the standard bearer it is today on so many issues. Ethan Allen was instrumental in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga from British forces in 1775, which contributed significantly to the success of the new nation in its fight for independence. Ethan Allen is among the Founders of my home State of Vermont and an original organizer of the Green Mountain Boys--a rough and tumble bunch who did their part in the fight for independence in the Revolutionary War. His legacy lives on in Vermont today. Ethan Allen is celebrated annually by hundreds of people, from Vermont and across the Nation, who visit his historic homestead in Burlington to commemorate his life and to celebrate his contributions to American history. Understanding our heritage means understanding the achievements and the sacrifices that have been made by so many, in forging the great State and the great Nation that is part of our legacy as Vermonters and as Americans. Looking to heroes like Ethan Allen helps us to appreciate, protect, and build an even brighter future for generations of Americans and generations of Vermonters to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am concerned about a pending amendment, McCain amendment No. 4787. We had a series of votes earlier this week on sensible gun safety measures. We know by all the polling that the overwhelming majority of Americans supported these measures, but they were blocked by Senate Republicans. Now it appears the Republican leadership wants to change the subject. They are resorting to scare tactics to divert the attention of the American people from their failure to act in response to mass shootings. Let's be clear about what we need to stay safe. We need universal background checks for firearms purchases and we need to give the FBI the authority to deny guns to terrorist suspects. Senate Republicans rejected those commonsense measures earlier this week, but we still have the chance to give law enforcement real and effective tools. We should strengthen our laws to make it easier to prosecute firearms traffickers and straw purchasers. I am a gun owner. I know if I go in to buy a gun in Vermont--even though the gun store owner has known me most of their life--I have to go through a background check. But you can have somebody who has restraining orders against them, warrants outstanding against them, or who could have been convicted of heinous crimes, and they can walk into a gun show, with no background check, and buy anything they want. We also know they can go and buy all kinds of weapons to sell at a great profit to criminal gangs that couldn't buy them otherwise, and of course to those who are going to commit acts of terrorism and hate crimes. We also need to fund the FBI and the Justice Department so they have the resources to combat acts of terrorism and hate. Those are the elements of the amendment that Senators Mikulski, Baldwin, Nelson and I filed yesterday. In contrast, Republicans are proposing to reduce independent oversight of FBI investigations, and make permanent a law that as of last year had never been used. The McCain amendment would eliminate the requirement for a court order when the FBI wants to obtain detailed information about Americans' Internet activities in national security investigations. You can almost hear J. Edgar Hoover, who loved to be able to spy on any American he didn't like, asking: Why didn't I have that when I was the head of the FBI? The McCain amendment could cover Web sites Americans have visited; extensive information on who Americans communicate with through email, chat, and text messages; and where and when Americans log onto the Internet and into social media accounts. Over time, this information would provide highly revealing details about Americans' personal lives, Americans who are totally innocent of any kind of criminal activity, and they get all of this without prior court approval. That is why this amendment is opposed by major technology companies and privacy groups across the political spectrum, from FreedomWorks to Google, to the ACLU. Senator Cornyn and others have argued that we cannot prevent people on the terrorist watch list from obtaining firearms without due process and judicial review. Yet at the same time they are proposing to remove judicial approval when the FBI wants to find out what Web sites Americans are visiting. The FBI already has the authority to obtain this information if it obtains a court order under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. None of us would feel comfortable if the FBI or any law enforcement agency could just walk into our home, rifle through our desks, and go through the notes of whom we have called or whom we have talked to. But they are saying because we have done it electronically and through the Internet, we ought to be able to just ignore any right of privacy and go into it. So rather than trying to distract us from their opposition to commonsense gun measures, such as their opposition to requiring somebody who has criminal indictments pending against them from being able to go to a gun show and buy guns, Republicans should support actions that will help protect us, such as those in the amendment filed by Senators Mikulski, Baldwin, Nelson, and myself. Instead of kowtowing to a very well-organized special interest lobbying group, why not listen to the lobby of the American people and do what Americans want. I hope Senators will oppose the McCain amendment. I hope they will support measures that will actually help keep our country safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after voting down sensible gun measures earlier this week, Republicans want to change the subject. They want to resort to scare tactics to divert the attention of the American people. Now, they are offering an overbroad proposal that they argue is needed to keep this country safe. Let's be clear about what we need to stay safe. We need universal background checks for firearms purchases. We need to give the FBI the authority to deny guns to individuals suspected of terrorism. Senate Republicans rejected those sensible measures last night, but we still have the chance to give law enforcement real tools to fight terrorism and violent crime. We should strengthen our laws to make it easier to prosecute firearms traffickers and straw purchasers who put guns in the hands of terrorists and criminals. And we need to fund the FBI and the Justice Department so they have the resources they need to combat acts of terrorism and hate. Those are the elements of the amendment that Senators Mikulski, Baldwin, Nelson, and I have filed--and those are among the actions that Congress could take to protect this country. Instead Republicans are proposing to reduce independent oversight of FBI surveillance of Americans' Internet activities and make permanent a law that, as of last year, had never been used. And I should note that this is the same law that the Republican leadership in the Senate allowed to expire just last year. In case there is any confusion, I will state it clearly: The McCain amendment would not have prevented the Orlando attack. The amendment would eliminate the requirement for a court order when the FBI wants to obtain detailed information about Americans' Internet activities in national security investigations. This could cover Web sites Americans have visited; extensive information on who Americans communicate with through email, chat, and text messages; and where and when Americans log onto the Internet and into social media accounts. Over time, this information would provide highly revealing details about Americans' personal lives. The government should not be able to obtain this information whenever it wants by simply issuing a subpoena. Senator Cornyn and others have argued forcefully that we cannot prevent people on the terrorist watch list from obtaining firearms without due process and judicial review. They say we need an independent decisionmaker; yet at the same time, they are proposing to remove judicial approval when the FBI wants to find out what Web sites Americans are visiting. The FBI already has authority to obtain this information--if it obtains a court order under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. In an emergency where there is not time to go to court, the USA FREEDOM Act allows the FBI to obtain this information before getting judicial approval, so this amendment is unnecessary. This amendment is opposed by major technology companies and privacy groups across the political spectrum, from FreedomWorks to Google to the ACLU. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from nearly 40 organizations and companies opposing this proposal be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The Judiciary Committee also should study this proposal before it proceeds. The Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing to examine whether this expansion of the NSL statute is necessary or how it would affect Americans' privacy and civil liberties. Rather than trying to distract us from their opposition to commonsense gun measures, Republicans should support actions that will actually help protect us, like those in the amendment filed by Senator Mikulski, Senator Baldwin, Senator Nelson, and myself. They should support emergency FBI funding. They should support funding for the civil rights division to help protect the LGBT community, the Muslim American community, and the African-American community from hate crimes and discrimination. And they should support my proposal to make it harder for terrorists and criminals to evade background checks by turning to firearms traffickers and straw purchasers. This is a provision that I have developed with Senator Collins and that has been strongly supported by law enforcement. As we saw in San Bernardino, terrorists can acquire assault rifles by simply using a friend to purchase the guns for them; yet prosecuting such individuals for firearms trafficking has proven to be an extremely difficult task. My proposal will fix these laws. It will provide law enforcement the tools it needs to deter and prosecute those who traffic in firearms, and it will help to close another glaring loophole in our gun laws that allows terrorists and criminals to easily acquire powerful firearms. I urge Senators to oppose the McCain amendment and to support these measures that will actually help keep our country safe.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, in cosponsoring a resolution recognizing the 70th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program on August 1, 2016. Seventy years ago, Senator William Fulbright established this program for the ``promotion of international goodwill through the exchange of students in the fields of education, culture and science.'' The Fulbright Program receives funding each year with strong bipartisan support from Congress and is also supported by 50 binational commissions worldwide. Since its establishment, the Fulbright Program has become the United States' flagship educational exchange program. There have been more than 370,000 participants from around the world and all 50 States since the program was established. Fulbright alumni include 33 heads of state, 54 Nobel laureates, and 82 Pulitzer Prize winners. The Institute for International Education has administered the Fulbright Program since 1946 and has worked closely with the Department of State to ensure that the Fulbright Program is one of the most prestigious and effective international exchange programs in the world. The Fulbright Program makes a significant contribution to the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and understanding between Americans and people worldwide. It awards 8,000 grants annually, including to 1,600 U.S. students, 4,000 foreign students, 1,200 U.S. scholars, and 900 visiting scholars, in addition to several hundred teachers and professionals. Increasingly, it seems as if the world is being torn apart by intolerance, hatred, violence, and isolationism. I am convinced that academic and cultural exchange programs, like Fulbright, are more relevant today than ever because they provide a strong antidote to these trends. Exchanges between individuals from around the world who share ideas and work together on issues and problems confronting the world can build relationships that endure for a lifetime. I congratulate the Fulbright Program, the alumni, and all who have supported the program for 70 years of promoting international goodwill, and I thank Senator Boozman for this resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the achievements and contributions of a remarkable advocate and a celebrated leader in my home State of Vermont. Later this month, Polly Nichol will retire from her position as director of housing of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. For more than 35 years, Polly's career in affordable housing and community development has stood as the gold standard of excellence to those in her field. Her effective leadership across Vermont has inspired countless new collaborations, new housing opportunities for our most vulnerable, and the preservation of historic structures that make up Vermont's unique character. It is not an exaggeration to say that the quality of life for many in the Green Mountains is greater as a result of Polly Nichol's legacy. Polly joined the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board in 1988 as its first director of housing. There, she became known for establishing creative partnerships to bring together developers, preservationists, and advocates alike. This work was grounded in her prior experience at the local community action agency, where she led the establishment of two neighborhood reinvestment groups in nearby Barre and Randolph. These groups are now part of NeighborWorks America, a program I have long supported for its investments in rural communities across the country. Polly's career in advocacy and leadership has been vast and multifaceted. In Vermont, the challenge of securing safe, affordable housing is far too familiar for many. Overcoming this challenge requires a strong network of advocates and experts ready and willing to collaborate. During her tenure at the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Polly has channeled the organization's mission to improve the capacity of surrounding nonprofits dedicated to housing and conservation. Today Vermont's landscape of nonprofit developers and preservationists is uniquely integrated, much thanks to Polly's early efforts to instill value in the belief that building homes includes building community. Polly's vision has also had a direct impact on thousands of Vermonters in nearly every corner of the state. Her leadership has contributed to the success of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board as it has invested in and developed more than 12,000 homes and apartments. More than 1,300 homes with much-needed services and supports have also been developed for our most vulnerable friends and neighbors. Throughout, the organization has also enabled more than 1,000 individuals to become homeowners, further enabling them to become integrated within their local communities. Polly's leadership and advocacy may also be witnessed in the other voluntary roles she has held throughout the last four decades. She is an active member of the city of Montpelier's Housing Task Force, the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, and is well known for her role as a founding board member of the Vermont Community Loan Fund. Her reach also extends to other important causes, including a most recent appointment to serve as the vice president of the board of Vermont Works for Women, an organization that supports disadvantaged women and those who pursue nontraditional careers. We have also been fortunate to have Polly as a delegate to our region and national affordable housing communities, including the New England Housing Network and the Housing Assistance Council. In 1994, Polly received the Skip Jason Community Service Award from the Housing Assistance Council after being nominated by a host of Vermonters. As a leading national advocate for rural housing policy in the country, this award recognizes those whose efforts have improved the housing conditions of the rural poor in their communities and whose work ``in the trenches'' often goes unrecognized in their communities. Since then Polly's leadership, has continued, as she has served as both president and chair of the board of the Housing Assistance Council. Polly has been well known to friends and colleagues as much for her gentle humor as her uncompromising dedication to preserve the unique beauty and quality of life found at home in Vermont. Her work will leave a lasting impression on those of us who have been fortunate enough to learn from and work alongside her. As she transitions to retirement, I do hope she finds opportunity to revel in her accomplishments both near and far.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after 17 years spent protecting Lake Champlain, Dr. William Glen Howland--Bill, to most of us--will retire this month as the director of the Lake Champlain Basin Program. We should all thank him and recognize his contributions to the conservation and restoration of Vermont's jewel, Lake Champlain, credit him for his many contributions to scientific research, and thank him for his commitment to the local community in which he lives and works. Under Bill's steady and thoughtful guidance, the Lake Champlain Basin Program, LCBP, has flourished in its mission to coordinate and fund work by Vermont, New York, and Quebec to protect Lake Champlain's water quality, fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. At the Gordon Center House on Vermont's Grand Isle, Bill has assembled and guided a team of exceptional scientists and dedicated public servants. Bill has led the Lake Champlain Basin Program to become nationally and internationally recognized in the fields of ecosystem monitoring, prevention of the spread of invasive species, water pollution control, cultural heritage resource interpretation and protection, and public education. It is a model to which other watershed and basin programs aspire. I have often looked to Bill for his expert advice in developing and implementing Federal legislation and programs. Bill worked with me on the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002, the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act adopted in 2006, and the Lake Champlain Ecosystem Restoration Authority, which was adopted as part of the Water Resources Development Act. Bill has testified more than once before Senate committees about the importance of environmental conservation programs and projects in the Lake Champlain and Great Lakes regions. I have been impressed by Bill's ability to bring all types of partners to the table, including local citizens, recreation organizations, heritage organizations, county planning offices, the Governors of Vermont and New York, Federal agencies, and even the Premier of Quebec. Bill's greatest skill may be diplomacy, considering he has confirmed trilateral Memoranda of Understanding with New York, Vermont, and Quebec in 2000, 2003, and 2010, has helped to guide two International Joint Commission inquiries, and has contributed to international trans-boundary conservation work through LAKENET, UNESCO HELP, and NANBO international lake summits. Remarkably, year after year, he has been able to achieve consensus on the allocation of millions of dollars in Lake Champlain funds among multiple Federal agencies, Vermont, New York, many private organizations, and countless partners on the ground. Bill's dedication to protecting Lake Champlain and the environment extends well beyond his tenure as director of the LCBP. During his many years as a faculty member and as a member of the research staff at Middlebury College, the University of Vermont, and McGill University, Bill has advanced the field of geography, particularly biophysical remote sensing and terrain modeling of northern ecosystems, which are critical tools as we track global climate change. He has been a role model and adviser to many young scientists, helping to shape their studies and their careers. He also served as the executive director of the Green Mountain Audubon Society for 5 years, before taking the reins at the LCBP. Like so many great Vermonters, Bill's service to his local and regional community has been remarkable. Many of Bill's neighbors owe their health and well-being to his decades of service as an advanced emergency medical technician on the Richmond and Grand Isle rescue squads. Bill has been an active board member of the Lake Champlain Committee and served on the Burlington Barge Canal Superfund panel, receiving a U.S. EPA Environmental Merit Award in 1997. Director Howland has my sincere gratitude for his years of dedicated service to his local community, to the Lake Champlain Basin, and all of Vermont, as well as to U.S. national and international conservation efforts and scientific research. I expect and hope that he will stay active on all of these fronts. Bill has much more to contribute. I wish him well in his retirement, and I hope that he and his wife, Betsy, will now get a chance to relax on the shores of Lake Champlain at their home in Isle La Motte.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a few days after the mass shooting in Orlando, I received a very powerful letter from Ella Staats, a young Vermonter who, like Americans across our land, was sickened and horrified by this senseless act of hatred that we saw in Orlando. What was pointed out to me in this letter, this eloquent, passionate heartfelt letter, is that Ella is 15 years old. In her letter addressed to me, under the auspices of the Young Writers Project, she explained that even at her age, she has ``already seen so many mass shootings that it is becoming harder and harder to faze [her].'' Ella calls on Congress to act, writing: ``It is time that the gun laws in our country were completely reformed'' so these violent and hateful acts will be prevented. After I read and reread her eloquent letter, I was moved. I sat down in my home in Vermont, and I started to draft a response, going through all the votes I had taken over the years. I started looking up all the hearings I had convened on gun violence, all the bills I authored and cosponsored, those I moved through the Judiciary Committee and even on the Senate floor, but then I stopped--this was just a catalogue. I decided the nature and the quality and the moving aspect of Ella's letter deserved a response on the Senate floor because Ella has given voice to something urgent that many people in Vermont and across the country are feeling right now. Here is my reply to Ella: Dear Ella, thank you for your thoughtful letter. I have read it several times and I want you to know how powerful it is to speak up about issues as important as this one. Some worry that many of your generation have disengaged from involvement in the big issues of our day, but your letter gave me hope. You are right. It is long past time for Congress to reform the laws that allow mass gun violence to flourish in our country. You deserve to feel safe. You should not have to fear that guns designed for the battlefield will end up in the hands of terrorists or violent criminals. A large majority of our fellow Americans feel just as we do and support sensible answers. But your government has let you down. Time and time and time again, commonsense remedies are thwarted by obstruction and inertia and powerful lobbies, and only if more people like you stand up will we be able to change this. Ella, I want you to know that I have been working for years to find practical solutions that will stop the gun violence that continues to touch every corner of our country. But I bet that the last thing you want is a list of all the bills I have written or voted for but have not passed. You want to know how we are going to overcome the well- funded opposition to passage of laws that will reduce gun violence. First, we must remember the amazing men, women and children who die from gun violence every day. Sadly these tragedies are not limited to mass shootings. It is essential that we pay attention to the loss that thousands of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters feel each day because of a shooting that could have been prevented. Second, we need new voices like yours. We need you to hold us accountable. We need more people to demand reform so that we can finally overcome the well-funded opposition to commonsense laws that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. Ella, I share your frustrations and I beg you not to become numb to this hatred and violence. I urge you to speak out in your community, on social media and to demand accountability. It often takes time--too long a time--but speaking out, sharing your ideas and views, and contacting your elected representatives makes a difference. I hope the votes that I cast on your behalf tonight demonstrate that I hear you and I agree that we must act to prevent the next Orlando. Ella, thank you for doing that--for speaking out and for holding us accountable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ella Staat's full letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Like Ella, Marcelle and I continue to mourn the deaths of 49 innocent people in Orlando just over a week ago. Just a year ago we were mourning the loss of 9 parishioners who were murdered in their church by a hateful domestic terrorist. It is unacceptable that hundreds more have died as a result of mass shootings since that tragic day in Charleston. This includes the victims killed at military facilities in Tennessee, a college in Oregon, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, an office gathering in San Bernardino, and dozens of other communities around the country. Enough is enough. Ella is rightfully tired of excuses--and so am I. We cannot accept that daily shootings are the new normal. I was proud to join Senator Murphy, Senator Booker, Senator Blumenthal, and others here on the Senate floor last Wednesday in a call to action, and I commend those Senators for their determined leadership last week. We have to do something. Congress must act. When Democrats were last in the majority in the Senate, I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee last Congress and we took action. We convened hearings, debated and reported out sensible legislation to punish criminals who traffic in firearms, to close loopholes that allow criminals to acquire guns, and other measures to prevent mass shootings. We had broad support from the public and a bipartisan group of Senators. But Senate Republicans blocked every single one of these responsible proposals. And since re-taking control of the Senate, Republicans have stood in the way of even the most modest reforms. There have been no hearings and there was no willingness to allow votes on any gun violence legislation until Democrats took a stand. Last week, Democrats demanded action on this issue, and tonight we will have four votes, and Americans across the country will know where each Senator stands. I am a responsible and proud gun owner, and most Vermonters know we should do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. In order to do that, we must close the loophole that allows suspected terrorists to pass the background checks conducted at gun stores. Senator Feinstein's amendment would give law enforcement the discretion to actually stop the sale of a gun to a known or suspected terrorist who presents a public safety threat. Had Senator Feinstein's amendment been law when the Orlando shooter attempted to buy his assault weapon, the FBI would have had notice to see what he was doing and could have prevented the tragedy in Orlando. The Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, supports Senator Feinstein's amendment and I support this commonsense amendment. Closing the ``terror gap'' is not enough. If a potential terrorist is prevented from buying a gun in a local store, we have to ensure that he cannot simply buy the same gun online without any sort of background check. If background checks are not universal--online, at gun shows, and everywhere else--then what is the point? Senator Murphy's amendment closes a major loophole by requiring background checks for every firearm sale, including gun shows and Internet sales--with reasonable exceptions including transfers to close family members. The amendments offered by Senators Feinstein and Murphy are sensible approaches that will help stop the gun violence that is plaguing our Nation. In contrast, the alternatives offered by Senators Cornyn and Grassley do not adequately address the problems we face--and in some respects they make things worse. The Cornyn amendment would impose impractical and unnecessary burdens on law enforcement, and could allow a known or suspected terrorist to buy a gun even when the government has filed an emergency petition to block the sale. And the Grassley amendment does nothing to fix the gaping holes in the background check system. I am concerned that the Grassley amendment could actually make it easier for individuals with known mental illnesses to obtain firearms. Anyone who is watching this debate to determine which proposals would help prevent the next Orlando tragedy need to understand that neither the Cornyn nor Grassley amendments would have stopped the Orlando shooter from getting his guns. Congress must pass bills that fix loopholes in a responsible way, not create more dangerous gaps in our gun laws. The vast majority of Americans support stronger background checks. They want to prevent terrorists of all types from obtaining guns. When I pick up a firearm from a gun store in Vermont, even though the person may have known me all his life, I have to go through a background check. That does not bother me a bit. But I do not want somebody who has warrants outstanding against them or restraining orders from their spouse against them to be able to walk into a gun show and buy the same weapon with no background check. If Senators listen to their constituents, they will do the right thing and vote for the Feinstein and the Murphy amendments to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and suspected terrorists. And they will vote against the Cornyn and Grassley amendments. In the wake of mass gun violence, whether the victims are members of the LGBT community, African-American church parishioners, first graders in an elementary school, college students, or military servicemembers or others in our community, we are called to come together in solidarity as Americans. We must come together in support of the victims, their families, law enforcement personnel and first responders, and the entire community tonight. Let's enact real solutions. They might prevent further acts of senseless violence. To the millions of Americans who agree with Ella, I hope you are watching the Senate today. I thank Ella for reminding us all that we cannot stand idly by, wait for the next tragedy, and simply offer our thoughts and prayers. Now is the time Congress has to act to pass commonsense measures that have languished for too long and could save American lives. I support the amendments offered by Senator Feinstein and Senator Murphy. I hope my fellow Senators will do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we commemorate World Refugee Day. It is a day we make clear that we stand with those who have survived the horrors of war, torture, and persecution. It is a day when we remember our common humanity and the moral imperative to love and care for one another. I can think of no better time than now to pause and remember those fundamental principles. The rhetoric of hate and intolerance has reached a frightening pitch in this country, much of it directed against innocent victims of persecution. We must forcefully reject this un-American rhetoric. With more than 65 million people forcibly displaced around the globe, we must not lower our torch--we must raise it higher. Our national values demand it, and our national interest requires it. As we reflect upon the fate of refugees across the world, we must reclaim our history as a refuge for the persecuted. Today--and every day--I stand with refugees. Over the past 5 years, the world has witnessed millions of Syrians desperately fleeing the terror inflicted by ISIS and Bashar Al-Assad's regime. Hundreds of thousands have died, and more than half of Syria's 23 million people have been forced from their homes. The vast majority of these are women and children. As a humanitarian leader among nations, the United States must play a significant role in efforts to resettle those displaced by this devastating conflict. While we must do more for Syria and the surrounding countries, we must not turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis growing even closer to home. In the Northern Triangle of Central America, ruthless armed criminal organizations in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala brutalize women and children with impunity. El Salvador and Guatemala have the highest child murder rates in the world--higher even than the child murder rates in the once-active war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. These three Central American countries also account for some of the highest rates of female homicides worldwide. This pandemic of gang violence in the Northern Triangle has forced thousands of mothers and children to flee and seek refuge wherever they can find it. I remain deeply troubled by the administration's continuing immigration raids directed at these vulnerable women and children. We must do everything we can to ensure that these individuals receive meaningful due process before they are sent back to the chaos and violence from which they fled. In the face of such staggering suffering, we must live up to our long tradition of being a safe and welcoming haven for those fleeing persecution. Since the passage of the landmark Refugee Act of 1980, the people and communities of the United States have opened their arms to more than 2.5 million refugees. America is the great country that it is because of the contributions of refugees, including the likes of Albert Einstein and Madeleine Albright. I am especially proud that Vermont has welcomed nearly 8,000 refugees from more than a dozen war-torn countries. These refugees have enriched our communities and are making important contributions to our State. They have become college-educated citizens, small business owners, nurses, and soccer coaches. Recently, Mayor Christopher Louras and members of the Rutland community announced plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees. I applaud their decision, which should serve as an example to other communities in Vermont and across the country. I am confident that Vermont will prove to be a welcoming home for all of these families. And we must do more. Last year, the United States announced a very modest plan to resettle 10,000 refugees. To date, however, we have admitted only a fraction of that number. Despite recent attempts to foment our fears, we must not forget that refugees continue to be the most stringently vetted travelers to the United States. And we must remember that ISIS is our enemy; the suffering Syrian people fleeing ISIS are not. Months ago, the heartbreaking image of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi's lifeless body washed up on a beach stirred the conscience of the international community. The image was forever seared in my mind, laying bare the human cost of the Syrian crisis. In the United States, there were passionate calls for our country to live up to its humanitarian legacy. Amid today's hateful rhetoric against refugees, we must once again conjure up that image of Aylan. We must reaffirm our commitment to those risking their lives to flee persecution. Now, more than ever, the world needs the United States to lead. Soon, I will reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act of 2016. Our bicameral bill would make important strides in bolstering and updating our Nation's laws to address the unprecedented refugee crisis we face today, honoring our rich history as a refuge for the persecuted. In this dark chapter of human history, there are dangerous voices urging us to lower our torch. Let the world see that the United States chose instead to hold its torch even higher.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of America's greatest strengths is our judicial system: a system based on the ideal of equal justice for all. The Senate has a critical role to play in protecting this judicial system. Perhaps most importantly, it is our responsibility to confirm qualified judges to vacancies throughout the country so that our courts function at full strength and Americans receive swift and reliable justice. Another core responsibility is ensuring fairness. In criminal cases, fairness requires that the rights of victims and the accused are respected. It requires that evidence is processed quickly and accurately. And if there is a mistake and an innocent person is wrongly convicted, fairness requires that we have the tools available to correct them. The bill the Senate passes today, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, will make our courts more fair. It provides tools to strengthen indigent defense and expand the rights of crime victims. It will improve the use of forensic evidence, including rape kits, to provide justice as swiftly as possible. It will help protect the innocent by increasing access to postconviction DNA testing. Passage of this bipartisan bill is long overdue, but it is an important step that we celebrate today. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act builds on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act. That bill sought to ensure that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, when appropriate, access to postconviction DNA testing. I started my career as a prosecutor in Vermont. I know that we must hold those who commit crimes accountable, but we must also ensure that our system treats the accused fairly and does not wrongly convict those who are not guilty. In some cases, DNA testing can prove the innocence of individuals where the system got it grievously wrong. ``Innocent until proven guilty'' is a hallmark of our criminal justice system, but when a person who has been found guilty is actually innocent, we must provide access to tools like DNA testing that can set the record straight. The Innocence Protection Act and the funding it provides for postconviction DNA testing has played a critical role in helping the innocent clear their names and receive the exonerations they deserve. These cases happen more often than people might think. In the first 6 months of 2016, at least four people have been exonerated by DNA testing after spending a combined 100 years in prison for crimes they had not committed. Can you imagine how terrifying it must be to be convicted of a crime you did not commit? You are separated from all that you know and all those you love--perhaps for decades or life. You are housed in a cold, bare prison cell, isolated and scared. And perhaps worst of all, no one believes you when you say you did not do it. The four men exonerated by DNA in just the last few months no doubt experienced that and worse, so did my friend Kirk Bloodsworth. Kirk was a young man just out of the Marines when, in 1984, he was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 9 year-old girl, a heinous crime he did not commit. He maintained his innocence and finally received a second trial, only to be convicted again, though this time he received two consecutive life sentences. Again, he fought to clear his name, pushing to have the evidence against him tested for DNA, then a novel new scientific method. The DNA found at the crime scene was not his, and he was released from prison in 1993. He became the first death row inmate in the United States to be exonerated through the use of DNA evidence. Kirk inspired me to create the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program as part of the Innocence Protection Act in 2000. He continues to be a remarkable champion for justice, and I am proud the grant program we both care so deeply about is reauthorized as part of the bipartisan legislation before us today. We must continue funding this critical postconviction DNA testing since we know our system is imperfect. It is an outrage when an innocent person is wrongly punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong. Of course we must do more to ensure that our justice system gets it right from the beginning, and that means improving the quality of indigent defense. This legislation requires the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to States to improve their indigent defense systems, and it ensures that public defenders will have a seat at the table when States determine how to use their Byrne JAG criminal justice funding. Although these are small changes, I hope they lay the ground work for greater improvements ahead, including adoption of my Gideon's Promise Act. That legislation would allow the Department of Justice to ensure that States are satisfying their obligations to provide competent counsel under the 6th and 14th Amendments. It has been a part of this bill in previous years, but unfortunately does not yet have the support it needs for passage. We must do more to protect this fundamental right, and I will continue to work to see the Gideon's Promise Act passed into law. In addition to the Innocence Protection Act, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act also increases resources for public forensic laboratories by reauthorizing the Coverdell program. It addresses the needs of sexual assault survivors by ensuring that rape kit backlogs are reduced and forensic exam programs are expanded. It strengthens some key provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. And it expands rights for victims of all crime. While we still have a long way to go, we have made progress over the years to respond to the needs of sexual assault survivors, and I am glad this legislation continues to build on that strong record. Last Congress, we reauthorized the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, named for my brave friend Debbie Smith who waited for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. I included language in the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to increase services and funding for survivors of sexual assault and further reduce the rape kit backlog. I thank Senator Cornyn for working with me to pass this important legislation today. The programs authorized through the Justice for All Act are a smart use of taxpayer dollars that ensure the integrity of our justice system. Senators who talk about the need to go after criminals and promote public safety should support our legislation, which I hope we can enact into law this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am a proud cosponsor of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, and I am glad that this important bill is now going to be moving to conference. I am glad that as the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, I will be a conferee. Beyond the idea of being a conferee, it is urgent that we find comprehensive and real solutions to the epidemic of heroin and prescription opioid abuse. I am in Vermont many times a month. I hear from people I know and from some I do not know. They are in the grocery stores, on the street, even coming out of church on Sunday. They are telling me of their concerns either within their own family or in their own neighborhood with the problems of opioid abuse. Communities throughout the Nation are grappling with this issue, whether they are in urban areas or rural areas or a State such as the Presiding Officer and I represent that has a mixture of both urban and rural. I think the Federal Government has to do its part to provide the support necessary to sustain those efforts. It means real money. For rural communities, which are predominantly the communities in my home State of Vermont, it means better access to the opioid antidote Naloxone, which saves lives. I have held hearings throughout Vermont, and I have heard from not only the police but physicians, the faith community, parents, teachers, and others that Naloxone can save lives. It is really not a question of whether there is a heroin-opioid epidemic; the question is how quickly we can respond. We have to act now. The American people expect us to, and that is an expectation they are justified to have. So let us fulfill the expectation. I support the efforts by my neighbor from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and I support her motion to instruct conferees to provide funding for State and local efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. I also support my fellow New Englander, Senator Whitehouse, in his motion to instruct conferees to address the needs of rural communities. I come from a State of 625,000 people--625,000 very special people. It is very rural. We need the help. I support Senator Whitehouse in this. I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand that prior to the cloture vote, the Democratic side still had some time. I yield back that time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past 3 years, David Medine has served as chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, PCLOB--the first chairman finally to be confirmed after Congress reestablished the PCLOB as an independent agency and strengthened its authority. Under his leadership, the PCLOB has worked diligently to review surveillance programs and make recommendations to protect individual privacy and civil liberties. Mr. Medine recently announced that he will be leaving government service to join a nonprofit organization that serves low-income and disadvantaged individuals. He will be missed. Mr. Medine was confirmed at a critical time, just a month before the first Snowden revelations in June 2013. In response to reports that the NSA had been collecting Americans' phone records in bulk for years under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, he guided the PCLOB's work in reviewing that program and releasing a comprehensive report in January 2014. The recommendations in that landmark report included ending the bulk collection of Americans' phone records, installing an amicus at the FISA Court, and instituting a number of other privacy protections. Many of these recommendations were subsequently enacted into law in the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. Under Mr. Medine's leadership, the PCLOB also released a detailed unclassified report in July 2014 on surveillance conducted pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is slated to expire at the end of next year. This report includes a valuable unclassified explanation of the implementation of section 702. These reports and Mr. Medine's related testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee have been tremendously beneficial to Congress and the American people in examining government surveillance programs. Mr. Medine's public service spans more than 20 years. Over the course of his career, he has earned a reputation as a thoughtful and well- respected authority on privacy and data security issues. I commend Mr. Medine for his dedicated public service and efforts to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people, and I wish him well in this new chapter. (At the request of Mr. Burr, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)