Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues I just had the opportunity to be at the unveiling of the statue of Senator Barry Goldwater in Statuary Hall. I had the privilege of serving with Barry Goldwater. We traveled together many times. He came to Vermont at different times with me, and we became very close friends. It was interesting to watch Senator Goldwater form alliances across the aisle with different people. But I remember expressly one very personal thing. I was very close to my father, and my father passed away late one evening in Vermont. The next morning, the first two telephone calls my mother received were condolences. One was from Barry Goldwater, and one was from Ted Kennedy. The two had both talked before they called. I mention that because that was the type of people they both were. It had nothing to do with ideology; it was who they were. In 1980 I had the second closest election in America. Somebody suggested to me that it must be because of my philosophy. I thought probably, but I can't figure it out. So I called up the man who had the closest election in 1980, the year of the Reagan sweep. I said, ``Senator Goldwater, what is the message we are being sent?'' Barry laughed and said, ``We have to change our luck.'' He suggested that he move into the office of the retiring Senator Abe Ribicoff of Connecticut, a Democratic Senator from New England. He said, ``I am going to move into his office and change my luck. You better be strong enough to move into mine.'' I suggested that I didn't have quite the seniority to do that. He said, ``I will arrange your move next week.'' He did. When I was sworn in for my second term in January of 1981, I was in that office. I have stayed in Senator Barry Goldwater's office ever since. I have stayed there now for--well, I am in my 35th year in Senator Goldwater's office, and I consider it a matter of pride, and I consider it a matter of pride to have served with him. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was listening to what the Senator from Illinois was saying. I could not say it as well as he did, but I agree with every single word he said and I suspect that Vermonters, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree with what he said.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in Vermont, small businesses are the foundation of our State's economy. They spur economic growth and create jobs. One such place is Darn Tough Socks--which sounds like a very small place, but it is not. They decided we should have upscale brand quality socks with a lifetime guarantee, produced in America, and not--like so many other things-- have to be exported from other companies. They have done a huge amount of charity work in our State. But they are also one who shows that jobs can be created in America and can thrive in America. As I said, in Vermont, small businesses are the foundation of our State's economy, and are incubators of innovation that spur economic growth, create jobs, and promote the quality that is known as the Vermont Brand. I am proud of the many Vermont success stories that often start out as a family business--sometimes located in an old farm house or tool shed--and mature into world-class operations that support and benefit the communities in which they operate. Our Nation's economy is growing, but in today's fast-changing business environments, the status quo is no longer enough. Darn Tough Vermont in Northfield, VT, is one such business that is not just surviving, but is thriving, in part because of its evolution in today's global marketplace, but most importantly, because of the dedicated workers that help the business grow. Darn Tough, a brand launched from its parent company, Cabot Hosiery Mills, exemplifies Vermonters' spirit of entrepreneurship, creativity, perseverance, and old fashioned hard work. Darn Tough's President and CEO Ric Cabot grew up thinking about socks. After all, Ric's grandfather and father succeeded in partnering their Vermont private-label sock company with national outlet stores. For a while, Cabot Hosiery Mills enjoyed growing sales, but 10 years ago, the mill saw their sales take a considerable hit, as their customers shifted business overseas. Ric stepped in to help his family navigate the uncertainty that lay ahead. The solution to their problem was a long process that led to the establishment of Darn Tough, an upscale brand of quality socks with a lifetime guarantee. Like so many other businesses, the Cabots did not move jobs offshore; they maintained the Cabot promise of quality while ensuring future employment to over 150 Vermonters. It is because of their belief in their product, and a nimble business approach, that a 36-year-old company has kept its doors open and continues to create jobs for Vermonters. Their most recent announcement that they intend to expand their Northfield, VT, mill by 100,000 square feet will result in an additional 50 jobs to the Northfield area. Darn Tough, its leadership and its employees, are part of the fabric of the community. Most recently, the company donated complimentary socks for participants in the 20th anniversary of the Penguin Plunge, a fundraiser for the Special Olympics Vermont athletes who will compete in this year's winter games, for participants who raise $520 or more. This is just another example of how Vermont businesses give back, even in the toughest of times. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Vermont Digger, dated February 8, 2015, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, almost 2 weeks ago the Attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch, came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and testified for nearly 8 hours. As one who has heard Attorneys General nominees testify for the past 40 years, I cannot think of anybody who did a better job. She was clear and concise. She is a prosecutor's prosecutor. She has also responded to more than 600 written questions. Many of them have absolutely nothing to do with whether she is qualified for the job or not. But people felt they had to send in these questions for whatever reason--and she responded to them all, whether they were relevant or not. And when she is confirmed, she will be the first African-American woman to serve as the Attorney General of the United States in our Nation's history. A majority of members of the committee, both Republican and Democratic, have said they intend to support her confirmation. I am confident she has the votes to be confirmed by the full Senate. But as of today it has been 94 days since the President announced the nomination of Ms. Lynch. Her nomination has been pending longer than any modern Attorney General nominee. We should all be able to agree that confirming the top law enforcement position should be an urgent priority of the Senate. At a time when we face all kinds of threats from terrorists--both outside our borders and within our borders--we should all be united in confirming an Attorney General nominee like Loretta Lynch. She has the experience of successfully prosecuting numerous terrorists, people who others said we should be afraid to prosecute and that we should lock them up in Guantanamo in case they are not convicted. Ms. Lynch has obtained those convictions and those terrorist are locked away in Federal prisons right now. This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to vote on her nomination. I have heard that even though she has already waited longer than any other modern Attorney General nominee to be confirmed, some Republicans are considering delaying the important vote for her for two more weeks. Under our committee rule, they have the right to do so. But I urge them not to do so. Loretta Lynch's qualifications are beyond reproach. She has been confirmed by the Senate twice before to serve as the top federal prosecutor based in Brooklyn, NY, one of the most significant prosecutors' offices in this country. Incidentally, she was confirmed both times unanimously. Under her leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York has brought terrorists to justice, obtained convictions against both Republicans and Democrats in public corruption cases, and fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. It would be hard to find any prosecutor in this country in any administration who has a better record than she does, and her record shows that as Attorney General, Ms. Lynch will effectively, fairly, and independently enforce the law. Now, thinking back to 2007 when Michael Mukasey was nominated by President Bush to serve as Attorney General. Now, President Bush was in the end of his term as President. The Democrats had taken over the majority in the Senate that year. I served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Bush talked to me and said: we need, of course, an Attorney General. I agreed. And I knew that like Ms. Lynch, Mr. Mukasey had been confirmed before by the Senate, and I also knew that this was coming toward the end of the Bush Presidency. Now, ultimately I voted against Mr. Mukasey because of his responses relating to questions on torture. But even though I was going to vote against him, I proceeded with his nomination in a very prompt manner. It took just 53 days from the announcement of Mr. Mukasey's nomination to his confirmation. It has been 94 days for Ms. Lynch. Her nomination is needlessly on track to take more than twice the amount of time it took a Democratic-led Senate to confirm President Bush's nominee. After Mr. Mukasey's hearing, Senate Democrats could have held his nomination over in committee, but we did not. In fact, I had to hold a special markup to report his nomination out of committee as soon as possible. And he was confirmed 2 days later. Republicans should extend the same courtesy to expedite Ms. Lynch's nomination, as we did to Mr. Mukasey's. Last week the Secretary of Defense nominee testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--last week--and his nomination will be reported to the floor today. His nomination is expected to be confirmed by the end of the week. Now, I agree the Defense Secretary is a critically important position to fill, and I will vote for him. But so is the Nation's top law enforcement officer. I urge Senate Republicans to allow a vote on Ms. Lynch's nomination before we adjourn for a week- long recess. Please, don't treat her differently than we treated Mr. Mukasey. We were able to give him an expedited procedure. She has already waited much longer than he did. Don't make her wait even longer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Millions of American families are struggling with an unrelenting addiction to controlled substances. This is nothing new and that is the unfortunate part about it. But after decades of taking the wrong path toward treating drug abuse, it appears that we are finally in the midst of a fundamental shift in the way we are going to focus and approach this issue. For years we simply considered drug abuse as a crime, to be dealt with by police, prosecutors, and prisons. There is now, however, a near consensus that addiction must be viewed as a public health issue. This requires coordinated investments in prevention and treatment. Law enforcement agencies would rather not arrest the same offenders over and over without dealing with the underlying addiction. Treating that addiction--rather than just punishing the addict--is often the more effective, more humane, and less costly approach. There is perhaps no greater advocate for this shift in thinking than Michael Botticelli. Throughout his career in public health he has worked to bridge gaps between law enforcement, health care, and education providers. As acting director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, he has made clear that we cannot ``incarcerate addiction out of people.'' While law enforcement will always play a vital role in protecting citizens from drug-related crime, Mr. Botticelli recognizes that addiction is a disease--one that can be successfully prevented and treated using the same evidence-based approach we use for other public health challenges. Mr. Botticelli's nomination was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote last year and again last week. I am pleased that he continued to receive strong, bipartisan support from the full Senate here today. As director of ONDCP, Mr. Botticelli will help to coordinate drug-control activities across the Federal Government. This includes critical efforts such as administering funding for Drug-Free Communities grants and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. It is no small task. Just last week, the President requested over $12 billion for demand reduction programs. This represents the largest commitment to treating and preventing drug addiction in our Nation's history, and it is badly needed. Much of the country is now confronting a rising challenge: addiction to heroin and powerful painkillers. My home State of Vermont has not been spared, and it has attracted much attention for its struggles with opioid abuse. In fact, the film ``The Hungry Heart'' provides a powerful portrayal of the damage this addiction has inflicted on Vermont families. I was honored to host a screening of this moving film with Michael Botticelli last May. However in many ways, Vermont is ahead of the Nation. We in Vermont long ago recognized the problem and began developing new approaches to address it. Dedicated Vermonters working in the traditional roles of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement came together around common goals and shared strategies. These community partnerships have produced innovative and successful programs such as the Rapid Intervention Community Court in Burlington, and Project VISION in Rutland. Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing in Vermont on this issue. As a lifelong Vermonter, what hit me is how everybody came together for this hearing--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, law enforcement, defense counsels, clergy, teachers, medical professionals, parents and often those who have been abusers. We all realize there is no single answer, but we can do it better than we have for decades. First responders are saving the lives of addicts throughout the State by carrying naloxone. This will save their life instead of some who would die of an overdose. Evidence-based prevention and treatment services have been extended to all corners of Vermont, and barriers to recovery have been significantly reduced. That is the most important part. These are all strategies that the ONDCP promotes. Mr. Botticelli understands that success requires an increased commitment to early intervention and education, treatment, and smart criminal justice policies. While the scope of the challenge is immense, Mr. Botticelli has us going in the right direction. Having listened to him, having talked to him, I am really hopeful he will help get us ahead of addiction, and help end the misery it inflicts on individuals, families, and our communities. I urge my fellow Senators to vote for his immediate confirmation.

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

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, on January 13 of this year, our country lost one of its most courageous diplomats--Ambassador Robert E. White. Ambassador White was 88 years old. I knew Bob White, who graduated from my alma mater, Saint Michael's College in Vermont, in 1952, just 9 years before I did. But I would have admired him greatly no matter what college he went to because he had the qualities every American diplomat should possess--outstanding intellect, unimpeachable integrity, great courage, and a devotion to the ideals and values of this country. In the 1980s, during the civil war in El Salvador, the United States--in what most historians now know was a tragic mistake-- steadfastly supported the Salvadoran Army despite abundant evidence that some of its elite units were operating as death squads, arbitrarily arresting, torturing, and murdering civilians suspected of supporting the FMLN rebels. Unlike some other U.S. officials who turned blind eyes to the heinous crimes that were being committed in the name of fighting communism, Ambassador White refused to remain silent. He publicly condemned the Salvadoran military and their rightwing backers who were implicated in atrocities such as the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who just days ago was put on the path to sainthood by Pope Francis, and the massacre of four American churchwomen. For speaking out on behalf of the victims of those crimes, Bob White paid dearly. He was ridiculed by some in Congress and he was summarily removed from his job by then-Secretary of State Alexander Haig. A January 15 obituary in the Washington Post describes Bob's life and career. As I was reading it, I could not help but wonder how things might have turned out differently if the powers-that-be during the 1980s had listened to him. My wife Marcelle and I talked about that. We asked ourselves: How many lives might have been saved if the Reagan administration, instead of firing Bob in 1981, had recognized the truth of what he was saying and supported negotiations to end the war in El Salvador. Instead, the war dragged on for another decade, costing the lives of tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians. The tide only started to turn in 1989 after the cold-blooded murder of the six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter, at the University of Central America. It was a horrific crime that top-ranking army officers tried to cover up. It was thanks to the late Congressman Joe Moakley and his then-staff aide, now Congressman Jim McGovern, Bob Woodward, and Salvadoran investigator Leonel Gomez, whom I also came to know and respect, that the plot was uncovered and the killers identified. During this time I talked often with Bob and I learned even more about those who were involved. After talking with him I went to El Salvador. The Salvadoran officials wanted me to see how they were investigating what had happened. They knew I had prosecuted murder cases, and they arranged for me to meet with the country's chief investigator. As he described the so-called investigation it just confirmed Ambassador White's suspicions. I told the Salvadoran investigator, and I told the press who were there, that they were conducting an obvious cover-up. Anybody who saw what they were calling an investigation would realize what they were doing. As I left El Salvador, it was so obvious that rather than shamelessly removing Ambassador White from his post how much better things might have been if the State Department had recognized him for the true patriot he was and treated him as an example of what other U.S. diplomats should emulate. Bob didn't stop when he left the Foreign Service. He went on to head the Center for International Policy where he continued his advocacy for human rights, defending the ideals and championing the causes he believed in right up to his death. I like to think that all of our Foreign Service Officers aspire to follow in the footsteps of Ambassador Robert White. I hope they will learn from his example. If they do, the United States will be better served and the world will be a better place. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post obituary, and an article about Ambassador White by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels in Commonweal magazine.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to talk about privacy because privacy is not a partisan issue. It never has been, and never should be. Remember, 30 years ago I was in the minority. The Republicans were in the majority and controlled the Senate. It was then that I worked with my colleagues and led the effort to write the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA. It required a lot of education because back then, electronic mail was an emerging technology. The World Wide Web was unimaginable. Electronic data storage was astronomically expensive. No one could have envisioned the way mobile technologies would transform our lives. Yet fortunately many of us in Congress had the foresight to anticipate that these new electronic communications would also need privacy protections. That was 30 years ago. Look at what has changed since then. Now three decades later, that law is out of date. So today the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, and I are reintroducing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. We want to bring this law into the 21st century. Our legislation is very straightforward. It ensures that the private information that we Americans electronically store in the cloud gets the same protections as the private information we Americans physically store at home. As it did in 1986, I hope the Senate will come together on a bipartisan basis to support these commonsense protections. All of us have an expectation that the things we store in our house are private. If law enforcement wants access to them, they have to get the proper search warrants. Today, there seems to be an idea that if they are stored electronically, these rules should not apply. I believe they should. The bill Senator Lee and I introduced today protects Americans' digital privacy--in their emails and all the other files and photographs they store in the cloud. It promotes cloud computing and other new technologies by building consumer trust. And it also provides law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to ensure public safety. I would remind my colleagues that several years ago the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that email was fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. It said that ``the Fourth Amendment must keep pace with the inexorable march of technological progress, or its guarantees will wither and perish.'' This bill takes up that challenge. Obviously we have technologies today that nobody would have dreamed of just a couple of generations ago. But we have a Constitution that has protected this country for well over 200 years, and we hope it will protect it for hundreds of years into the future. We need to make sure our laws keep up with the protections we Americans expect from our Constitution. First and most importantly, the bill enshrines in statute the fundamental Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for email, texts, and other electronic data. It requires that the government have a criminal search warrant based on possible cause to obtain the stored content of Americans' email and other electronic communications from third-party providers. This ensures that email communications have the same protections as phone calls and private documents stored in your home. However, the bill's warrant requirement contains an important exception to address emergency circumstances. It explicitly states that it does not affect current authorities under the Wiretap Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it ensures that law enforcement can continue to investigate corporate wrong-doing by using grand jury subpoenas to obtain emails directly from corporate entities when held on their internal systems. The second major component of the bill requires law enforcement agencies to promptly notify individuals when the government has obtained their emails through their service providers, but permits a delay of that notice to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations--no different from what we do in other law enforcement matters. The bill would also require service providers to notify the government three days before they inform a customer that the provider disclosed their information to the government. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it liberal or conservative. In fact, Senator Lee and I would note that we have a broad coalition of more than 50 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights, and technology industry groups and leaders from across the political spectrum who have endorsed this reform effort. Support spans from the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform, to the Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 22, 2015, coalition letter in support of the bill.

Mr. LEAHY. I am also pleased that Senators Shaheen, Moran, Cornyn, Merkley, Gardner, and Blumenthal have joined this effort with Senator Lee and I. I commend them because we do have an opportunity this year to make progress on bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect the privacy of Americans' email and update our laws to keep pace with technology. And I also congratulate our House partners, Representatives Yoder and Polis, who are introducing this legislation today in the House of Representatives with 228 cosponsors from both parties. In the last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously supported this bill, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have continued the hard work of building a broad bipartisan coalition in support of this bill. Now is the time to act swiftly to bring our privacy protections into the digital age. I will continue to work with Senator Lee, Senator Cornyn, Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, Senator Merkley, Senator Gardner, and Senator Blumenthal on this issue because while I am proud to have them as cosponsors, I am also proud that we are doing the right thing

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to talk about privacy because privacy is not a partisan issue. It never has been, and never should be. Remember, 30 years ago I was in the minority. The Republicans were in the majority and controlled the Senate. It was then that I worked with my colleagues and led the effort to write the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA. It required a lot of education because back then, electronic mail was an emerging technology. The World Wide Web was unimaginable. Electronic data storage was astronomically expensive. No one could have envisioned the way mobile technologies would transform our lives. Yet fortunately many of us in Congress had the foresight to anticipate that these new electronic communications would also need privacy protections. That was 30 years ago. Look at what has changed since then. Now three decades later, that law is out of date. So today the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, and I are reintroducing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. We want to bring this law into the 21st century. Our legislation is very straightforward. It ensures that the private information that we Americans electronically store in the cloud gets the same protections as the private information we Americans physically store at home. As it did in 1986, I hope the Senate will come together on a bipartisan basis to support these commonsense protections. All of us have an expectation that the things we store in our house are private. If law enforcement wants access to them, they have to get the proper search warrants. Today, there seems to be an idea that if they are stored electronically, these rules should not apply. I believe they should. The bill Senator Lee and I introduced today protects Americans' digital privacy--in their emails and all the other files and photographs they store in the cloud. It promotes cloud computing and other new technologies by building consumer trust. And it also provides law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to ensure public safety. I would remind my colleagues that several years ago the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that email was fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. It said that ``the Fourth Amendment must keep pace with the inexorable march of technological progress, or its guarantees will wither and perish.'' This bill takes up that challenge. Obviously we have technologies today that nobody would have dreamed of just a couple of generations ago. But we have a Constitution that has protected this country for well over 200 years, and we hope it will protect it for hundreds of years into the future. We need to make sure our laws keep up with the protections we Americans expect from our Constitution. First and most importantly, the bill enshrines in statute the fundamental Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for email, texts, and other electronic data. It requires that the government have a criminal search warrant based on possible cause to obtain the stored content of Americans' email and other electronic communications from third-party providers. This ensures that email communications have the same protections as phone calls and private documents stored in your home. However, the bill's warrant requirement contains an important exception to address emergency circumstances. It explicitly states that it does not affect current authorities under the Wiretap Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it ensures that law enforcement can continue to investigate corporate wrong-doing by using grand jury subpoenas to obtain emails directly from corporate entities when held on their internal systems. The second major component of the bill requires law enforcement agencies to promptly notify individuals when the government has obtained their emails through their service providers, but permits a delay of that notice to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations--no different from what we do in other law enforcement matters. The bill would also require service providers to notify the government three days before they inform a customer that the provider disclosed their information to the government. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it liberal or conservative. In fact, Senator Lee and I would note that we have a broad coalition of more than 50 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights, and technology industry groups and leaders from across the political spectrum who have endorsed this reform effort. Support spans from the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform, to the Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 22, 2015, coalition letter in support of the bill.

Mr. LEAHY. I am also pleased that Senators Shaheen, Moran, Cornyn, Merkley, Gardner, and Blumenthal have joined this effort with Senator Lee and I. I commend them because we do have an opportunity this year to make progress on bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect the privacy of Americans' email and update our laws to keep pace with technology. And I also congratulate our House partners, Representatives Yoder and Polis, who are introducing this legislation today in the House of Representatives with 228 cosponsors from both parties. In the last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously supported this bill, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have continued the hard work of building a broad bipartisan coalition in support of this bill. Now is the time to act swiftly to bring our privacy protections into the digital age. I will continue to work with Senator Lee, Senator Cornyn, Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, Senator Merkley, Senator Gardner, and Senator Blumenthal on this issue because while I am proud to have them as cosponsors, I am also proud that we are doing the right thing

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for what he has said. I would note that there are many in our State who agree wholeheartedly. We are not a wealthy State. We are a proud State. We are not a State that believes in such a huge disparity of income. So I thank the Senator for what he said, not only here but when he has made similar remarks around the country. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 356 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for hundreds of millions of people around the globe, including in countries whose governments are allies of the United States, democracy and human rights are aspirations that seem beyond reach. According to a recent report by Freedom House, the state of freedom in the world declined in almost every region over the past year. But while we should be deeply concerned by this discouraging trend, we should also recognize where progress is being made. On January 8, the people of Sri Lanka stunned a repressive government that had been rapidly centralizing power and dismantling democratic institutions. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who sensed his increasing unpopularity, called a snap election 2 years early hoping to take advantage of his fragmented opposition. However, to his surprise and the surprise of many observers, a broad coalition of Sri Lankans voted to oust his administration and to chart a new course. Rather than balk at forfeiting the chance for an unprecedented third term, President Rajapaksa, under pressure from the international community, stepped down within hours of the election results being published. This was welcome news. After suffering decades of on-and-off conflict that is estimated to have cost as many as 100,000 lives, only to have the violence replaced by increasing repression and political and ethnic polarization, the peaceful transfer of power has helped breathe life into the hopes of Sri Lankans for reconciliation and a better future. For that hope to become reality, newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena will need to gain the trust of all Sri Lankans, regardless of their ethnicity or political views. In too many countries democracy has been treated as an election rather than a way of governing, but for it to succeed all citizens must have the ability to participate meaningfully. As President Sirisena stated in his inaugural address, what Sri Lanka needs ``is not a King, but a real human being''. Of course, democracy alone will not heal Sri Lankan society. No one knows this better than those who lost family, friends, and loved ones in the war with the LTTE, or Tamil Tigers. In the final months of that war, many thousands of civilians died, mostly as a result of shelling by the Sri Lankan military of civilians who had been uprooted by the fighting. The United Nations, the United States, other governments and human rights organizations have long called for thorough, independent investigations and punishment of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. While President Sirisena has pledged to launch a domestic inquiry into alleged war crimes, I agree with those who insist that nothing less than an international investigation, as called for by the U.N. Human Rights Council, will likely suffice to overcome the suspicion and distrust concerning this issue. It would be far better if the government seeks the assistance of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in developing a credible plan for investigating violations of human rights by both sides in the conflict, and holding those responsible accountable. I am encouraged that President Sirisena has pledged to return the country to a parliamentary democracy with independent police and judicial institutions, and inclusive governance. He has also committed to taking steps to address the cases of those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, PTA, many of whom are political prisoners like Jeyakumari Balendran. The reviews should be carried out expeditiously. While the release of 572 prisoners at the time of Pope Francis's visit on January 14 was a positive step, it is the cases of political prisoners detained under the PTA that will demonstrate the Sirisena government's commitment to reconciliation. The sooner innocent victims of the Rajapaksa government's repression are freed, the faster Sri Lanka will be able to recover. Over the years I have spoken in this Chamber in support of independent investigations of war crimes and justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. I have met the relatives of victims of the war. President Sirisena's election offers the chance for all Sri Lankans to finally recover from that tragic period by rebuilding their country in a spirit of tolerance, respect, and common purpose.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, not long ago Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, the World Health Organization, WHO, and the United Nations, and the United States, Great Britain, France, and other countries were frantically trying to bring the Ebola crisis in West Africa under control. Thousands of people died due to a disastrous failure by WHO's Africa regional representative, serious miscalculations by local officials and global health experts, and a myriad of other problems ranging from weak local health systems that were quickly overwhelmed to a lack of accurate information and cultural practices that helped spread the disease rather than contain it. But in the past few weeks there has been some good news about progress in stopping Ebola. According to WHO, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea recorded their lowest weekly numbers of new cases in months. The United Nations special envoy on Ebola stated that the epidemic appears to be slowing down, and the Government of Liberia has set a target of zero new Ebola cases by the end of February. It is heartening to see that the hard work by Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the international community are bringing results. But we are not out of the woods yet and there are important lessons to be learned from the mistakes and lost opportunities in the early response to this disease outbreak. Ebola pushed governments, international organizations, and the private sector and health care responders into unknown territory, forcing everyone to think and act in new ways. Unfortunately, with the exception of the nongovernmental organization Doctors Without Borders, we were all too slow to recognize this. The initial response missed key opportunities to prevent the crisis from becoming an epidemic, and as a result thousands of people died who might have avoided infection. The symptoms of the initial victims were not recognized as Ebola, signs that the epidemic was spreading rather than receding, as some believed, were misinterpreted, and governments and international organizations did not effectively communicate or coordinate with local communities impacted by the virus, nor were the necessary resources to combat the disease available in-country early enough. As work was done to overcome these missteps and challenges, the epidemic spread further across borders, as did rumors, and fear increased, people in the affected areas became increasingly distrustful of those who were trying to help, and already scarce health care workers became harder to recruit. The consequences of not containing the disease in the early stages have been catastrophic. As of January 28, WHO estimates that 8,795 people have died from the Ebola virus, and according to UNICEF's preliminary estimates, as of December 29 at least 3,700 children in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone have lost one or both parents to the disease. The children of those countries have not attended school since mid-2014. While Guinea reopened their schools in mid-January, attendance has remained low. Liberia is preparing to reopen schools in mid-February, and Sierra Leone hopes to reopen its schools by the end of March. Unemployment and business closures have increased, cross-border trade has plummeted, and there are concerns that food shortages and malnutrition will increase because food stock that would normally be kept for next year is already being eaten. According to the World Bank's December estimates, the growth in GDP in 2014 for Liberia and Sierra Leone fell by over 60 percent in each country and Guinea's GDP growth in 2014 is down by 89 percent. Much of our investments in the rebuilding of Liberia and Sierra Leone since the civil wars there have been obliterated by Ebola. These countries are back at square one. The world's initial response to the Ebola crisis illustrates how unprepared we are for future global health crises which may be far more devastating and fast spreading than Ebola, if that is possible to imagine. How can we avoid repeating our mistakes? Are we going to provide our own government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Agency for International Development and international organizations such as WHO the resources they need? Can we count on them to take the steps to ensure that the right people are in the right places with the authority to make the necessary decisions in a timely manner? Too often it seems that we have to relearn the same lessons each time for different situations and countries. There are already reports, including a January 19 article in the Washington Post that describes newly built Ebola response centers, paid for by the United States Government, that stand empty or have closed because the number of new Ebola cases has dropped sharply. It is far better to be prepared than unprepared, but we need to reassess the situation and be sure that we are adjusting our response appropriately. The fiscal year 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $2.5 billion for the Department of State and USAID response to the Ebola crisis. As ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds those agencies, I hope they will ensure that we use these funds to avoid past mistakes, by improving flexibility to respond to the crisis as it changes, relying less on international nongovernmental organizations and foreign contractors, and increasing support for building local public health capacity and a sustainable and resilient private sector, increasing awareness and sensitivity to cultural norms of those impacted by the crisis, and improving communication and coordination among local communities, local and national governments, and the international community. These are not new ideas but they emerge time and again. Finally, we need to be far better prepared for protecting American citizens from contagious diseases that can spread like wildfire from a single health care worker or other infected individual who returns from an affected country. Fortunately, only one death from Ebola occurred in the U.S., but it could have been far worse. Now is the time to reassess how we should respond domestically and internationally to regional epidemics and prepare accordingly. We cannot afford to waste time and resources making the same mistakes and relearning old lessons.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on whether it should proceed to a bill that attempts to link two critical yet independent debates: the day-to-day operations of one of the Nation's key national security agencies, and addressing our broken immigration system. Now, in doing that, it appears that leadership wants to hold hostage the operations of the Department of Homeland Security, an office charged with protecting our national security. And frankly, that is simply irresponsible. Sometimes the sense of history around here is whatever was the last sound bite heard on television, but let's take an honest look at the real history and how we got here: It has been well over a year and a half since a strong, bipartisan majority, Democrats and Republicans, came together in the Senate and approved a package of comprehensive immigration reforms. We did this after the Senate Judiciary Committee had held hundreds of hours of hearings and debate in markup. We passed it here overwhelmingly. The Republican House leadership refused to allow a vote on that measure even though most of it would have passed the House of Representatives. Now, because they wouldn't act at all, and left a void, the President acted. The President acted when he had waited for a couple of years to see if Congress would act--waited for the House of Representatives to take up the bill we passed. He had to act. This is almost like ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The Republican leadership refuses to act on the immigration bill and then they get mad because the President, who has to take responsibility for this country, acts. They now want to put at risk the very operations of the agency charged with enforcing the immigration laws in question and blame it on the President because they failed to act. This is ``Alice in Wonderland.'' I know Republicans object to the President's Executive action. We spent hours hearing their complaints last week as the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to be considering the qualifications of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General. It had nothing to do with her but they wanted to vent for the cameras. It went on until the cameras were turned off. I would say that instead of complaining about what they failed to do and complaining about what the President does to protect this country, why don't they offer some meaningful solutions for fixing our broken immigration system. A good place to start would be the comprehensive immigration bill we passed last Congress by a vote of 68- 32. There was plenty in that bill I did not like but it included meaningful reforms to all aspects of our immigration system that was negotiated and improved through the full committee process and that is what made it a real compromise. Now, instead of voting on that bipartisan compromise or other alternative solutions, all we see are attempts to undermine any efforts at comprehensive reform. By blocking all alternatives, the Republicans are keeping us locked in a status quo that hurts our economy, makes us less safe and pulls families apart. The President's Executive action is a positive step to toward keeping our communities safe because it requires DHS to prioritize the deportation of dangerous criminals. And it encourages those immigrants with longstanding ties to our communities who do not pose a danger to register with the government and come out of the shadows. Law enforcement officers and victims' advocates tell us the President's Executive action will make our communities and families safer because people will not hesitate to call the police for fear of being deported themselves. Business leaders, economists and labor leaders tell us it will grow our economy and increase wages for all workers. It will level the playing field for American workers and raise revenues by more than $22.6 billion over 5 years. Immigration and constitutional law experts have concluded that it is constitutional and the President acted within his authority. Mayors from 33 major cities across the country who work every day to make our communities safe and our businesses flourish, have said the Executive action will fuel growth in local economies, increase public safety, and facilitate the integration of immigrants. These are not political partisans. They are frontline leaders who understand the daily problems posed by our broken immigration system. They are telling us that we must act. And until we do, they are supportive of the temporary steps the President has taken. House Republicans have said their proposal will bolster border security in a way the President's Executive actions did not but those claims ignore reality. Border security has become a game of who can develop the most outlandish, unrealistic proposals. Round-the-clock drone surveillance. Doubling the border patrol. Waiving all environmental laws. Requiring DHS to prevent every last undocumented person from crossing the southern border. These proposals are not serious. They never worked in the past. They are not going to work now. We are not at war with Mexico and Canada. We cannot seal our borders. Nor should we. We already have devoted an enormous amount of resources to border security. The overall budget for CBP and ICE has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. Hundreds of miles of border fencing has been constructed. We have more than 21,000 border patrol agents. And, the Department has deployed advanced technologies and airborne assets. The most effective border security measure would be approving the comprehensive immigration reforms passed by the Senate last Congress that reduce the number of people trying to come here in the first place. The Senate has a choice. We can set aside politics and act like grownups or we can waste days debating the legislation sent to us by the House, which the President has made clear he will veto. What I suggest is that we respond to the American people and act like grownups--consider legislation introduced last week by Senator Shaheen and Senator Mikulski. That bill, negotiated last year by Senate and House members, Democrats and Republicans alike, would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the critical resources it needs to protect our national interests. That bill will raise DHS funding by $400 million, and fund the largest operation force of border patrol agents and CBP officers in history. It will provide resources to respond quickly when natural disasters devastate our states and communities. It will provide funding for the essential services provided by the Coast Guard and Secret Service. It will invest in FEMA's State and Local Grants Program, which also helps all of our states--including rural, border ones like Vermont. And it will support our state and local law enforcement, fire departments and first responder emergency services. It replaces rhetoric with reality. I think the American people are tired of rhetoric. They'd like some reality. We all know our current immigration system needs comprehensive reform. That's why I held hundreds of hours of hearings and markups in the Judiciary Committee and why this Senate, Republicans and Democrats, came together last Congress and passed a comprehensive immigration bill. And I'm so sorry that the House Republican leadership refused to bring it up even though there were the votes to pass it. So the President took the first step. Now, Congress must act. But this appropriations bill is not the place for that debate. Have a real debate on immigration. We cannot send the message that we are more willing to play politics than promote and protect national security. That posturing is beneath the Senate. We should pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, and renew our efforts to enact meaningful, comprehensive immigration reforms such as those passed by the Senate in 2013. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for generations, Vermonters have contributed to the global culture of winter sports. Whether the sport is snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling or snowboarding, Vermonters never pass up an opportunity to claim the first run of the day. Almost four decades ago, Jake Burton's passion for winter sports led to the creation of Burton Snowboards, one of the leading snowboard manufacturers in the world. Jake at a young age enjoyed ``snurfing''-- surfing on snow--but he never anticipated the path he would eventually take, becoming one of the pioneers in snowboard manufacturing. In the late 1970s, Jake started exploring the idea of manufacturing snowboards, building prototypes from a barn in Londonderry, VT. At the time, most ski resorts did not allow snowboarders, as snowboarding was not yet considered a sport, and gaining recognition as a sport proved to be harder than one might expect. Jake didn't let his optimism or passion wane, and interest in the fledgling sport finally spread. Jake and his wife Donna explored the European market, eventually opening a distribution center in Austria, while maintaining their national headquarters in Burlington, VT. For a little-known sport, it quickly gained international notoriety and stature. In 1998, snowboarding debuted at the winter Olympics in Nagano. Jake is now one of the most successful business leaders Vermont has ever known. His commitment and passion allow him to remain one with the pulse of his company, with consumers, and, most of all, with the sport, on a level unique to Burton Snowboards. The Wall Street Journal recently chronicled the multiple ways in which Jake keeps himself healthy, in shape, and on the slopes. Jake's lifestyle is one that truly speaks to the Vermont spirit. Marcelle and I are proud to have Jake and Donna as friends. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to once again join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the FOIA Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill that will make our Federal government more accountable to all Americans by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Senator Cornyn and I introduced an almost identical bill last year, and despite it passing the Senate unanimously, the House failed to act. This was deeply disappointing, and was a missed opportunity for Congress. But Senator Cornyn and I have worked together for more than a decade to make our government more open, through Democratic and Republican administrations and Republican and Democratic-led Congresses. We have a strong partnership, and we will not quit. We are determined to make progress on creating a more open and transparent government for all Americans. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 codifies what President Obama laid out in his historic 2009 memorandum by requiring Federal agencies to adopt a ``Presumption of Openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. Under this bill, when considering FOIA requests Federal agencies must find a reasonable foreseeable harm in order to invoke a discretionary exemption and withhold information from the public. The government should always err on the side of disclosure. Our legislation also provides additional independence to the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, an office created by the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act in 2007 that helps mediate disputes between the Federal Government and FOIA requesters. Finally, our legislation will limit the use of Exemption 5 by placing a 25 year limitation on information covered by the exemption. I have fought for years to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA including the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests. After four decades in the Senate, I appreciate that legislating requires compromise. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 reflects the input of both sides of the aisle, the open government community, the administration, and many other stakeholders. It is the product of nearly a year of careful negotiations on behalf of Senator Cornyn and me. It is supported by more than 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency and it had the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. Above all, it marks an historic step forward in our continued effort to open the government by codifying what President Obama set out to achieve in 2009 when he said ``In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' This is common sense, and so I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this bill and for the House to follow suit so we can show the American people, in a bipartisan fashion, that we are committed to advancing their interests above special interests, no matter who holds control of Congress or the White House.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to once again join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the FOIA Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill that will make our Federal government more accountable to all Americans by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Senator Cornyn and I introduced an almost identical bill last year, and despite it passing the Senate unanimously, the House failed to act. This was deeply disappointing, and was a missed opportunity for Congress. But Senator Cornyn and I have worked together for more than a decade to make our government more open, through Democratic and Republican administrations and Republican and Democratic-led Congresses. We have a strong partnership, and we will not quit. We are determined to make progress on creating a more open and transparent government for all Americans. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 codifies what President Obama laid out in his historic 2009 memorandum by requiring Federal agencies to adopt a ``Presumption of Openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. Under this bill, when considering FOIA requests Federal agencies must find a reasonable foreseeable harm in order to invoke a discretionary exemption and withhold information from the public. The government should always err on the side of disclosure. Our legislation also provides additional independence to the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, an office created by the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act in 2007 that helps mediate disputes between the Federal Government and FOIA requesters. Finally, our legislation will limit the use of Exemption 5 by placing a 25 year limitation on information covered by the exemption. I have fought for years to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA including the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests. After four decades in the Senate, I appreciate that legislating requires compromise. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 reflects the input of both sides of the aisle, the open government community, the administration, and many other stakeholders. It is the product of nearly a year of careful negotiations on behalf of Senator Cornyn and me. It is supported by more than 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency and it had the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. Above all, it marks an historic step forward in our continued effort to open the government by codifying what President Obama set out to achieve in 2009 when he said ``In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' This is common sense, and so I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this bill and for the House to follow suit so we can show the American people, in a bipartisan fashion, that we are committed to advancing their interests above special interests, no matter who holds control of Congress or the White House.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have the privilege of being a lifelong Vermonter, as were my parents and my brother and sister. All Vermonters realize that in a small State like ours, it takes the dedication and hard work of very special and talented people to make our State great. I will take a moment as a proud brother to mention one such person, my younger sister, Mary Leahy. Mary's work with adult basic education and teaching and her ability to give adults who have not had the capability to read a newfound ability is profound. It is impossible to calculate the number of lives she has dramatically improved in our State through her work. I still carry the memory of watching a grandfather with tears in his eyes, as he read a simple child's book to his grandchild. He then told me that he had never been able to read to his child, the grandchild's parent, but at least in his later years he could read to the grandchild. I thought what a gift. I thought again of Mary as I read an article printed in a number of our media in Vermont, written by Nancy Graff, about this part of Mary's career. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this point.