Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I say to the Senator from Illinois, that the Republican House of Representatives passed this Act without this provision, and Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate should do the same.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Illinois, who has worked on this throughout his career, both in the House and in the Senate. It means a lot. I will state what one survivor, Tina Frundt, a survivor of human trafficking who now helps counsel other young trafficking victims, said: It is not for us to judge the type of services a survivor of sex trafficking needs. We need the basic rights of medical services without judgment. I think, instead of our trying to be political about this, we should listen to survivors such as Tina. We can't pass a bill that ignores the requests of the various survivors it is designed to help. Experts across the political spectrum who treat survivors of trafficking are telling us to remove the language. I heard, for example, from a group called HEAL Trafficking, an organization of health care professionals who treat survivors. These are physicians, nurses, and counselors. They wrote a letter to me and said: ``We implore the Senate to pass S. 178 without the inclusion of Hyde amendment language, which would place limits on trafficking survivors' access to vital health services.'' I also heard from the service providers, whom I know and respect, at the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth. They work with young people who are exceptionally vulnerable to becoming victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. They wrote: ``There should be no doubt that legislation involving the well-being of individuals who have been victimized by the most base of human behavior should be free of partisan wrangling.'' It is time to listen to the people this bill is supposed to help. They say: Take out the provision; pass the bill. I hope that we will. I can only imagine what these victims of trafficking go through. I have said several times on the floor--I remember so vividly; I remember as though it were yesterday, listening to some of the victims when we were trying to prosecute the people who trafficked them or harmed them or exploited them. I thought, wouldn't it be great if we had some help to stop this horrible crime from happening in the first place. But at least we did not have politicians telling us: Well, you can offer this service, but you cannot offer that service. They simply said: Find the best experts you can and use their advice. The experts are there day by day by day. Let them do their work. Don't play politics with them. I have said before, when we considered the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, a victim is a victim is a victim. We ought to do what we can to help them. SSCI Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program Mr. President, on another matter which goes into an interesting area, each year, Sunshine Week reminds us we cannot take for granted our democratic system of government. Our Nation's Founders understood that to maintain a true democracy, we have to have an open government. Only an open government can be truly accountable to the people. But pulling back the curtain on the internal workings of governmental agencies is not always easy. Sometimes, it is not even popular. In some cases, it generates great controversy, as was the case of Senator Feinstein's hard-fought efforts last year to declassify the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's historic torture report. This extraordinary report thoroughly reviewed the CIA's use of torture during the Bush administration and revealed that it was far more brutal than we knew. Now, shedding light on the CIA's actions demonstrates to the world that America is different. We acknowledge our mistakes, so that we can learn from them. We do not sweep them under a rug and pretend they never happened. But some seem to want just that. When Senator Feinstein publically released the executive summary, she also provided the full report, which totaled, I am told, more than 6,700 pages. She provided the full report to the President and the relevant executive branch agencies. The report details the failures that allowed this program to happen. She rightly put these details in the hands of those officials who had appropriate clearances who could learn from the mistakes and ensure that they do not happen again-- whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration. Unfortunately, some of the program's defenders will stop at nothing in an effort to erase this ugly history. Immediately after the report was issued, there was an unabashed campaign to discredit it and an attempt to portray what happened as something other than what we all know it was--torture. I have had enough of the disingenuous euphemisms and acronyms used to mask the truly brutal nature of what was done to other human beings. We should acknowledge what it was. It was torture. The President has acknowledged that. And Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch did during her hearing, when she stated clearly and unequivocally that waterboarding is torture. Instead, defenders of this brutality call it something else. They claim it was justified, but then they offer no evidence to support their assertions and insist outright that they would do it again. Even though they have no evidence that it helped, they imply as much. But if that wasn't bad enough, some now want to make the report itself disappear. In January, the incoming chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the President and the agencies to return the full report to the Senate. That is essentially saying: let us pretend we made no mistakes. Let us erase history. Let us be able to open the history book and just see blank pages. We did nothing wrong. Well, that is outrageous. Neither this historic Senate report nor the shameful truths it reveals can be wiped out of existence. It is also appalling to learn that several of the agencies that received the full report in December haven't even opened it. In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking release of the full report, Justice Department and State Department officials submitted declarations stating that their copies remain locked away in unopened, sealed envelopes. So they can say: I see nothing. It is locked up. It is sealed. I don't know if this was done in an attempt to bolster the government's position in the FOIA lawsuit or to otherwise avoid Federal records laws. I certainly hope not. But regardless of the motivation, it was a mistake that should be rectified. The executive summary of the torture report, which they have seen, makes clear that both the State Department and the Justice Department have much to learn from the history of the CIA's torture program. Both agencies were misled by the CIA about the program. Both should consider systemic changes in how they deal with covert actions. Yet neither agency has bothered to open the final, full version of the report or, apparently, even those sections most relevant to them. The fight for government transparency and accountability is never complete. I have joined with the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, over the years to write and pass tougher provisions in FOIA. I think the importance of the public release of this report's executive summary cannot be overstated. It is one of the most important oversight achievements of this body. Now we must ensure the full report, containing the results of years of painstaking work, is put to good use by those within the executive branch. So today, as we recognize Sunshine Week, I send this message to the executive branch agencies who received the full Intelligence Committee torture report: Do not return your copy to the Senate. Ensure that the appropriate people in your agencies, with appropriate clearances, have access to it and learn from it. Initiate a process to consider the lessons your agency should learn from this experience. Follow the example of FBI Director Comey, who last week testified he would designate appropriate people to consider the report and what improvements could be made, because there are no instances when torture is acceptable. The Convention Against Torture does not make exceptions. There is no doubt that if these actions were committed against American soldiers, by a hostile government, we would immediately condemn them as torture and a violation of international law. We have to make clear to the rest of the world we follow international law. We don't torture. We have to ensure that America never allows this to happen again. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I totally agree with the senior Senator from Texas that the Hyde amendment has been in a number of bills that spend tax dollars. I have been in the Appropriations Committee for nearly 40 years. I am aware of that. But as the distinguished senior Senator from Texas just stated, there are no tax dollars in this matter. The way he has drafted this bill, it would take moneys from fines levied against those who are convicted of sex exploitation. This would be the first time, to my knowledge--and I would stand corrected if I am wrong, but I cannot think of a time in the past 40 years that we have applied the Hyde amendment to such funds. I think that is probably why--because there are tax dollars in the House companion bill--that the House of Representatives did not include the Hyde amendment. I have voted for appropriation bills with the Hyde amendment in it so we could move them to the floor. But to go to this expansion when all these different groups who have written in to us tell us please don't do this, and the groups who actually work with victims--they say don't include it. I agree with them. I think there can be a way forward. We came together in this body to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act as an amendment. We worked for some time, but we passed it. I also want to say that--again, based on my experience here--I cannot think of a time, whether the Senate was under Democratic control or Republican control, that a piece of legislation has been used like this to hold up a key member of the President's Cabinet. Loretta Lynch has been held up longer than the past four Attorney General nominees--four men--put together. She is still being held up. I think that is unfortunate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 3, the Nation lost a courageous public servant--actually, an icon of the 20th century: Massachusetts Senator Edward William Brooke III. He was 95 years old. I have had the privilege of serving with more than 350 Senators since Vermonters first elected me to represent them in this Chamber. There is a very special list of those with whom I have served, and it is a privilege to count among those on that special list Senator Edward Brooke. We were both elected representatives of Northeastern States, even though we came from different political parties. Senator Brooke and I forged a relationship that lasted long after he left Congress. We actually shared a similar start to our careers. As a former State's Attorney, I admired and respected Senator Brooke's legacy as a fearless prosecutor. As Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Senator Brooke exposed and fought against political corruption. He was no stranger to breaking barriers, and he ultimately became the first African American elected in Massachusetts to serve in the United States Senate--a post he held for 12 years. Senator Brooke was a problem-solver. He wanted to spend his time in the Senate making a difference, not just making pronouncements. He invested his considerable abilities in bridging racial, economic, and political divides to solve the challenges facing the Nation. He was a key, and sometimes crucial, voice along the difficult path toward enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. He spearheaded equal opportunity legislative initiatives from housing, to education, to employment. I think there was no bridge Senator Brooke was unwilling to cross to make lives better. Senator Brooke is one of the few Senators to receive the Nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was also the recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal. His service in World War II was recognized with a Bronze Star. This lifelong public servant dedicated his life to defending the bedrock principles of this country. His legacy of fighting for justice and equality is as important today as ever before. It is a legacy that will always deserve to be remembered and honored. Marcelle and I feel privileged to have known him and I send my condolences to his wife, Anne, his children, and his grandchildren. Lynch Nomination Mr. President, the New York Times ran an editorial this morning aptly entitled ``The Loretta Lynch Confirmation Mess.'' The editorial writers note: Of course, as Mr. McConnell readily acknowledged, the delay [of the vote on Loretta Lynch's nomination] is not simply about trafficking legislation but a redirection of Republicans' fury at what they consider Mr. Obama's lawless actions. If Republicans are serious about law enforcement, serious about implementing the legislation I hope will pass to combat and prevent human trafficking, they will stop their partisan attacks and allow a vote on Loretta Lynch's nomination. After all, she has a very good record of prosecuting people who are involved in trafficking. You can't say you are in favor of stopping trafficking and then block an Attorney General who has a record of enforcing the trafficking laws. It has been 19 days since the bipartisan majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported her nomination. She has been waiting longer for a floor vote than the five most recent attorneys general combined. She has been waiting for a vote for 19 days. If you took Attorneys General Reno, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey, and Holder, all of them together were 18 days. For Loretta Lynch it is 19 days. It has certainly been much longer than for the three men nominated during the last Republican administration or for the incumbent Attorney General nominated by this administration. She has now waited, as I said, longer than the previous five Attorneys General combined. If we don't vote on her this week, her nomination will have waited on the Senate floor longer than the most recent seven Attorneys General combined. I hope it doesn't come to that. That would show a real disdain for the Department of Justice in its efforts to enforce our laws, to stop trafficking, and to go after terrorists, but it is also beneath the Senate. Certainly when I was chairman, I did not do that for President Bush's Attorney General nominee when he was in his last 2 years as President. As chairman I moved Judge Mukasey through in a fraction of the time we have taken on Loretta Lynch. I did this even though his nomination was not something I supported and I ultimately voted against it. I moved him forward quickly even though Judge Mukasey was unwilling to state how he felt about President Bush's position on torture and did not seem to have a position on the politicization of his predecessor, or his work with U.S. attorneys, things that set back law enforcement for years. In fact, even though he had no position on most of the issues President Bush was involved in, either through Executive orders or otherwise, he was still moved through in a tiny fraction of the time Loretta Lynch has been pending so far. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times article I mentioned earlier.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope we will do what is right, but I hope we will step back from either partisan name-calling or ascribing motives to people. Even though my dear friend from Texas voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I am never going to say he is for violence against women or for human trafficking, even though that bill had the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act as an amendment in it. While he and the distinguished majority leader, Senator McConnell, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, and others voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I would not ascribe to them a motive that they believe in violence against women or in human trafficking. Even though that legislation had a strong anti-human trafficking amendment in it, I do not ascribe their vote against the bill as admitting they are for violence against women or human trafficking. One of the lessons that I have learned in my time as a Senator is that if you listen to the people you serve, really listen to them, you will almost always do the right thing. This morning, as some Senators are trying to shut off debate and end our efforts to provide a comprehensive, victim-centered response to the horrible crime of human trafficking, I ask that we stop and listen. Listen to the voices of the survivors. What they are saying is clear: Stop playing politics with our lives. Holly Austin Smith, a survivor, a girl who ran away at the age of 14, who was bought and sold for sex, put it this way: Politics should not govern the options available to victims of sex trafficking, especially when such victims often have had their basic human rights taken away by criminals who had only their own agendas in mind. We ought to stand with these survivors and put aside our agendas. The survivors are asking us to vote against this bill because it includes unnecessary and destructive, partisan language. A letter signed by the Alliance To End Slavery & Trafficking, Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, and nearly 100 other anti- trafficking groups says this: We urge all members of the Senate to turn away from this divisive debate and find a bipartisan approach to this new initiative to protect and serve the needs of survivors. Two years ago the Senate came together and passed an expansive new authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I realize some in this body who now say we must vote for this bill voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. But I worked for months with the remarkable people of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, a coalition of thousands of organizations representing millions of victims of domestic and sexual violence. They spent hours upon hours explaining what we needed to do to ensure that we protected all victims--and we listened. Together, we crafted a bill that responded to those needs. I trust these advocates. They have dedicated their lives to making sure survivors have a voice. And here is what they are telling us: We write today to express our deep concern about the controversy of inserting the Hyde provision into the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The House passed a version of that Act that did not include this new Hyde provision and we ask the Senate to do the same. They are right. The highly partisan House passed a version of the very bill we are debating today that does not contain this unnecessary and destructive provision. That deeply divided body came together and they passed this bill with a unanimous vote just a few weeks ago, without this divisive language that Senator Cornyn has insisted be in the Senate bill. I am confident that if we did the same, we could also pass it easily. I want to make clear to everyone who is paying attention to this vote, the partisan provision embedded in the Senate version of this bill is not something the survivors of human trafficking are asking for. It is not something the experts in the field who work with them every day are asking for. In fact, those who are closest to the damage wreaked by this terrible crime are asking us to take the provision out. We are not talking about taxpayer money; we are talking about money collected from the various offenders who have already controlled too much of the lives of these women and girls. These survivors deserve more options, not fewer. It is in response to the request of these human trafficking survivors that I am opposing cloture on this version of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I support the rest of this bill, and that is why I included it in the comprehensive substitute amendment I filed last week. Also included in my substitute is a vital component to prevent human trafficking by focusing on runaway and homeless youth. These children are exceptionally vulnerable to human traffickers and we must not turn our backs on them. If we are serious about helping to end this heinous crime, we must stop playing politics and start listening. Let's listen to the people who suffer from the trafficking. Let's listen to the victims. Let's listen to the experts who have always stood with us on this. They say: Take this provision out. Let's do so. The Republican-controlled House came together and they passed the House version of this legislation unanimously without this divisive language. Shouldn't we do the same thing? This is not a question of whether you are for or against trafficking. I do not think there is anybody who is for it. Those who, like me, actually prosecuted these cases know how important it is. So listen to the victims. They say: Take out this language and let's move forward. I will vote no on cloture so that we can move forward and return to the bipartisan path that we have always walked on this issue. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington State.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to briefly draw the Senate's attention to a recent announcement made by Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernaandez concerning his government's efforts to secure and preserve a newly discovered archaeological site in the eastern part of his country. The area is part of La Mosquitia, a large swath of tropical rain forest along the Mosquito Coast in eastern Honduras, which also extends into northeastern Nicaragua. Reaching the remote forest is accomplished primarily by air or water, and it was airborne sensing technology in 2012 that first uncovered the ancient site, now revealed to be as much as 1,000 years old. The site is believed by some to be the location of the mythic White City, a safe haven where indigenous populations took refuge from Spanish conquistadores. However, archeologists Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University and Oscar Neil Cruz of the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History and ethno-botanist Mark Plotkin of the Amazon Conservation Team who reached the site earlier this month believe the discovery could be even more significant as just one of many sites that may reveal an entire lost civilization. La Mosquitia is also the home of the Riio Plaatano Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site that has twice been placed on UNESCO's world heritage in danger list, most recently in 2011. The designation was the result of an investigation that revealed rampant deforestation, primarily by cattle herders seeking to meet the demand for beef in the United States, in addition to illegal hunting and fishing. Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the Riio Plaatano Biosphere Reserve's designation is that it is representative of the threats to all of La Mosquitia. That is why President Hernaandez's announcement is so important. La Mosquitia is not just a treasure of the Honduran people; it has preserved centuries of cultural artifacts and is now home to a multitude of plant and animal life that has remained largely undisturbed by the outside world. President Hernaandez's commitment to preserve these archeological sites from looters and other criminal activity and to protect the broader forest area by replanting the jungle and countering deforestation deserves our support. I look forward to working with the Government of Honduras on how the United States may be able to assist its conservation efforts.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this month, two Florida men were charged with human trafficking. They drugged a runaway 16-year-old girl. Then they forced her to have sex with up to 10 men a day. They sold her to men in a gas station bathroom. They sold her on the street and they sold her in the back of a car. She was 16 years old. She had run away from home. She was terribly vulnerable. They promised her food, then they beat her, drugged her, and sold her. When she escaped, they tracked her down, beat her, and sold her again. All of us--I think we should have an agreement that Democrats and Republicans alike must remember the many other survivors of this heinous crime. We have been working for almost 1 year on bipartisan proposals to protect these vulnerable children, count the survivors, and then punish those who put them through this hell. This effort had strong bipartisan support until partisan politics was injected into the debate. The fight against human trafficking should not be made into a partisan issue to score political points. That is unfortunately where we are today. Everyone expected this legislation to move smoothly through the Senate, I know I did, just as it did through the House. Instead, Senate Republicans have turned away from a comprehensive solution that can garner broad support. I am deeply saddened by this partisan fight. It is both destructive and unnecessary. It is destructive because it threatens to derail important legislation that would make a difference in the lives of survivors--such as the 16-year-old girl in Florida. This partisan fight is unnecessary because abortion politics have no place in this debate. Congress has a long history of passing legislation to address human trafficking. We have consistently done so without abortion politics being injected into the discussion. I know we have passed the Violence Against Women Act. We included a trafficking amendment of mine in that. While I was disappointed that a number of my Republicans colleagues voted against the Violence Against Women Act, which had the sex trafficking amendment in it, we still passed it by a bipartisan majority, as did the House of Representatives, and the President signed it into law. So I was pleased we were able to get that significant piece of legislation passed, even though many in this body who say why aren't we passing this voted against the Violence Against Women Act with the sexual trafficking amendment. But I wish to make clear to everyone that this partisan provision that has now popped up is not something that survivors of human trafficking are asking for. It is not something experts in the field who work with them every day are asking for. We should look at these experts who know what is going on and ask them what it is they want. They do not want this. In fact, those who are closest to the damage wreaked by this terrible crime are asking all of us, Senate Republicans and Democrats, to take out this provision. They are asking us to put politics aside and to focus on the needs of those who have lived through a hell we will never understand. Holly Austin Smith, a survivor, was a girl who ran away at the age of 14 and was bought and sold for sex. She put it this way when she testified before our committee: Politics should not govern the options available to victims of sex trafficking--especially when such victims often have had their basic human rights taken away by criminals who had only their own agendas in mind. So I think we have to stand with these human trafficking survivors. We have to put aside our agendas. They are asking us to take out this unnecessary provision and move the bill forward to address their urgent needs. I support the rest of Senator Cornyn's bill, and that is why I included it in the comprehensive substitute amendment I filed last week. Also included in my substitute is a vital component to prevent human trafficking by focusing on runaway and homeless youth. If we are serious about helping to end this heinous crime, we should be talking about all the good ideas to expand the protections of trafficking victims. Don't try to score partisan points. We should all come together to protect these vulnerable kids. That is why we are here. I am confident that if we remember these children, Republicans and Democrats, we can move forward and return to the bipartisan path we have always walked on this issue. One of the reasons I have that amendment--talking about preventing is one thing and we should prosecute those people who do this--but wouldn't it be that much better for the victims if we could prevent it from happening in the first place? I have spoken before of the nightmares I still have from some of the cases I prosecuted when I was 26 years old and the chief prosecutor for one-quarter of my State. I looked at these victims and the ages of my own children, and all I wanted to do was to get--and did--the people who perpetrated these crimes, prosecute them, and convict them. We should prosecute people who do this, but I also thought how much better it would have been if we had programs that would have given these people somewhere they could turn to before they became victims, some way to protect them so we wouldn't see it afterward. I said on the floor the other night that in preparing for these trials, the people I prosecuted, I wouldn't bring paperwork home in the evening to do it. I stayed in my office and prepared it. One, I didn't want to take the chance that one of my then-young children might see some of the photographs I was going to introduce into evidence--but I also didn't want them to see their father crying and wonder why, because I always tried to tell them the truth. I was not about to tell these young children the truth of what I was seeing. Instead, I would tell the truth to the jury and the jury would convict, but even the jury wishes it had never happened in the first place. The National Network for Youth sent a letter saying: The National Network for Youth is writing this letter with the hope that the U.S. Senate will remove the partisan piece of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This legislation is desperately needed and we cannot let this moment pass us by because of the addition of partisan and divisive provisions. The National Network for Youth is saying: Let's go back to why both Republicans and Democrats wanted this legislation--to stop trafficking, to help the victims of trafficking, and not to score political points. Just as the majority of this body voted for the Leahy-Crapo bill, the Violence Against Women Act, which had a provision on sexual trafficking, a majority voted for it, Republicans and Democrats--I wish that others--I wish everybody in this body voted for it. I understand that some who now strongly support the partisan part of the trafficking bill voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Each Senator has the right to vote as he or she wants. But I find it strange that they say: Let's go forward with this partisan provision, when only 1 year ago or so those same Senators who are now saying we should go forward with this voted against the Violence Against Women Act. The very same Senators voted against it. Let's get out of politics. That was a good act. It had a very strong sex trafficking provision, which fortunately also was accepted by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President. Senator Crapo and I set aside politics so we could pass that bill. That is what we should do today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next week I will join many Vermonters to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Burlington Police Department, which was established in early 1865 with the appointment of the city's first constable, Luman A. Drew. For the sake of historical perspective: Mr. Drew was chosen for this high post after his service in the pursuit and capture of a group of Confederate cavalrymen who had raided nearby St. Albans, robbing its banks and burning its buildings before fleeing toward Canada. For many months now, Burlington Detective Jeffrey Beerworth has been compiling that bit of history and other stories in his research of the department's history, and his vignettes are both entertaining and informative. They are particularly interesting to me, as I reflect on my work as a prosecutor with law enforcement agencies in Burlington and other communities as State's attorney for Chittenden County earlier in my career. Most importantly, they show us how the role of law enforcement officers has evolved over the years. I imagine that First Constable Drew could not have foreseen police wearing body cameras in 2015, nor would he recognize the challenges that heroin and other drugs pose to our society. Back in his day, First Constable Drew's main concerns were horse theft and public drunkenness. A visit to the Burlington Police Department website today offers a glimpse of the many investigative units, programs and community outreach services that fall under today's rubric of police work. I am proud of the efforts of Police Chief Michael Schirling and his team in connecting one-on-one with the residents of Burlington. Community policing is alive and well in Vermont's largest city, and other departments around the country could learn much from what Burlington has done. The Junior Community Police Academy creates relationships among police officers and the city's youths, who someday may become officers themselves. In partnering with the Howard Center, officers work with the Street Outreach Team to support those with psychiatric and substance abuse issues, or those who cope with homelessness or other behavioral challenges. These cases traditionally account for a large percentage of police calls, yet this innovative program allows for trained professionals to address social service needs and allow police officers to focus on public safety. The Daily Activity Log of the Burlington Police Department offers a glimpse of the range and volume of calls to which today's officers must respond. In a recent 2-day period, 223 records were logged, ranging from the minor to the tragic. Of course, there are many that are recorded simply as ``traffic stops,'' but we know that every traffic stop has the potential for the unknown. That is why I have worked hard over many years to support these officers by providing Federal funds for bulletproof vests. Officers need this protection and deserve nothing less. Chief Schirling has laid out a series of upcoming events to mark the department's 150 years of service. These will include a community barbecue and open house, along with his monthly ``Coffees with the Chief.'' This is all in keeping with his vision of community policing, and this celebration will be shared by all who benefit from the work of a highly professional and dedicated police force. On this historic occasion, I thank Chief Schirling and the entire Burlington Police Department for their continued service and dedication, upholding a long and valued tradition. The Queen City is most fortunate for their service.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week the majority leader announced that he would finally schedule a vote for this week on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General. But as of today no date has been set. The Senate majority leader is now threatening to further delay a vote on this highly qualified nominee until after the Senate has concluded its debate on the human trafficking bill. Now, there is really no good reason for Senate Republicans to continue dragging their feet on scheduling a vote on Ms. Lynch's nomination. I have been here long enough to know we can debate legislation and vote on nominations at the same time, and to say otherwise is a hollow excuse. In fact, last Thursday we voted on four other executive nominations while we were on the human trafficking bill. We are actually going to vote on two more executive nominations this evening while we are on the human trafficking bill. All Senators who agree on the importance of ending human trafficking also know it is important to confirm Loretta Lynch as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. She has a proven track record of prosecuting human trafficking and child rape crimes. This is not just somebody who just talks about it and says how much they are opposed to human trafficking, as though anybody were in favor of human trafficking. This not just someone who says she is opposed to child rape cases, as though anybody here were going to say they are in favor of it. She has actually prosecuted them. Over the course of the last decade, the U.S. attorney's office that Ms. Lynch leads has indicted over 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued over 110 victims of sex trafficking. We stand here on the floor talking about these issues. She actually does it. So I think she and the American people have waited long enough. President Obama announced the nomination of Ms. Lynch 4 months ago. The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination with bipartisan support 18 days ago. By tomorrow--we talk about whether we move fast or not. By tomorrow, her nomination will have been pending on the Senate floor longer than all of the past five attorneys general combined. Take a look at this. Here is Loretta Lynch. She has been pending on the floor now for 18 days. This is, of course, with the months she had to wait before that. Now, Attorneys General Holder, Mukasey, Gonzales, Ashcroft, and Reno had to wait a total of 18 days pending after their nominations came out--so five of them, one of her. She has had to wait as long as five of them had to wait. We also pointed out the amount of time--I look at the amount of time it took--for the four men who preceded her. All four of those men went through so much faster than she has. We happened to have a vote out of committee. Janet Reno took 1 day. John Ashcroft, who I helped get through the committee, although I did not support him, took 2 days. Alberto Gonzales took 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days, and Eric Holder, 5 days. This delay is an embarrassment to the Senate. Her qualifications are beyond reproach. But the Senate Republican leadership continues to delay a vote on her confirmation despite her impeccable credentials. Now, when she is confirmed, we know that Loretta Lynch will be the first African-American woman to serve our country as Attorney General. But instead of moving forward with this historic nomination, Senate Republicans appear intent on making history for all of the wrong reasons. As David Hawkings wrote in a Roll Call article dated March 12: Lynch is on a course to be confirmed this month after the longest wait ever for a nominee to be attorney general--and very likely by the closest vote ever to put a new person in charge of the Justice Department. We want to send the signal that we are tough on crime. We want to send the signal that we want to get these traffickers. We want to send a signal that people who commit crimes, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, should go to jail. Yet we refuse to confirm the person who has actually done all of those things. It appears that some want to simply refuse to allow a vote on her nomination, effectively shirking the constitutional duty of the Senate to provide advice and consent. One Republican Senator even tweeted on the weekend about the need to block her historic nomination. Then, in case you overlooked why he was doing that, he included a link to a political fundraising Web site. We have always kept law enforcement--the FBI Director, the Attorney General, anybody in law enforcement--out of politics. For a Senator to tweet that we have to block this person, and oh, by the way, here is where you can contribute to a political campaign--that is wrong. It seems likely the Senate will have to file a cloture motion to vote to overcome the filibuster of her nomination. That is unprecedented; it is unwarranted. No other Attorney General nomination in our history has ever been met with a filibuster. We have never needed to have a cloture vote on an Attorney General nomination. Yet it seems Republican leadership wants to make history for all the wrong reasons. I mention this to give us an idea. President George Bush in the last 2 years of his term--now a lameduck President--nominated Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. Michael Mukasey was being sent because the last Attorney General had done a disastrous job--even though he had been voted for by, I think, all Republicans--people will accept the fact now that he politicized the prosecutors' offices and everything else, and finally the Bush administration had to get rid of him. I had just become chairman again, as Democrats had taken back the Senate. I moved Attorney General Mukasey through even though I did not support him. I felt the President should have a vote on his Attorney General. I moved him through in record time. She has waited so much more time, multiple times longer than Mukasey. This is especially troubling and unfair because Ms. Lynch's qualifications for the job are so extraordinary. And her life story is equally extraordinary. Born in Greensboro and raised in Durham, NC, Loretta Lynch is the daughter of a fourth-generation Baptist preacher and a school librarian. They instilled in her the American values of fairness and equality, even when those around them were not living up to those values. Ms. Lynch has spoken about riding on her father'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 soundtrack of her childhood. The Judiciary Committee was honored to have her father, Rev. Lorenzo Lynch, with us not only at both days of her historic hearing in January but also with us when the committee considered his daughter's nomination in February. When Loretta Lynch was a young child, Reverend Lynch bravely opened his church's basement to the students and others who organized lunch counter sit-ins in North Carolina. He taught his only daughter that ``ideals are wonderful things, but unless you can share them with others and make this world a better place, they're just words.'' The fact that she has dedicated the majority of her career to public service reaffirms that she has lived those ideals of justice in the service of others. And yet, Senate Republicans appear intent on preventing her from continuing her service--service that we should be honored to have. Two weekends ago, Ms. Lynch traveled to Selma to honor the 50th anniversary of the historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where scores of courageous Americans were beaten and trampled on Bloody Sunday because they refused to be silent about the need for equal protection under the law. It was a weekend when both Democrats and Republicans came together. President Obama stood there with President George W. Bush beside him, who had signed the last Voting Rights Act. They honored the civil rights activists of 50 years ago. But I also felt it was a time to reaffirm our shared commitment to Americans, as Americans, and the ideals of justice and equality that so many of our predecessors have fought and bled for, from our Founding Fathers to the foot soldiers for justice on that bridge in Selma. Loretta Lynch embodies these ideals. She has devoted her career to making them a reality. It is time for Republicans and Democrats to come together to confirm this outstanding woman to be the next Attorney General. It is time to stop delaying and making excuses for how she is being treated. It is time to vote. This is reflecting badly on all law enforcement. I hear from so many in law enforcement saying: Why are you politicizing this nomination? Republicans and Democrats have usually kept law enforcement out of politics. Why is this?

Mr. LEAHY. Are we on the trafficking act?

Mr. LEAHY. When do we go on the trafficking act?

Mr. LEAHY. I seek recognition.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken many times on the Senate floor in defense of press freedom because it is a fundamental cornerstone of a democratic society. Today I want to briefly draw the Senate's attention to the situation in Turkey, one of the many countries in the world where this basic right is under threat by officials in the government who seek to silence their critics. Recently, in the latest assault on press freedom, Turkish police arrested and detained nearly two dozen members of the news media, including Ekrem Dumanli and Hidayet Karaca, two prominent journalists who are well known to be affiliated with Fethullah Gulen, a vocal critic of President Erdogan. The sweeping charges levied against them were not only intended to stop their criticism, but to intimidate anyone who is critical of the Turkish Government. While Mr. Dumanli has since been released, Mr. Karaca remains in prison. This case reflects a broader pattern of repression in Turkey, where targeted reprisals against outspoken critics have become a common practice for that government. In fact, Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey 154 out of 180 nations for press freedom in its 2014 World Press Freedom Index, and Turkey has consistently been among the top jailers of journalists, along with China and Iran. This latest censorship continues the abuse of the Turkish penal code and further erodes what remains of press freedom in Turkey. Not only are these actions inconsistent with the norms and values expected of Turkey, a NATO ally; they violate Turkey's own commitments under international law, foment further dissent, and serve to affirm the allegations being made against the Erdogan administration. I am disappointed with the backsliding from democracy that we have seen in Turkey, and I am concerned that it will weaken our important strategic partnership in the region. I join the many government officials, advocates, journalists and others who have called for a prompt resolution of these cases, and an end to the Turkish Government's jailing of people for exercising their right to free expression. The international community and people of good will everywhere expect better from the government of that great nation. The people of Turkey deserve better.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about an issue that all Senators should be concerned about, and that is the future of the Organization of American States. The origin of the OAS dates to the First International Conference of American States held in Washington from October 1889 to April 1890. The OAS was formally established in 1948 with the signing of the OAS Charter, which entered into force in 1951. As the OAS Charter states, its mission is to achieve among its members ``an order of peace and justice, and to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.'' That is an important and inspiring responsibility, and no less so today than when the OAS was founded, although many of the challenges of one- half century ago have been replaced by new challenges today. Today the OAS consists of 35 independent States and is, at least in composition and tradition, the primary political, judicial, and social governmental forum in this hemisphere. Another 69 States and the European Union have permanent observer status. The OAS supports programs and activities in four principle areas to carry out its mission--democracy, human rights, security, and development--and it does so in a myriad of ways, some far more successfully than others. Few here may be aware that the United States is by far the largest contributor to the OAS, paying 60 percent of its annual budget. Two other countries pay 22 percent and the remaining 32 countries together pay only 12 percent. Of course, the United States has by far the largest economy and should pay its fair share, but no country should be assessed to pay more than 50 percent. Other members should also pay their fair share, and we should all expect the OAS to be competently managed and to deliver tangible results that justify its expenditures. The OAS can be proud of the indispensable work of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission and the Inter-American Court, its internationally respected election observer missions, and other activities to support democracy and promote transparent and accountable governance. These priorities should be strengthened, as I will mention shortly. But the reputation of the OAS as a hemispheric leader has taken a beating. This is partly due to ideological polarization driven primarily by the viscerally anti-United States rhetoric and policies of the leaders of four of its member States, and partly due to the fact that the OAS has failed to exercise effective leadership in response to key issues and events, while recent sub-hemispheric groupings have taken up much of the slack and become the region's principal fora. The OAS has allowed itself to be spread too thin, accepting too many mandates from its member States without rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits. Scarce resources have been spent on employees-- without regard to transparent hiring and promotion practices--some of whom contribute little to the organization. At the same time, the OAS is facing severe budget constraints and there is no monetary reserve to respond to contingencies. It is astounding that because some countries, including Brazil, stopped paying their quotas or are in arrears, and the OAS had nothing in reserve, it had to obtain a loan in order to pay employee salaries. This is not the kind of management the OAS needs; it is mismanagement. The Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court play essential roles as institutions of last resort for victims of human rights violations in countries where impunity is the norm. When corrupt, dysfunctional judicial systems fail to provide access to justice for victims of crimes against humanity or other violations of human rights, the OAS helps fill that void. Likewise, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression plays a critical role at a time when some governments, such as Venezuela and Ecuador, are engaged in a systematic effort to intimidate and silence their critics in the independent press, while others, including Mexico and Honduras, fail to protect journalists from threats and attacks by gangs or violence related to drug trafficking. Yet a shortage of funding and the failure of some member States to comply with the decisions of the Commission and the rulings of the Court undermine their effectiveness. Some governments have actively sought to weaken these key institutions by withholding financial support and proposing to limit the legal authority of the Commission and the Court. They and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom and Expression need sufficient resources to do their jobs, and it is time to establish a mechanism for sanctioning noncompliance. The United States is not blameless, having signed but not yet ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. This provides a convenient excuse for other governments to accuse us of hypocrisy as we urge their adherence to human rights norms. It is time for the Congress to act on this piece of unfinished business. I would add, however, that the United States is part of the Inter- American Commission, as are all OAS member States, regardless of whether or not they have ratified the Convention. In fact, the United States has more cases at the Commission than any other country, and we strive to implement its decisions. The OAS needs to strengthen its election monitoring capability-- including insisting on timely and equal participation by opposition political parties, freedom of the press and association--to ensure a level playing field when some Latin governments refuse to allow early access by the OAS. Many Latin Americans are becoming cynical about the ability of democratic governments to deliver basic services in a manner that is transparent and accountable. Elected governments which are corrupt and neglect, or are unable to protect their people, erode support for democracy. Similarly, the OAS and the Secretary General in particular need to respond swiftly to political crises, and exercise stronger leadership in defense of democratic institutions and human rights when they are under assault, consistent with the OAS Charter and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. There is also the issue of hemispheric security. During the Cold War there was a single-minded, concerted effort to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining another foothold in Latin America. Countless innocent people were threatened, disappeared, tortured, or killed in the name of fighting communism by Central and South American security forces, many of them encouraged, trained and equipped by the United States, and only a token number of the individuals responsible have been punished. Today the hemisphere faces new threats, such as drug cartels, gang violence, transnational crime, money laundering, and natural disasters. But the plans to address them like the Merida Initiative and the Alliance for Prosperity, while identifying such priorities as police and judicial reform, poverty, fiscal transparency, and corruption, tend to be long on goals and short on specifics of how to achieve them. Cooperation on multi-dimensional security threats is not a matter of ideology. Cuba and the United States are already cooperating against drug-traffickers, as we are with other countries. But there is a lot more that can and should be done to identify the causes and develop and implement more effective regional strategies to address these problems. Several Latin countries have made notable strides in the past decade and are providing greater opportunities for their people. The OAS can play a role in convening a debate, identifying solutions, and facilitating an alliance of key development organizations, including the Inter-American Development Bank and the Pan American Health Organization, to address areas of shared interest such as achieving sustained, equitable economic growth, strengthening public education and health, and protecting natural resources. The OAS has an important, under-utilized role to play in interfacing with the wide range of civil society organizations which are essential to any democracy and are often under-appreciated, under-funded, and persecuted. With OAS offices throughout the hemisphere, its under- utilized employees could engage far more actively with academia, civil society, and the media. This should include any such entities that reject violence, not just those that are ``registered'' by local governments which sometimes use the registration process to silence legitimate voices whose views the government disagrees with. Finally, the OAS needs to decide how to interact with other hemispheric multilateral organizations in a manner that strengthens the OAS and encourages cooperation. Cuba's suspension, and then refusal to return, provided an impetus for the creation of new entities like CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, that are anti-OAS and anti-United States and have sowed division within the hemisphere. The next Secretary General of the OAS, who will be selected on March 18, has his work cut out for him. I say ``him'' because there is only one candidate, which says volumes about how the job is perceived. The Secretary General plays a crucial role as the strategic leader, but not the day-to-day manager, of the organization. The next Secretary General needs an Assistant Secretary General with the managerial expertise and mandate to right this sinking ship. It will mean tough budgetary decisions, including the ability to say no to new programs and mandates and to focus instead on doing better at what it does best. As soon as possible after they assume their positions I urge them to review Public Law 113-41, the ``Organization of American States Revitalization and Reform Act of 2013.'' That Act, which received bipartisan support, identifies key issues that need to be addressed-- many of which I have touched on here--and provides recommendations for how to address them. I wish them both well because the people of every country in the hemisphere, including those whose governments have sought to harm the OAS, need the OAS. But absent significant and rapid reforms beginning with the quota issue, the OAS's decline may be irreversible.

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 appreciate the courtesy from the distinguished Republican leader, Senator Cornyn, in letting me go forward for a few moments. I would like to note that the executive director of the Vermont Coalition of Runaway & Homeless Youth Programs--a group I know well for the important work they have done--wrote to me yesterday to express the concern of the coalition and to express their support for the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act and encourage us to put aside our differences and work together to support those in need. He wrote: Difference of opinion and the deliberative role of the Senate is part of what makes our democracy strong, but sometimes unity of purpose should prevail, particularly in efforts involving protections for the most vulnerable among us. There should be no doubt that legislation involving the well-being of individuals who have been victimized by the most base of human behavior should be free of partisan wrangling. I . . . encourage your efforts to remove partisan language from the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act in an effort to ensure that the Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth amendment that Senator Collins and you introduced [will] move forward unimpeded. I believe that reflects the views of Vermonters of all political stripes. I know the distinguished Senator from Texas and I and others want to help these greatly abused and abandoned children, and I hope we can continue to work to find a way forward. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have been working on the issue of human trafficking on a bipartisan basis for almost a year, and it is usually bipartisan. I know when we included my amendment on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, most Senators voted for it. Only 20 current Republican senators voted against that victims act, and the rest voted for it. All the Democrats voted for it. But on this issue today, the Judiciary Committee reported out a comprehensive bill with strong bipartisan support. We did that last fall. This year we reported out a less comprehensive bill with fewer protections for those at risk of human trafficking, and despite that setback, I agreed to keep working across the aisle to make it stronger, including the crucial prevention piece that was in last year's committee-reported bill. We have been on this bill for 3 days. I think we can all admit the progress has been thwarted by the inclusion of a divisive provision that would limit the services available to victims of human trafficking. I wish to propose a way forward. I know all Senators want to work together to end human trafficking. And just as we saw on my bill, the Violence Against Women Act, 78 Senators voted for that act with its provision on trafficking. We want to support a bill that will pass the Senate. I filed a substitute amendment, Senate Amendment 300, to get us around our current impasse. It includes three things. First, the Klobuchar- Cornyn bill as reported earlier this month by the Judiciary Committee; second, the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill, also reported earlier this month by the Judiciary Committee, but without the divisive language that limits victims services; third, the Leahy-Collins-Murkowski-Ayotte amendment that was filed yesterday to protect runaway and homeless youth from trafficking. This trafficking prevention bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee last year with the support of Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn, and nearly all of the other Judiciary Committee members, but has been narrowed here at the request of Republicans this year. I hope the combination of these three bills--and I do it in good faith--can bring us together. More importantly, it is responsive to the requests of survivors and the many dedicated people who work with them to remove the unnecessary partisan provision that has resulted in this impasse. They need us to find a way forward. They need the Senate to stop playing politics and pass a meaningful bill. With that, I ask unanimous consent that letters written by a number of groups and others who support the removal of this divisive provision so that we can move forward on this trafficking legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his courtesy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi has graciously allowed me to speak before him, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wicker be recognized immediately upon the conclusion of my comments.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, of course I also would like to see the trafficking bill go forward. I am looking around the floor of the Senate, and I think I am the only person standing on the floor who has actually prosecuted people for molestation and endangerment of children. I am not going to repeat what I said yesterday. I talked about some of those horrible cases, and I did mention having young children of my own at the time and how hard working on those cases hit me. When normally preparing for trials--in the evenings, in most cases--I could just work at home preparing for the trial. When preparing for these types of cases however, I didn't come home. I would work in my office for two reasons. I didn't want to take any chance, inadvertently, that one of my children would see any of the pictures or the exhibits that we were going to have in the trial, as graphic as they were. But also, I didn't want them to see their father crying, which I did as I would read these files, and have them ask me why I was crying, because I couldn't lie to them. It was better just to stay in the office. I say that because we have to approach this not just in the after- the-fact manner expressed. I like the idea of having the $30 million to help those who have been hurt--the victims. I worry, as the House of Representatives worried, that if it is simply money that comes from fines, we are never going to see that money. All the people I prosecuted on crimes against young people went to prison. If you could have given them a $50 million fine or a $50 fine, they weren't going to pay it. They had no money. After their defense was over, they had no funds. At some point we are going to have to correct that. Say $30 million is a good target, and any fines will go into that fund, but we should take taxpayers' funds to make up any difference. When we lock these people up, we spend $25,000 or $35,000 a year to lock them up. But half of the time we tell the victim: It is terrible what happened to you. Sorry, we can't do anything for you. We also have to approach the things necessary to prevent what happened. I am filing a Leahy-Collins amendment, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Trafficking Prevention Act. I will file that. The amendment will help runaways such as Holly Austin Smith. She was 14 years old when she was lured away from home by a man who promised her a glamorous life in California. Instead, he sold this 14-year-old for sex. She told her devastating story to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. Both Senator Grassley and I were there and heard it. I was certainly moved by her words and call for action. She told us to protect girls such as her, saying that ``policies on prevention should be one of our highest priorities.'' I agree. That is why Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment. Of course we should have the ability to go after somebody who has committed these crimes. But wouldn't it be better for the victims if we could stop the crime from happening in the first place? If we can do something to help people such as this 14-year-old and we can stop it from happening in the first place, we would be much better off. Too many of the runaway and homeless youth in this country have no place to go. They have no place to sleep at night. They are alone on the street without resources or adults to protect them, and human traffickers know that. One shelter survey found that 50 percent of the homeless youth have been solicited for sex by an adult within 48 hours of leaving home. I ask any parent or grandparent in this Senate: What would you think if your children or grandchildren were put in that situation? This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, this is a human issue--this is an American issue. It is our hope that we can work around what I hope is a momentary glitch in this bill so we can get to these things. I will say again, based on my own experience as a prosecutor and based on everything I have heard over the years--part of the time as the ranking member and part of the time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the past 40 years--that when it comes to the fight against human trafficking, we cannot simply focus on ending demand and arrest our way out of this problem. We have to eliminate the conditions that make these children so vulnerable. The good news is the program supported by this amendment has helped thousands of young people get back on their feet by providing shelter, job training, and caring adults to counsel and guide them. These programs work. They keep kids safe, and they save lives. A growing number of homeless and runaway youth are LGBT, and many of them have been thrown out of their homes for who they are. Again, as a parent and grandparent, that is heartbreaking to me. We have to ensure that these particularly vulnerable children, who have already been rejected once, do not face rejection again, and that is why Senator Collins and I included a nondiscrimination provision in our amendment that will make clear that any program accepting Federal dollars must help care for all of these children. They can't turn these young people away because they do not like the way they look or dress or who they love. No program that takes Federal money should be allowed to discriminate, period. The nondiscrimination language in this bill is nearly identical to the language that 78 Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike-- supported in this body when we passed the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress, the Leahy-Crapo bill. It is the same language the Republican-controlled House passed and the President signed into law 2 years ago. Last year, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I moved this legislation through committee and Senator Grassley and Senator Cornyn, to their credit, and almost every Republican on the Judiciary Committee voted for it. If these protections are acceptable for adult victims of domestic and sexual violence, why shouldn't they be for children? No one should be discriminated against, but especially not these vulnerable children who have already faced more adversity than many of us will ever know. We, as Senators, lead a privileged and sheltered life. We work hard, but it is still a privileged and sheltered life. We are not facing what these children are facing--a scared, vulnerable, lonely child at a bus stop or trying to get somebody to buy them a pizza because they are hungry or looking for a place where they can sleep out of the cold. We are never going to face that, but too many Americans do. Some may argue and say that the antidiscrimination language somehow threatens religious freedom. That is not true. No one's religious freedom is threatened by this language. This is not about religion, it about supporting all of the children who most desperately need our help. I understand their concerns. We have narrowed the scope of this provision so it applies only to these programs being reauthorized in this amendment. We have also clarified that nothing in this bill stops organizations from providing necessary sex-specific programming, such as shelters for homeless, runaway, or trafficked girls. I have heard from dozens of service providers in my State of Vermont, and also across the country, that these programs work. As Cyndi Lauper, a long-time advocate for homeless and runaway youth, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill yesterday, ``The time to act is now, because homeless youth don't have the time for us to wait until tomorrow.'' Who will help these young people if we do not? These children are too often left behind, and for too many being left behind means being trafficked. We cannot and should not leave them behind today. I urge all Senators that when the amendment is called up to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed that was in The Hill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection. Mr. President, I withhold that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.