Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is among only 22 States in the Nation with a minimum wage higher than that of the Federal minimum wage. The Green Mountain State has long recognized the importance of paying workers a fair and livable wage, and it is past time for Congress to catch up with the daily struggles of working American families. That is why today I am proud to join as a cosponsor of Senator Murray's Raise the Wage Act, to increase the Federal minimum wage to $12 by 2020. The Raise the Wage Act will help more 38 million Americans and thousands of Vermonters who yearn for financial security, for the sound footing to build their lives, and the lives of their children. The Federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. In fact, it has lost more than 30 percent of its value since 1968. Over that same time, productivity has doubled, and low-wage workers today bring more experience and education to the workforce. American workers are being asked to work more for less. It is past time to adjust this disparity. In Vermont, 64,000 workers would see their wages improve if we raised the minimum wage to $12. That is roughly $141 million in added income for families in Vermont--families who could spend these earnings at the store down the street, multiplying the economic impact to resonate through our local economies and downtown businesses. Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans who earn the minimum wage or less are women; the Raise the Wage Act will improve the hard-earned wages of more than 21 million American women. No one who works hard in a full-time job should live in poverty in our land, and raising the minimum wage should not be a question; it is commonsense, it is fair, and it is right. It is the right step to take to help ensure that workers can earn wages that support their families.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2015. This comprehensive legislation will help ensure that the corporations Americans entrust with their most personal information are taking steps to keep it secure. Data breaches continue to plague American businesses and compromise the privacy of millions of consumers. At the same time, the amount of information we share with corporations who are the target of these breaches is growing. Corporations collect and store our social security numbers, our bank account information, and our email addresses. They collect information about our private health and medical conditions. They know what routes we take to and from work and where we drop our kids off at school. They can replicate our fingerprints. We even trust them with private photographs that we store in the cloud. Corporations benefit financially from our personal information, and they should be obligated to take steps to keep it safe. Too often, however, private information falls into the hands of those who would do us harm and we are not even told. Last year, in what is commonly referred to as the ``Year of the Data Breach,'' breaches at corporations, including Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, and Sony Pictures, as well as many others, demonstrated how vulnerable our corporations are to hackers and cyber criminals. In some cases these breaches exposed credit card data, social security numbers, or bank account information that left millions at risk of financial fraud or identity theft, and in other cases they exposed personal and private information to the public that led to embarrassment and reputational harm. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act I am introducing today seeks to protect the vast amount of information that we now share with corporations each and every day, and it builds and expands on data security legislation that I have introduced every Congress since 2005. In today's modern world, data security is no longer just about protecting our identities and our bank accounts; it is about protecting our privacy. Americans want to know when someone has had unauthorized access to their emails, to their bank accounts, and to their private family pictures, but they do not just want to be notified of yet another data breach. Americans want to know that the corporations who are profiting from their information are actually doing something to prevent the next data breach. Consumers should not have to settle for mere notice of data breaches. American consumers deserve protection. This legislation would accomplish that. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act requires that corporations meet certain privacy and data security standards to keep information they store about their customers safe, and requires that corporations notify the customer in the event of a breach. This legislation protects broad categories of data, including, social security numbers and other government-issued identification numbers; financial account information, including credit card numbers and bank accounts; online usernames and passwords, including email names and passwords; unique biometric data, including fingerprints; information about a person's physical and mental health; information about geolocation; and access to private digital photographs and videos. I understand that not every breach can be prevented. Cyber criminals are determined and constantly looking for new ways to pierce the most sophisticated security systems. But just as we expect a bank to put a lock on the front door and an alarm on the vault to protect its customers' money, we expect corporations to take reasonable measures to protect the personal information they collect from us. Unfortunately, many of the corporations that profit from the very information that we entrust them to protect, have woefully inadequate measures to secure this information. For others, security is simply not a priority. American consumers deserve better. This legislation creates civil penalties for corporations that fail to meet the required privacy and data security standards established in the bill or fail to notify customers when a breach occurs. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the State Attorneys General each have a role in enforcement. This legislation also requires corporations to inform Federal law enforcement, such as the Secret Service and the FBI, of all large data breaches, as well as breaches that could impact the federal government. Such notification is necessary to help law enforcement bring these cyber criminals to justice and identify patterns that help protect against future attacks. Many Americans understandably assume Federal law already protects this sensitive information--common sense tells us that it should. Unfortunately, the reality is that it does not. States provide a patchwork of protection, and while some laws are strong, others are not. For example, 47 States and the District of Columbia require some form of data breach notification, but only 12 States have passed data security requirements designed to prevent data breaches. My home state of Vermont has a strong data breach notification law that has been in effect since 2007. In crafting Federal law, we must be careful not to override the strong State laws that took years to accomplish with weaker Federal protections, but we also need to ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have their privacy protected. To this end, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act preempts State law relating to data security and data breach notification only to the extent that the protections under those laws are weaker than those provided for in this bill. We must ensure that consumers do not lose privacy protections they currently enjoy. Since this bill is modeled after those States with the strongest consumer protections, however, I believe it will improve protections for consumers in nearly every State. I am joined today by Senators Franken, Warren, Blumenthal, Wyden, and Markey in introducing this legislation. These Senators have long shared my commitment to protecting consumer privacy. This legislation also has the support of leading consumer privacy advocates, including: Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumers Union, National Consumers League, New America's Open Technology Institute, Consumer Federation of America, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Millions of Americans who have had their personal information compromised or stolen as a result of a data breach consider this issue to be of critical importance and a priority for the Senate. Protecting privacy rights should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this measure to better protect Americans' privacy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont is among only 22 States in the Nation with a minimum wage higher than that of the Federal minimum wage. The Green Mountain State has long recognized the importance of paying workers a fair and livable wage, and it is past time for Congress to catch up with the daily struggles of working American families. That is why today I am proud to join as a cosponsor of Senator Murray's Raise the Wage Act, to increase the Federal minimum wage to $12 by 2020. The Raise the Wage Act will help more 38 million Americans and thousands of Vermonters who yearn for financial security, for the sound footing to build their lives, and the lives of their children. The Federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. In fact, it has lost more than 30 percent of its value since 1968. Over that same time, productivity has doubled, and low-wage workers today bring more experience and education to the workforce. American workers are being asked to work more for less. It is past time to adjust this disparity. In Vermont, 64,000 workers would see their wages improve if we raised the minimum wage to $12. That is roughly $141 million in added income for families in Vermont--families who could spend these earnings at the store down the street, multiplying the economic impact to resonate through our local economies and downtown businesses. Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans who earn the minimum wage or less are women; the Raise the Wage Act will improve the hard-earned wages of more than 21 million American women. No one who works hard in a full-time job should live in poverty in our land, and raising the minimum wage should not be a question; it is commonsense, it is fair, and it is right. It is the right step to take to help ensure that workers can earn wages that support their families.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2015. This comprehensive legislation will help ensure that the corporations Americans entrust with their most personal information are taking steps to keep it secure. Data breaches continue to plague American businesses and compromise the privacy of millions of consumers. At the same time, the amount of information we share with corporations who are the target of these breaches is growing. Corporations collect and store our social security numbers, our bank account information, and our email addresses. They collect information about our private health and medical conditions. They know what routes we take to and from work and where we drop our kids off at school. They can replicate our fingerprints. We even trust them with private photographs that we store in the cloud. Corporations benefit financially from our personal information, and they should be obligated to take steps to keep it safe. Too often, however, private information falls into the hands of those who would do us harm and we are not even told. Last year, in what is commonly referred to as the ``Year of the Data Breach,'' breaches at corporations, including Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, and Sony Pictures, as well as many others, demonstrated how vulnerable our corporations are to hackers and cyber criminals. In some cases these breaches exposed credit card data, social security numbers, or bank account information that left millions at risk of financial fraud or identity theft, and in other cases they exposed personal and private information to the public that led to embarrassment and reputational harm. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act I am introducing today seeks to protect the vast amount of information that we now share with corporations each and every day, and it builds and expands on data security legislation that I have introduced every Congress since 2005. In today's modern world, data security is no longer just about protecting our identities and our bank accounts; it is about protecting our privacy. Americans want to know when someone has had unauthorized access to their emails, to their bank accounts, and to their private family pictures, but they do not just want to be notified of yet another data breach. Americans want to know that the corporations who are profiting from their information are actually doing something to prevent the next data breach. Consumers should not have to settle for mere notice of data breaches. American consumers deserve protection. This legislation would accomplish that. The Consumer Privacy Protection Act requires that corporations meet certain privacy and data security standards to keep information they store about their customers safe, and requires that corporations notify the customer in the event of a breach. This legislation protects broad categories of data, including, social security numbers and other government-issued identification numbers; financial account information, including credit card numbers and bank accounts; online usernames and passwords, including email names and passwords; unique biometric data, including fingerprints; information about a person's physical and mental health; information about geolocation; and access to private digital photographs and videos. I understand that not every breach can be prevented. Cyber criminals are determined and constantly looking for new ways to pierce the most sophisticated security systems. But just as we expect a bank to put a lock on the front door and an alarm on the vault to protect its customers' money, we expect corporations to take reasonable measures to protect the personal information they collect from us. Unfortunately, many of the corporations that profit from the very information that we entrust them to protect, have woefully inadequate measures to secure this information. For others, security is simply not a priority. American consumers deserve better. This legislation creates civil penalties for corporations that fail to meet the required privacy and data security standards established in the bill or fail to notify customers when a breach occurs. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the State Attorneys General each have a role in enforcement. This legislation also requires corporations to inform Federal law enforcement, such as the Secret Service and the FBI, of all large data breaches, as well as breaches that could impact the federal government. Such notification is necessary to help law enforcement bring these cyber criminals to justice and identify patterns that help protect against future attacks. Many Americans understandably assume Federal law already protects this sensitive information--common sense tells us that it should. Unfortunately, the reality is that it does not. States provide a patchwork of protection, and while some laws are strong, others are not. For example, 47 States and the District of Columbia require some form of data breach notification, but only 12 States have passed data security requirements designed to prevent data breaches. My home state of Vermont has a strong data breach notification law that has been in effect since 2007. In crafting Federal law, we must be careful not to override the strong State laws that took years to accomplish with weaker Federal protections, but we also need to ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have their privacy protected. To this end, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act preempts State law relating to data security and data breach notification only to the extent that the protections under those laws are weaker than those provided for in this bill. We must ensure that consumers do not lose privacy protections they currently enjoy. Since this bill is modeled after those States with the strongest consumer protections, however, I believe it will improve protections for consumers in nearly every State. I am joined today by Senators Franken, Warren, Blumenthal, Wyden, and Markey in introducing this legislation. These Senators have long shared my commitment to protecting consumer privacy. This legislation also has the support of leading consumer privacy advocates, including: Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumers Union, National Consumers League, New America's Open Technology Institute, Consumer Federation of America, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Millions of Americans who have had their personal information compromised or stolen as a result of a data breach consider this issue to be of critical importance and a priority for the Senate. Protecting privacy rights should be important to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this measure to better protect Americans' privacy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation with Senators Grassley, Cornyn, Schumer, Lee, Hatch and Klobuchar. As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have been working for almost 2 years to address abusive conduct in our patent system. Our legislation will deter abusive practices while preserving the strength of America's patent system. After months of negotiations, we have achieved a strong and fair balance that I strongly support. America's patent system has fueled our Nation's greatest technological advances, creating jobs and spurring innovation. By promoting investment in new products and designs, our patent system drives developments that benefit us all. In recent years, however, bad actors have abused the patent system to extract money from unsuspecting companies through broad threats of patent litigation. Coffee shops have been threatened with patent suits simply for using a Wi-Fi router they purchased off the shelf, and website owners have faced costly litigation for using basic software in e-commerce. Instead of using patents to drive new creations, some entities are holding up main street businesses and innovative companies simply to extort financial settlements. The PATENT Act addresses this behavior through several important reforms. It will promote transparency to hold bad actors accountable; curb misleading demand letters; and empower customers who have been improperly targeted for simply using a product when the product's manufacturer should defend the suit instead. I have heard about the urgent need for these measures from businesses in Vermont and across the country, which is why I included them in the bipartisan legislation on patent abuses that Senator Lee and I introduced last Congress. This provision has earned widespread support and I am glad it is part of the bill we introduce today. The legislation also addresses imbalances in patent litigation that make it unusually difficult and expensive to defend against frivolous lawsuits. These measures would require detailed allegations in legal complaints for patent infringement, establish reasonable parameters for document discovery to save costs, and ensure that litigants can be held accountable for the other side's attorneys' fees if their conduct or position is found by a court to be objectively unreasonable. Drafting legislation that involves the enforcement of patent rights is a complex problem that requires time and balance. Congress spent multiple years developing what ultimately became the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, and we were able to come together to find common ground and enact that major piece of legislation into law. Throughout our negotiations on this bill, I have emphasized the need to address concerns from major manufacturers, inventors, universities, and patent law practitioners who warned that, if taken too far, patent litigation reform proposals would harm legitimate patent holders' ability to protect their rights in court. The legislation we have introduced today is greatly improved as a result of their input. It is worth highlighting some of the changes that have been made to the bill to respond to those concerns, changes which were personally important to me as we negotiated this legislation. The language in the PATENT Act provides for fee shifting only in cases where the court finds that the losing party was not ``objectively reasonable.'' This is an important change from the approach of ``presumptive loser pays'' contained in the House's patent reform bill, the Innovation Act. It promotes judicial discretion and ensures the burden is on the party seeking fees to show that fees should be awarded. An additional exception allows the court to refrain from awarding fees if such an award would be unjust--for example, because it would cause undue financial harm to an individual inventor or a public institution of higher education. The PATENT Act simplifies the pleading requirements that are contained in the Innovation Act, and ensures that a plaintiff is not required to plead information if it is not accessible to them. I am grateful that the other authors of this bill worked with me to ensure that the standard of what a plaintiff is required to plead about infringement of their patent claims tracks Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without creating a higher standard for plaintiffs to prove a plausible claim for relief. I am also grateful for the significant work that was done to streamline the discovery provisions of the bill, to protect litigants from costly discovery while ensuring that legitimate plaintiffs are not prejudiced by unreasonable limitations on their ability to access information. Under the PATENT Act, discovery is stayed while the court resolves early, pre-answer motions about whether the case has been brought in the correct venue, against the correct defendants, and whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Discovery is permitted if necessary to resolve those motions, to resolve a motion for preliminary relief, or if failure to allow discovery would cause specific prejudice to a party. Taken together, these provisions will help promote efficiency in patent suits while ensuring that patent holders can fairly protect their rights in court. While the provisions are not perfect, they strike a meaningful balance that I am happy to support given the unusual complexities of patent litigation. As this legislation proceeds to markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee next month, I look forward to considering additional amendments that will improve this bill. For example, in recent months, some companies and inventors have raised concerns about unfair practices that are taking place in the post-grant review proceedings through which patents can be challenged at the Patent and Trademark Office. Those proceedings were created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act as an important tool to improve patent quality, but if they are being misused or creating inaccurate perceptions in the marketplace, we should address those concerns. I look forward to working with the stakeholders who have already contributed meaningfully to this bill. Abusive practices by bad actors are a discredit to our strong patent system, and it is in no one's interest that they continue. Businesses, innovators and customers that are victims of abusive conduct need us to come together to enact reform. I look forward to this bill's swift consideration in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation with Senators Grassley, Cornyn, Schumer, Lee, Hatch and Klobuchar. As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have been working for almost 2 years to address abusive conduct in our patent system. Our legislation will deter abusive practices while preserving the strength of America's patent system. After months of negotiations, we have achieved a strong and fair balance that I strongly support. America's patent system has fueled our Nation's greatest technological advances, creating jobs and spurring innovation. By promoting investment in new products and designs, our patent system drives developments that benefit us all. In recent years, however, bad actors have abused the patent system to extract money from unsuspecting companies through broad threats of patent litigation. Coffee shops have been threatened with patent suits simply for using a Wi-Fi router they purchased off the shelf, and website owners have faced costly litigation for using basic software in e-commerce. Instead of using patents to drive new creations, some entities are holding up main street businesses and innovative companies simply to extort financial settlements. The PATENT Act addresses this behavior through several important reforms. It will promote transparency to hold bad actors accountable; curb misleading demand letters; and empower customers who have been improperly targeted for simply using a product when the product's manufacturer should defend the suit instead. I have heard about the urgent need for these measures from businesses in Vermont and across the country, which is why I included them in the bipartisan legislation on patent abuses that Senator Lee and I introduced last Congress. This provision has earned widespread support and I am glad it is part of the bill we introduce today. The legislation also addresses imbalances in patent litigation that make it unusually difficult and expensive to defend against frivolous lawsuits. These measures would require detailed allegations in legal complaints for patent infringement, establish reasonable parameters for document discovery to save costs, and ensure that litigants can be held accountable for the other side's attorneys' fees if their conduct or position is found by a court to be objectively unreasonable. Drafting legislation that involves the enforcement of patent rights is a complex problem that requires time and balance. Congress spent multiple years developing what ultimately became the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, and we were able to come together to find common ground and enact that major piece of legislation into law. Throughout our negotiations on this bill, I have emphasized the need to address concerns from major manufacturers, inventors, universities, and patent law practitioners who warned that, if taken too far, patent litigation reform proposals would harm legitimate patent holders' ability to protect their rights in court. The legislation we have introduced today is greatly improved as a result of their input. It is worth highlighting some of the changes that have been made to the bill to respond to those concerns, changes which were personally important to me as we negotiated this legislation. The language in the PATENT Act provides for fee shifting only in cases where the court finds that the losing party was not ``objectively reasonable.'' This is an important change from the approach of ``presumptive loser pays'' contained in the House's patent reform bill, the Innovation Act. It promotes judicial discretion and ensures the burden is on the party seeking fees to show that fees should be awarded. An additional exception allows the court to refrain from awarding fees if such an award would be unjust--for example, because it would cause undue financial harm to an individual inventor or a public institution of higher education. The PATENT Act simplifies the pleading requirements that are contained in the Innovation Act, and ensures that a plaintiff is not required to plead information if it is not accessible to them. I am grateful that the other authors of this bill worked with me to ensure that the standard of what a plaintiff is required to plead about infringement of their patent claims tracks Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without creating a higher standard for plaintiffs to prove a plausible claim for relief. I am also grateful for the significant work that was done to streamline the discovery provisions of the bill, to protect litigants from costly discovery while ensuring that legitimate plaintiffs are not prejudiced by unreasonable limitations on their ability to access information. Under the PATENT Act, discovery is stayed while the court resolves early, pre-answer motions about whether the case has been brought in the correct venue, against the correct defendants, and whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Discovery is permitted if necessary to resolve those motions, to resolve a motion for preliminary relief, or if failure to allow discovery would cause specific prejudice to a party. Taken together, these provisions will help promote efficiency in patent suits while ensuring that patent holders can fairly protect their rights in court. While the provisions are not perfect, they strike a meaningful balance that I am happy to support given the unusual complexities of patent litigation. As this legislation proceeds to markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee next month, I look forward to considering additional amendments that will improve this bill. For example, in recent months, some companies and inventors have raised concerns about unfair practices that are taking place in the post-grant review proceedings through which patents can be challenged at the Patent and Trademark Office. Those proceedings were created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act as an important tool to improve patent quality, but if they are being misused or creating inaccurate perceptions in the marketplace, we should address those concerns. I look forward to working with the stakeholders who have already contributed meaningfully to this bill. Abusive practices by bad actors are a discredit to our strong patent system, and it is in no one's interest that they continue. Businesses, innovators and customers that are victims of abusive conduct need us to come together to enact reform. I look forward to this bill's swift consideration in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the marriage equality cases. The legal principle at stake is whether the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects marriages between individuals of the same sex. But at the heart, these cases represent something more fundamental. They are about the right of every American to marry the person they love and to have their relationships treated with the respect and dignity to which every American is entitled. I am proud that my home State of Vermont has embraced love, equality, and freedom in its active and leading role on marriage equality. In 2000, Vermont was the first in the Nation to provide for civil unions. As the years went by, Vermont came to see that civil unions were insufficient to provide the protections all American couples are entitled to, and in 2009, the Vermont Legislature on a bipartisan vote was the first State legislature to enact marriage equality into law. Vermont, which has led by example, is now one of 37 States and the District of Columbia that recognizes marriage equality. While the arguments in the cases today analyzed legal principles and precedent, we should remember that they are ultimately about love and recognizing the extraordinary commitment between two people. Jim Obergefell had been with his partner, John Arthur, for over 20 years. They wanted to marry, but the marriage laws in their home State of Ohio would not allow it. Bedridden and incapacitated with ALS, John could neither drive nor fly commercially to get married in another State. It took the generosity of friends and family, along with the kindness of coworkers and others, to cover the cost of a $12,700 chartered, medically equipped private plane. After more than 20 years together, Jim and John finally married during a seven and one-half minute ceremony in an airplane at a Baltimore airport. Upon their return to Ohio, the State refused to recognize their marriage. And John passed away just a few months later. Jim, now a widower, should not have to live in a State like Vermont to be able to have his 20-year relationship validated and recognized by the State. He should not have had to fly to another State to say his vows and pledge his commitment to his partner. Jim's current fight--and our current fight--is to show that relationships like his should be treated with the same respect and dignity that has been accorded to all other Americans. It is to persuade the Supreme Court to live up to the motto engraved in Vermont marble above its own building, which declares ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Nearly five decades ago when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, the Court recognized that: Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as [] racial classifications . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. In the marriage equality cases heard today, the Court has a simple job to do. It need only apply these same constitutional principles to hold that the same principle applies equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. When the Supreme Court issues its decision this summer, I am hopeful that it will be another landmark moment demonstrating that ours is a more perfect union when it is a more inclusive union. And that the name Obergefell will come to signify love, equality, and freedom the same way it does when Loving and Windsor are invoked.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, almost 2 years ago, Vermonters and the American people learned for the first time the shocking details of the National Security Agency's dragnet collection program. Relying on a deeply flawed interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA has been indiscriminately sweeping up Americans' private telephone records for years. It is long past time to end this bulk collection program. Americans have made clear that they will not tolerate such intrusion into their private lives. The President has called for an end to bulk collection under section 215. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General supported legislation last year that would have shut this program down. National security experts have testified that the program is not necessary, and the American technology industry has called for meaningful reform of this program because it has lost billions to competitors in the international marketplace due to a decline in the public's trust. Yet in the face of this overwhelming consensus, Congress has failed to act. Last year, when we had an opportunity to pass my bipartisan legislation to end this program and reform other surveillance authorities, some Members of this body chose to play political games rather than engage in constructive debate. The time for posturing and theatrics is over. It is time for Congress to answer to the American people. Today, I--along with Senator Mike Lee--introduce the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. This bipartisan bill is also being introduced in the House today by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, ranking member John Conyers, and a large bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members. 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. Most importantly, our bill will definitively 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 brings the national security letter statutes in line with the First Amendment. The bipartisan, bicameral bill we introduce today is the product of intense and careful negotiations. It enacts strong, meaningful reforms while ensuring that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep this country safe. Some will say that this bill does not go far enough. I agree. But in order to secure broader support for reform legislation that can pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law, changes had to be made to the bill that I introduced last year. This new bill does not contain all the reforms that I want. It contains some provisions I believe are unnecessary but that were added to secure support from the House Intelligence Committee. But we should pass it and continue fighting for more reform. I have been in the Senate for more than 40 years--and I have learned that when there is a chance to make real progress, we have to seize it. This is not my first fight and certainly will not be my last. I have a responsibility to Vermonters and the American people to do everything I can to end the dragnet collection of their phone records under section 215. And I know for a fact that the upcoming June 1 sunset of section 215 is our best opportunity for real reform. We cannot squander it. Last year, a broad and bipartisan coalition worked together to craft reasonable and responsible legislation. Critics resorted to scare tactics. They would not even agree to debate the bill. I hope that we do not see a repeat of that ill-fated strategy again this year. The American people have had enough of delay and brinksmanship. Congress now has an opportunity to show leadership and govern responsibly. The intelligence community is deeply concerned about the possibility of a legislative standoff that could result in the expiration of section 215 altogether. The USA FREEDOM Act is a path forward that has the support of the administration, privacy groups, the technology industry--and most importantly, the American people. I urge congressional leaders to take up and swiftly pass the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015--because I will not vote for reauthorization of section 215 without meaningful reform.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, almost 2 years ago, Vermonters and the American people learned for the first time the shocking details of the National Security Agency's dragnet collection program. Relying on a deeply flawed interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA has been indiscriminately sweeping up Americans' private telephone records for years. It is long past time to end this bulk collection program. Americans have made clear that they will not tolerate such intrusion into their private lives. The President has called for an end to bulk collection under section 215. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General supported legislation last year that would have shut this program down. National security experts have testified that the program is not necessary, and the American technology industry has called for meaningful reform of this program because it has lost billions to competitors in the international marketplace due to a decline in the public's trust. Yet in the face of this overwhelming consensus, Congress has failed to act. Last year, when we had an opportunity to pass my bipartisan legislation to end this program and reform other surveillance authorities, some Members of this body chose to play political games rather than engage in constructive debate. The time for posturing and theatrics is over. It is time for Congress to answer to the American people. Today, I--along with Senator Mike Lee--introduce the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. This bipartisan bill is also being introduced in the House today by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, ranking member John Conyers, and a large bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members. 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. Most importantly, our bill will definitively 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 brings the national security letter statutes in line with the First Amendment. The bipartisan, bicameral bill we introduce today is the product of intense and careful negotiations. It enacts strong, meaningful reforms while ensuring that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep this country safe. Some will say that this bill does not go far enough. I agree. But in order to secure broader support for reform legislation that can pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law, changes had to be made to the bill that I introduced last year. This new bill does not contain all the reforms that I want. It contains some provisions I believe are unnecessary but that were added to secure support from the House Intelligence Committee. But we should pass it and continue fighting for more reform. I have been in the Senate for more than 40 years--and I have learned that when there is a chance to make real progress, we have to seize it. This is not my first fight and certainly will not be my last. I have a responsibility to Vermonters and the American people to do everything I can to end the dragnet collection of their phone records under section 215. And I know for a fact that the upcoming June 1 sunset of section 215 is our best opportunity for real reform. We cannot squander it. Last year, a broad and bipartisan coalition worked together to craft reasonable and responsible legislation. Critics resorted to scare tactics. They would not even agree to debate the bill. I hope that we do not see a repeat of that ill-fated strategy again this year. The American people have had enough of delay and brinksmanship. Congress now has an opportunity to show leadership and govern responsibly. The intelligence community is deeply concerned about the possibility of a legislative standoff that could result in the expiration of section 215 altogether. The USA FREEDOM Act is a path forward that has the support of the administration, privacy groups, the technology industry--and most importantly, the American people. I urge congressional leaders to take up and swiftly pass the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015--because I will not vote for reauthorization of section 215 without meaningful reform.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. For almost 2 months, I have been returning to the Senate floor to urge the majority leader to schedule the confirmation vote for our next Attorney General. Yesterday afternoon, we were finally able to get an agreement that was long overdue. But even now, this morning, we are not voting to confirm Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General of the United States; we are going to vote on whether to invoke cloture in regard to this top law enforcement position. For those not familiar with the rules of the Senate, cloture is a rule that allows the Senate to end a filibuster. The fact that Senate Republicans are requiring a cloture vote on her nomination acknowledges what we have known all along: Republicans have been engaged in an unprecedented filibuster of this nomination. When we do vote to confirm Loretta Lynch this afternoon, she will be the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General. She is a historic nominee, but it is Senate Republicans who are making history-- and I would say for the wrong reasons. We have had 82 Attorneys General in our Nation's history. Until now, not one of those 82 has had to overcome a cloture vote. But this one, Loretta Lynch, as I said, the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General, became the first and only to have to overcome a cloture vote. I would have opposed any filibuster on any President. I have been here with President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, another President Bush, and President Obama. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have seen this. President Obama first announced Ms. Lynch's nomination more than 5 months ago. At the time, Senate Democrats acceded to the request of Senate Republicans not to move her nomination during the lame duck period. Republicans promised that she would be treated fairly. In fact, last fall, the now-majority leader promised that ``Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate. And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order.'' But she hasn't been treated fairly. There hasn't been regular order. The nomination of Ms. Lynch has been pending in the Senate awaiting confirmation for 56 days. I went back over the last seven Attorneys General. I added up the number of days they waited for confirmation on the floor. She has waited longer than all seven of them put together twice over, so twice as long as the seven preceding Republican and Democratic Attorneys General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; William Barr, 5 days; Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days, Alberto Gonzales, 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. I have said it repeatedly, but it bears repeating again: this historic delay is an embarrassment for the United States Senate. As the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch brought terrorists and cyber criminals to justice. She obtained convictions against corrupt public officials from both political parties. She fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. Ms. Lynch has protected the rights of victims. She has a proven record prosecuting human traffickers and protecting children. I am glad that yesterday the Senate was finally able to overcome an impasse on trafficking legislation which, unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle caused by injecting partisan politics into the debate. That Republican leaders tied a vote on the confirmation of Ms. Lynch to human trafficking legislation never made sense at all, especially given her strong record of prosecuting human traffickers. In a recent article, the Guardian rightly pointed out that the Republican leaderships' use of her nomination as a negotiating chip was ``painfully wrongheaded--tantamount to holding the sheriff back until crime goes away.'' I could not agree more. I ask unanimous consent that the Guardian article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. We all know that Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to be our next Attorney General. She should not have been delayed for so many months by the Senate majority. And we should not be forced to vote to cut off debate on this nomination, especially when no other Attorney General nominee has ever needed such a vote. This is the complete opposite of the fair treatment that Senate Republicans promised last November. After this extended delay on the Lynch nomination, I can only hope Senate Republicans will show her more respect as Attorney General of the United States than she has received as a nominee. She deserves our respect and gratitude for being willing to continue to serve our Nation. She has earned this respect. Ms. Lynch's story is one of perseverance, grace, and grit and I believe this process will only make her stronger. She was born and raised in North Carolina. She is the daughter of a fourth-generation Baptist preacher and a school librarian. Her proud mother and father instilled in her the American values of fairness and equality, even though as a child those around them were not living up to these values. I must say that meeting Reverend Lynch at these hearings and then meeting him at the time of the markup--I was so impressed with the strength that man showed and his sense of faith in goodness. This is a pastor and a preacher we can all look up to. In fact, Ms. Lynch recalls riding on Reverend Lynch's shoulders to their church, where students organized peaceful protests against racial segregation. The freedom songs and the church music that went hand in hand with those protests undoubtedly made up the sound track of her childhood. As Attorney General, I am sure she will draw upon those childhood experiences and the struggles of her parents, her grandparents, and her great- grandparents when addressing the current protests over too many young lives lost on our streets. As I said, the Judiciary Committee was honored to have her father, the Reverend Lorenzo Lynch, with us on both days of her hearing in January, as well as at the committee markup when her nomination was favorably reported with bipartisan support. He is here to watch these proceedings today. It is clear this undoubtedly proud father instilled in his daughter the great resilience she has shown over the past 6 months. As a Senator, as have other Senators, I have gotten to meet wonderful people from all walks of life, up to and including Presidents, but I have said many times before and I will say again that meeting Reverend Lynch was really a very special moment in this Senator's life. Throughout Loretta Lynch's life, those who encountered her intelligence and her tenacity have not all been prepared to accept her and her impressive accomplishments. But at every point, the content of her character has shone through and led her to even greater heights. In elementary school, administrators did not believe that Loretta Lynch could score as high as she did on a standardized test. They demanded that she retake the test. How could this young African- American girl score so high? She took the test again and her second score was even higher. In high school, she rose to the very top of her class but had to share the title of valedictorian with two other students, one of whom was White, because school administrators feared an African-American valedictorian was too controversial. But that didn't hold her back, either. She kept going forward. She went on to graduate with honors from Harvard College, and then she went on and earned her law degree from Harvard Law School. This has been the story of Loretta Lynch's life. While some are not ready to embrace her distinction, she marches forward with grace to prove she is even stronger and more qualified than her detractors can imagine. She has dedicated the majority of her remarkable career to public service, and we are fortunate as a nation that she wants to continue to serve. Ms. Lynch's record of accomplishments makes me confident she will be able to lead the Justice Department through the complex challenges it faces today. One issue the outgoing Attorney General prioritized was the protection of Americans' right to vote. After the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, Republican governors and State legislatures exploited the decision and implemented sweeping voter suppression laws that disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities. Ms. Lynch will have to continue the commitment to fighting voting rights for all Americans. At a time of severe budget cuts for too many vital programs that help victims and support public safety, something must be done about the massive financial burden that is the Bureau of Prisons. One-third of DOJ's budget goes to BOP. This imbalance has largely been driven by our reliance on drug mandatory minimum sentences, which do not make us safer but are costing us plenty. These sentences explain why the United States has the largest prison population in the world. We must work together on more thoughtful solutions to address our mass incarceration problem. Few issues affect communities and families as intimately as addiction. Vermont, like many parts of the country, has seen a recent surge in the abuse of heroin and other opioids. The Department must work with States to find solutions to support communities struggling with heroin and other opioids, and help them break the cycle of addiction. The Attorney General will also be called upon to build on the sometimes strained relationship between law enforcement and communities of color, which has been exacerbated by the recent tragic events in Ferguson, New York, and South Carolina. Restoring that trust will be as great a responsibility as she will have while in office. Nor are these issues of trust limited to local law enforcement. Just the other day, a Washington Post article detailed the fact that the Justice Department and the FBI acknowledged numerous instances of flawed testimony by FBI examiners over a two-decade period in connection with hair analysis evidence. This included dozens of cases involving defendants who were sentenced to death row. This troubling revelation means that the FBI must conduct a comprehensive analysis to prevent future breakdowns such as this. The Justice Department must also keep up with the rapid development of technology. We must stay ahead of the curve to prevent and fight threats to cybersecurity and data privacy. The growing threat of cyber crime is very real but so is the specter of unchecked government intrusion into our private lives--particularly dragnet surveillance programs directed at American citizens. The intelligence community faces a critical deadline this June when three sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are set to expire. We must protect our national security and our civil liberties. We must work together to reform our Nation's surveillance laws so we can achieve both goals and restore the public's trust. When President Obama announced his intention to nominate Ms. Lynch last November, I had the privilege of attending the White House ceremony. At that event, Ms. Lynch noted with admiration that ``the Department of Justice is the only cabinet department named for an ideal.'' Just think of that. The Department of Justice is named for an ideal--the ideal of justice. And having served as a State prosecutor, although not with the complexity she has encountered, I always felt that was an ideal to uphold, and she has. I believe that when Loretta Lynch is sworn in as our next Attorney General, she will work tirelessly to make that ideal a reality for all Americans. As I said, I am sorry that for the first time, after 82 Attorneys General, we have to have a cloture vote. I have great respect for my friends in the Republican leadership, but I must say they sent an awful signal to America in saying that for the first time in 82 Attorneys General, we require a cloture vote for this highly qualified woman. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Loretta Lynch is an historic nominee. What I worry about is this body is making history for the wrong reasons. Senate Republicans have filibustered her. She becomes the first out of 82 Attorneys General in our Nation's history to face a filibuster. On one hand she is an historic nominee for the right reason; the first African-American woman for Attorney General, a woman who is highly, highly qualified. Everybody agrees with that. But what a shame that we have the second part of history, to have her be the first out of 82 Attorneys General to be filibustered--to be held to this very disturbing double standard. This woman has had to face double standards all her life--why one more? I will proudly vote for her. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I eagerly echo the words of my dear friend, the senior Senator from Illinois. This is a great, historic moment. Earlier today, we ended the filibuster on this woman, Loretta Lynch. We ended the filibuster of her nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. The good news is that we ended the filibuster. The bad news is that for the first time in our Nation's history, we had to overcome a filibuster for an Attorney General nominee--of either party. Eighty-two prior Attorneys General, going back to George Washington straight through, and not one of them has been treated the way Loretta Lynch has been treated. I have come to know what a strong and good woman she is from her time as U.S. attorney and straight through to her confirmation hearing. At her confirmation hearing, those opposed to her brought witnesses but when I asked them, are there any of you who would vote against her, not a single hand went up. You see, I know her strengths. I know she has persevered through much more difficult circumstances in her life. I believe this will make her even stronger. But do I hope after this extended delay, that Senate Republicans will show her more respect as Attorney General of the United States than she has received as a nominee. She deserves all of America's respect and our gratitude for being willing to continue to serve our Nation. Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to be Attorney General. She has twice been unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Her record as a top Federal prosecutor in Brooklyn is unimpeachable. I have no doubt that as Attorney General, Ms. Lynch will effectively, fairly, and independently enforce the law. She has received the highest praise from those on both sides of the aisle. A group of 26 former United States Attorneys from both Republican and Democratic administrations have written, ``Ms. Lynch has the experience, temperament, independence, integrity, and judgment to immediately assume this critically important position.'' A former Associate Attorney General serving at the Justice Department under President Bush wrote to me saying that ``[Ms. Lynch is] uniquely qualified to serve as Attorney General.'' Former Republican mayor of New York City, Rudy Guiliani, said, ``If I were in the Senate, I would confirm her,'' and Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI and Federal judge, has written ``[i]n my twenty-five years of public service--23 in the Department of Justice--I cannot think of a more qualified nominee to be America's chief law enforcement officer.'' This is just a glimpse of the broad support she has received. Loretta Lynch deserves to be considered by this Chamber based on her record, her accomplishments, and her extraordinary character. Let us come together. Let us make history by confirming Loretta Lynch to be the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General of the United States. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader making the usual request that the President be notified, but I have a sneaky suspicion the President knows what the final vote was.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there are 4 more minutes on this side. Am I correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back our time. Vote on Amendment No. 301

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 290.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 301.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Texas has said. We have worked together. I hope we continue to do this, but before I talk about my substitute, I want to yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Washington State.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my substitute amendment, No. 301, brings together three very important bills that provide a comprehensive approach to preventing human trafficking and help survivors rebuild their lives. First, it includes the Leahy-Collins-Murkowski-Ayotte amendment to protect runaway and homeless youth from trafficking. Second, it includes the Klobuchar-Cornyn bill as reported in February by the Judiciary Committee. The safe harbor bill encourages States to treat victims of trafficking as victims and not--as oftentimes they are treated--as criminals. Finally, it includes the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill, S. 178, but without the divisive language that limits victims' services, which has held us up so long. My amendment came about as a response to the request of survivors and the dedicated people who work with them, the people who actually see this day-by-day, for whom it is not a theoretical thing, but is an actual day-by-day crisis. They have urged us to remove the unnecessary and harmful provision which stalled this bill for weeks. Congress has a long history of passing legislation to address human trafficking. We did so in the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which included the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We consistently have addressed human trafficking legislation without abortion politics being inserted in the discussion. My amendment would return us to the path of the bipartisan bills we passed in years past. Importantly, my amendment is going to make sure we are preventing human trafficking in the first place. It is one thing to work with children after they become victims. I think we would all agree it is better if we can help prevent them from becoming victims. The best way to do that is to support runaway and homeless kids. Without a safe place to sleep, these children and teens are exceptionally vulnerable to human traffickers. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, first passed in 1974, funds tried- and-true programs to help these youth stabilize their lives. When a homeless or runaway teen is looking for a place to stay and there is nothing available, they sometimes resort to desperate measures. They are picked up almost at once by sex traffickers and exploited. The substitute amendment reauthorizes and strengthens the programs that have worked ever since 1974. It adds training for service providers so we can better identify victims of trafficking and refer them to the appropriate resources. It includes language to prevent discrimination against homeless youth based on their sexual orientation or gender identification. We found, in the testimony before the Judiciary Committee, a growing number of homeless and runaway youth identify as LGBT. Many of them have actually been thrown out of their homes for who they are. I am a parent; I am a grandparent. I find this heartbreaking to me that any child, any child for whatever reason would be thrown out of their home. We have to ensure that these vulnerable children who have already been rejected do not face rejection again because of how they look or dress or whom they love. I urge all Senators to support this amendment. This is a moral issue. If we are serious about listening to survivors and responding to their needs and if we are serious about preventing human trafficking and protecting vulnerable children in the first place, this amendment is the strongest option before us. We should be judged by what we do for the most vulnerable among us. The combination of these three bills should bring us together. I urge the Senate to support this comprehensive substitute. Several of us in this body, both parties, have had the privilege to serve law enforcement before coming here, as I did. I said many times on this floor that I still have nightmares today, 40 years later, from some of the scenes I saw back then. I could arrest and prosecute these people who harm these youth, but we could never give back to the youth who they were before they were harmed. Unfortunately, what I have nightmares about happens in so many more places. In the distinguished Presiding Officer's own home State, as well as the home States of every single Member of this body, it is happening today. These are the most vulnerable of our citizens. We as Senators should help protect them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.