Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining again with Senator Grassley in introducing the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act, legislation that will provide protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement agencies pricefixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harms consumers. This bill includes changes that we made in the Judiciary Committee last Congress, which enabled it to pass the Senate unanimously. Senator Grassley and I have long worked together on protecting whistleblowers, and this legislation continues those efforts. Whistleblowers are often instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement agencies to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward and deserve to be protected from retaliation. Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity to report this information. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act does exactly that by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle on illegal behavior such as pricefixing. This legislation is modeled on whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The protections are narrowly tailored and do not provide whistleblowers with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. Last Congress, we made modest changes to the bill in the Judiciary Committee to improve the definition of a covered individual and clarify that protections only apply to employees reporting criminal violations. The protections in this bill build on recommendations from key stakeholders in a 2011 Government Accountability Office report to Congress. The antitrust laws offer critical protections for consumers that promote free enterprise. By extending whistleblower protections to this area of the law, this bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal antitrust violations do not go unreported. This bill passed the Senate unanimously last Congress. I urge the Senate to pass it again.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on whether we will accept the budget gimmicks used by the Senate majority to pay for defense spending priorities, or reject those efforts in favor of a meaningful budget deal that protects both defense and discretionary spending. After more than 2 weeks of consideration, and votes on fewer than a dozen of the over 550 amendments that have been filed, I am disappointed by the majority leader's decision to vote to cut off debate on the pending Defense authorization bill. This bill deserves thorough consideration. It has not received that. Even worse, little progress has been made in approving amendments through managers' packages. Less than two dozen amendments have been approved by unanimous consent. Even in years when this bill has been most troubled, we have been able to clear noncontroversial amendments on both sides in significantly greater numbers, to improve the underlying authorization. But this year, that has not happened. So when asked if we should cut off debate, my answer is a clear ``no.'' Debate over what should or should not be in this bill is not yet close to over. It is too bad, because this bill includes many provisions that I support to promote our national interests, provide support to our military personnel, and reaffirm our commitment to partners abroad. As the bill's managers have both noted time and again, this Defense authorization bill increases readiness, keeps faith with servicemembers and their families, and invests in game-changing technology. As in past years, however, I am concerned that this year's Defense authorization bill includes several ill-advised provisions that would make it even harder to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. It imposes unnecessary new restrictions on transferring detainees to foreign countries--despite the steep cost of holding detainees at Guantanamo. And even though military commission proceedings still have barely gotten off the ground--14 years after September 11--it provides no realistic path for transferring detainees to the United States for trial in Article III courts. As long as the detention facility at Guantanamo remains open, it will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and tarnish America's role as a champion of human rights. Closing Guantanamo is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do, and I strongly oppose the provisions in this bill that needlessly restrict detainee transfers out of that facility. But perhaps the biggest flaw of this bill is that it yet again relies on and expands the Overseas Contingency Operations fund to avoid sequestration caps. The intention of this fund, which I have repeatedly stated should be done away with, has been severely distorted since its inception. We cannot continue to put our national defense on a credit card while asking working families to take responsibility for these costs. I support eliminating sequestration and believe it never should have been put in place, but simply ignoring its cap for defense spending by putting it in this off-books account doesn't get us any closer to that reality. We need a real solution to rid ourselves of sequestration, not one that relies on gimmicks while leaving military families, and low- and middle-class families, as well as our veterans, behind. The Senate needs to fully consider this bill. The annual Defense authorization is an important bill. It is also a comprehensive bill that authorizes over $\1/2\ trillion in defense spending, including pay and benefits, acquisition programs, and initiatives to protect our national security. It should be fully vetted before debate is ended. We owe it to the American people. I will oppose cloture on this substitute amendment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Congress has some unfinished business before it. When the President took office, he issued an Executive order banning torture. It is regrettable that such a step was even necessary for a country that has been a signatory to the Convention Against Torture since 1988, more than 25 years ago. But it was the right thing for the President to do and consistent with our values as Americans. In particular, the President ordered that all U.S. Government personnel and contractors must comply with the interrogation standards in the Army Field Manual and that the International Committee of the Red Cross should have notice of and access to detainees held by the U.S. Government. Now it is time for Congress to adopt these same requirements--to enshrine them in law and ensure that America never again employs torture, no matter what the threat. Senators McCain and Feinstein have offered an amendment that mirrors these requirements of the Executive order. It would require all government personnel and contractors, across all agencies and departments, to abide by the rules and regulations contained in the Army Field Manual. It also would ensure that the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, is provided access to all individuals detained by the United States. These requirements have already been in place for 6 years, and this amendment is consistent with current practice. The Army Field Manual provides clear guidelines on acceptable and effective interrogation practices. It reinforces explicit prohibitions in existing law against torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment. It is relied upon by our military personnel when they conduct high-risk interrogations on the battlefield. There is no reason why these rules should not apply to all government personnel and contractors, in all places, and at all times. This is a critically important amendment. We know from the historic report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA engaged in horrific acts of torture during the Bush administration. We must be unequivocal to the world and to ourselves that torture is wrong and that it is never permitted. An Executive order is not enough. Congress must act. We must codify these safeguards into law. When it comes to our core values--the things that make our country great and that define America's place in the world--they do not change depending on the circumstances. The Convention Against Torture does not make exceptions. We must be clear that there are no instances when torture is acceptable. I urge Senators to support the anti-torture amendment, and I commend Senators McCain and Feinstein for their enduring leadership on this issue. We must ensure that America never allows this to happen again.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act to the Senate floor. This bill is intended to facilitate sharing of cyber threat information between the private sector and the government. While this could be useful in protecting against cyber attacks, I am concerned that certain provisions in the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill would severely undermine Americans' privacy. Senator Burr's bill would remove all existing legal restrictions to allow an unprecedented wave of information--including Americans' personal communications--to flow from the private sector into government databases without any meaningful controls or limitations. It would explicitly authorize the government to use this information to ``prevent'' crimes that have nothing to do with cybersecurity, such as firearms possession, arson, and robbery. These problems are compounded by the fact that this bill requires all information provided to the government through the information-sharing regime to be immediately disseminated, which does not allow time for removal of unnecessary private information, to a number of Federal agencies--including the National Security Agency and others. We do not know whether this information would also be shared with the Drug Enforcement Administration, or the Internal Revenue Service, for example. We do know this would open a new flow of information to the Federal Government, without appropriate restrictions on how these agencies can store, query, or mine this information. Congress should enact cybersecurity legislation to protect American businesses and the American people. But we need a cyber security bill, not a cyber surveillance bill. There are also provisions in this bill that add entirely new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. These provisions are completely unnecessary, and have the potential to greatly weaken government transparency. Senator Burr's information sharing bill is major legislation that deserves full debate and a meaningful opportunity for Senators to offer amendments to improve the bill. It has had neither. The bill was drafted behind closed doors. It has not been the subject of any open hearings or public debate. The text of the bill was only made public by the Intelligence Committee after it was reported to the Senate floor, and no other committee of jurisdiction--including the Judiciary Committee--was allowed to consider and improve the bill. I shared with Chairman Grassley my concern that the Judiciary Committee should also consider this bill, and Chairman Grassley assured me that there would be a ``robust and open amendment process'' if this bill were considered on the Senate floor. I expect that the Senate Homeland Security Committee received the same assurances. Senator Burr's attempt to offer the Intelligence Committee's information sharing bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act runs directly counter to those assurances. This is not a sincere effort to consider and pass this bill under regular order. Instead, through a series of procedural maneuvers, Republican leadership is deliberately preventing any type of meaningful debate on this bill. I agree that we must do more to protect our cyber security, but we should not rush to pass legislation that has significant privacy implications for millions of Americans. We must be thoughtful and responsible. Attempting to stifle meaningful debate and pass this bill as an amendment to the NDAA is the wrong answer. That is not how the Senate should operate. I urge Senators to vote no on cloture. Amendment No. 1473, as Modified

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last night, the Senate confirmed Eric Miller to be Vermont's 37th U.S. attorney. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job as the top Federal law enforcement officer in the State. Before recommending Eric to the President, I consulted prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement officials, and civic leaders throughout Vermont. They were unanimous in their support for Eric. I was particularly impressed with his thoughtfulness, vision, and depth of experience. Eric Miller is one of Vermont's leading trial attorneys. He is well regarded by State and local law enforcement and leaders in Vermont's legal community. Eric Miller has worked since 1999 in the Burlington office of the law firm Sheehey Furlong & Behm PC, serving as partner since 2002. He has litigated a range of complex issues in Federal civil and criminal cases, including trials and appeals. As an appointee to the Criminal Justice Act panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, Eric has also represented indigent defendants in serious felony cases involving narcotics, weapons, and immigration-related charges. He clerked for the Honorable Fred Parker on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Burlington. He has a law degree from Yale University and an undergraduate degree from Duke University. I thank Eric for his willingness to continue to serve Vermont and I congratulate him on his confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on September 17, 1787, George Washington, James Madison, and their fellow framers made the momentous decision to sign the Constitution and send it along to the American people for ratification--marking a new beginning in our Nation's profound experiment in democracy. While the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 established the firm foundation for our democracy, it was not complete because it did not address the vexing issue of slavery. It would take more than seven decades and a bloody civil war before our founding charter would right that wrong. This year marks the sesquicentennial, or the 150th anniversary, of the Thirteenth Amendment, which, along with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, has been described by scholars as our Nation's ``Second Founding.'' Ratified by President Lincoln and his generation after the Civil War, these second founding amendments transformed our original charter by ending slavery, banning racial discrimination in voting, and elevating liberty and equality to a central place in our constitutional order. While we rightly celebrate our original founding charter, we have often overlooked the importance of these subsequent amendments, which has served as the bedrock and inspiration to procuring equality for racial minorities and women. On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to end slavery and sent it to the States for ratification. Passage of that amendment was by no means an easy feat. As brilliantly captured by Steven Spielberg in his film ``Lincoln,'' the final vote was every bit as dramatic as the film's portrayal. Doris Kearns Goodwin's award- winning book, ``Team of Rivals,'' noted that before this historic vote: ``Every available foot of space, both in the galleries and on the floor of the House, was crowded at an early hour,'' and the attendees included Chief Justice Chase and the members of the Supreme Court, along with Secretary of State William Seward. Without the support of five Democrats who became the swing votes, the amendment would never have passed. One Pennsylvania congressman, knowing that his vote could very well cost him his seat, said right before he cast his vote that ``If by my action today I dig my political grave, I will descend into it without a murmur.'' I am proud to say that both of Vermont's Senators voted in favor of the amendment, including Senator Solomon Foot, who served as President pro tempore of the Senate during the Civil War, and Senator Jacob Collamer, who was called the ``Green Mountain Socrates'' by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Upon the amendment's passage, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton ordered 100 guns to fire with their heaviest charges while the names of those who voted in favor of the amendment were read aloud because ``History [would] embalm them in great honor.'' Upon passage, President Lincoln received praise from even his most ardent critics, including the prominent abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who once burned a copy of the Constitution while calling it a proslavery document. While this year marks the 150th anniversary of the passage and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, we should celebrate the second founding amendments together, for they are inextricably bound. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, is perhaps the single most influential amendment passed after the Bill of Rights. This week also marks the 149th anniversary of the passage of the 14th Amendment in the Senate. It was under the command of the Fourteenth Amendment providing equal protection for all citizens that the Supreme Court held that separate was inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education; that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be tainted with racial discrimination in Loving v. Virginia; that women could not be denied admission into an all-male military institute because of their gender in United States v. Virginia; and many others, including hopefully, that the fundamental right to marriage extends to all individuals regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity in Obergefell v. Hodges. Ratification of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot be separated from the Fifteenth, which outlawed racial discrimination in voting. In 1865, one month after the end of the Civil War, William Lloyd Garrison called for disbanding an anti-slavery society of which Frederick Douglass and others were members. Prescient as ever, and about 100 years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Frederick Douglass responded that ``Slavery is not abolished until the black man has the ballot.'' As we celebrate the second founding amendments, we must also take time to recognize that issues of race continue to plague our Nation. And as far as we have come, we still have a lot further to go in our march toward a more perfect union. There are some who would confine the fight for civil rights to a bygone era. They see it as a remnant of the distant past in our Nation's history. And they cite the election of an African American president as evidence that we have somehow achieved full equality under the law. But we know the struggle for equality and for civil rights is ongoing. The fight for a more perfect union is one that every generation must contribute to--including this one.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about recent developments in Sri Lanka where the new government of President Maithrapala Sirisena has taken several important and encouraging steps to promote good governance, human rights, and reconciliation since his election on January 8. Among the government's initial accomplishments are the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which curtails the extensive powers enjoyed by the executive and vests more power in the Parliament, limits the Presidential term to 5 years instead of 6, allows the President to hold office only for two terms instead of an unlimited number of terms, and provides for a Constitutional Council to make appointments to independent commissions on the judiciary, police, public service, elections, and audit, instead of the President as was previously the case. In addition, the right to information has been included as a fundamental right in the Constitution. Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has wisely called the attention of the Parliament to the need to review the individuals and entities that were listed under a U.N. regulation pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The regulation was used to ban several Tamil diaspora groups for their alleged links to the LTTE. However, the new government reportedly believes that some individuals and organizations may have been wrongly accused of terrorist links when they were merely advocating in support of their rights. The government intends to review the list in the interest of reconciliation and reaffirming its commitment to freedom of expression. I am also encouraged that the government has revived its relationship with the United Nations, including with the U.N. Human Rights Council, and has invited the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Sri Lanka. I hope such a visit takes place soon. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence visited Sri Lanka in March-April 2015, and I understand that the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances will visit Sri Lanka in August. For years, impunity for serious crimes has been the norm in Sri Lanka. The government is working to establish what it describes as a ``domestic mechanism'' to deal with accountability for human rights violations. A purely domestic mechanism, however, is not likely to be sufficient. The Sri Lankan people, the United States and other governments, the United Nations, and international human rights groups have long called for justice for the victims of atrocities committed by the armed forces and the LTTE during the 30-year conflict. It is essential that the justice process is not only about truth telling, but is a credible, independent mechanism with authority to investigate, prosecute, and appropriately punish those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, on both sides. It is also important to the development of a credible accountability mechanism and to the success of this endeavor that Sri Lankan officials consult with local civil society organizations, including the families of the war's victims. They should also invite international bodies, such as the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, to take part in this process, to provide technical assistance as well as substantive input and help with prosecutorial work, evidence-gathering, and judicial decision-making. A hybrid mechanism, with international experts involved at the prosecutorial and judicial level, will help ensure that the failings and cynicism associated with past domestic accountability mechanisms are not repeated. I am told that the government intends to work with humanitarian organizations on the issue of missing persons, including forensics, and to resolve the cases of remaining detainees. The United States and other international groups could assist this important humanitarian effort. Under the government of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Armed Forces day was ``Victory Day'', a divisive, provocative celebration for the Sinhalese majority. President Sirisena, in his Armed Forces Day speech on May 19, said the policy of the new government will be ``development and reconciliation'', making clear the government's recognition that development projects alone will not heal the wounds and scars of the past. He also affirmed that the reconciliation process must involve truth seeking, justice, eliminating fear and suspicion among all communities and building trust among them, as well as the rebuilding of infrastructure. He expressed confidence that the Armed Forces would now dedicate themselves to the government's policy on reconciliation. The return of land in the north and east currently occupied by the Armed Forces, and the resettlement of Tamils displaced by the war and the provision of basic services, is an urgent necessity. Some land in the east that had been allocated by the previous government for infrastructure projects has been released by President Sirisena for the resettlement of the displaced, and a small amount of land in the north has been provided to civilians who were uprooted by the war. But this is only a beginning. Sri Lanka is at peace, so it is time for the Armed Forces to return land, support the resettlement of families, and focus on external threats rather than domestic policing. Unlike the previous government which vilified its critics and locked up after sham trials journalists who exposed corruption, President Sirisena has taken steps to reaffirm freedom of the press by unblocking media websites, inviting exiled journalists to return to the country, and ensuring freedom of expression for the media to operate without fear of reprisal. Under the previous government, Sri Lanka's judicial system was politicized, manipulated, and corrupted. The new government is taking steps to reestablish the independence of the judiciary, which is fundamental to any democracy. Also significant was the appointment of the Chief Justice who is from the minority Tamil community immediately after the election of the new government. The government has committed to fight corruption and ensure accountability for financial crimes even for the most influential and powerful individuals, to end impunity at any level. It has established a Stolen Assets Recovery Task Force for this purpose. The United States is prepared to assist these efforts and those of civil society to combat corruption. These are very encouraging steps for which we should commend President Sirisena. They should have been carried out by the previous government, but instead former President Rajapaksa and his brothers Basil and Gotabhaya, and their close associates, sought to dismantle the institutions of democracy, subvert the rule of law, and enrich themselves. Rather than support reconciliation, they encouraged corruption and exacerbated ethnic, religious, and political divisions. Of course, these are only first steps, and there have been others that raise questions about the government's intentions. For example, MG Jagath Dias, who was appointed the new Army Chief of Staff, commanded a regiment that took part in the final battles of the war that were marked by widespread abuses including summary executions of prisoners and in which countless civilians died, reportedly from government artillery shelling. If the Sri Lankan government is serious about addressing the crimes of the past it will need to take up allegations against senior officers like General Dias. Failing to address the role of senior military commanders, in particular those who still serve, would seriously weaken the government's credibility. Most immediately, the government's challenge is to hold parliamentary elections as soon as possible. Once a new Parliament is in place the processes of reconciliation, reconstruction, reform, and accountability can proceed apace. After the elections, President Sirisena's government will need to work closely with the United Nations on plans to address the legacy of past abuses. The U.N. Human Rights Council is expected to take up this issue in its September session in Geneva. Thus, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights needs to release its report before then, as called for by the U.N. Human Rights Council, with recommendations for Sri Lanka and the international community on how best to achieve accountability in Sri Lanka. The government should wait until the U.N. report is issued before finalizing its own plans. Secretary of State Kerry's visit to Sri Lanka just 4 months after President Sirisena's election was not only symbolic of the revival of relations between our countries, but also illustrative of the Sri Lankan Government's efforts to realign its foreign relations more broadly. Over the last 6 years, the Obama administration has demonstrated leadership within the international community in addressing a range of issues in Sri Lanka. The administration's policy should follow the same trajectory and continue to play a leadership role. Likewise, the U.S. Congress has long sought to support democracy, development, human rights, and the rule of law in Sri Lanka. A close friend of mine, the late James W. Spain, one of our most able diplomats, served as our Ambassador in Colombo from 1985 to 1988. He was a devoted friend of Sri Lanka. I look forward to doing what I can to assist the Secretary and the Sirisena government, on behalf of all the people of Sri Lanka, in the months ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have the benefit of looking through the lens of history to learn from past mistakes in the hopes of making more informed decisions for the future. No example is more relevant today than the unintended effects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and their bearing on the threats of today. I opposed that war from the beginning, and we have paid, and continue to pay, a tremendous price--in American lives, in the unfathomable expense of taxpayer dollars, and in the escalation of strife in that region, and beyond. There is no doubt that the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, have emerged from Al Qaeda in Iraq, seizing upon instability, weak institutions, ethnic fractions, and general hostility toward Western forces that resulted from the post-9/11 Iraq invasion. Our personnel, allies, and interests abroad face significant threats from this terrorist group, which have arisen out of the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. We can be proud of the bravery, dedication, and sacrifice of our soldiers and their families. They are not at fault for the complex situation in which we now find ourselves. They served our Nation dutifully, and for that we are grateful. Rather, it serves as a reminder that policymakers cannot act recklessly--especially when taking military action. As we continue to address the very real threat that is ISIL, it is astounding to me how far in the past the hard lessons we learned now appear to be to some commentators and policymakers. I ask unanimous consent that a perceptive and well-written analysis on this subject, written by the distinguished journalist and former foreign correspondent Barrie Dunsmore, that was published in the Rutland Herald and the Montpelier (Barre) Times Argus on May 24, 2015, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Portman to reintroduce the bipartisan Second Chance Reauthorization Act. This legislation builds on the success of the original law and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison are given a fair chance to turn their lives around. When inmates are released from prison, they face many challenges, including finding housing and employment, combating substance abuse, and accessing physical and mental healthcare. This legislation aims to improve their ability to reenter society, become productive members of their families and communities, and reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend. Investing in reentry services has been proven to reduce recidivism and bring down prison costs. It is also the right thing to do. This legislation is urgently needed. While the United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have nearly 25 percent of the world's prison population. With more than two million people behind bars, and 650,000 ex-offenders being released each year, we need to reauthorize these critical programs that reduce crime and increase public safety. Budgets at the State and Federal level are strained by our system of mass incarceration, and we all suffer as a result. The truth is that when so much money goes to locking people away, we have fewer resources for programs that actually prevent crime in the first place. Investing in reentry programs that break the cycle of crime helps reduce prison costs and keeps us all safer. That is why law enforcement groups like the National Association of Police Organizations support this bill. They understand better than most that we cannot afford to stay on our current path. My home State of Vermont was recently awarded a grant to implement a Statewide Recidivism Reduction Program through the Second Chance Act. The Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, Andrew Pallito, says that he sees the positive impact of Second Chance programming every day. In Commissioner Pallito's words, ``The Second Chance Act is not just about giving incarcerated individuals another opportunity to succeed, it is about significantly improving the outcomes we all want for children, families and communities.'' We have seen that these programs are succeeding in States across the country. North Carolina, with the help of six Second Chance grants, has reduced its recidivism rate by 18.1 percent since 2007. It has focused on individualized case planning, use of evidence-based practices, and coordination of services through local reentry councils. Georgia has reduced its recidivism rate by 13.5 percent since 2007 by directing greater resources to rehabilitation, community supervision, and programs addressing reentry needs. Thirteen Second Chance grants have helped support these successful efforts and the statewide incarceration rate has decreased by 4.8 percent. These programs are working, and it would be irresponsible not to continue supporting these critical efforts that are improving public safety and bringing down prison costs. I am introducing this bill so that it can be a part of our conversation in the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate about the urgent need for criminal justice reform. Recidivism rates at the State and local levels are unacceptably high. Nearly \2/3\ of former inmates are rearrested within 3 years of release and about half ofthem end up back behind bars. Any serious effort to address reform must include efforts to support reentry. Nearly all prisoners will return to our communities at some point and it is wise policy to help make that transition successful. We all benefit--our families, our neighborhoods, our economy--when people become productive, stable members of society. That is the goal of the Second Chance Act. That is why it is supported by American Probation and Parole Association, the National Association of Counties, the American Bar Association, and the United Methodist Church, among many others. Let me be specific. This bill will help former inmates overcome some of the obstacles they face in finding a job, a place to live, and accessing healthcare services. Meeting these basic needs has become increasingly difficult because people coming out of jail are too often treated as second class citizens for the rest of their lives. As a former prosecutor, I believe in tough sentences for those who break out laws. However, once someone has paid their debt to society, he should not be burdened by past mistakes forever. Chairman Grassley convened a Judiciary Committee hearing last month that highlighted just this issue. The hearing focused on the importance of the right to counsel for poor defendants charged with misdemeanors. During that hearing, we heard testimony about Melinda, a single mother in Ohio who suffered a seizure while cleaning her house. When the police and paramedics arrived, they found unsecured cleaning supplies and Melinda ended up with a conviction for child endangerment. Years later, she was fired from her job when her employer learned of her criminal record. This left her unable to pay her rent, buy food for her family, or lead a productive life. This is just not right, and it certainly does not make any of us safer. Any criminal conviction, no matter how minor, can hinder a person's chances of success for their entire lives. The Second Chance Act equips people to deal with this difficult environment, and that assistance starts before inmates are even released. Grants under this program have enabled states to hire case managers who meet with inmates while they are in jail to plan for their release, and continue to be a resource once they have returned home. Case managers help former offenders identify where to continue substance abuse treatment, apply for jobs, and enroll in parenting classes. They also help them build conflict resolution skills and avoid certain people or places that threaten their recovery. A key component to remaining crime-free is getting and keeping a job, and this reauthorization implements a new ``Transitional Jobs Strategy'' to help identify and address the root causes of chronic unemployment for ex-offenders. This new strategy will support those individuals committed to working hard and getting their lives back on track by offering programs like vocational education, life skills training, or child care services. I am proud of this addition to the bill and believe it will improve lives and stimulate our economy. We have learned from recent reports by the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General that our Nation's aging prison population is costing the Federal Bureau of Prisons millions every year due to their increasing medical needs. Many of these older prisoners no longer represent a threat to public safety, so this bill increases the discretion of prison officials to determine when inmates over 60 should be released to home detention. It simply doesn't make sense to spend money incarcerating and caring for elderly inmates who are not dangerous. Although the Second Chance reauthorization has passed with strong bipartisan support through the Judiciary Committee each of the last two Congresses, the act expired in 2010. We need to pass this legislation this Congress as part of comprehensive criminal justice reform. I am hopeful that with partners like Senator Portman and Representatives Sensenbrenner and Davis we will finally reauthorize it this Congress. We have been working hard to reach an agreement that is fair, fiscally responsible, and meets the needs of key stakeholders. We have the support of faith groups, law enforcement, and groups who provide services to the mentally ill and those struggling with addiction. This broad coalition has one thing in common--we all want to see our justice system work better. I thank Senator Portman, Representative Sensenbrenner, and Representative Davis for their hard work and cooperation. We have come together in a truly exceptional way in this bipartisan, bicameral effort. I look forward to joining with Democrats and Republicans to get this bill passed and signed into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Portman to reintroduce the bipartisan Second Chance Reauthorization Act. This legislation builds on the success of the original law and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison are given a fair chance to turn their lives around. When inmates are released from prison, they face many challenges, including finding housing and employment, combating substance abuse, and accessing physical and mental healthcare. This legislation aims to improve their ability to reenter society, become productive members of their families and communities, and reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend. Investing in reentry services has been proven to reduce recidivism and bring down prison costs. It is also the right thing to do. This legislation is urgently needed. While the United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have nearly 25 percent of the world's prison population. With more than two million people behind bars, and 650,000 ex-offenders being released each year, we need to reauthorize these critical programs that reduce crime and increase public safety. Budgets at the State and Federal level are strained by our system of mass incarceration, and we all suffer as a result. The truth is that when so much money goes to locking people away, we have fewer resources for programs that actually prevent crime in the first place. Investing in reentry programs that break the cycle of crime helps reduce prison costs and keeps us all safer. That is why law enforcement groups like the National Association of Police Organizations support this bill. They understand better than most that we cannot afford to stay on our current path. My home State of Vermont was recently awarded a grant to implement a Statewide Recidivism Reduction Program through the Second Chance Act. The Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, Andrew Pallito, says that he sees the positive impact of Second Chance programming every day. In Commissioner Pallito's words, ``The Second Chance Act is not just about giving incarcerated individuals another opportunity to succeed, it is about significantly improving the outcomes we all want for children, families and communities.'' We have seen that these programs are succeeding in States across the country. North Carolina, with the help of six Second Chance grants, has reduced its recidivism rate by 18.1 percent since 2007. It has focused on individualized case planning, use of evidence-based practices, and coordination of services through local reentry councils. Georgia has reduced its recidivism rate by 13.5 percent since 2007 by directing greater resources to rehabilitation, community supervision, and programs addressing reentry needs. Thirteen Second Chance grants have helped support these successful efforts and the statewide incarceration rate has decreased by 4.8 percent. These programs are working, and it would be irresponsible not to continue supporting these critical efforts that are improving public safety and bringing down prison costs. I am introducing this bill so that it can be a part of our conversation in the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate about the urgent need for criminal justice reform. Recidivism rates at the State and local levels are unacceptably high. Nearly \2/3\ of former inmates are rearrested within 3 years of release and about half ofthem end up back behind bars. Any serious effort to address reform must include efforts to support reentry. Nearly all prisoners will return to our communities at some point and it is wise policy to help make that transition successful. We all benefit--our families, our neighborhoods, our economy--when people become productive, stable members of society. That is the goal of the Second Chance Act. That is why it is supported by American Probation and Parole Association, the National Association of Counties, the American Bar Association, and the United Methodist Church, among many others. Let me be specific. This bill will help former inmates overcome some of the obstacles they face in finding a job, a place to live, and accessing healthcare services. Meeting these basic needs has become increasingly difficult because people coming out of jail are too often treated as second class citizens for the rest of their lives. As a former prosecutor, I believe in tough sentences for those who break out laws. However, once someone has paid their debt to society, he should not be burdened by past mistakes forever. Chairman Grassley convened a Judiciary Committee hearing last month that highlighted just this issue. The hearing focused on the importance of the right to counsel for poor defendants charged with misdemeanors. During that hearing, we heard testimony about Melinda, a single mother in Ohio who suffered a seizure while cleaning her house. When the police and paramedics arrived, they found unsecured cleaning supplies and Melinda ended up with a conviction for child endangerment. Years later, she was fired from her job when her employer learned of her criminal record. This left her unable to pay her rent, buy food for her family, or lead a productive life. This is just not right, and it certainly does not make any of us safer. Any criminal conviction, no matter how minor, can hinder a person's chances of success for their entire lives. The Second Chance Act equips people to deal with this difficult environment, and that assistance starts before inmates are even released. Grants under this program have enabled states to hire case managers who meet with inmates while they are in jail to plan for their release, and continue to be a resource once they have returned home. Case managers help former offenders identify where to continue substance abuse treatment, apply for jobs, and enroll in parenting classes. They also help them build conflict resolution skills and avoid certain people or places that threaten their recovery. A key component to remaining crime-free is getting and keeping a job, and this reauthorization implements a new ``Transitional Jobs Strategy'' to help identify and address the root causes of chronic unemployment for ex-offenders. This new strategy will support those individuals committed to working hard and getting their lives back on track by offering programs like vocational education, life skills training, or child care services. I am proud of this addition to the bill and believe it will improve lives and stimulate our economy. We have learned from recent reports by the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General that our Nation's aging prison population is costing the Federal Bureau of Prisons millions every year due to their increasing medical needs. Many of these older prisoners no longer represent a threat to public safety, so this bill increases the discretion of prison officials to determine when inmates over 60 should be released to home detention. It simply doesn't make sense to spend money incarcerating and caring for elderly inmates who are not dangerous. Although the Second Chance reauthorization has passed with strong bipartisan support through the Judiciary Committee each of the last two Congresses, the act expired in 2010. We need to pass this legislation this Congress as part of comprehensive criminal justice reform. I am hopeful that with partners like Senator Portman and Representatives Sensenbrenner and Davis we will finally reauthorize it this Congress. We have been working hard to reach an agreement that is fair, fiscally responsible, and meets the needs of key stakeholders. We have the support of faith groups, law enforcement, and groups who provide services to the mentally ill and those struggling with addiction. This broad coalition has one thing in common--we all want to see our justice system work better. I thank Senator Portman, Representative Sensenbrenner, and Representative Davis for their hard work and cooperation. We have come together in a truly exceptional way in this bipartisan, bicameral effort. I look forward to joining with Democrats and Republicans to get this bill passed and signed into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the bipartisan American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act of 2015, which will extend and significantly improve the EB-5 Regional Center program. Since its inception in 1993, the EB-5 Regional Center program has generated billions of dollars in capital investment and created tens of thousands of jobs across the country, much of which has occurred in areas that traditionally struggle to attract investment and jobs. The program's authorization is set to expire at the end of September. My legislation would reauthorize it for 5 years while enacting broad reforms to enhance the program's integrity. I am proud to be joined by Senator Grassley in this effort. The EB-5 Regional Center program faces significant challenges. I have always been supportive of its ability to create American jobs but the program has experienced some problems in recent years. There have been troubling reports of fraud and abuse, concerns regarding onerous processing delays for developers and investors, and questions over whether the program is truly benefiting those that Congress intended. These concerns can overshadow the many success stories, and have led some to understandably lose faith in the program. I have not seen any flaw inherent to the EB-5 Regional Center program that could not be remedied, and I strongly believe that this is a program worth fixing. Over the last two decades this program has proven it can result in significant investment and jobs in communities that desperately need both, all at no cost to American taxpayers. While our immigration system as a whole is broken, and only comprehensive reform will remedy its many injustices, reforming and reauthorizing the EB-5 Regional Center program warrants our immediate attention because the program is set to expire in a matter of months. In Vermont, this program revitalized rural communities during the worst of economic times. At the height of the recession, Country Home Products was able to speed up its engineering initiative to develop a new line of equipment in the power tool market. Sugarbush ski resort invested in new facilities and resources to increase visitors and keep its doors open. Without EB-5 capital, these manufacturing, construction, and hospitality jobs would likely not exist in Vermont. The state-run Vermont Regional Center continues to attract substantial capital investment and--with the Department of Financial Regulation now joining the Agency of Commerce and Community Development in overseeing the program--also provides unparalleled oversight of EB-5 projects. I have long sought substantial reforms to the EB-5 Regional Center program at the Federal level. Last Congress, my EB-5 amendment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform provided the Department of Homeland Security the authority to revoke suspect regional center designations or immigrant petitions. This amendment, which was unanimously approved by Senate Judiciary Committee, also provided for increased regional center reporting, background checks, and oversight related to the offer and sale of securities. Sadly these improvements have all had to wait, as the House of Representatives failed to allow a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last Congress. Fortunately, however, the agency that administers EB-5 has not stood idly by waiting for Congress to strengthen the program. I credit Alejandro Mayorkas, the former Director of United States Citizenship and Services, with bringing many concerns to light. The agency has since transformed its review of EB-5 applications. Staff levels have increased nearly ten-fold, in-house economists now analyze proposed business plans, and fraud detection and national security staff now sit side-by-side with adjudicators. These actions have all helped the agency to guard against abuses. However, as Congress now faces reauthorizing this job-creating program, I have listened to concerns raised about how the program functions. I believe we must do more, which is why I have been working for over a year to further reform and modernize the Regional Center program. The bill I introduced today builds upon what the Senate passed last Congress as part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This legislation, if enacted, would provide the Department of Homeland Security additional, much-needed authorities, including further expanding background checks, conducting a more thorough vetting of proposed investments earlier in the process, and providing for the ability to proactively investigate fraud, both in the United States and abroad, using a dedicated fund paid for by certain program participants. The bill would also provide investors with greater protections and more information about their investments. It would provide project developers clarity and shorter processing times in order to make the program more predictable and functional. It would raise minimum investment thresholds so more money goes to the communities that need it. It would help to restore the program to its original intent, by ensuring that much of the capital generated and jobs created occur in rural areas and areas with high unemployment. Taken together, the oversight tools, security enhancements, and anti- fraud provisions included in this legislation provide the framework for a complete overhaul of the EB-5 Regional Center program. These reforms will instill both confidence and transparency in the program. I look forward to continuing to work with all Senators and stakeholders to improve and reauthorize this important program. I am confident our work will result in a secure EB-5 program that will create American jobs and promote economic growth throughout our country, particularly in the rural and distressed communities that need it most.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to pay honor to a Vermont legend who passed away last month. Marselis Parsons, known to friends as ``Div,'' was a deeply respected newsman in my home State. His low, steady voice in anchoring the evening news became a mainstay in living rooms for decades. Div Parsons knew news. He knew the importance of having personal connections, and he built trust based on his integrity and fairness. Div Parsons rose through the ranks at Vermont's CBS affiliate, WCAX Channel 3, and he never became too important in his own mind that he wouldn't report on a fire or track down a lead. In short, he knew the pulse of the State, and he reported on what he knew. He also shared his years of experience with young reporters, many of whom he hired straight out of college and gave them the break they needed. When he wasn't working long hours at the station, he was known to take to the waters of the great Lake Champlain, either on his antique power boat or, if the winds held up, under full sail. In retirement, he still relished tracking the latest political news. I am grateful for our friendship and our many conversations over time, and I am grateful that he was able to cherish the recent birth of his granddaughter, Pippa. Div Parsons' death will leave a void, no doubt, but we'll have many memories to share. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a fitting tribute to Div Parsons that ran in the Times Argus newspaper.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the bipartisan American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act of 2015, which will extend and significantly improve the EB-5 Regional Center program. Since its inception in 1993, the EB-5 Regional Center program has generated billions of dollars in capital investment and created tens of thousands of jobs across the country, much of which has occurred in areas that traditionally struggle to attract investment and jobs. The program's authorization is set to expire at the end of September. My legislation would reauthorize it for 5 years while enacting broad reforms to enhance the program's integrity. I am proud to be joined by Senator Grassley in this effort. The EB-5 Regional Center program faces significant challenges. I have always been supportive of its ability to create American jobs but the program has experienced some problems in recent years. There have been troubling reports of fraud and abuse, concerns regarding onerous processing delays for developers and investors, and questions over whether the program is truly benefiting those that Congress intended. These concerns can overshadow the many success stories, and have led some to understandably lose faith in the program. I have not seen any flaw inherent to the EB-5 Regional Center program that could not be remedied, and I strongly believe that this is a program worth fixing. Over the last two decades this program has proven it can result in significant investment and jobs in communities that desperately need both, all at no cost to American taxpayers. While our immigration system as a whole is broken, and only comprehensive reform will remedy its many injustices, reforming and reauthorizing the EB-5 Regional Center program warrants our immediate attention because the program is set to expire in a matter of months. In Vermont, this program revitalized rural communities during the worst of economic times. At the height of the recession, Country Home Products was able to speed up its engineering initiative to develop a new line of equipment in the power tool market. Sugarbush ski resort invested in new facilities and resources to increase visitors and keep its doors open. Without EB-5 capital, these manufacturing, construction, and hospitality jobs would likely not exist in Vermont. The state-run Vermont Regional Center continues to attract substantial capital investment and--with the Department of Financial Regulation now joining the Agency of Commerce and Community Development in overseeing the program--also provides unparalleled oversight of EB-5 projects. I have long sought substantial reforms to the EB-5 Regional Center program at the Federal level. Last Congress, my EB-5 amendment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform provided the Department of Homeland Security the authority to revoke suspect regional center designations or immigrant petitions. This amendment, which was unanimously approved by Senate Judiciary Committee, also provided for increased regional center reporting, background checks, and oversight related to the offer and sale of securities. Sadly these improvements have all had to wait, as the House of Representatives failed to allow a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last Congress. Fortunately, however, the agency that administers EB-5 has not stood idly by waiting for Congress to strengthen the program. I credit Alejandro Mayorkas, the former Director of United States Citizenship and Services, with bringing many concerns to light. The agency has since transformed its review of EB-5 applications. Staff levels have increased nearly ten-fold, in-house economists now analyze proposed business plans, and fraud detection and national security staff now sit side-by-side with adjudicators. These actions have all helped the agency to guard against abuses. However, as Congress now faces reauthorizing this job-creating program, I have listened to concerns raised about how the program functions. I believe we must do more, which is why I have been working for over a year to further reform and modernize the Regional Center program. The bill I introduced today builds upon what the Senate passed last Congress as part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This legislation, if enacted, would provide the Department of Homeland Security additional, much-needed authorities, including further expanding background checks, conducting a more thorough vetting of proposed investments earlier in the process, and providing for the ability to proactively investigate fraud, both in the United States and abroad, using a dedicated fund paid for by certain program participants. The bill would also provide investors with greater protections and more information about their investments. It would provide project developers clarity and shorter processing times in order to make the program more predictable and functional. It would raise minimum investment thresholds so more money goes to the communities that need it. It would help to restore the program to its original intent, by ensuring that much of the capital generated and jobs created occur in rural areas and areas with high unemployment. Taken together, the oversight tools, security enhancements, and anti- fraud provisions included in this legislation provide the framework for a complete overhaul of the EB-5 Regional Center program. These reforms will instill both confidence and transparency in the program. I look forward to continuing to work with all Senators and stakeholders to improve and reauthorize this important program. I am confident our work will result in a secure EB-5 program that will create American jobs and promote economic growth throughout our country, particularly in the rural and distressed communities that need it most.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I have been proud to work with Senator Lee for nearly 2 years to develop the legislation that we have been discussing. It has involved many hours of hard work over many months. The result is a solid bill with a set of commonsense reforms that has overwhelming support. The Senate should pass it today. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy. The fact is the USA FREEDOM Act that was passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives--that has strong bipartisan support here--is supported by the Director of National Intelligence. It is also supported by our Attorney General. It is supported by our intelligence community. And it is a step forward because, ultimately, the legislation protects the privacy of individuals. I agree with the Senator from Maine that we have strong restrictions at the NSA on the information. However, they were not strong enough, of course, to stop Edward Snowden from walking off with all the information that was there. We had six public hearings on these issues in the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress. The original USA FREEDOM Act was introduced by Senator Lee and me and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner in the other body. We all knew section 215, the roving wiretap authority, and ``lone wolf'' provision, would expire June 1, 2015. That is why we started working to change it. We are also well aware of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that made part of the program illegal. I think what we have in the USA FREEDOM Act is a carefully crafted bill by both Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate. That is why it passed 338 to 88 in the House. If we start amending it, we don't know how much longer it is going to take and we end up with no protections. I think that is not a choice we want to make. On Sunday night, with only a few hours before the sunset of section 215 and the other two expiring FISA authorities, Republican leadership in the Senate finally agreed to begin debate on the USA FREEDOM Act. For nearly 2 years, I have been working on a bipartisan basis with members in both the Senate and the House to address these matters. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress, I convened six public hearings to examine the NSA's bulk collection program and consider reforms to section 215 and other surveillance authorities. In October 2013, I introduced the original USA FREEDOM Act with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Lee, and others. We introduced an updated version of the USA FREEDOM Act in 2014 and pushed for the Senate to pass that bill last November, months before Sunday's expiration date. The American people were demanding meaningful reforms, but the intelligence community also needed operational certainty. We all knew that section 215, the roving wiretap authority, and the lone wolf provision would expire on June 1. That is why I started working months ago with Members of Congress from both parties and both Chambers to forge a compromise that protects both Americans' privacy and our national security. We were able to reach agreement on a bill that certainly does not go as far as I would like, but that definitively ends the NSA's bulk collection of phone records, improves transparency and accountability, and includes other important reforms. Our bill--the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015--is a carefully crafted bill that has now earned the support of the intelligence community, privacy and civil liberties groups, librarians, the tech industry, and a bipartisan super-majority of the Republican-led House of Representatives. Our bill represents significant progress toward real surveillance reform. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate has tried to block this progress at every turn. They blocked the Senate from debating the USA FREEDOM Act last November. They again blocked the Senate from debating the bill 2 weeks ago, despite knowing full well that failure to swiftly consider the House-passed bill would lead to expiration of these critical surveillance authorities. This brinksmanship is not a responsible way to govern. The expiration of the PATRIOT Act provisions on Sunday night was entirely avoidable, and the unfortunate consequence of a manufactured crisis. The Senate must now act responsibly and swiftly. It is time to pass the USA FREEDOM Act, which would restore the expired provisions and add much needed improvements and reforms. I hope that we will invoke cloture and then quickly dispense with any germane amendments so that we can move to passage of the bill. The House passed the USA FREEDOM Act almost 3 weeks ago by an overwhelming 338 to 88 vote. Senator Lee and I sought an open amendment process in the Senate, but we were blocked. Now, we simply do not have any time to spare. The Senate must pass this bill without any amendments so that the President can sign it into law immediately and restore these expired provisions today. A vote for any amendment is a vote to prolong the expiration of the surveillance authorities that ended on Sunday. If the Senate changes the underlying bill in any way, it must go back to the House for its consideration, and there are no guarantees that it will pass the new bill. In fact, Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Congressman Nadler warned that ``[t]he House is not likely to accept the changes proposed by Senator McConnell. Section 215 has already expired. These amendments will likely make that sunset permanent.'' Let us have no more unnecessary delay or political brinksmanship. It is time to do our jobs for the American people--to protect their privacy and maintain our national security. Now is not the time to seek unnecessary changes to this bill. If Senators believe that the Senate should consider some of these changes, we can consider them after we pass the USA FREEDOM Act. I urge Senators to vote for cloture because we need to move forward. We cannot afford to waste any more time. The USA FREEDOM Act includes important reforms, and we need to give the intelligence community the tools they need to keep us safe. That means we must pass the USA FREEDOM Act without change and without any more unnecessary delay. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Utah for his advocacy on behalf of Americans' privacy rights and for his dedicated efforts to end the NSA's illegal program. In June 2013, Americans learned for the first time that section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has for years been secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans' phone records on an unprecedented scale. And they learned that the NSA has engaged in repeated, substantial legal violations in its implementation of section 215 and other surveillance authorities. Since that time, Congress and the American public have been engaged in an important debate about the breadth of government surveillance powers and the legal rationale used to authorize the collection of Americans' data. Under my chairmanship last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held six open and public hearings that sharpened the committee's thinking and furthered the public dialogue on these important issues. Senator Lee, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Congressman John Conyers, and I introduced bicameral, bipartisan legislation, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2013, S. 1599/H.R. 3361, on October 29, 2013, to end bulk collection and reform our surveillance laws. The President announced his support for ending the bulk collection of Americans' phone records in March 2014. The House of Representatives passed a new version of the USA FREEDOM Act in May 2014, and after lengthy discussions with the executive branch, the technology industry, privacy advocates, and other stakeholders, Senator Lee and I introduced the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, S. 2685, on July 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the full Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, by a vote of 58 to 42. Despite falling two votes shy last Congress, Senator Lee and I knew that the May 31, 2015, expiration date was approaching, and we continued to work on a bill to reform these authorities. Senator Lee, can you explain the process we have undertaken this year?

Mr. LEAHY. As I mentioned, during the last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held six open, public hearings to examine the legal basis, effectiveness, and impact of these programs on Americans' privacy rights and civil liberties. We heard testimony from a wide range of government officials, legal scholars, technologists, and outside experts as the Committee sought to understand and evaluate the numerous issues raised by these activities. On July 31, 2013, I chaired the first full Judiciary Committee hearing to examine government surveillance programs with administration officials and outside experts. At the hearing, the NSA Deputy Director confirmed that the NSA's bulk telephony program did not help to thwart dozens of terrorist plots, as some administration officials defending the program had been contending. He confirmed that section 215 was only uniquely valuable in thwarting one terrorist ``plot''--the case of Basaaly Moalin, a Somali immigrant who was convicted of material support for sending $8,500 to al-Shabaab in Somalia. As a result of continued public debate about the government's surveillance activities, on August 9, 2013, President Obama announced that he was ordering the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, to establish a group of outside experts to review the government's intelligence and communications technologies and provide recommendations on possible reforms to surveillance authorities. He also announced the public release of additional documents, including a Department of Justice white paper outlining the legal justification for the section 215 bulk collection program. Over the course of the following months, the DNI declassified and released a host of documents related to activities conducted under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of FISA. The released documents detailed serious incidents of noncompliance and violations of law in implementing both of these programs. For example, the documents revealed that for several years, the NSA was unlawfully collecting thousands of wholly domestic emails and other electronic communications as part of its section 702 collection. In addition, FISA Court orders relating to the section 215 program revealed significant compliance problems and were highly critical of the NSA's oversight and operation of the program. On October 2, 2013, I chaired a second full Judiciary Committee hearing on government surveillance authorities. NSA Director Alexander revealed for the first time that the NSA had previously conducted a pilot program to test its capability of handling location data as part of the section 215 phone records program, although he emphasized that it was only a test. The second panel of witnesses at the hearing testified about the government's legal justification for the collection of telephone records under section 215. A technologist and computer scientist provided testimony to illustrate the power of metadata and the blurring distinction between content and metadata in the digital age. Shortly after that hearing, on October 29, 2013, I joined with Senator Lee, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Congressman Conyers to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral USA FREEDOM Act of 2013 to comprehensively reform a range of surveillance authorities. This legislation served as the basis for many of the reforms Congress is now debating. On November 13, 2013, Senator Franken chaired a Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing on legislation that he had introduced, the Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013, components of which were included in the USA FREEDOM Act. Government witnesses testified about executive branch efforts to promote greater transparency of surveillance activities. In addition, several outside witnesses, including representatives from the U.S. technology industry, spoke about the economic harm and damage to American technology companies as a result of revelations of government surveillance activities. These witnesses testified that American businesses stand to lose billions of dollars in the coming years as a result of revelations about U.S. surveillance activities. On November 18, 2013, the DNI declassified and released a host of documents related to a previously classified program that collected bulk Internet metadata. The documents included a FISA Court opinion authorizing the bulk collection of Internet metadata under the FISA pen register and trap and trace device authority. As with the section 215 telephone metadata program, the declassified documents revealed that the bulk Internet metadata collection program also encountered major compliance problems during its operation. In 2011, the program was ended by the government because it was not meeting operational expectations. On December 9, 2013, eight leading technology companies--AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo!--wrote an open letter to President Obama and Congress laying out five surveillance reform proposals. The companies called for a prohibition on the bulk collection of Internet data and argued that governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes. The companies also urged stronger checks and balances, including an adversarial process at the FISA Court. On December 11, 2013, the Judiciary Committee held its fourth hearing on these issues. At the hearing, government witnesses discussed the possibility of placing a privacy advocate at the FISA Court, the recently declassified documents about the bulk collection of Internet metadata, and the scope of collection that is permitted under traditional section 215 orders. We learned that the problems with the Internet metadata program were so severe that the FISA Court suspended the program entirely for a period of time before approving its renewal. But then, in 2011, the government ended this Internet metadata program because, as Director Clapper explained, it was no longer meeting ``operational expectations.'' However, senior government lawyers testified that under the statute, there was no legal impediment to restarting this bulk Internet data collection program. If the executive branch--or a future administration--wanted to do so, it would simply apply for an order from the FISA Court. On December 18, 2013, the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology publicly released its final report, which included 46 recommendations and findings to reform government surveillance activities. The review group members included Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism adviser to Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush; Michael Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA; Geoffrey Stone, professor at the University of Chicago Law School; Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law School professor and former senior OMB official in the Obama administration; and Peter Swire, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and former adviser to Presidents Obama and Clinton. They concluded that the section 215 phone records program had not been essential to national security, saying: ``The information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.'' The review group further stated that ``Section 215 has generated relevant information in only a small number of cases, and there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome would have been different without the section 215 telephony meta-data program.'' This sort of massive surveillance presents significant privacy implications in the digital age, and the review group's report provided valuable insights. The report explained that keeping a record of every phone call an individual has made over the course of several years ``can reveal an enormous amount about that individual's private life.'' The report further explained that in the 21st century, revealing private information to third party services ``does not reflect a lack of concern for the privacy of the information, but a necessary accommodation to the realities of modern life.'' And the report questioned whether we can continue to draw a rational line between communications metadata and content. This is a critically important question given that many of our surveillance laws depend upon the distinction between the two. The review group also addressed the national security letter, NSL, statutes. Using NSLs, the FBI can obtain detailed information about individuals' communications records, financial transactions, and credit reports without judicial approval. Recipients of NSLs are subject to permanent gag orders. The review group report made a series of important recommendations to change the way national security letters operate. I have been fighting to impose additional safeguards on this controversial authority for years--to limit their use, to ensure that NSL gag orders comply with the First Amendment, and to provide recipients of NSLs with a meaningful opportunity for judicial review. Following release of the review group's report, the Judiciary Committee then held its fifth hearing on the NSA's programs and called the members of the review group to testify. On January 14, 2014, the members of the review group testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and explained that in light of changing technology and the creation of more and more data, it recommended transitioning to a system where the government does not hold massive databases of Americans' metadata. Rather, metadata could be held by providers or a third party, and could be searched by the government only with advance judicial approval. The five members of the panel made clear that while we must always consider ongoing threats to national security, policymakers should consider all of the risks associated with intelligence activities: the risk to individual privacy, to free expression and freedom of association, to an open and decentralized Internet, to America's relationships with other nations, to trade and commerce, and to maintaining the public trust. Following the review group's report, in January 2014, President Obama took an important step to restore American's privacy and civil liberties by embracing the growing consensus that the section 215 phone records program should not continue in its current form. During a speech at the Department of Justice, the President announced that he had directed the intelligence community to develop alternatives to the program and asked the Justice Department to seek advance judicial approval from the FISA Court to query the section 215 phone call database. Additionally, he ordered the government to limit searches of the section 215 database to two ``hops,'' instead of three. He also recommended reforms to the secrecy surrounding national security letters. A January 23, 2014, report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, PCLOB, added to the growing chorus calling for an end to the government's dragnet collection of Americans' phone records. On February 12, 2014, the Judiciary Committee held its sixth public hearing, this time with the members of the PCLOB to explain the conclusions in their report. As with the President's review group, the PCLOB report likewise determined that the section 215 program has not been effective, saying: ``We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.'' The PCLOB report also provided the public with a detailed constitutional and statutory analysis of this program and concluded that the program ``lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215'' and ``implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments.'' The PCLOB report further revealed that although the FISA Court first authorized this program in 2006, it did not issue an opinion setting forth a full legal and constitutional analysis of the program until 2013. In March 2014, after consulting with the intelligence community, President Obama announced that his administration would work with Congress to pass legislation to end the NSA's section 215 bulk phone records collection program and to transition to a new program in which the data is not held by the government. Ending bulk collection is a key element of what I, Senator Lee, and others have included in the various iterations of the USA FREEDOM Act. After the President's announcement, the House of Representatives took action. Senator Lee, would you like to expand on what transpired in the House?

Mr. LEAHY. Immediately following passage of the House version in May 2014, Senator Lee and I began working to address concerns that the text of the House bill, although clearly intended to end bulk collection, did not do so effectively. We spent several months in discussions with the intelligence community and a wide range of stakeholders, including other Senators, privacy and civil liberties groups, and the U.S. technology industry, to build on the framework established by the House-passed bill. Those negotiations led to the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, S. 2685, on July 29, 2014. More than 50 organizations, interest groups, trade associations, and technology companies from across the political spectrum publicly endorsed the bill. On September 2, 2014, the Attorney General and DNI wrote a letter in support of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. The letter noted that the bill preserved the intelligence community's capabilities while also enhancing privacy and civil liberties and increasing transparency. Likewise, members of the President's review group wrote a letter to myself and Senator Grassley, explaining that the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 was consistent with the recommendations contained in their December 2013 report. On November 12, 2014, Senator Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. A few days later, on November 17, 2014, the Obama administration released a Statement of Administration Policy on the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 strongly supporting passage. Despite the wide-ranging support for these commonsense reforms, on November 18, 2014, the full Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, by a vote of 58 to 42. I was extremely disappointed that the Republican leadership in the Senate decided to use a procedural vote to block debate and amendments on such an important piece of legislation. With the start of the 114th Congress, Senator Lee and I began discussions with the House to develop a new version of the USA FREEDOM Act. We knew that the June 1, 2015, sunset of several surveillance authorities, including section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, would come up fast. For several months, we engaged in conversations with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte, Representative Sensenbrenner, and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers, as well as officials from the administration, intelligence community, privacy and civil liberties groups, the technology industry, and other stakeholders on a path forward. Those extensive deliberations produced another set of bipartisan, bicameral surveillance reforms to end the bulk collection of Americans' phone records and amend other surveillance laws. On April 28, 2015, Senator Lee and I introduced the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, S. 1123, and Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Conyers, Nadler, and others in the House introduced the House companion, H.R. 2048. The Senate version of the bill was originally cosponsored by Senators Heller, Durbin, Cruz, Franken, Murkowski, Blumenthal, Daines, and Schumer. It has also received the support of the administration, privacy groups, and the technology industry. On May 11, 2015, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence wrote a letter in strong support of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. The letter notes that the legislation ``is a reasonable compromise that preserves vital national security authorities, enhances privacy and civil liberties and codifies requirements for increased transparency.'' The Obama administration also issued a Statement of Administration Policy on May 12, 2015, in strong support of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. In early May, as the House and Senate were preparing to consider the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, the Second Circuit issued a decision confirming what we knew all along. Senator Lee?

Mr. LEAHY. The core of this legislation is its prohibition on the bulk collection of records under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA pen register and trap-and-trace device statute, and the national security letter statutes. Though there are some minor wording changes, these provisions are substantively identical to the version in the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. For section 215 and the FISA pen register and trap and trace device statutes, under the bill the government must use a ``specific selection term'' to limit its collection and demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant to the underlying investigation, which cannot be a threat assessment. These requirements are independent of each other, and both must be satisfied. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 is being considered with full knowledge of the Second Circuit's decision in ACLU v. Clapper and its interpretation of the term ``relevant,'' which rejects the prior reading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. According to the Second Circuit, information that the government seeks to obtain must be presently relevant to the specific underlying investigation. The Second Circuit correctly noted: ``Relevance'' does not exist in the abstract; something is ``relevant'' or not in relation to a particular subject. Thus, an item relevant to a grand jury investigation may not be relevant at trial. In keeping with this usage, Sec. 215 does not permit an investigative demand for any information relevant to fighting the war on terror, or anything relevant to whatever the government might want to know. It permits demands for documents ``relevant to an authorized investigation.'' The government has not attempted to identify to what particular ``authorized investigation'' the bulk metadata of virtually all Americans' phone calls are relevant. Throughout its briefing, the government refers to the records collected under the telephone metadata program as relevant to ``counterterrorism investigations,'' without identifying any specific investigations to which such bulk collection is relevant. . . . Put another way, the government effectively argues that there is only one enormous ``anti- terrorism'' investigation, and that any records that might ever be of use in developing any aspect of that investigation are relevant to the overall counterterrorism effort. The government's approach essentially reads the ``authorized investigation'' language out of the statute. Indeed, the government's information-gathering under the telephone metadata program is inconsistent with the very concept of an ``investigation.'' The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 reauthorizes section 215, but it does so in light of the understanding of how the Second Circuit interprets ``relevance.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we waive the mandatory quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, nobody disputes that we all want to keep America safe. We all agree on that. We also want to make sure that we keep Americans free and that their constitutional freedoms are protected. None of us would think that we were making the country safer if we were to try to pass a law that said law enforcement or anybody else can walk into our homes at any time they want and go through any files we have, follow us anywhere they wanted just on a whim. We would be totally opposed to that. But some would say that in the aftermath of 9/11, in some of the aspects of the PATRIOT Act, we did just that. Congressman Armey, who was the Republican leader, the majority leader of the House at the time--a very conservative Republican--he and I joined together after consultation to put into the PATRIOT Act sunset provisions which would require us to have the debate we are having right now. We talk about consultation. The fact is that there have been hours and days and weeks and months of consultation between the House and the Senate on the USA FREEDOM Act. We had a bill before us last year that was filibustered. It still got 58 votes. That was done in consultation with the House. The majority leader of the House has already said--the Republican leader--he has warned the Senate not to move ahead with planned changes to the House bill because it could bring real challenges in getting the USA FREEDOM Act passed through the House again. The fact is that we have had so much consultation. Senator Lee, I, Republicans and Democrats have met continuously for months--even a year--with House Republicans and House Democrats to get the bill that is before us now. That is probably why it passed by such a lopsided margin in the House of Representatives. My distinguished friend from Texas says these are minor changes. Well, actually, they are not. One would weaken the FISA Court amicus authority. We know that for years the FISA Court secretly misinterpreted section 215. As a result, after the program leak, that is the only time the FISA Court finally heard the government's argument. Before that, they only heard the government. Once a legal reason justifying this program became public, challenges were brought, and the Second Circuit last month ruled unanimously that the program was unlawful. Having amicus in there is not having a defense attorney in a grand jury room at all. Amicus on questions of law can be invited by the court to step in. This could be a relatively rare case, completely in the discretion of the court. It is hard to talk about weakening that further, especially when we are talking about a secret court. I oppose the amendment to extend the current bulk collection program in place for a full year. We have a 180-day transition period. And the Director of the NSA said: ``We are aware of no technical or security reason why this cannot be tested and brought online within the 180-day period.'' I think the NSA Director is as knowledgeable about this subject as anybody in this Chamber, and he says we can go forward with it. I think all of these amendments that are talked about would simply delay passing an excellent piece of legislation, one that has been worked on by Republicans and Democrats for months and even years. Let's pass it today. We hear about stopping terrorism attacks. We all want to do that. But I remember some of the statements made by a former NSA Director that this had stopped 54 terrorist attacks. When he was pressed on that claim, it came out that the bulk collection program was only important after the fact in one case--and that was not a terrorist attack. We also know that 9/11 could have been avoided. The evidence was there. The information was there. But the dots had not been connected. Everybody was frantically taking information they already had-- recordings they already had after 9/11--and saying: We ought to get around to translating what is in these things. We know that in Minnesota, the FBI warned that people were taking flight lessons and there was no good reason. That warning was ignored. They basically were told: We know better. I remember the day or so after the attack, at FBI Headquarters, people were calling in with information from different field offices. Somebody would write it down and would hand it to somebody else who would rewrite it and hand it to somebody else who would put it in a file. They would charter planes to bring photographs around to different places so our offices could see them. And I said: Well, why don't we just email the photographs? They would say: Well, we don't have the ability to do that. I said: Well, my 11-year-old neighbor could do it for you if that would help. The fact of the matter is we had the information prior to our own new laws, and it didn't make us safer--any more safer than when we voted for $2 to $3 trillion to go into Iraq because, as the Vice President and others were saying, they were about to attack us with nuclear weapons, and they were implying they were involved in 9/11.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. It is unfortunate that we were unable to pass the USA FREEDOM Act before the June 1, 2015, sunset of sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Senator Lee and I both sought to bring up the USA FREEDOM Act well before the sunset date to avoid just this situation. Now that the roving wiretap, business records, and so-called ``lone wolf'' provisions have lapsed, it is important that we make clear our intent in passing the USA FREEDOM Act this week--albeit a few days after the sunset. Could the Senator comment on the intent of the Senate in passing the USA FREEDOM Act after June 1, 2015?

Mr. LEAHY. I would also point out that when we drafted the USA FREEDOM Act, we included a provision to allow the government to collect call detail records, CDRs, for a 180-day transition period, as it was doing pursuant to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders prior to June 1, 2015. This provision was intended to provide as seamless a transition as possible to the new CDR program under section 101 of the USA FREEDOM Act. I thank the junior Senator from Utah for his partnership on this bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Minnesota for his words. The press and everybody else does not see the hundreds of hours of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives working on this. The Senator from Minnesota is one of those who worked very hard to get us to the point where we are today. It has not been easy. Nobody got everything they wanted. I didn't get everything I wanted. Senator Lee didn't get everything he wanted. The Senator from Minnesota didn't get everything he wanted. But because of the work of people such as the Senator from Minnesota, we have a far better piece of legislation, and it is probably why it passed overwhelmingly in the other body, with Republicans and Democrats agreeing. In fact, that is why we have to reject these amendments and we have to cleanly pass the House-passed USA FREEDOM Act. Again, I cannot emphasize to Senators how much time has gone into this by key Republicans and key Democrats in the House and key Republicans and key Democrats in the Senate. We have worked behind the scenes for days, weeks, and months to get here. Cleanly passing the House-passed USA FREEDOM Act is the only way to avoid prolonging the uncertainty that the intelligence community now faces because of the lapse in the three authorities this past Sunday. I think both Senator Lee and I would agree the lapse in authorities was entirely avoidable. The Senate majority has put the intelligence community and the American people in this position because of a manufactured crisis, procedural delays. Understand that any changes in this bill--as I have stated and as the distinguished senior Senator from California has indicated, as well as others, any changes in the bill will force it back to the House, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the House will accept the Senate's changes and pass the new bill. In fact, the House Republican majority leader said this morning that it would be a challenge to pass any bill that came back with changes. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee put it more bluntly. He warned that any amendments would likely make the sunsets permanent. Keep that in mind. We can pass some amendments we may not think are major, although some of us think they are, but by passing them, all those who say they want to give the tools to the intelligence community--they are making the sunsets permanent if we pass these amendments. So I urge Senators to oppose all of the amendments that are being offered by the majority leader. Senator Blumenthal, Senator Franken, and others have spoken about the reasons to oppose the FISA Court amicus amendment and the substitute amendment. I agree with them wholeheartedly, and I thank them for their leadership. As I said earlier to others, Senator Blumenthal used his experience as a former attorney general, former U.S. attorney to work on the amicus provision. I also urge Senators to oppose the amendment which would leave the current bulk collection program in place for a full year. Extending the current bulk collection program for a full year is unnecessary. Beyond being unnecessary, it creates significant legal uncertainty for the government. Remember, a Federal appellate court has already ruled that the program is unlawful, and they upheld a provision assuming that Congress is going to change it. But it is very obvious when we read the Second Circuit opinion that they mean a relatively short time, not a year. So the amendment to leave the bulk collection program in place for a full year is only going to invite further legal challenges. It will also delay implementation of tools the intelligence community has asked us to provide, including what is in this bill--a new emergency authority to request business records under section 215. I can't say enough about all of the work we have put in for 2 years across the aisle and across the Capitol. This is a bill which brings much needed reform to the government's surveillance authorities, but it also ensures that the intelligence community has the tools to keep us safe. The USA FREEDOM Act is milestone legislation. It will enact the most significant reforms of government surveillance powers since the USA PATRIOT Act. I am proud of the bipartisan and the bicameral effort that led to this bill. Today, we can pass important surveillance reform legislation and then work to build on these reforms in coming years. So I urge Senators to oppose all amendments and then vote to pass the USA FREEDOM Act, just as the House passed it. We don't need to inject any more uncertainty or delay into the process. None of these amendments are worth causing further delay. Pass it. This will be signed into law tonight by the President. I see the distinguished majority leader on the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the bill we just passed is a historic moment. It is the first major overhaul of government surveillance laws in decades that adds significant privacy protections for the American people. It has been a long and difficult road, but I am proud of what the Congress has achieved today. This is how democracy is supposed to work. Congress is ending the bulk collection of Americans' private phone records once and for all. To my partners in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, I thank you. Senator Lee, whose name is on our bill here in the Senate, believes strongly in our constitutional system of government. He has worked tirelessly to advance this bill from the day we first introduced the USA FREEDOM Act. Senator Franken has devoted himself to the transparency measures in the bill. Senator Blumenthal shaped the FISA Court amicus provisions. This was hard fought, and they never wavered. I also want to thank Senators Heller, Cruz, Murkowski, Daines, Durbin, and Schumer, the other original cosponsors of this bill. They have each worked to help advance this legislation and build the coalition we needed to finally get to our strong bipartisan vote in the Senate for passage. I must also mention Senator Feinstein, who provided invaluable support to get this bill across the finish line. Of course, I also need to thank Minority Leader Reid, who has never wavered in his strong support and responsible leadership. On the House side, Chairman Goodlatte and Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Conyers, and Nadler have been the kind of bipartisan partners on this bill that every legislator wants in their corner. I also need to thank Senators Wyden and Heinrich and former Senator Mark Udall, who used their positions on the Senate Intelligence Committee to ask the hard questions behind closed doors and who have fought to end this program for so long. While we have much work to do, we have accomplished something momentous today. We are a better nation for it. I also want to thank the many staffers who have worked long hours on this legislation for nearly two years now. On my own Judiciary Committee staff, I thank Chan Park, Lara Flint, Jessica Brady, Hasan Ali, Patrick Sheahan, Logan Gregoire, Jonathan Hoadley, Joel Park and Kristine Lucius. My personal office staff, including J.P. Dowd, Erica Chabot, David Carle, John Tracy and Diane Derby, also worked hard on this effort, and I am grateful for that. I also want to thank Democratic and Republican Senate staffers who have toiled countless hours on this effort, including Matt Owen, Mike Lemon, Wendy Baig, James Wallner, Josh Finestone, Scarlet Doyle, Ayesha Khanna, Alvaro Bedoya, Helen Gilbert, Samantha Chaifetz, Sam Simon, John Dickas, Chad Tanner, and Jennifer Barrett. We not only worked across the aisle on this legislation, but we also worked across the Capitol. The bipartisan group of House staff who helped to craft this compromise bill and generated such an overwhelming vote on this legislation deserve enormous credit for their work: Caroline Lynch (who along with Lara Flint deserves a perfect attendance award for extensive negotiating sessions), Bart Forsyth, Aaron Hiller (whose wife deserves our thanks as she had a baby just weeks before the House considered the bill), Jason Herring, Shelley Husband, Branden Ritchie, and Perry Apelbaum. I thank those at the White House who devoted countless hours including Josh Pollack, Jeff Ratner, Ryan Gillis, Michael Bosworth, and Chris Fonzone. I also appreciate the work of so many other executive branch officials at the Justice Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and National Security Agency who work so hard to keep our country safe and answered our questions at all hours of the day and night. I also need to thank the many public interest groups, on all ends of the political spectrum, who stuck with us despite many challenges. There are too many to name, but without their energy and expertise, this reform effort would never have come to fruition. Likewise, the technology industry provided invaluable input and support for this legislation. And finally, I would like to thank the dedicated staff in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, whose tremendous work in assisting us with legislative drafting often goes unnoticed and unrecognized. In particular, I want to thank John Henderson, Kim Albrecht-Taylor, and James Ollen-Smith for their assistance and technical expertise. Seeing nobody else seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.