Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. I would say to my friend from Oregon that the American people want to know how the laws are being interpreted. They want to know what the courts are doing. As to secret operations, of course, you have had briefings on those. I have had briefings on those. I have been in places I will not name here. They are places overseas where I was there in the operations center as operations were taking place and being briefed on what they did, where they got the information, and what they were going to do next. Of course, none of that you want to be reading in the press or seeing in real time. But I also know that when we are dealing with Americans and with their lives and with their sense of privacy, we have to protect them. The USA FREEDOM Act makes very simple changes to the FISA court. The bill provides the FISA Court with the authority to designate individuals who have security clearances to be able to serve as an amicus or a friend of the court. It is triggered in only relatively rare cases involving a novel or significant issue of law, and the decision of appointment is left entirely up to the court. That is about as narrowly drawn as you can get. But I think we have to have this ability to know what the court is doing because we have known for years that the FISA Court secretly misinterpreted Section 215 to allow for the dragnet collection of Americans' phone records. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut, who has worked so hard on this and is a former attorney general of his own State. My own experience in getting search warrants for phone records or anything else as a prosecutor--and I realize it is not of the complexity of what we have today, but I realize we had to follow the law--is that, ultimately, that protects us more than anything else. I do not want this administration or any other administration to have the ability just to go anywhere they want. I am not encouraged by those who say this is so carefully maintained. We were given information earlier that just a small number of people can have access to those records. I guess it is one less since Edward Snowden walked out the door with all of it. I will yield to the Senator from Connecticut if he would like to speak on this subject. The Senator from Oregon has been such a strong and passionate leader on this, and I know from what I hear from the people of my State and when I am down in his State that people want us to be safe, but they also want their privacy protected.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his courtesy. Very briefly, we worked for 2 years across the aisle and actually across the Capitol. I don't know how many meetings Senator Lee, and others, and I have had. Now the Senate is finally poised to pass our USA FREEDOM Act and send it to the President for his signature. This bill brings much-needed reform to the government's surveillance authorities. It will end the bulk collection of Americans' phone records, increase transparency, improve oversight, and, most importantly, help restore Americans' privacy--all while ensuring that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. I am proud to have done this. I have fought to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of Vermonters and all Americans since 1975, when I cast my first-ever vote as a Senator to approve the establishment of the Church Committee. I will continue to fight for Americans' privacy. I urge Senators to vote to pass the USA FREEDOM Act.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize George Schenk, founder of one of Vermont's most beloved restaurants, American Flatbread. Thirty years ago, American Flatbread was built from the ground up, driven by George's own enthusiasm, innovation, and drive. He baked his first pizza--flatbread as he prefers to call it--in a wood-fired stone oven of his own design. Today, American Flatbread still bakes its creations in the same stone ovens. George started with a vision where his food was not just great tasting and nutritional, but also nurturing and healing the soul. He accomplished that and so much more. Anyone who has sat down at American Flatbread after a long day hiking, skiing or even just to visit understands the satisfaction of eating at George's restaurant. He and his staff maintain a commitment to the core values of the integrity of a meal, using organic and locally sourced ingredients, including those grown in a greenhouse next door. George cultivates these ingredients to deliver on his promise of ``good, flavorful, nutritious food that gives both joy and health.'' American Flatbread also reflects the best of Vermont's community traditions--caring for one another. Food is often given to help local hospitals and families in need, and those same citizens give back when they can. Like many Vermont towns, Waitsfield was devastated by Tropical Storm Irene, and among the damaged businesses was American Flatbread. Despite the damage, they were able to reopen in just a few short days thanks to the work of hundreds of local volunteers in both their time and in donations. Since the fire was lit in that first stone oven, George has stayed true to his vision of a sustainable and community-oriented business, one that has flourished while calling Vermont its home. In honor of American Flatbread turning 30, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Sally Pollak's story from the May 28, 2015, edition of the Burlington Free Press.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Grassley and Lee in introducing legislation to extend for an additional 7 years the antitrust exemption permitting colleges and universities to collaborate on issues of need-based financial aid. This exemption, which was first enacted by Congress in 1994, allows colleges and universities that admit students on a need-blind basis to collaborate on the formula used to determine how much families can pay for college. The Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015 is the fourth reauthorization of this exemption, which is set to expire this year. Congress must always carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of creating exemptions to the antitrust laws. These laws serve as an important bulwark to protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct. The Government Accountability Office has studied the effect of this particular exemption in the past and concluded that allowing universities to talk among themselves about financial aid policies and procedures has not caused any harm. Antitrust exemptions should not be a blank check, however, which is why this exemption is not permanent. Our legislation will sunset the exemption once again in 2022 and we have removed one of the permitted activities that no school has ever used. A time-limited exemption ensures that Congress will continue to conduct oversight in order to assess the impact on consumers. I have long been skeptical of permanent antitrust exemptions and the effect they have on the marketplace. For example, I have worked for years with a number of Senators from both parties to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a permanent exemption for the insurance industry in place since 1945. Allowing covered universities to focus their resources on ensuring the most qualified students can attend some of the best schools in the nation, regardless of family income, is a bipartisan and bicameral goal. I thank Congressmen Smith and Johnson for introducing this bill in the House and urge the Senate to pass this narrow legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Grassley and Lee in introducing legislation to extend for an additional 7 years the antitrust exemption permitting colleges and universities to collaborate on issues of need-based financial aid. This exemption, which was first enacted by Congress in 1994, allows colleges and universities that admit students on a need-blind basis to collaborate on the formula used to determine how much families can pay for college. The Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015 is the fourth reauthorization of this exemption, which is set to expire this year. Congress must always carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of creating exemptions to the antitrust laws. These laws serve as an important bulwark to protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct. The Government Accountability Office has studied the effect of this particular exemption in the past and concluded that allowing universities to talk among themselves about financial aid policies and procedures has not caused any harm. Antitrust exemptions should not be a blank check, however, which is why this exemption is not permanent. Our legislation will sunset the exemption once again in 2022 and we have removed one of the permitted activities that no school has ever used. A time-limited exemption ensures that Congress will continue to conduct oversight in order to assess the impact on consumers. I have long been skeptical of permanent antitrust exemptions and the effect they have on the marketplace. For example, I have worked for years with a number of Senators from both parties to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a permanent exemption for the insurance industry in place since 1945. Allowing covered universities to focus their resources on ensuring the most qualified students can attend some of the best schools in the nation, regardless of family income, is a bipartisan and bicameral goal. I thank Congressmen Smith and Johnson for introducing this bill in the House and urge the Senate to pass this narrow legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask, through the Chair, if the Democratic leader will yield to me for a comment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was struck by what the Democratic leader said. He laid out the history of this. We are here in a manufactured, unnecessary crisis. It is a manufactured, unnecessary crisis Last year, by an overwhelming majority, the Senate voted to make improvements to the PATRIOT Act. The legislation made reforms to the provisions that have now been declared illegal. We did that but could not get past a filibuster. We had 58 votes. Normally, you think of 51 votes being enough to pass a bill. The Democratic leader will recall how hard he worked to try to get that bill through. The Republican leader said: No, we will wait until next year. Well, next year came. We have wasted so much time. There has not been a single public hearing. There has not been any action on an alternative to the USA FREEDOM Act. But, I say to my friend from Nevada, he is absolutely right when he says the House passed the USA FREEDOM Act by a 4 to 1 margin. It was an overwhelming vote, Republicans and Democrats together, to get rid of the illegal parts of the PATRIOT Act, to pass an improvement. We ought to just take up the USA FREEDOM Act and pass it. If we were allowed to have a straight up-or-down vote in this body, I guarantee you, a majority of Senators--both parties--would vote for it. So I just wanted to say that while the leader was on the floor. I now ask for recognition in my own right.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before I begin my comments on the USA FREEDOM Act, I am going to speak for a moment on a personal matter. Remembering Beau Biden Mr. President, Marcelle and I have known Beau Biden since he was a child. I am the longest serving Member of this Senate. When I came here, there was one Senator who was one term senior to me; that was Joe Biden. I knew of the tragedy his family had gone through, and I cherished the times, with his office right near mine, when his sons Beau and Hunter would be there with him. I watched them grow up. I saw Beau Biden become the epitome of what a State's attorney general should be. That is a model all attorneys general throughout the country could have followed. Progressive, worried about improving the law, improving peoples' lives--he did that. I know how much we appreciated it when we would see him and Hallie at an event, when Marcelle and I would get a chance to talk with them. It was like picking up a conversation that had ended just a few minutes before. I remember one thing especially about Beau. I was in Iraq during the war. It was a day when it was well over 100 degrees outside. I was being brought to a place where there was going to be a briefing, being zipped into this building. There were a number of soldiers wearing T- shirts, shorts, and sidearms playing ball outside in this 110-, 120- degree heat. As I went to the door, one of them turned around and gave me a big wave with his arm blocking his face. I was not sure who it was. I kind of waved back. Pretty soon, he came to the door. It was Beau Biden. I remember we gave each other a big hug. He was there as a captain in the Delaware Reserves. He was decorated for his service. We talked about what he was doing. He was praising the men and women who worked there. Nothing about anything he might be doing; he was praising everybody else. It was such a refreshing moment being with him, and it was so typical of who he was as a person. I told him that I have a procedure that if I am in another country and I am with our military, that if there are Vermonters there, I always take their names and I ask them if they have family back home in Vermont. Most of them do. I get their phone number, and as soon as I get back, I call their mother or their father, their husband or their wife, brother or sister, whoever it might be, and say: I saw a member of your family; here is what they are doing; they look well, and all that. So I told Beau, I said: Look, I have known you since you were a youngster. I will call your father as soon as I can and tell him you are behaving yourself, and you are doing a good job. We laughed at that. Shortly thereafter, I got on the phone we had available to us to go through the Whitehouse switchboard to reach the Vice President. Then I started to talk about the procedure I have, and Joe Biden started to laugh. He said: I just got an email from Beau that he had seen you there and that I should be expecting a call from you. We talked about what a great job Beau was doing. You could hear the pride in his father's voice. You could hear his pride. It was a pride that was deserved. I remember Joe saying, when we were first here in the Senate--the two of us--he would be going home every night on the train. Why? Not as much even that the kids needed him, but he needed them. Finally, when he met Jill, the boys were telling him: You should marry her. So I grieve for them. Marcelle and I sat there and cried last night when we heard the news. I think, what a wonderful family. I think about a life cut too short--far too short. Mr. President, I can and will say more later. Mr. President, on the matter the distinguished Democratic leader was talking about, the USA FREEDOM Act, let's just take it up and pass it. Opponents of this bipartisan, commonsense legislation have run out of excuses. I see this as a manufactured crisis, and it is. This matter should have been taken up and voted on up or down a month ago. There is only one viable and responsible path remaining: Pass the USA FREEDOM Act that passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. Pass it and send it to the President's desk and he will sign it. If we do not pass it, then those parts of the PATRIOT Act that most of us agree on are going to expire at midnight. The irony of it is that the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 is a carefully crafted, bipartisan compromise that both protects Americans' privacy and keeps this country safe. Before they were talking about, we are going to keep the country safe but Americans' privacy--not so much. This is a bill that does both. The legislation would end the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records. It adds significant new reforms to limit government surveillance. It increases transparency and also promotes greater accountability and oversight--something the original PATRIOT Act did not have. The bill is the product of countless hours of painstaking negotiations with key Members--both Republicans and Democrats--in the House and the Senate, men and women I respect so much because they want to do what is best for the country. We have negotiated with the NSA, the FBI, the Justice Department, privacy and civil liberties groups, the technology industry, and other key stakeholders. We brought everybody together. When we began, we wondered if that would be possible. We did it. That is why the USA FREEDOM Act has such strong support, including from groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association and the Center for American Progress. This broad consensus is what we saw by the overwhelming support it received in the House. They passed the USA FREEDOM Act by a vote of 338 to 88. Some in this country say that no branch of government could have a vote that strong to say the Sun rises in the east. Certainly there has been no major piece of legislation in years where we have seen a vote such as that--338 to 88. But now a minority in the Senate has now twice blocked the USA FREEDOM Act from even getting a debate on the Senate floor. We were sent here not to vote maybe but to vote yes or no. Last November, even though we had had all kinds of committee hearings on this, we heard complaints that there had not been enough of a committee process on the bill and that the Senate should wait to address Section 215 under the new Republican leadership. So the Republican leader led a successful filibuster against a bill which still had a majority of Members in this body voting for it. But what has happened in this Congress? Not a single public hearing on this issue; no committee process. And then last weekend, the Senate was blocked from even debating the House-passed bill and considering amendments. Opponents of reform have failed to introduce any legislative alternative to the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act, the bill which reforms many problems of the PATRIOT Act. They have come up with no legislative alternative other than a clean extension, which we know has no chance of becoming law. Of course, it makes no difference because at midnight it stops being the law. The time for excuses and inaction has passed. The American people and the intelligence community professionals who strive to protect them deserve better. We have a few hours remaining to work things out and pass the USA FREEDOM Act, but there is no room for error. There is very little time. Again, I said it is a manufactured crisis. The deadline to act is midnight tonight. The House will not return to the Capitol until tomorrow, after the deadline has passed. We could talk about passing a 100-year extension if we wanted; it makes no difference because the time will have passed. So if the Senate does not pass the House-passed USA FREEDOM Act or if we amend it in any way, the authorities are going to expire. I have said repeatedly--and my cosponsor of the USA FREEDOM Act, Senator Lee, agrees with me--that we would like to have a debate on our bill and consider amendments. Because opponents of reform have run out the clock and jammed the Senate, we are not left with very much time. Let's get this done today. If we pass the USA FREEDOM Act, the President could sign it tonight and the intelligence community could move forward with the certainty it needs to protect the American people. Some may argue that if you had a short-term extension--which, of course, we do not have--they have said: Well, maybe we could work out some kind of a compromise bill. But let there be no misunderstanding: The USA FREEDOM Act is a solid, carefully negotiated compromise. For all those Senators on either side of the aisle who have not spent the hours and hours and hours, as Senator Lee and I and our staffs have spent, maybe they do not know the work that went into this--again, how you get groups from the left to the right supporting it. It would be irresponsible to kick the can down the road once again, relying on the false hope that the House will agree to pass a short- term extension--something they said they will not do--and that we will somehow be able to agree on a half-baked alternative that has yet to be introduced in either body and most assuredly would not pass the House. So do not be fooled or tempted by the promise of a short-term extension. That would guarantee nothing. Well, wait a minute. I take that back. Passing a short-term extension does guarantee something: It guarantees the expiration of these authorities at midnight tonight. It guarantees more uncertainty, more litigation, more risk for the intelligence community, and a repeat of the chaotic brinksmanship later on down the road with another manufactured crisis. I know there are some who worry that the bill does not go far enough when it comes to reform. Well, then where were they in coming up with a better idea? If this passes, the USA FREEDOM Act would be the most significant set of reforms to government surveillance since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. The reason we are here to even debate it is that then- majority leader Dick Armey in the House and I put in sunset provisions. So we will have to show responsibility and vote, as the House did by a 4-to-1 margin. Our bill--Senator Lee's and my bill--would not just end the NSA's bulk collection under Section 215, it would add new transparency and oversight reforms to other surveillance authorities, and it would be a solid foundation upon which we could build our future reform efforts. I have been in the Senate for more than 40 years. I have learned that when there is a chance to make real progress, we ought to seize it. But I also know we cannot let this be the end of our fight for greater privacy protections, transparency, and accountability. I remain committed to fighting that fight on behalf of Vermonters and all Americans. So the choices before us this evening are clear: Either let these authorities expire completely or pass the USA FREEDOM Act. There is no more time for political maneuvering or fearmongering or scare tactics. It is time for us to do our jobs--to debate and then to vote. Don't duck the vote. Vote up or down on the bill the House gave us. Stand up and be counted either for or against it. As Senators, let's have the courage to do that. The USA FREEDOM Act is a reasonable, responsible way forward, and we should pass it tonight. But don't duck behind not doing anything and pretend that is a solution. I don't think there is a single American, Republican or Democrat, who would believe that was a responsible solution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we did not have to end up here, just hours away from the midnight expiration of three surveillance authorities, and having just moved to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act. I have tried since last year to move legislation through the Senate to address these sunsets. In November, Senator Reid brought the USA FREEDOM Act to the floor but the Republican leadership of the Senate blocked debate on it. When they took over the Senate, they assured us that they would send bills--including this one--through appropriate committee process. There were promises that the new leadership would not fill the amendment tree, and would use a transparent legislative process. But not one of those promises has been fulfilled with respect to any legislation dealing with the upcoming sunsets. Once again this year, I proposed with Senator Lee a new version of the USA FREEDOM Act. That bill had significant process in the House, where it passed by an overwhelming margin earlier this month. And once again, the bipartisan coalition here in the Senate tried to get the bill passed. Two Fridays ago, the Senate Republican leadership did not allow us to debate the bill. Tonight, the Senate did the right thing by invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act. I am glad to see several Republicans switched their votes. This is significant progress, but it is late in coming. We should have proceeded to this bill two Fridays ago. Had we done so, we could have stayed here to do our work, considered amendments, and passed the bill well in advance of tonight's sunset. Instead, we are hours away from expiration and just now considering legislation that many of us have been working on for years. Our intelligence community needs predictability and certainty, not a manufactured crisis. If all Senators cooperate, we can finish this bill tonight. We can consider a handful of amendments under a time agreement, and pass this bill before midnight. That would be the responsible thing to do.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been having a lot of people ask me where we are on the USA Freedom Act of 2015, and we actually have a very interesting, easy choice: We can either pass the bipartisan bill the House of Representatives passed with a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats voting for it, or we can let the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act sunset at the end of the month. Some may prefer that. I think the House made a number of improvements which protect our freedoms and protect our security, and that is what we ought to pass. Some people have talked about short-term extensions. Well, we could have a 2-day extension or we could have a 5,000-year extension; we would be extending something that doesn't exist. The fact is that the House gave us the USA FREEDOM Act in plenty of time to act upon it, to amend it if we wanted to, to send it back and go to a conference. But now the House has adjourned and gone on recess. If we don't vote for their bill, we will end up at the end of the month with nothing. There will be nothing to extend. We could feel good about passing an extension, but we can't extend something that is dead. I have worked for more than two years with Members of Congress from both parties and in both Chambers to develop the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. It is a commonsense, balanced reform bill that protects Americans' privacy, while also ensuring our national security. The bill doesn't go nearly as far as the bill I first introduced in October of 2013 with Congressman Sensenbrenner. It doesn't go as far as the USA FREEDOM Act that was filibustered last November by Senator McConnell and others. At that time, the incoming majority leader wanted to wait and see how it would be with a Republican majority and was able to rally his Members to delay reform. But we shouldn't delay it any further. Americans deserve to have their privacy restored and their national security protected. There should be no more excuses. In the bill Senator Lee and I have introduced and supported, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015--it has not just our support, it has the administration's support, it has the support of the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the FBI Director, a supermajority of the House of Representatives, the technology industry, privacy and civil liberties groups, librarians, and the NRA. I mean, when are we ever going to find all these groups coming together? Well, they came together because they know the USA FREEDOM Act is a good bill, and the support for our bill continues to grow. Just yesterday, national security experts at the conservative Heritage Foundation concluded that the USA FREEDOM Act ``strikes a balance between maintaining our national security capabilities and protecting privacy and civil liberties.'' Why? Because it is a reasonable and responsible bill. When we get the civil liberties groups, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation and privacy groups together, we have something. I have been here 41 years. I have seen very few pieces of legislation where these diverse groups come together, and they did because the USA FREEDOM Act is a responsible and reasonable bill. But even if they hadn't come together, it is the only option left for any Senator who wants to avoid a sunset of the surveillance authorities at midnight on May 31. We won't be in session. The other body won't be in session. The one thing that will happen is our current authorities will sunset. They will go away. Wow. Can't you hear the cheers from some of our enemies? Last year when the current Senate majority leader led the filibuster of the USA FREEDOM Act, we were told that the Senate needed more time to consider the issue and that the new Senate would take up the matter under new leadership. All right. We have known the sunsets were coming for years. That is why I brought up the bill last year. There has been nothing done on this urgent matter this year--no public hearings and no committee markups, unlike the six public hearings I held in the Judiciary Committee last year. In contrast, the House leadership has acted responsibly and decisively. They moved the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 through the Judiciary Committee and passed this bipartisan bill overwhelmingly. We had significant debate on this issue this week. I have heard Senators across the political spectrum who have spoken at length on the Senate floor about their views. Most of these Senators have urged us to reform the government's bulk collection program--which is, of course, the same way the vast majority of Americans feel. But there have also been voices urging more surveillance. We have heard the familiar fear- mongering and demands for a data-retention mandate on the private telecom companies. Well, I disagree with those Senators who voiced that perspective, but they have at least been heard. Unfortunately, the clock has been running. The House worked very hard, they completed their work, and they left. They are not coming back until after the surveillance authorities are set to expire. And the House leadership has made clear that they will not pass an extension. Even if they were in session and we passed an extension, they made it very clear to Republican and Democratic leadership that they will not take it up. So here is the choice. It is a very simple one. We can let the three provisions at issue expire--some may like that; frankly, I don't--or we can pass the bipartisan and bicameral USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. We all know that the NSA has for years been using section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to sweep up phone records of innocent Americans without any connection to terrorism. I am sure innocent Americans who may be in the Chamber or who are hearing what we are saying have had their phone records swept up. Well, I don't think anybody would feel very comfortable with that. We also know that the NSA used a similar legal theory for years to collect massive amounts of metadata related to billions of emails sent to and from innocent Americans--a parent to a child asking, ``how is my granddaughter's cold coming along?'' or ``How did my grandson do in school?'' or somebody writing to a friend, back and forth. The American people oppose this indiscriminate dragnet collection of their records--not only that, the courts do, too. They found it to be unlawful. The House of Representatives listened to the American people, they listened to the courts, and they voted overwhelmingly to end this program through the USA FREEDOM Act and assumed, of course, that the Senate would do what the courts have said and what the vast majority of the American people said. Last November, when Senator McConnell convinced his caucus to block the USA FREEDOM Act, I warned that we would not have much time in the new Congress, and that the American people were demanding action. People should go back and see the number of letters and emails that came pouring in to the Capitol saying: We want this passed. Yet, here we are--Congress racing against the clock to act before the sunsets take effect next weekend. Well, this is a manufactured crisis. I think there are some who hope that enough Senators will be scared by the prospect of these authorities expiring that they will blindly vote in favor of a clean extension even though that will go nowhere. We have all seen this movie before. We know that opponents of the USA FREEDOM Act simply want to delay again. Well, I don't frighten. Many Americans, especially my constituents, are wondering what opponents of the USA FREEDOM Act have been doing for the past six months? They are rapidly approaching a sunset that has been on the books for years--the original sunset provision written by myself and Republican leader Dick Armey. It is not as though this deadline suddenly snuck up on the leadership or the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is just now considering alternative proposals. Remember, we are just a few days away from the expiration date. But despite this urgency and the extensive debate we have been having for many months, the only bill that has been filed by the opponents of the USA FREEDOM Act is a 2-month rubberstamp of the USA PATRIOT Act provisions--a bill the Senate sponsors know cannot pass the House even if they were in session. And because they are not in session, if we were to pass it here, it would become a ``nothingburger'' because there would be no law to extend. I read in the press that there may be an alternative proposal in the works. It may include a provision to keep the bulk collection program in place for more than two years. But even if we could legally pass that, it is entirely unnecessary. Just this week, the NSA Director stated in a letter to Leaders McConnell and Reid that the NSA only needs 180 days to transition to the new targeted program established by the USA FREEDOM Act. Not 2 years. The 180-day transition has been part of the USA FREEDOM Act for more than a year. And during all the negotiations about the bill, neither the NSA nor the intelligence community ever raised a concern with me about this provision. In fact, we have on the record that they support it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the May 20 letter from Admiral Rogers, the head of NSA.

Mr. LEAHY. We all know this last-ditch attempt at further delay is just too late. We have two options: Pass the USA FREEDOM Act or let the provisions expire. A growing majority of the Senate--a straight up-or- down vote--supports the USA FREEDOM Act. If we pass it today, the President can sign it today or tomorrow. Also, the intelligence community says: Is the law going to be here or is the law gone? By passing the USA FREEDOM Act, they can move forward with the certainty they need to protect the American people. Senator Lee and I, along with a bipartisan group of Senators ranging from Senator Durbin, to Senator Heller, to Senator Schumer, to Senator Cruz--and that is going across the political spectrum--are moving for a responsible path forward. We have worked for 2 years on this bill to end the NSA bulk collection of Americans' phone records. Republicans and Democrats have worked together for 2 years to end the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, something that every one of us, at a townhall meeting--I do not care what State you are in, if you ask Americans ``Do you want a bulk collection of all your phone records?'' you know what the answer would be: ``Of course not.'' The clock has run out, but there is a responsible choice before us. Let's pass the USA FREEDOM Act today. Then we will have important reforms, we will keep America secure, and we will not have all of these authorities expire. Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Brown for his interest and support for this legislation. I agree that the safety and soundness of our financial system and financial institutions depends on our financial regulators' ability to perform effective oversight and supervision of financial institutions. I also agree that the free flow of information between regulators and financial institutions is important to this process. Exemption 8 was intended by Congress, and has been interpreted by the courts, to be very broadly construed to ensure the security of financial institutions and to safeguard the relationship between financial institutions and their supervising agencies. The proposed amendments to FOIA are not intended to undermine the broad protection in exemption 8 or to undermine the integrity of the supervisory examination process. In addition, I note that some information that the government may withhold under exemption 8 is also protected under exemption 4, which exempts from disclosure commercial and financial information that is privileged or confidential. Exemption 4 covers information prohibited from disclosure under the Trade Secrets Act and similar laws, and as such does not provide for discretionary disclosure under FOIA. As with other exemptions that are based on separate legal restrictions, it is understood that the foreseeable harm standard will not apply to most of the information falling under exemption 4. I will continue to work with the banking committee and financial regulatory agencies to clarify the scope of the bill as we move forward in the legislative process and address any remaining concerns.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not object. I am pleased to see some judges finally moving forward.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the J. Warren and Lois McClure Foundation on the celebration of its 20th anniversary. For two decades, the selfless philanthropy of the McClure family has allowed scores of deserving Vermonters to pursue financial stability and academic success. Established in 1995, the foundation was built upon Lois and her late husband Mac's concept of ``giving with warm hands.'' Inspired by the idea of collaborative philanthropy, the McClures set out to give with the hope it would encourage benevolence among future generations. For 20 years, the foundation has collaborated with private and public partners to support low-income and first- generation students, adult learners, and veterans. From providing transition services for homeless youth, to promoting single parents' education programs and mental health services for veterans, there are no bounds to the McClure family's encouragement of life-long success. Institutions such as the Vermont State Colleges, the American Red Cross of Vermont, the Vermont Department of Libraries, the Vermont Vet to Vet Program, and hundreds more have expanded innovative learning programs as a result of the foundation. From cancer patients to legislators, the foundation has touched countless lives, while inspiring those to follow their dreams. The foundation has also been instrumental in supporting historical preservation projects at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain and the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum. The McClures' vision to inspire a lifelong cultural and historical education for all Vermonters, meanwhile maintaining a commitment to environmental sustainability, has enhanced multiple facets of our State's diverse landscape for generations to come. As someone who has met many leaders and legends within public service, I am continually humbled by the McClure family's boundless charity and true dedication to supporting the common good. Marcelle and I are proud to call Lois our dear friend, and we were blessed and honored to know Mac. We are forever proud of the McClures' undying commitment to Vermonters, and we are thrilled to congratulate the foundation on 20 wonderful years of extraordinary and selfless service.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presudent, on the floor yesterday, the majority leader claimed that last Congress, Senate Democrats ``failed to bring any trafficking legislation to the floor.'' I do not normally do this, but I must correct the record. The facts are exactly the opposite, and the Senate's history must be clear on this. Last Congress, despite the opposition of the majority of Senate Republicans, including Senators McConnell and Cornyn, Senate Democrats reauthorized our Nation's two cornerstone pieces of legislation that protect victims of sexual violence and human trafficking--the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, TVPA. Combined, these two bills reauthorized nearly $1 billion a year in funding for survivors of these horrible crimes. As we updated and modernized these landmark laws, we listened to the survivors and the advocates who work with them every day to make sure that our legislation responded to the real needs of real people. We were not looking for gimmicks or shortcuts. Instead, we dedicated hours of time learning about what was working and what needed to be improved in order to best meet the needs of survivors. The end result was two bills that did more to prevent sexual assault and human trafficking and to reach more victims than ever before. Because of our comprehensive and inclusive approach, these bills had the strong and vocal support of more than 1,400 local, State and national organizations. In addition to the successful reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act last Congress, I later moved a comprehensive package of legislation to address the issue of human trafficking here in the United States, which included critical support programs directed at runaway and homeless youth to prevent trafficking in the first place. Last year that package, which included the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, as well as the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, the Bringing Missing Children Home Act, and the Combat Human Trafficking Act, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, which I chaired. I then sought the unanimous consent of the Senate to pass that bipartisan package, and every single Democratic Senator agreed. But Republicans blocked it. They objected to it. Senator McConnell failed to mention any of this yesterday. So if such assertions are going to be loosely made on this floor, let the record be clear about who, in fact, stood in the way of protections for trafficking victims last year. Look to see which Members voted against the reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Those two laws were passed with the votes of every Senate Democrat. And last year, it was Republicans who obstructed passage of the subsequent comprehensive domestic antitrafficking package, supported by every Democrat, that included critical trafficking prevention legislation. On top of all that, under Democratic leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee, total appropriations for trafficking victims' services more than doubled in fiscal year 2015, rising from $28.1 million to $58 million. When we look at the facts, it is simply outrageous and laughable to suggest Senate Democrats did not support antitrafficking efforts last Congress. These facts matter and I cannot allow revisionist history to muddy the accomplishments we and so many advocates fought for in the last Congress. Regrettably, the newly empowered Senate Republicans have not continued the same survivor-led approach we took in the last Congress to pass VAWA and the TVPA. Instead they sought to use a new antitrafficking bill, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, JVTA, to expand the reach of the Hyde amendment and its restrictions on health care for these women who are survivors of trafficking crimes. In doing so, the same Senators who voted against VAWA and TVPA in the last Congress inserted unnecessary and destructive politics into what was otherwise a bipartisan antitrafficking bill. The result was to needlessly tie the Senate in knots for weeks over this legislation. More importantly, Senate Republicans' effort to expand the Hyde amendment undermined what should be the very goal of antitrafficking legislation--to help return dignity and self-determination to the lives of survivors of human trafficking. That was certainly the goal of our successful effort to expand the scope of VAWA and TVPA to reach all victims. It is also the goal behind the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act that I reintroduced with Senator Collins this Congress. This bill, which was a critical part of the debate last Congress and should remain a critical part of the debate in this Congress, aims to prevent young people from becoming victims of trafficking in the first place. We know runaway and homeless children are exceptionally vulnerable to human traffickers. These children literally have nowhere to go. And traffickers prey on this vulnerability. That is why Senator Collins and I fought so hard to add this legislation to the JVTA. The runaway and homeless youth programs supported by our bill keep kids safe, save lives, and prevent human trafficking in the first place. I was very disappointed when our amendment failed to pass by just four votes. What was most disheartening was that the principal objection was the inclusion of an important nondiscrimination provision to ensure that no child, including those who identify as LGBT, faces discrimination by service providers. But I am not giving up. I will keep fighting to see this legislation passed because it is so important. As the Polaris Project, a leading antitrafficking advocacy organization, recently told the New York Times: Successful efforts to combat modern slavery must address the root causes that make people vulnerable in the first place . . . Until critical funding is reauthorized through the Runaway and Homeless Youth [and] Trafficking Prevention Act to support critical services, such as shelter beds for homeless kids, this population will face increased risk. Senator McConnell and I may differ in our opinions, but I think it is important to get it right when it comes to facts. To say that Senate Democrats failed to move antitrafficking legislation last Congress rewrites history and does a tremendous disservice to all of those victims and advocates who so recently dedicated years of their lives to the successful reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and to crafting a bipartisan package of antitrafficking legislation that was ultimately blocked by Senate Republicans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American intellectual property system is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent system. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 200 years ago, that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize research and development, continues to benefit consumers and the American economy at large. A healthy patent system should do more than drive economic development; it should incentivize research and discoveries that advance humanitarian needs. I have worked to promote policies that encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address global humanitarian challenges. Today, I continue that effort by joining with Senator Grassley to introduce the bipartisan Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act. This bipartisan legislation strengthens a program created by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, in 2012. The PTO's Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent holders who use their invention to address a humanitarian issue that significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes, as described in the program rules. The innovations that have been recognized by this program help underserved people throughout the world. Award winners have worked to improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real difference in the lives of people who are not always the beneficiaries of cutting-edge technology. Following a Judiciary Committee hearing in 2012, I asked then-PTO Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small businesses that win the award. Since that time, other small start-ups and global health groups have emphasized that making the certificates transferable would improve their usability and increase the incentives of the Patents for Humanity Award. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act makes this enhancement to the program. It is a straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this award and encourage innovations to be used for humanitarian goods. When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American intellectual property system is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent system. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 200 years ago, that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize research and development, continues to benefit consumers and the American economy at large. A healthy patent system should do more than drive economic development; it should incentivize research and discoveries that advance humanitarian needs. I have worked to promote policies that encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address global humanitarian challenges. Today, I continue that effort by joining with Senator Grassley to introduce the bipartisan Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act. This bipartisan legislation strengthens a program created by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, in 2012. The PTO's Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent holders who use their invention to address a humanitarian issue that significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes, as described in the program rules. The innovations that have been recognized by this program help underserved people throughout the world. Award winners have worked to improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real difference in the lives of people who are not always the beneficiaries of cutting-edge technology. Following a Judiciary Committee hearing in 2012, I asked then-PTO Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small businesses that win the award. Since that time, other small start-ups and global health groups have emphasized that making the certificates transferable would improve their usability and increase the incentives of the Patents for Humanity Award. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act makes this enhancement to the program. It is a straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this award and encourage innovations to be used for humanitarian goods. When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a recent decision of the Government of Colombia to end the aerial fumigation of coca. Since the beginning of Plan Colombia 15 years ago, the United States, at huge cost, has financed a fleet of aircraft, fuel, herbicide, and pilots to spray coca fields in Colombia. When this first began we were told that in 5 years the spraying, along with billions of dollars in U.S. military and other aid, would cut by half the flow of cocaine coming to the United States. Fifteen years later, that goal remains elusive. While the cultivation of coca has been reduced, aerial fumigation was never the solution to this problem. It is prohibitively expensive and unsustainable by the Government of Colombia. It also defies common sense. One Colombian official told me the cost of aerial fumigation is approximately $7,000 per hectare, while the cost to purchase the coca produced in one hectare is $400. In other words, for one-fifteenth the cost of aerial fumigation you could buy the coca and burn it. The process also ignores the reality of rural Colombia where most coca farmers are impoverished and have no comparable means of earning income. Absent viable economic alternatives they resort to the dangerous business of growing coca, often at the behest of the FARC rebels or other armed groups. The active ingredient in the herbicide used in the fumigation is glyphosate, a common weed killer. It is used by farmers and gardeners in the United States and other countries, including Colombia. But controversy has plagued the aerial fumigation since its inception. It is no surprise that Monsanto, which manufactures the chemical, insists that glyphosate poses no threat to humans. But some Colombian farmers, whose homes are often located next to their fields, have claimed that they or their children suffered skin rashes, difficulty breathing, and other health problems after their property was sprayed. Others have complained that the herbicide has drifted into and destroyed licit food crops. Scientists have studied glyphosate for many years and have differed about its safety. Some studies have concluded it is harmless. The Environmental Protection Agency says it has ``low acute toxicity.'' Others have linked it to birth deformities in amphibians. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, an affiliate of the World Health Organization, reported that glyphosate is ``probably carcinogenic to humans,'' and that there is ``limited evidence'' that it can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer. I have been concerned for years about aerial fumigation in Colombia. While I am no scientist, I have wondered how the people of my State would react to the repeated aerial spraying of a chemical herbicide in areas where they live, grow food, and raise animals. I have also noted the conflicting views in the scientific literature, and we are all aware of instances when manufacturers insisted that a product was safe only to discover years later--too late for some who were exposed--that it was not. And, of course, there have been times when companies knew of the risk and chose to either ignore it or cover it up, motivated by profit over the welfare of the public. It is for these reasons that I have included a provision in the annual Department of State and foreign operations appropriations bill that requires the Secretary of State to certify that ``the herbicides do not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans, including pregnant women and children, or the environment, including endemic species.'' Each year, the Secretary has made the certification. The IARC study changes things. Although glyphosate remains controversial and Monsanto points out that the IARC study is not based on new field research, President Santos has responded in the only responsible way unless further research definitively contradicts it. It would simply be unconscionable for the Government of Colombia to ignore a study by the World Health Organization that a chemical sprayed over inhabited areas is potentially carcinogenic. I commend President Santos for this decision. I am sure it was not an easy one, as it will inevitably be blamed for increases in coca cultivation. But anyone who thinks that spraying chemicals from the air is a solution to the illegal drug trade is deluding themselves. It is enormously expensive and not something U.S. taxpayers can or should pay for indefinitely. It has already gone on for a decade and a half. And it does nothing to counter the economic incentive of coca farmers to support their families. The Department of State reacted with the following statement: Any decision about the future of aerial eradication in Colombia is a sovereign decision of the Colombian government, and we will respect that. The United States began eradication at the government's request and our collaboration has always been based on Colombia's willingness to deploy this useful tool. Given the recent suspension, we intend to redouble our efforts to use other tools such as enhanced manual eradication; interdiction (both land and maritime); and improved methods to investigate, dismantle, and prosecute criminal organizations, including through anti-money laundering programs. We will also continue our longer-term capacity building programs, especially those related to rule of law institutions, and continue to help Colombia increase its governmental presence in the countryside as we recognize those to be the real keys to permanent change. That was the right response. President Santos has staked his legacy on negotiations to end the armed conflict in Colombia. After five decades of war that have uprooted millions of people and destroyed the lives of countless others, a peace agreement would finally make it possible to address the lawlessness, injustice, and poverty that are at the root of the conflict. The United States should support him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is with great appreciation and a touch of sadness that I note the pending retirement of Michael Schirling, who has served as police chief of the city of Burlington, VT, with great distinction for the last 7 years. His youthful appearance belies the fact that Chief Schirling has been with the department for more than 25 years, first serving as an auxiliary officer while still attending the University of Vermont. Chief Schirling has held many titles over those years: patrol officer, detective, investigator, director, commander, deputy chief, and finally chief. In other words, this Burlington native rose through the ranks. And throughout this impressive career, Chief Schirling has always sought a better way to do the job. Earlier in his career, he co-founded the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which recognized the potential for abuse as the Internet came of age. The task force has been critical to the investigation and prosecution of high-technology crimes that target those who are most vulnerable. After he took reins of the department, Chief Schirling grew concerned that officers were spending too much time on paperwork and data entry, taking precious time away from policing. In response he designed his own dispatch and records management software system. The Valcour system-- named after an island with historical significance on Lake Champlain-- was launched in 2011. Not only has it proven more efficient, it has resulted in enormous cost savings for his department and others throughout Vermont that have since adopted it. But perhaps most important, Chief Schirling has been a leader in understanding the importance of community policing. He stepped up foot patrols around the neighborhoods, stressing the importance of public engagement. He hosted community outreach events, including barbeques and monthly coffee sessions. He developed data-driven policing efforts to track the hot spots for crime. He implemented a street outreach program in coordination with the local mental health agency. The list goes on, but it is fair to say that the work of Chief Schirling will leave its mark on our State's largest city for many years to come. Chief Schirling recognized the value of 21st century policing long before we heard the term. For these reasons, I have often called on Chief Schirling to share his experience and ideas in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His guidance on issues of critical importance, including his support for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, has been invaluable over these years. Chief Schirling and the Burlington Police Department recently marked the 150th anniversary of the department, and I was grateful to be a part of that celebration. As he prepares for retirement, I have no doubt there is another chapter for Chief Schirling still to be written. I will eagerly await his next move.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA. The U.S. has huge numbers of Government employees and contractors working overseas, but the legal framework governing them is unclear and outdated. To promote accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by U.S. Government employees and contractors wherever they act. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act accomplishes this important and common sense goal by allowing U.S. contractors and employees working overseas who commit specific crimes to be tried and sentenced under U.S. law. Tragic events in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing a rift in our relations with the Iraqi government. Efforts to prosecute those responsible for these shootings were fraught with difficulties. The Blackwater trial has now concluded, eight years after this tragedy, with one former security contractor receiving a life sentence and three others receiving sentences of 30 years for their role. The trial was significantly delayed, however, as defendants argued in court that the U.S. Government did not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then, again, to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany them, and to contractors who work with the military. That law provides criminal jurisdiction over Defense Department employees and contractors, but it does not cover people working for other Federal agencies unless they are supporting a Defense Department mission. Although prosecutors were able to demonstrate that the Blackwater contractors met this criteria, had jurisdiction in that tragic incident been clear from the outset, it could have prevented some of the problems that delayed the case. Other incidents have made it all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents and serious misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. MEJA does not cover many of the thousands of U.S. contractors and employees who are working abroad. The legislation I introduce today fills this gap. Ensuring criminal accountability will also improve our national security and protect Americans overseas. Importantly, in those instances where the local justice system may be less than fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the United States, rather than leaving them subject to potentially hostile and unpredictable local courts. Our allies, including those countries most essential to our counterterrorism and national security efforts, work best with us when we hold our own accountable. The legislation I propose today has been carefully crafted to ensure that the intelligence community can continue its authorized activities unimpeded. This bill would also provide greater protection to American victims of crime, as it would lead to more accountability for crimes committed by U.S. Government contractors and employees against Americans working abroad. This legislation provides another important benefit: It will lay the groundwork to expand U.S. preclearance operations in Canada--thereby enhancing national security and facilitating commerce and tourism with our largest trading partner. The U.S. currently stations U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Officers in select locations in Canada to inspect passengers and cargo bound for the United States before they leave Canada. These operations relieve congestion at U.S. airports, improve commerce, save money, and provide national security benefits. Earlier this year, Secretary Johnson was joined in Washington by Canada's Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney, for the signing of a new preclearance agreement that was negotiated under the Beyond the Border Action Plan. That agreement sets the stage for expansion of preclearance capacity for traffic in the marine, land, air and rail sectors between the United States and Canada. But one barrier in these discussions is that the United States lacks legal authority to prosecute U.S. officials engaged in preclearance operations if they commit crimes while stationed in Canada. CEJA would ensure that the U.S. has legal authority to hold our own officials accountable if they engage in wrongdoing, and thereby help pave the way to fully implementing the expanded Canada preclearance agreement. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope Senators of both parties will work together to pass this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just wish to praise the senior Senator from Illinois. He has been consistent on this issue since he came here. He was one of the architects of a major overhaul of our immigration system a year and a half ago, which passed by a two-thirds majority, by Republicans and Democrats alike. We have gone such a long way toward solving this problem. The Republican leadership in the House--even though the votes were there to pass it in the House--refused to bring it up. I am proud to align myself as a follower of the leadership of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, on this issue. With the way we apply the laws now, I wonder whether my grandparents would have been able to come to Vermont from Italy and see their grandson become a U.S. Senator or would have seen their highly decorated son serve in World War II. I wonder if my wife's parents would have been able to come from Canada so she could be born in Vermont. Come on. We are a nation of immigrants. Let's welcome them. They can often make our country much stronger than it was before. I applaud the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. On another issue, in just 12 days, section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, along with two other surveillance authorities, will expire. And once again, the Senate Republican leadership is scrambling at the last minute to avoid a crisis of its own making. Last year, we had a chance to pass the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, and I urged the Senate to pass it. A majority of Senators, but not 60, voted for it because we all knew the expiration date for these surveillance authorities was right around the corner. We knew May 31 would arrive quickly in the new Congress. I did not want our intelligence community to face a period of uncertainty leading up to the sunset, and I also didn't want the American people to have billions of their phone records stocked away in a government database any longer--especially as we have seen, in the case of Edward Snowden, just how insecure that database can be. That is why we spent months holding six public hearings in the Judiciary Committee and even more months negotiating a bipartisan bill, which got the support of the administration, the intelligence community, privacy groups, and the technology industry. I think that is the first time we have had all of them together. Unfortunately, my attempts to avoid this last-minute chaos were blocked by the Republican leader last year. He said this was a matter that could wait for the new Congress. He said the new Republican majority would have a rigorous committee process for important issues. Well, five months into the new Republican majority, and with the deadline looming, the Republican leader has just now turned his attention to this issue. The Republican-led Senate committees have not taken steps toward reauthorization or reform. Instead, the majority leader now proposes a 60-day extension of a program that a Federal court of appeals just ruled is unlawful. The court ruled unanimously that it is unlawful, and they are saying, well, let's just extend the bulk collection program for another 60 days. The majority leader apparently wants to do this to allow one of his committee chairmen to develop a last-minute ``back-up plan.'' This is why we tried to pass legislation a year ago. The House of Representatives is not going to pass a 60-day extension, nor should it. We should not extend this illegal program for one more day, and we do not need to do so. After all, we have a solution in hand. Why try to ignore reality and go on with something else? We have a responsible solution. In fact, it is the only responsible solution. Broad consensus has developed around the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence wrote a letter in support of the bill. The FBI Director told me he supports it. This past weekend, the former chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee advocated for passage of this legislation in an article in the Baltimore Sun. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these materials be printed in the Record.