Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. But even more importantly, last week the House of Representatives passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 with an overwhelming vote of 338 to 88. At a time when the public says Congress is locked in partisan gridlock, look at this overwhelming vote of Republicans and Democrats for the USA FREEDOM Act. Well, the Senate ought to do the same thing the House did. We can keep our country safe without a government database of billions of Americans' phone records. I think about Richard Clarke, who is a former counterterrorism official. He spent six months examining this program as a member of the President's Review Group. He concluded the program has ``no benefit.'' We do not need it, and, more importantly, Americans do not want it. I fear that if Congress does not end this bulk collection program, it will only open the door to the next dragnet surveillance program. Next time it will not just be phone records. It might be location information or medical records or credit card records. That is why it is so important to stop it now. Some will say Congress doesn't need to act because the Second Circuit has already ruled that this program is illegal. I have read the court's decision, I agree with it, and I hope this panel decision will ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court. But there are other pending lawsuits and it could be months or even years before we know how the courts will ultimately rule on this issue. In addition, the USA FREEDOM Act doesn't just end bulk collection under section 215 and the other national security authorities; it also contains other important reforms that cannot be won through legal challenges, such as new transparency measures and a panel of experts from which the FISA Court can draw on for amicus support. So the courts made it very clear Congress has to act. Congress has spent years working on these issues, with numerous hearings. The Senate last year came up with basically the same bill the House has just overwhelmingly passed. We shouldn't be staying around here talking about whether we are going to go over the brink. We are going to put our intelligence community under pressure. The USA FREEDOM Act is a responsible solution that can pass both Chambers today, including with a majority vote for it in this body today. Its enactment will ensure that these expiring provisions do not sunset. I urge Senators to support it. Let us not play politics with the security of this country. Let us talk about what really can be done, what has been done in a responsible, bipartisan way in the other body, and let us step up and do the same in the Senate. That is what I would urge, not this brinkmanship which will actually bring about the end of all of these provisions. Maybe some would like that. I think we have a better balance here with the USA FREEDOM Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the two parties.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I also--no matter how we vote on trade-- understand the importance of it. I wish to compliment the Senator from Utah for his statements. The fact is, a great deal of work has gone into the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. The Senator from Utah's bill and my bill is the same version as the one passed by the House. I hope people will not lose sight of the fact that the House of Representatives really did what the American public wants, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority they passed the USA FREEDOM Act. Some had been saying that the other body could not have gotten that kind of a vote, until say, the Sun rises in the East. But the House came together from across the political spectrum in both parties to pass the bill. I think we ought to respect that. We also--as the Senator from Utah and others have said--have a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, which declared the current program illegal. We can pass the bill, the USA FREEDOM Act, which passed in the House. It means that both sides have given a lot to get there. We ought to pass it in this body at some point--maybe when the trade legislation and the highway bill are completed, we should just take the USA FREEDOM Act up and pass it. If there are questions once it has gone into effect, we can always come back and make other changes to the law, but we ought to pass this legislation and at least give some stability to our intelligence community. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have said they support it, and we ought to accept it and go forward. The USA FREEDOM Act takes care of the questions of the courts and we should pass it. I concur with the Senator from Utah, and I yield the floor.

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 will be very brief. I have had the privilege of serving longer in this body than any other Member of the Senate, currently. I can count on my one hand, or probably a few fingers, some of the great speeches I have heard by both Republicans and Democrats in this body. One great speech I will never forget was that of the Senator from Rhode Island. He speaks to a subject that every single Vermonter would agree with, and this veteran Senator thanks him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last Sunday, I joined millions of people across the country to celebrate the mothers in our lives--in mine, my wife Marcelle, my daughter, friends, and other family members. Mother's Day is an important reminder of just how essential these inspirational women are to their families, their friends, and their communities. Mothers--and all women--are also essential to the fabric of our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, just four decades ago, fewer than half of mothers were in the American work force. Today, 70 percent of mothers are working outside the home, and one-third of working mothers are the sole wage earners in their households. More than 30 percent of Vermont families rely on working moms as the exclusive wage earners in their homes. The numbers are staggering. Yet working moms still fall behind in equal and fair pay. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress recently released a report showing that working mothers earn 3 percent less than women without children, while fathers earn 15 percent more than men without children. Working moms also face the potential of missing scheduled wage increases or bonuses, if they take time away from the workforce to care for a child. Vermont has been a national leader in leveling the playing field for working moms. In 2002 the Green Mountain State enacted its own Equal Pay Act, making it illegal for employers to offer anything less than equal pay for equal work. The Federal Government has fallen behind, and it is far past time for Congress to approve the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation, authored by one of the trailblazers in the Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), builds on efforts that date back more than 50 years to ensure a balanced and equal playing field in the workplace for women. Of course, equal wages are not fair wages if they are not livable wages. According to the Joint Economic Committee, working mothers in families in the bottom 20 percent of households contribute an astounding 86 percent to their families' income. In an overwhelming majority of cases, these families are supported solely by a mother. That is just one of the many reasons we need to ensure that wages are not just equal and fair, but also livable. Two weeks ago I joined with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and 31 other Democratic Senators to propose legislation to raise the minimum wage. The Raise the Wage Act will provide a staggered increase in the Federal minimum wage, from $7.25 to $12.00 by the year 2020. It is the right thing to do, and it is the fair thing to do, for working mothers, for our families, and for our Nation's economy as a whole. Mother's Day is always an opportunity to show the moms in our lives just how valued they are. It is past time for Congress to do the same, and to act on commonsense bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Raise the Wage Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the foundational figures of the U.S. global demining effort, Mr. Donald Francis ``Pat'' Patierno. Pat is retiring after more than 20 years of global demining leadership both at the State Department's Office of Humanitarian Demining and subsequently as a member of the board of directors and four-term president of the 501(c)3 Mine Advisory Group, MAG, America. Pat was the first Director of the Office of Humanitarian Demining where he organized and led the U.S. Government worldwide demining program for nearly 10 years. Under his determined and capable leadership in those formative years, U.S. participation expanded its efforts to remove the scourge of landmines, unexploded bombs and shells left behind in former areas of conflict. From its modest beginnings that program today is working around the world to save civilians from becoming limbless victims of past wars. Before his retirement from the State Department in 2006, Mr. Patierno oversaw a $60 million program that supported humanitarian mine action assistance to over 40 countries. Subsequent to his retirement, he joined the board of directors of MAG America to carry on his humanitarian work in the area of demining and unexploded ordnance. At the same time Mr. Patierno served as the U.S. advocate for the Slovenian-based International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance. Mr. Patierno became president of the MAG America board in January 2011. So strong and dedicated was his leadership that at the request of the board, he served four 1-year terms as president. Many Senators know of my long interest in stopping the death and maiming of civilians from landmines and other unexploded ordnance left behind when conflicts end. The carnage does not stop when the soldiers cease combat: civilians continue dying and suffering long after the fighting stops, and they continue to do so today. That is why I, as former chairman and now ranking member of the Department of State and Foreign Operations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee have so strongly supported the dedicated work of Pat Patierno and his colleagues. I close by expressing my admiration of and appreciation for Pat Patierno's selfless service, outstanding leadership, commitment, determination, and tenacity in this most noble and worthy cause.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, the Senate will say goodbye to the Chamber's current Historian, and welcome him to the ranks of Historian Emeritus. Donald Ritchie has observed, studied, and documented the workings of the U.S. Senate for almost four decades. Only the second person to serve as the Historian of the Senate, Don has been with the Senate Historical Office since shortly after its creation. Beginning in 1976, Don spearheaded the Senate Oral History Program, for which he interviewed dozens of former senators and their staff. He documented firsthand recollections of those individuals' time with the Senate, major events and debates, and how the institution evolved during their tenure. In the 1990s, the Senate Historical Office began making transcripts of the interviews available at various libraries and archives, including the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress and the Senate Library. These accounts are fascinating, and remind us of the intricacies--both in public and behind the scenes--of legislating in the U.S. Senate. The Oral History Program was a colossal undertaking, and one congressional scholars will study for many years to come. Don's work on this program was exceptional. In addition the Senate Oral History Program, Don and the Senate Historical Office maintain and make available historical documents, statistics, and provide historical background and how it may pertain to current events. In addition to his enormous undertaking, for years, Don has provided enlightening--sometimes humorous, always informative-- vignettes to Members and staffers of moments in history, from now famous--or infamous--committee proceedings, to turning points in historical Senate debates, to the personal interactions and relationships among Senators that often don't make the history books. My wife Marcelle tells me that Don is always welcomed at the Senate spouses' luncheon because of his valuable insights. Don often reminds us of our roots--how our many traditions began--and how the Senate, as a continuing body, has evolved, decade to decade, generation to generation. He reminds us that for all our political disagreements, progress in the Senate requires some measure of consent. The history of the Senate is clearer because of the talents of Don Ritchie. The time has come to thank him for his decades of service and to wish him well as he assumes a new title of Historian Emeritus.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted we have the confirmation of Sally Yates before the body. I have pushed for a vote for several weeks, and now I know we are finally going to confirm Sally Yates to be our next Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I think she will be easily confirmed. I know there has been a delay of several weeks getting her here, but I thank Senator Isakson, who worked so hard to get her before this body. It should not have taken this long. Ms. Yates was voted out of the Judiciary Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support almost 3 weeks ago. We are finally voting to confirm her today to serve as the second highest law enforcement office in our country, and it is long past due. This is the least we can do to honor law enforcement, as it is National Police Week. The Deputy Attorney General is critical to the efficient functioning of the Department of Justice. The person serving in that position works diligently behind the scenes. The position requires someone who is of utmost competence, who prioritizes the Department above all else, and who executes the mission and vision of the Attorney General. We are actually fortunate here. We will have an Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General whose backgrounds are very similar--both have shown their ability as law enforcement officers, both have been prosecuting attorneys, and both have similar views, as we saw during the confirmation hearings, on all the major issues. Sally Yates is an ideal person for this position, as those who know her can attest. She was born and raised in Atlanta, GA. She grew up seeing the justice system as a force for good. There was no need to look outside her home for an Atticus Finch to look up to because her family members lived that example. Her father, Kelly Quillian, was a judge on the Georgia Court of Appeals; her grandfather, Joseph Quillian, was a justice on the Georgia Supreme Court; and at a time when women did not fill the ranks of the legal system, her grandmother, Tabitha Quillian, became one of the first women to be admitted to the Georgia bar. Ms. Yates carried on that family tradition, becoming a top-notch lawyer who has prioritized public service above all else. For more than 25 years, Sally Yates served as a prosecutor in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. For the past 5 years she has served as U.S. Attorney of that district, following her unanimous confirmation by the Senate in 2010. Since January of this year, she has served as Acting Deputy Attorney General. I have been at briefings she has given to Members of the Senate. I have also been at briefings at the White House where she has briefed the President on issues before the country. She is an experienced and dedicated prosecutor with a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity, and toughness. She is perhaps best known for her successful prosecutions of the Atlanta Olympics bomber, who pled guilty in exchange for a life sentence without parole; and for her prosecution and conviction of a former Atlanta mayor for tax evasion. However, if you were to ask her the most significant case she has taken on, she will tell you that it involved a pro bono representation when she was just out of law school. As a junior associate at a law firm, Ms. Yates represented the first African-American family to own land in Barrow County, GA, in a property dispute. The family had obtained a deed to their property, but lacking trust in the court system, had failed to record their deed in a timely manner. As a result, when the adjoining property was sold, a dispute arose as to who owned part of the land. Ms. Yates filed suit to recover the family's property. After a 1-week trial--in which she helped convince a member of the ``Dixie Mafia'' to testify in court on behalf of the family--she was able to win the case before an all-white jury. According to Ms. Yates, it was the most meaningful case of her career because it gave the African American family she represented a sense of trust in the judicial system that they previously lacked. This case represents who she is as an attorney: someone who uses the judicial system as a force for good. It is also an example of why she will thrive as the Deputy Attorney General. While most people seek the spotlight by pursuing high-profile matters, Sally Yates devotes herself to the matters that are less glamorous, but just as important. Ms. Yates also deserves praise for her dedication to sentencing reform and the clemency initiative begun by her predecessor, Jim Cole. It is encouraging to see that we will continue to have individuals in the Justice Department's leadership who understand the inequities in our criminal justice system's sentencing practices and the consequences of mass incarceration. As she made clear when she testified before the Judiciary Committee, sentencing reform is critical to ensure that we better allocate our limited law enforcement resources and to make our country safer. The clemency initiative is an important part of that process as well and I am glad that I have her commitment that it will be a priority. Sally Yates has received strong bipartisan support for her nomination. Among the letters of support the Judiciary Committee has received are those from Georgia's Republican Governor, Nathan Deal; Georgia's Republican Attorney General, Samuel Olens; and former Democratic Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn. She also has the support of law enforcement and civil rights leaders. At her nomination hearing, Ms. Yates was introduced by Congressman John Lewis, Senator Perdue and Senator Isakson. As Senator Isakson noted when Ms. Yates was first nominated this past December, ``Sally Yates is an exceptionally skilled attorney with a strong record of public service and a well-qualified nominee to be Deputy Attorney General.'' Prior to his retirement, Senator Saxby Chambliss also spoke out in support of Ms. Yates' nomination. Almost 3 weeks ago, her nomination was voted out of Committee with strong bipartisan support, so this nomination should not be an occasion for further partisanship. The responsibilities of the Deputy Attorney General are too important to the safety and security of all Americans to be held up any longer. The dedicated public servants at the Justice Department deserve a confirmed leader in this crucial position, and I know Sally Yates will serve with distinction as our next Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I thank her for her willingness to continue to serve this great Nation, and I want to publicly congratulate her on this well-deserved appointment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Is it on the pending business?

Mr. LEAHY. If we could.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the senior Senator from Florida. Mr. President, earlier I spoke praising Sally Yates. In my words on the floor, I also spoke about the senior Senator from Georgia, about all the help he has given on this. I want to make sure I also include the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Perdue, who, under our rules, cannot speak from the chair, but I would note for the other Senators how his testimony was so supportive of Sally Yates, and also, in the committee on which he and I serve, he voted for Sally Yates. Thus, both he and his colleague, Senator Isakson, were extremely valuable in this. I do not want anybody to think I was not aware of their support. I would say to both Senators from Georgia that I am deeply appreciative. I yield to the senior Senator from Georgia.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if we have nobody here seeking recognition, we have a few minutes left, and I am perfectly willing to yield back that time also. I do yield it back.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Utah has laid out very well the reasons for the changes proposed in the House and proposed by his and my bill. He also said something we should all think about. A couple of minutes ago, he said: Assuming everybody is following the rules today, are they going to follow the rules tomorrow or next year or the year after? When he mentioned that, he also mentioned my years as a prosecutor. Let me tell a short story. I became one of the officers of the National District Attorneys Association and eventually vice president. A number of us had occasion to meet the then-Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover. I thought back to some of the frightening things he said about investigating people because of their political beliefs. You could tell Communists because they were all ``hippies driving Volkswagens'' was one of the things he said; secondly, that the New York Times was getting too leftist in some of its editorials and was coming very close to being a Communist paper, and he was making plans to investigate it as such. Think about that for a moment. The New York Times had criticized him editorially, and he was thinking he should investigate it as a Communist paper. Not long thereafter, he died. We found out more and more about the secret files he had on everybody, from Presidents to Members of Congress. What if a J. Edgar Hoover had the kinds of tools that are available today? That would be my response to the Senator from Utah, and that is why I totally agree with him that we have to think about not just today but what might happen in the future. For years, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has been used by the NSA to justify the bulk collection of innocent Americans' phone records. Americans were appropriately outraged when they learned about this massive intrusion into their privacy. Look at what happened last week. The highly respected Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed what we have known for some time: The NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records is unlawful, it is not essential, and it must end. That basically says it all. It is unlawful, it is not essential, and it should end. Under the government's interpretation of Section 215, the NSA or FBI can obtain any tangible thing so long as it is ``relevant'' to an authorized investigation. Think for a moment back to J. Edgar Hoover-- and I do not by any means equate the current Director of the FBI or his predecessors with what happened back then, but if you have somebody with that mindset. In the name of fighting terrorism, the government convinced a secret court that it needed to collect billions of phone records of innocent Americans--not because those phone records were relevant to any specific counterterrorism investigation but, rather, because the NSA wanted to sift through them in the future. This is an extraordinarily broad reading of the statute--one that I can say, as someone who was here at the time, that Congress never intended--and the Second Circuit rightfully held that such an expansive concept of ``relevance'' is ``unprecedented and unwarranted.'' Such an interpretation of ``relevance'' has no logical limits. This debate is not just about phone records. If we accept that the government can collect all of our phone records because it may want to sift through them someday to look for some possible connection to terrorists, where will it end? We know that for years the NSA collected metadata about billions of emails sent by innocent Americans using the same justification. Should we allow the government to sweep up all of our credit card records, all of our banking or medical records, our firearms or ammunition purchases? Or how about anything we have ever posted on Facebook or anything we have ever searched for on Google or any other search engine? Who wants to tell their constituents that they support putting all this information into government databases? I say enough is enough. I do not accept that the government will be careful in safeguarding this secret data--so careful that they allowed a private contractor named Edward Snowden to walk away with all this material. What is to stop anybody else from doing exactly the same thing? During one of the six Judiciary Committee hearings that I convened on these issues last Congress, I asked the then-Deputy Attorney General whether there was any limit to this interpretation of Section 215. I did not get a satisfactory answer--that is, until the Second Circuit ruled last week and correctly laid out the implication of this theory. They said that if the government's interpretation of Section 215 is correct, the government could use Section 215 to collect and store in bulk ``any other existing metadata available anywhere in the private sector, including metadata associated with financial records, medical records, and electronic communications (including e-mail and social media information) relating to all Americans.'' I don't think you are going to find many Americans anywhere in the political spectrum who want to give this government or any other government that kind of power because nothing under the government's interpretation would stop it from collecting and storing in bulk any of this information. The potential significance of this interpretation is staggering. It is no wonder that groups as disparate as the ACLU and the National Rifle Association have joined together to file a lawsuit in the Second Circuit to stop this bulk collection program. Congress finally has the opportunity to make real reforms not only to Section 215 but to other parts of FISA that can be used to conduct bulk collection. Tomorrow, the House will consider the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. Senator Lee and I have introduced an identical bill in the Senate. If enacted, our bill will be the most significant reform to government surveillance authorities since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed nearly 14 years ago. Our bill will end the NSA's bulk collection program under Section 215. It also guarantees unprecedented transparency about government surveillance programs, allows the FISA Court to appoint an amicus to assist it in significant cases, and strengthens judicial review of the gag orders imposed on recipients of national security letters. The USA FREEDOM Act is actually a very commonsense bill. That is why Senator Lee and I were able to join together on it. He is right--we come from different political philosophies, different parts of the country, and obviously we don't agree on all things, but we agreed on this because it makes common sense and it is something that should bring together Republicans and Democrats. It was crafted with significant input from privacy and civil liberties groups, the intelligence community, and the technology industry. It has support from Members of Congress and groups from across the political spectrum. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record editorials from the Washington Times, the Washington Post, USA TODAY, and the Los Angeles Times in support of the USA FREEDOM Act.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, additionally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the major technology industry companies and trade associations in support of the USA FREEDOM Act.

Mr. LEAHY. Some would argue that no reforms are needed. Unfortunately, they do not go into the facts, as the Second Circuit did; they invoke fearmongering and dubious claims about the utility of the bulk collection programs to defend the status quo. These are the same arguments we heard last November when we were not even allowed to debate an earlier version of the USA FREEDOM Act because of a filibuster. Last week, some Senators came to the floor to argue that the NSA's bulk collection of phone records might have prevented 9/11. Now, this specter is always raised, that it might have prevented 9/11 and is vital to national security. We also heard that if we enact the USA FREEDOM Act, that will somehow return the intelligence community to a pre-9/11 posture. None of these claims can withstand the light of day. I will go back to some of the facts--not just hypotheses. Richard Clarke was working in the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. I asked him whether the NSA program would have prevented those attacks. He testified that the government already had the information that could have prevented the attacks, but failed to properly share that information among Federal agencies. Likewise, Senator Bob Graham, who investigated the September 11 attacks as part of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also debunked the notion that this bulk collection program would somehow have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The NSA's bulk collection of phone records simply has not been vital to thwarting terrorist attacks. When the NSA was embarrassed by the theft of all of their information and the news about the NSA's phone metadata program first broke, they defended the program by saying it had helped thwart 54 terrorist attacks. Well, I convened public hearings on this and under public scrutiny, that figure of 54 initially shrunk to: Well, maybe a dozen. We scrutinized that further. They said: Well, maybe it was two. Everybody realized that the government had to tell the truth in these open hearings. And then they said: Maybe it was one. That sole example was not a ``terrorist attack'' that was thwarted. It was a material support conviction involving $8,000 not a terrorist plot. Numerous independent experts also have concluded that the NSA's bulk collection program is not essential to national security. I mention these things, because as soon as you come down and say: We are all going to face another 9/11, we are all going to face ISIS, we are all going to face these terrible attacks if we do not have this program-- yet we can show that it has not stopped any attacks. The President's Review Group, which included former national security officials, stated: The bulk collection of American's phone records was not essential to preventing attacks, and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional Section 215 orders. So we can go with hysteria and overstatements or we can go with facts. In my State of Vermont, we like facts. We should not be swayed by fearmongering. Congress cannot simply reauthorize the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act without enacting real reforms. When the House passes the USA FREEDOM Act tomorrow and sends it to the Senate, we should take it up immediately, pass that bill. The American people are counting on us to take action. They did not elect us to just kick the can down the road or blindly rubber stamp intelligence activities that now have been found by the court to be illegal. Congress should pass the USA FREEDOM Act this week. I thank my good friend from Utah for yielding to me. I totally agree with his position.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act expires in a matter of weeks. Senator Lee and I have a bipartisan bill, the USA FREEDOM Act, that would end the use of section 215 to authorize the bulk collection of Americans' phone records and replace it with a more targeted program. It also would enact other important reforms to bring more accountability and transparency to government surveillance. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is bringing that same bill for a vote in the House on Wednesday. Last week, some opponents came to the floor to voice their opposition. They claimed that ending this bulk collection program would somehow put our national security at risk and that a bulk collection program like this could somehow have prevented the September 11 attacks. But the facts are not on their side. According to the headline of a recent National Journal story, these opponents of reform have made ``dubious claims in defense of NSA surveillance.'' I agree these claims are dubious, and I want to set the record straight. I ask unanimous consent that the National Journal story dated May 8, 2015, and an analysis by the Center for Democracy and Technology of similar claims be printed in the Record. One Senator stated on the Senate floor last week, ``If this program had existed before 9/11, it is quite possible we would have known that 9/11 hijacker Khalid Al Mihdhar was living in San Diego and was making phone calls to an Al Qaeda safe house in Yemen.'' Another seemed to suggest that the bulk collection program would ``have prevented 9/11.'' When I was chairman in the last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held six hearings to examine revelations about government surveillance activities. At one of those hearings, I asked former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, who was working in the Bush administration on September 11, whether the NSA bulk collection program would have prevented those attacks. He testified that the government had the information it needed to prevent the attacks but failed to properly share that information among Federal agencies. Senator Bob Graham, who investigated the September 11th attacks as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, likewise has said that ``there were plenty of opportunities without having to rely on this metadata system for the FBI and intelligence agencies to have located Mihdhar.'' The other claim that has been made repeatedly over the past few days is that, as one Senator put it, the bulk collection of Americans' phone records is ``very effective at keeping America safe.'' Another stated that the USA FREEDOM Act would ``eliminate the essential intelligence this program collects.'' But numerous national security experts also have concluded that the NSA's bulk collection program is not essential to national security. The President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, which included two former national security officials, stated: The information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony metadata was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders. Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the review group's recommendation to end the government's collection of that data and instead allow the government to search phone records held by the telecommunications providers would not add a substantial burden to the government. That is precisely the approach of our bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act. Last year, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General supported a prior version of the USA FREEDOM Act, which also ended bulk collection under section 215 and replaced it with a more targeted phone records program. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence said that our bill ``preserve[d] essential Intelligence Community capabilities.'' These individuals are not newcomers to the issue of national security. They understand the threats to our Nation. They do not have a political motive. They have the best interests of our Nation and its values in mind when they tell us that we can end the dragnet collection of innocent Americans' phone records and keep our country safe. The USA FREEDOM Act does not just end NSA's bulk collection program under section 215. It also fills other gaps in our intelligence capabilities. It ensures that the government can quickly obtain business records--including phone records--in emergency situations. It ensures that if a foreign terrorist who poses a serious threat comes into the United States, the government does not have to stop its surveillance while it seeks emergency wiretap authorization from the Attorney General. It ensures that the government need not terminate FISA surveillance on a foreigner who temporarily travels outside the United States. And it ensures that the FBI has the tools it needs to investigate individuals who are facilitating the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on behalf of a foreign government or terrorist organization. These provisions were requested by the FBI and by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They were not part of the bill that was filibustered in the Senate in November. As a final matter, it is notable that there has been not a single Senate committee hearing on surveillance reform or the expiring provisions in the 5 months of this new Congress under Republican leadership. There has been zero committee consideration on the bill that Senator McConnell has now brought directly to the Senate calendar that would simply extend these expiring provisions. I recall the promises that under new leadership the committees would work through regular order, but that has not occurred even though it was apparent to all last year that we would need to grapple with long-overdue reforms. This lack of leadership or any committee process is also despite the fact that the leader and chairmen of the relevant committees would not even let us debate the USA FREEDOM Act last year, in part because it had not gone through committee. As the process moves forward this year, we should not be hearing complaints about lack of process from those who did not provide it. There is no question that the USA FREEDOM Act contains far-reaching surveillance reforms. But the most high-ranking intelligence officials in the country have endorsed its approach because it is a responsible bill. It protects Americans' privacy and keeps them safe. The Senate should take up the bill once the House passes it this week.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank all of the Senators who have cosponsored this bill. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for withdrawing his objection. I am hoping the other body will soon take this up so that we can try to have it passed before the police meet here at the Capitol for a memorial to fallen police officers and we can move forward. This has been underfunded over the years, and we have not been able to fill all of the requests. We have filled a lot of them, and we have saved a lot of lives. Of course, I will be willing to work with the Senator from Oklahoma or with any other Senator on this or any other law enforcement program. But I have always considered my years in law enforcement in many ways the high point of my career. I want to make sure we approve it as soon as we can. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am surely going to make a unanimous consent request, and I have notified the Republican leader of this, but before I do, I wish to make a statement on this issue. I am talking about the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015. That is a lot of words, but it is basically talking about the bulletproof vest bill Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I first put together 17 years ago. It is a lifesaving grant program. Senator Nighthorse Campbell and I both had the privilege of serving in various forms of law enforcement. We knew how things had changed. We knew a number of police officers, men and women, who died, were shot to death, who would have lived had they had bulletproof vests. We also knew a lot of them--especially small departments such as those in my State and many in Senator Nighthorse Campbell's State--could not afford them. That could be said of virtually every single State. The partnership we put together has provided 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies with nearly 1.2 million bulletproof vests for their officers. When we pass it today, the Senate will move a step closer to ensuring that for the next 5 years thousands of agencies can purchase bulletproof vests for officers serving in their communities. These are not just empty words or an empty gesture. It is probably the most tangible support Congress can provide to law enforcement officers. It will help put vests on the backs of more than 200,000 police officers and it will save lives. Just ask the chief of the Woodway, TX, police department, Yost Zakhary. Chief Zakhary testified at a Senate judiciary hearing last year. He brought this vest with him to the hearing. The officer wearing it was shot at almost pointblank range during a roadside stop. The officer lost a lot of blood--we can see it on his vest--but he did not lose his life because this vest, purchased through this partnership grant program, caught the bullet aimed at his heart. Officer Ann Carrizales of the Stafford, TX, police department also testified at the hearing last year. She told us that her vest--because we are now beginning to buy vests that recognize the obvious differences between male and female officers--was uniquely fitted for her body. It saved her life when she was shot twice during a routine traffic stop. Her testimony was some of the most moving testimony I have heard in 40 years in the Senate. She brought with her nearly 200 letters from her daughter's elementary school. They saw how a daughter's mother's life was saved, and they all called for the Senate to act. This bill is important to law enforcement around the Nation. It is certainly important to my little State of Vermont. Vermont law enforcement agencies have received nearly 4,400 protective vests from this program, and those officers throughout Vermont, as well as around the Nation, are better protected and better able to do their jobs. I am proud to share that recent recipients in Vermont include agencies in Addison County, Barre City, Barre Town, Bennington County, Berlin, Brattleboro, Burlington, Caledonia County, Chester, Dover, Essex County, Essex Junction, Franklin County, Grand Isle County, Hardwick, Hartford, Ludlow, Middlebury, Milton, Montpelier, Morristown, Newport, Northfield, Norwich, Orange County, Orleans County, Richmond, Rutland, Shelburne, South Burlington, Springfield, St. Albans, St. Johnsbury, Stowe, Waterbury Village, Weathersfield, Williston, Windsor County, Windsor, and Winooski. It has helped to make protective vests standard equipment for law enforcement agencies across the country. Yet, for far too many jurisdictions--especially smaller and rural agencies such as those in Vermont--they know the vests still cost too much and wear out too soon. They actually work. I remember to this day a young police officer who was in and testified before our Senate Judiciary Committee. He had his mother and his father, his wife and his children lined up behind him. He said to us: I love police work. The only thing I love more than that is my family. He said: There was a day when I thought I would never see my family again. Again, it was a routine traffic stop, but the man stepped out and shot him twice, pointblank. He reached under and pulled up the bulletproof vest, and we could see the two slugs embedded in the vest. He said: My mother and father and my wife and my children came to the hospital to see me. I had cracked ribs that day, but they knew they could bring me home to be with them the next day. They are not going to save every officer, of course, but they have saved more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. I have met with police officers such as the one I just described, who are alive today because of vests purchased through this program. They will tell us the program saves lives. But it is also for the members of their families, seeing them going off to work knowing they have put it on. That makes a difference. This bill also contains a number of improvements to the grant program. I want to thank Senator Feinstein for helping to improve the bill so that it provides incentives for agencies to provide uniquely fitted vests for female officers. The bill also ensures that agencies have mandatory-wear policies to ensure that the vests are used regularly. This is not a partisan issue. I remember walking down the street in Denver, CO, where Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I first started this. A police officer walked up to me and said: Are you Patrick Leahy of Vermont? And I said: Yes. He tapped his chest and said thank you and moved on. Senator Graham is a lead cosponsor of this legislation. I wish to thank Senator Graham for his important efforts to help pass this legislation. I am also thankful to the law enforcement community. They have long spoken with a single voice on this issue. They don't care whether we are Republicans or Democrats; they just care about this issue. So if we pass this bill today and move it to the House of Representatives, I would urge the Speaker to quickly take up the bill so the President can sign it next week as we approach National Police Week. Now is the time to honor the brave men and women of law enforcement who have lost their lives serving their communities. Let's put real meaning behind our words and tributes. It is time to pass this bill. I see my friend from Oklahoma on the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 32, S. 125; that a Lee amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, I had the opportunity to visit the award-winning Leahy Center for Digital Investigation at Champlain College in Burlington, VT. One of the Nation's top law enforcement officers, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, joined me for a tour of this impressive facility. It was a fitting time to visit the center; earlier in the week, the LCDI was recognized as the Best Cybersecurity Higher Education Program in the country by SC Magazine. We all know that computers and technology have changed not only the way people commit crimes, but also the way law enforcement investigates and prosecutes criminals. Students here are learning firsthand how to help law enforcement agencies across the country in areas related to computer forensics and other forms of digital investigation. By giving them this hands-on experience, Champlain College and the Leahy Center are training the next generation of analysts who will work to combat cyberthreats and other digital threats. I was especially pleased that the FBI Director joined me in visiting the LCDI. Both of us left with a deep appreciation for the excellent education the next generation of cybersecurity professionals are receiving at the Leahy center. These students receive intense hands-on experience, dealing with the same issues that practitioners in the field work on every day. With a 90 percent placement rate in relevant fields, the center is a critical part of ensuring that law enforcement has the expertise and resources it needs to face the cyberthreats of the future. The cyberthreats we face are real, and the training students receive from the Leahy Center for Digital Investigation will help us face those threats head on. I congratulate Champlain College and the center for this achievement, and look forward to years of success to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Red Hen Baking Company was founded in 1999 by Randy George and Eliza Cain in the Mad River Valley of Vermont. They started as a small operation, baking and delivering fresh bread to nearby stores and restaurants. They used pure ingredients, baked around the clock, and soon, with the support of the surrounding community, and as the word-of-mouth testimonials spread, their small operation grew into the Hen we know today. They moved their operation to the popular Camp Meade location, in my hometown of Middlesex. Red Hen Baking Company exemplifies the spirit and the vision of Vermont business. Randy often says that Vermont is the only State in which he could imagine starting and running a successful bakery of this kind. They tend to do things the right way, rather than the easy way-- from the selection of the essential elements of their bread, to their employee treatment policies and practices. Randy, Eliza and the Hen's ``barnyard animals'' take pride in their product, and it shows. Randy always reminds his customers that his employees are the most important part of his bakery business, so it was no surprise when he was invited by President Obama and Labor Secretary Tom Perez to join them at the White House as a ``Champion of Change'' for working families. Employers from across the country shared their success stories, and the devastating and impossible choices working families face when paid sick leave is not among their benefits. The panel was a tremendous success, and I was proud to have Vermont represented by such a steadfast supporter of fair treatment for employees. Randy and Liza's message is clear. Put the people in your business at the core of everything you do, and they will work hard for you for years to come--in the Hen's case, even decades. Randy and Liza offer health coverage, fair, livable wages, and paid sick days. They want their employees to thrive both personally and professionally, and they have encouraged other businesses to adopt similar standards. Marcelle and I are so happy to live in Middlesex and to have our neighbors setting such high standards for the treatment of a dedicated workforce. I want to congratulate Randy and Liza on their successful business, and to thank them. Happy, healthy employees are productive employees, and it is right to invest in each other's success. It is the right way, and it is the Vermont way. We look forward to our visits every time Marcelle and I come home.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is poised to pass the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015. The law enforcement community is unified in its support of this program because it quite simply saves lives. To date, this program has provided more than 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies with nearly 1.2 million bulletproof vests, including nearly 4,400 to officers in Vermont. Senator Graham and I have been working to address any and all concerns that certain Republican Senators have raised about the bill. We are prepared, for example, to accept an amendment from Senator Lee that would reduce the authorization level from $30 million annually to $25 million. Unfortunately, I learned yesterday that a single Republican Senator continues to maintain a hold on this bill, continuing a pattern from the last Congress of unwarranted obstructionism. I have been in contact with a number of law enforcement groups representing officers around the country, and I know that they are all incredibly disappointed that this bill continues to be blocked. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership has helped to establish protective vests as standard equipment for law enforcement agencies across the country. Yet, for far too many jurisdictions--especially rural and smaller agencies--vests still cost too much and wear out too soon. We know that bulletproof vests will not save every officer, but they have already saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. I have met with police officers who are alive today because of vests purchased through this program, and they will attest to the fact that this program saves lives. These vests also are a comfort for families, to know that their loved ones have them. While I will keep fighting for passage of this bulletproof vest legislation, we must also make sure that our work to make our communities safer for all continues. Over the past few years, the Senate has come together to protect victims of sexual assault and domestic violence by reauthorizing and reinvigorating the Violence Against Women Act. We have worked to protect racial and religious minorities and the LGBT community when we passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We came together to pass the Innocence Protection Act and the Drug Free Communities Act. And just a few months ago, we came together to enact the Death in Custody Act to bring needed transparency to every death that occurs in police custody, and we need to do more to prevent such tragedies. In the coming weeks, I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will turn its attention to the bipartisan effort to end mass incarceration. I am working with Chairman Grassley on the importance of legal representation for those accused of misdemeanor offenses. Chairman Grassley is working with Senator Whitehouse and others to improve our juvenile justice system. Senator Rand Paul and I are working to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. I also support the work of Senators Durbin and Lee, who are seeking to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes. We have historic opportunity to restore the faith that Americans should have in the justice system. If we work together, I know we can make meaningful improvements so that our entire justice system lives up to its name.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Last week, the Senate considered a very important amendment to S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Senator Collins and I offered amendment No. 290, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, which was cosponsored by Senators Ayotte, Murkowski, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Shaheen, Bennet, Murphy, Merkley, Schatz, Klobuchar, and Booker. As we crafted this legislation, Senator Collins and I listened to the stories of survivors of human trafficking and the service providers who help them rebuild their lives. So many of these stories began with a homeless or runaway teen, scared and alone, and in need of a safe place to sleep. These young people were completely vulnerable, and traffickers preyed upon their desperation. Survivors and service providers underscored the importance of preventing human trafficking from happening in the first place by reauthorizing the critical programs funded by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. With their feedback in mind, we crafted S. 262, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. We made important updates to ensure that homeless youth service providers are specifically trained to recognize victims of trafficking, address their unique traumas, and refer them to appropriate and caring services. Our bill will improve services for these vulnerable children in several ways. We lengthen the time that youth can stay in shelters from 21 days to 30 days, so they are better able to find stable housing. Kids who are forced out of shelters and back onto the streets before they are ready are more likely to become victims of exploitation. Our bill prioritizes suicide prevention services and family reunification efforts and expands aftercare services. Providers know that such measures save children's lives and help them build a more stable future with families and trusted adults. Under our bill, service providers will collect data on the demographics of youth who are served by their shelters to help understand their needs and refine their services. It encourages grantees to examine the connection between youth who are victims of trafficking and any previous involvement in the foster care system or juvenile justice system in order to address the causes of youth homelessness. It further requires staff training on how to help youth apply for Federal student loans to help make college possible for youth so they can build a more stable future. The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act also includes a crucial nondiscrimination provision that would prevent discrimination against youth based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. We offered this important legislation as amendment No. 290 to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. We were very disappointed that it received only 56 votes and failed to garner the 60 votes necessary for passage, but we are encouraged that it received a strong bipartisan vote from a majority of the Senate. I want to thank the 54 other Senators who voted for this legislation: Senators Ayotte, Baldwin, Bennet, Blumenthal, Booker, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Capito, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Coons, Donnelly, Durbin, Feinstein, Franken, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Heller, Hirono, Kaine, King, Kirk, Klobuchar, Manchin, Markey, McCaskill, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murphy, Murray, Nelson, Paul, Peters, Portman, Reed, Reid, Sanders, Schatz, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Sullivan, Tester, Toomey, Udall, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, and Wyden. We appreciate their support and their dedication to working to prevent vulnerable youth from becoming victims of human trafficking. I especially applaud Senators Collins, Heitkamp, Ayotte, and Murkowski for their help fighting to get a vote on this amendment. Their leadership on this issue is exceptional, and the Senate is better for having them as Members. I also want to thank the tireless advocates who have worked so hard to help us improve the bill and urge support for the effort: Darla Bardine, with National Network for Youth; Jennifer Pike and David Stacy, with Human Rights Campaign; Cyndi Lauper and Gregory Lewis, with the True Colors Fund; Bridget Petruczok and Laura Durso, with the Center for American Progress; Melysa Sperber, with the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking; Holly Austin Smith, Jayne Bigelsen, and Kevin Ryan, with Covenant House; Calvin Smith and Kreig Pinkham, with the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs; Erin Albright, with Give Way to Freedom; Griselda Vega, with Safe Horizon; Susan Burton, with the United Methodist Church; and the many others who provided us with their feedback as we drafted this important legislation. They are the true experts in this field and their insights and contributions were invaluable. This is not the end for the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. As I have said time and again, we must protect the most vulnerable among us, and we must do everything we can to prevent the heinous crime of human trafficking from occurring. It is vital that we update and reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. We will continue to fight to see the passage of the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act.