Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, true to their Vermont roots, the citizens of Marshfield, VT, are bringing to fruition a new vision for the Marshfield Historical Society, an organization dedicated to preserving--and sharing--the long history of this 44-square mile town in the foothills of Vermont, just outside our State capital of Montpelier. In the late 17th century, the land that came to be known as Marshfield was home to the Abenaki. Then, just as now, its inhabitants enjoyed the Winooski River to fish and the surrounding hills to hunt. Marshfield is a community that upholds tradition and passes stories from generation to generation. The land is clearly different than it was centuries ago, but these customs can make it difficult to notice the sometimes subtle changes Marshfield has borne. Creating a public space to commemorate the town's past is the mission of the Marshfield Historical Society. On September 12, with the support of the Vermont Historical Society, the Marshfield Historical Society will host its grand opening, a reopening of sorts. In concert with the support of the local Selectboard, the Jaquith Public Library, a generous anonymous donor, the perseverance of a dedicated core of volunteers, and, of course, the residents of Marshfield, the history of this small but vibrant town will now be accessible to the public. Local artifacts and memorabilia, cloistered for years, will be publicly accessible in the Old Schoolhouse Common. The Marshfield Historical Society is returning to the residents of Marshfield their own history. The Marshfield Historical Society owes much to the memory of Hap Hayward, a longtime resident, who was an original inspiration for the establishment of a local historical society. The society's new site, organized content, and new exhibits will surely attract visitors and locals. Some of their most noteworthy collections include a rare copy of Militia Law of the State of Vermont from 1843, as well as an extensive collection of postcards of Marshfield buildings and landscapes. These artifacts belong to the residents of Marshfield, and to all Vermonters. As a longtime supporter of the historic preservation of our communities, our downtowns and our local histories, I am eager to visit the new historical society. I congratulate the people of Marshfield on successfully undertaking this impressive effort to protect their history for generations to come.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that people have decided to speak about immigration reform. This body passed overwhelmingly--Republicans and Democrats joined together--a comprehensive immigration bill last year. We did it after six hearings during which we received testimony from 42 witnesses. We had five markups and 37 hours of debate, often late into the night, over three weeks. There were 212 amendments, of which 136 were adopted, all but three of them on a bipartisan bases. Staff and Senators, Republicans and Democrats, worked together throughout that time, and the Senate, by a better than 2-to-1 margin, passed a comprehensive immigration bill. It was supported by people from the right to the left. It went over to the other body. In the other body there were enough votes to pass it. And what happened? The Republican leadership said: No, we will not bring it up. And so it died there. Today, faced with a surge of migrants from Central America, they are giving great speeches: Oh, my God. We have to do something about immigration. Why don't we do something about immigration? And then they blame Democratic President Obama. My response is: What are you doing? They could have brought up the bill. We would be a lot better off had they brought it up and voted on it. Vote yes or vote no. That is what we are supposed to do. The Senate did that, and we passed it. The Republican leadership is so afraid they might actually have to take a stand on immigration. They might actually have to vote yes or no. It is so much easier to do nothing, just to let it sit there and say: Oh, it must be President Obama's fault. Oh, it must be the Senate's fault. Oh, it must be somebody else's fault. Or maybe it is the fault of these 6- and 7-year-old children who are trying to escape being killed or molested, the 12-year-old girls who are afraid they are going to be raped by gangs, the 12-year-old boys who are going to be forced into gangs or be shot in front of their families. It is so much easier to say: This is terrible. It has to be President Obama's fault. Let's sue him. What I say is: Why don't you have the courage to vote yes or no on the immigration bill we sent you? I defy any one of them to go home during August and say: Oh, we have to do something about immigration. I hope people ask: How did you vote? Well, they didn't vote yes and they didn't vote no. They didn't vote at all. I spoke in this Chamber earlier this month about the importance of living up to our own principles and traditions by addressing the influx of unaccompanied Central American children because it is a humanitarian crisis. While there is no easy solution, the Border Supplemental Appropriations Bill offers a chance to make a downpayment on a strategy to address this crisis comprehensively, in accordance with our legal obligations and moral values. The supplemental was described by the Appropriations Committee chairwoman Senator Mikulski yesterday. We know it is significantly different than the bill put forward by the House Republican leadership this week. The House bill provides $1 billion less than the Senate to help unaccompanied children currently in the United States and $700 million less to support the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice so they can effectively address this issue and adjudicate these children's cases appropriately. There is nobody in this body or the other body, if they have children or grandchildren, who has to worry about them going hungry or has to worry about them living in fear every day. Let's get out of our ivory tower and pay attention to what is happening. As I said earlier, the House ignored our bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. Thirty pages of policy reforms included in the House supplemental and all it does is support their enforcement-only agenda to get rid of these children. Just throw them out. Let's pretend we have no responsibility. Send them back to face whatever horrors back home. While many of these children and families don't qualify for international protection and would be better off not risking the dangerous journey, which the Senate bill seeks to address, many others have legitimate claims to protection because of the violence and persecution they have suffered in their home countries. That is why this is a humanitarian issue. That is why we can't expect other countries with far fewer resources--such as Jordan or Turkey or Ethiopia--to accept far larger numbers of refugees from outside their borders if we are not willing to do our part. The little country of Jordan is being overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria. We say: Oh, thank you for doing that. Here we are talking about a tiny percentage compared to the size of our country. We say we want other countries to do this--but, gosh, the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world can't. That's not who we are as Americans. That is why it is unconscionable that the House on the one hand recognizes these Central American countries are among the most dangerous in the world, where gangs and other violent crime is taking a horrific toll on children and families. They will give speeches on that, but on the other hand they will say: However, that is their problem. Send these children back. Eight-year-old, you can fend for yourself against the gangs with machine guns. Go back, and do it as quickly as possible because we have to go on recess. We don't want to be bothered about you. That is why it is also unacceptable that the House would pay for their misguided approach in part by cutting nearly $200 million from other programs in the foreign aid budget, the very funding needed to help reduce poverty, corruption, and violence in Central America so children won't flee in the first place. Critics of the administration want to point fingers, but blame games aren't going to solve this problem. There is no single cause. It didn't occur overnight. It has been building for years as drug cartels, responding to the insatiable demand for illegal drugs in the United States, have migrated to Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador. It is caused by members of Central American gangs, arrested and imprisoned in the United States and then deported, who have resumed their threats and extortion and killing sprees with a vengeance. It is caused by abusive and corrupt police forces and judges and the failure of the Central American governments to address the lawlessness and impunity in their own countries. It is caused by the lack of educational and employment opportunities that are among the reasons Central American youth join the gangs. So let's not play politics over something as complex and deadly as this. Let's vote for the Senate supplemental. It includes the funding needed to begin addressing some of the contributing causes of the migration and leaves intact the important legal protections in the Trafficking Victims Protections Act. The $300 million in the State and foreign operations chapter of this bill requires a multiyear strategy to support the efforts of Central American governments to dismantle their criminal gangs and combat extortion, human smuggling and trafficking and domestic and sexual abuse, strengthen their social services, law enforcement, and judicial systems, develop child welfare services, and expand programs in education and get rid of the barriers to economic growth and opportunity. It also provides funds for public information campaigns to discourage potential migrants from making the perilous journey in the first place, and it includes provisions that will ensure vigorous oversight of the aid we provide. The emergency spending in this supplemental is needed to respond urgently and responsibly to this crisis. It is about what we stand for as Americans. Let's uphold our Nation's longstanding tradition of providing a safe haven for refugees that is engraved in the Statue of Liberty, for the well-being of thousands who have fled violence and risked everything to arrive at our borders, and for the millions in Central America who live every day in fear. Let's give them some hope for a better life. Let's pass this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, for the fifth year in a row, more than a dozen qualified, consensus judicial nominees pending before the full Senate will remain on the Executive Calendar during the August recess. Each year, I have come before the Senate to remind my fellow Senators that their refusal to take action on these nominations prior to the August recess is an unfortunate departure from Senate tradition and to urge them to stop their obstructive practices and delay tactics. Again, I am disappointed to see partisanship and senseless obstruction continue to keep the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of advice and consent. We could be voting today to confirm 13 nominees to serve on our Federal courts, 12 of whom were reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. Instead, we are voting to invoke cloture on only one nomination, that of Jill Pryor, to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She has received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' and has the support of both of her Republican home State Senators. She will no doubt be confirmed unanimously, or near unanimously, when we return in September. As the senior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, noted at her confirmation hearing, ``Jill Pryor has been in private practice in Atlanta for nearly 25 years. During that time she has played a pivotal role in some of the largest and most complex cases in Georgia history.'' We have before us an outstanding candidate to serve on the Federal bench. Yet her nomination is being filibustered by Senate Republicans who are delaying her vote for the sake of obstruction. Despite this unyielding and irrational partisan strategy, the Senate has made great strides to fill vacancies on courts around the Nation by confirming 61 circuit and district court nominees this year. I have heard some Republican Senators point to these confirmations to claim that today's Senate is treating judicial nominees fairly. These Senators overlook an important truth: This progress was made because of the persistent dedication of the majority leader and Democratic Senators to confront vacancies on the Federal bench and despite the unprecedented levels of opposition and obstruction from Republican Senators. Because of our Democratic leadership in the Senate, there are now fewer vacancies on the Federal courts than at any time since January 2009. Since the beginning of this year, we have reduced the vacancies on our Federal courts by over a third, from 92 to 57, and reduced the number of judicial emergency vacancies by nearly half, from 37 to 19. There are now only eight vacancies on the U.S. courts of appeals. Not since December 1990--over 23 years ago--have there been so few. This is real progress for the millions of Americans who depend on our courts for justice. Many of these confirmations were of nominees to courts that began the year with record-high numbers of vacancies. In Arizona, I worked with Senator McCain and Senator Flake to confirm six nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies on their district court. In Florida, I worked with Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio to confirm seven nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida as well as on the Eleventh Circuit. These States are success stories, and the people of Arizona and Florida are better served for having trial and appellate judges ready to hear their cases. No Senator should believe, however, that our work is done. There are 13 judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor who should be confirmed without delay. Yet, even if the Senate were to confirm these nominees today, the Federal judiciary would remain understaffed. In addition to the 57 current vacancies, the Judicial Conference has identified the need for 91 new judgeships in some of America's judicial districts and circuits with the most burdensome caseloads. Last year, Senator Coons and I introduced the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 to enact these recommendations into law. The timely administration of justice should not be a partisan issue. It is an issue that affects all Americans and the Senate should take it seriously by passing this bill. The recommendations of the Judicial Conference only underscore how, despite the 61 judicial confirmations so far in 2014, the Senate continues to fall short of its obligations to the Federal judiciary and the American people. I have heard some Republican Senators claim the opposite by citing the total judicial confirmation figures of current and former Presidents. It is true that the Senate has now confirmed 277 of President Obama's circuit, district, and U.S. Court of International Trade nominees, compared to 253 confirmations at the same point in the last administration. Yet these numbers are meaningless without providing their proper context. These confirmations were sorely needed. There remain 57 vacancies on the Federal bench--far more than the 42 vacancies at this point during the Bush administration. There are an additional 24 announced future vacancies on our Federal courts that will also need to be filled in the coming months. Vacancies remain high not because of a failure of Senate Democrats or President Obama to make judicial confirmations a priority; Americans seeking justice around the country face delays because of the endless obstruction of partisan Republicans who take every opportunity they can to shut down the important work of the Senate. Last year, no longer content to block individual judges, Senate Republicans attempted a wholesale filibuster of three nominees to the DC Circuit, without even considering their qualifications. Then, instead of confirming the consensus judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar prior to the end of the congressional session, Republicans forced the President to renominate each nominee and the Senate Judiciary Committee to report them again this year. This year, Senate Republicans have proceeded to filibuster each and every judicial nominee. After today, the Senate will have taken 62 cloture votes on judicial nominations so far this year, amounting to well over 400 wasted hours the Senate should have spent considering legislation to help the American people. Never before has the Senate seen the systematic filibuster of every judicial nominee, or such unfair treatment of qualified, consensus nominees. The result of these tactics has been high vacancy levels on the Federal courts. The implications of these vacancies were made clear by a recent Brennan Center for Justice paper titled ``The Impact of Judicial Vacancies on Federal Trial Courts.'' In it, judges and attorneys in districts with high levels of vacancies describe the way empty court rooms slow the administration of justice, ``raise the cost of litigation, cause evidence to go stale, make it harder to settle civil cases, and even put pressure on criminal defendants to plead guilty.'' Chief Judge Leonard Davis in the Eastern District of Texas said the impact of vacancies comes down to ``simple math.'' Vacancies lead to heavier caseloads and judges ``have less time to give to [an individual] case . . . It affects the quality of justice that's being dispensed and the quantity of work you can complete.'' The incredible burden facing Federal courts in Texas is understandable with its nine current district court vacancies--more than any other State. Therefore, I hope that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including both Senators from Texas, will be ready to proceed with a hearing on the three pending Texas district court nominees as soon as the Senate returns to session in September. I also hope that the Texas Senators will continue to work with the administration on nominees to fill the six other current district vacancies in their State as well as the four known future district court vacancies. The continued high number of vacancies across our Federal courts is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every Member of this body. The Senate should act quickly to confirm the consensus nominees pending on the Senate floor. The Senate should also pass the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 to ensure that our coequal branch of government has the resources it needs to serve its constitutionally mandated function. I am glad that we are voting to overcome the Republican filibuster of the nomination of Jill Pryor, and I thank the majority leader for taking action on her nomination. If the Senate were operating as it once did, without this partisan treatment of judicial nominations, she would have been confirmed weeks ago. I hope that in the weeks following the August recess Senators will start working together to continue the progress we have made so far in 2014. The American people deserve courts capable of providing access to swift justice, not empty courtrooms and delays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Captive Insurers Clarification Act. This simple, commonsense legislation will clarify terms included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that stand to threaten the viability of the captive insurance industry in Vermont, South Carolina, and across the country. I am glad to have Senator Graham's support in this effort. Vermont is one of the leading onshore captive insurance domiciles in the country, with over 1000 licensed captive insurance companies. I have heard from the captive industry in Vermont, understandably concerned that language included in the Dodd-Frank Act may result in the double taxation of captives that operate in states where their headquarters are not domiciled. The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, NRRA, as included in Dodd-Frank, intended to facilitate the proper collection and allocation of self-procurement taxes. Captives are taxed and regulated in the state in which they are domiciled, not necessarily where their corporate headquarters are located. However, due to the ambiguity of the NRRA, captive insurers are concerned that both the state in which a captive is headquartered, and the state in which the captive is domiciled, may claim the premium tax. The Captive Insurers Clarification Act would simply clarify that such companies were never intended to be included under the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act. Applying the NRRA to captives would eliminate the specialized regulation of the captive industry that states like Vermont have worked to cultivate. This is commonsense legislation to clarify the intention of Congress in passing the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, and I hope Members of Congress will support its enactment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Captive Insurers Clarification Act. This simple, commonsense legislation will clarify terms included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that stand to threaten the viability of the captive insurance industry in Vermont, South Carolina, and across the country. I am glad to have Senator Graham's support in this effort. Vermont is one of the leading onshore captive insurance domiciles in the country, with over 1000 licensed captive insurance companies. I have heard from the captive industry in Vermont, understandably concerned that language included in the Dodd-Frank Act may result in the double taxation of captives that operate in states where their headquarters are not domiciled. The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, NRRA, as included in Dodd-Frank, intended to facilitate the proper collection and allocation of self-procurement taxes. Captives are taxed and regulated in the state in which they are domiciled, not necessarily where their corporate headquarters are located. However, due to the ambiguity of the NRRA, captive insurers are concerned that both the state in which a captive is headquartered, and the state in which the captive is domiciled, may claim the premium tax. The Captive Insurers Clarification Act would simply clarify that such companies were never intended to be included under the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act. Applying the NRRA to captives would eliminate the specialized regulation of the captive industry that states like Vermont have worked to cultivate. This is commonsense legislation to clarify the intention of Congress in passing the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, and I hope Members of Congress will support its enactment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to talk about the FBI's extensive use of flawed evidence in thousands of cases. It is tragic just days later there is yet another scandal involving bad science used to send people to jail and some to death row. According to an internal investigation by the FBI and the Department of Justice, nearly 2,600 convictions and 45 death row cases from the 1980s and 1990s may have involved flawed forensic evidence. Specifically, these cases involved microscopic hair matches, a form of forensic science that has been discredited. The scope of this scandal, which is the focus of a front-page article in the Washington Post yesterday, goes well beyond the problems we have previously seen when it comes to forensic evidence. Even more troubling than the statistics outlined in the Post's story is that the FBI, after recognizing these egregious mistakes, stopped their full review after examining just a small fraction of these cases. The Department of Justice has rightly ordered the FBI to resume its internal review, but the FBI's conduct is inexcusable. Once again, we are reminded that our criminal justice system is not infallible and that we are all less safe when the system fails. FBI investigators should have redoubled their efforts to uncover these mistakes and rushed to tell those affected defendants. Instead it appears they dragged their feet and stopped their review. I intend to get to the bottom of this. I have a lot of questions for the Bureau, and I will not stop until they are answered. When we have evidence that could prove that someone is innocent, we must get it processed immediately. It is not only the right thing to do for that person wrongfully accused but it is the right thing to do to keep our communities safe. That is why I again urge the Senate to take up and pass the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, a bill I introduced with Senator Cornyn last year. This bipartisan legislation includes the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, named for the first person exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program seeks to correct these most grievous mistakes. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is a cosponsor of the bill. All Senate Democrats support passage of this legislation. There is no reason why the Senate should not take up and pass this important bill without further delay. I also will continue my efforts to pass commonsense forensic science reform legislation. The Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Cornyn would improve the use of forensic science in criminal cases and ensure that labs throughout the Nation are operating according to the highest scientific standards. I thank the many law enforcement, victim services, and criminal justice organizations that continue to highlight the need for reform to ensure the proper application of forensic evidence in criminal cases, and who have urged the Senate to pass the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. I ask that the Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu be printed in the Record, and I urge all Senators to join me in getting to the serious business of providing justice to the wrongfully convicted and passing the Justice for All Reauthorization Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to applaud Hoard's Dairyman for shining a light on an important and sometimes overlooked problem in rural America. The article in their July 2014 issue, ``When Life Turned Ugly,'' written by Andrea Stoltzfus, focused on the unique challenges that rural victims of domestic violence face in overcoming their abusers. They are often geographically isolated and unaware of the resources available to them or they lack the ability to reach a crisis center due to a lack of public transportation. There also may not be a local shelter to help them or they may not have the financial means to set out on their own. These obstacles can make it particularly difficult for women in rural areas, like the dairy farm wives cited in the article, to escape abusive relationships. From my days as a prosecutor in Vermont, I still vividly remember seeing the aftermath of this type of violence firsthand. I will never forget arriving on the scenes of domestic violence crimes. These experiences have spurred me in my roles as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to work to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. Most recently I was proud to sponsor the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which the President signed into law in March 2013. Since VAWA was first enacted in 1994, it has helped to lower the annual incidence of domestic violence by more than half, it has raised awareness, and it has increased reporting of these crimes. VAWA has also improved the criminal justice system's ability to keep victims safe and hold perpetrators accountable. But there is still more that we can and should do. One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. That rate is even higher in rural areas. That is why I have worked to ensure that the domestic violence programs are adequately funded. In particular, I have pushed for increased funding for the Rural Domestic Violence Program. This program was established by the first VAWA to address the unique challenges faced by victims of domestic violence and dating violence in rural jurisdictions. This program supports the safety of rural victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking by funding projects uniquely designed to address and prevent rural crimes. It encourages cooperation among law enforcement and victim service providers, among others, to investigate criminal incidents and to offer treatment, education and prevention strategies. As a husband, father, grandfather, and as a former prosecutor, I know we can and must do everything we can to combat domestic violence. I hope that the Hoard's Dairyman article will help raise awareness. No woman should feel trapped in an abusive relationship, and we must all work to ensure they are not. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the crisis in Gaza is extremely distressing, particularly to those who had hope for Secretary of State Kerry's years of shuttle diplomacy between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. After seeing several similar attempts fail in the past, we know that for such diplomacy to succeed over the long term it will require the participation not only of representatives of the Israeli and Palestinian parties to the conflict but also the active support of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and the other Arab states. Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas are not able to reach an agreement to end the conflict themselves. Also, any agreement that lacks the support of Hamas or that cannot withstand the active opposition of Hamas will almost certainly fail. According to the Government of Israel, at least 2,600 Hamas rockets and mortars have been fired indiscriminately toward Israel, forcing thousands of Israelis into basements and bomb shelters. Fortunately, most have landed harmlessly, and the U.S.-supplied Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted many others. The latest report of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs paints a chilling picture of death and destruction in Gaza. Hamas has placed rocket launchers, ammunition, and tunnels in the midst of densely populated residential areas, even in mosques and U.N. facilities, and they are being targeted by Israeli bombs, missiles, and tank shells. Of course, civilians are literally trapped in the crossfire. As of today, at least 1,118 Palestinians have been killed, 6,233 injured, and 240,000 displaced from their homes, many of which have been damaged or destroyed. The overwhelming majority of the victims have been civilians. It is clear that Hamas's leaders, who specialize in terrorist tactics, care far more about their fighters than the safety of Gaza's civilian population. Yet even safe havens, such as clearly marked United Nations schools and hospitals, have been hit by Israeli bombs or missiles, and at least one may have been hit by a Hamas rocket. Many people, including children, seeking shelter have been killed and injured as a result. During this same period, 56 Israeli soldiers have been killed, 400 have been wounded, and 3 Israeli civilians have died. I sympathize with the argument that Israel had little choice but to respond forcefully to Hamas's rocket attacks. It is hard to imagine any government faced with a similar threat to its citizens not responding. I also support, as we all do, the Israeli Government's goal of eliminating Hamas's heavy weapons and destroying the dozens of tunnels that are used to smuggle them into Gaza and to enable Hamas fighters to sneak into Israel to kill Israelis. But this is not the first time Israel has sought to achieve these goals only to fall short, at great human cost. Operation Cast Lead in 2008 resulted in 1,400 Palestinian deaths and the deaths of 3 Israeli civilians and 6 Israeli soldiers. Then in 2012 there was Operation Pillar of Defense. Each time, despite the destruction of Hamas's weapons, launchers, and command posts, Hamas remained in control of Gaza. After each of these operations, Hamas rearmed and is as determined today as it was 2 years ago. It does not appear that either goal, even if justified and laudable, can be achieved for the long term--if at all--without inflicting unacceptable civilian casualties. Israeli authorities stress that its army tries its best to avoid civilian casualties. They know the impact each innocent death has on world opinion and on the Palestinian people. Thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank, many of whom despise Hamas, have joined in demonstrations against Israel because of the loss of civilian lives in Gaza. But what is often ignored in the impassioned debate over this issue, including by those who rightly point out that the Israeli military at times provides prior warning to civilians of an imminent attack, is that Gaza is not like anywhere else. Its residents cannot flee to safety in a neighboring country, as millions of Syrians have done. They cannot even escape by boat. Shelters in Gaza that should be safe are not safe. The people of Gaza are, for all practical purposes, defenseless, trapped, and unable to avoid the violence. Hamas has insisted that it will not cease its attacks until Israel ends its export, import, and border restrictions on Gaza, which the people of Gaza, who lack safe water, sanitation, reliable electricity, and other basic necessities, say have made their daily lives nearly impossible. With each passing day, condemnation of the violence has intensified. Yet the death toll has continued to rise. I commend Secretary Kerry for his efforts to broker a humanitarian ceasefire. There never has been a military solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and there is not one today. He deserves our strong support. If the ceasefire announced today holds and if the United States continues to serve as the principle diplomatic intermediary, there needs to be some new thinking regarding our negotiating strategy. We cannot afford another dozen years with nothing to show for it, with the chasm between Israelis and Palestinians even deeper, with radical extremists further emboldened, and yet another calamity like the one we are witnessing today. It is difficult to see how that will be prevented if Hamas continues to reject Israel's right to exist and refuses to renounce terrorism, which is fundamental to any solution that brings lasting peace and security to both Israelis and Palestinians, nor is it likely to be prevented absent a decision by Israel to substantially ease its economic restrictions on Gaza. That may be the only way to eliminate Hamas's excuse for its rocket attacks, to bring desperately needed economic development to Gaza, and to create the necessary conditions for the disarming of Hamas. With each passing day, the grave consequences for the people of Gaza and Israel, for stability in the region, and for the security of the United States have become more apparent. The White House should use every ounce of its influence to help bring this tragic chapter of history finally to an end.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as chairman of the subcommittee responsible for funding and oversight of our Nation's foreign assistance budget, I have witnessed firsthand the significant gains achieved by many African countries over the last 20 years. This progress has been driven by the ingenuity and hard work of the African people, and has been supported by U.S. assistance provided by the American people and others. I am pleased that so many African leaders will be coming to Washington next week for the U.S.-Africa Summit to discuss how we can continue to grow partnerships between the U.S. and their countries. However, I am disappointed by the lack of attention to human rights and the rule of law in connection with the summit. There is no doubt that for peace and equitable economic development to flourish on the African continent, investment is needed to spur economic growth and security cooperation is needed to foster stability. But without a commitment to fundamental human rights and the rule of law, these efforts cannot be sustained. That is why I support the administration's exclusion of three of Africa's worst human rights abusers, Omar al-Bashir, Robert Mugabe, and Isaias Afwerki, who have no place in these discussions. But it is also why I am disappointed there will be leaders present who have been credibly implicated in gross violations of human rights and significant corruption, including President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea. President Obiang has used events like these as propaganda to shed his image as a brutally corrupt dictator. He should not be sitting down to an invitation-only dinner at the White House while his political opponents languish in jail. While I support the intent of this summit, and the continued growth of our relationship with African leaders who are dedicated to improving the lives of their people, I cannot support the hospitality provided to those who use their offices to silence their critics and treat their countries' natural resources as their own personal bank account. I hope the White House and State Department will insist that the rule of law and fundamental freedoms including the freedoms of expression, association, and religion remain a common theme during discussions on economic and security cooperation. These are not just American values, they are universal human rights. In the long run, our commitment to our own principle will ensure that the assistance we provide yields sustainable results for the good of the people of Africa and the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every time I go by the children's library at Kellogg-Hubbard Library in my hometown of Montpelier, VT, it brings back happy memories. I would like to have printed in the Record an article 1 wrote about the library and its wonderful librarian, Miss Holbrook.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois. I think Senator Sanders and Senator McCain showed that things can get done around here. I think of the tremendous work the Senator from Illinois did last year and helped us get an immigration bill through this body. We had a large majority of the Senate vote for it--Republicans and Democrats alike. How I wish the leadership in the House had allowed them to vote on it. I think we would be in a far better position to deal with these problems with the DREAMers and with those seeking to come into our country. I applaud the Senator from Illinois for never giving up.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we have learned over the past several months, there has been a clear and inexcusable lack of well-earned quality care and timely service provided to many veterans who depend on it from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I hope that the confirmation of Robert McDonald as VA Secretary will be the next step forward in ensuring that our veterans and their families receive the benefits, compensation, and support services they rightfully deserve. While I continue to recognize the hard work and commitment of the many men and women working in the VA system, the broader organizational culture has failed to harness and strengthen individual efforts in order to fulfill our promises to men and women that serve and their families. When he assumes his new post Robert McDonald will have his work cut out for him at the VA, and he must lead the Department's deep soul- searching. It is my hope that his management experience at Procter & Gamble, including his experience addressing inefficiencies in a corporate entity, will make him the right man for the job. The replacement of a Cabinet Secretary alone does not increase accountability, nor does it reform the underlying problems that enabled the environment we now find ourselves in. These foundational reforms must take place throughout the management of the VA system, and they must address long-term, as well as short-term, challenges. I was also pleased to hear that after many rounds of negotiations, Senator Sanders and his counterpart in the House have finally reached a compromise that addresses many of these needed reforms. I commend them both, and I hope this legislation will be swiftly brought to the Senate and House floors and then signed by President Obama, so we can get back on track in serving our veterans as they so honorably have served our Nation. I look forward to working with the future Secretary McDonald to ensure that timely access to quality care for our veterans and their families is the ultimate priority of the VA.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our tight knit communities in Vermont are part and parcel of my State's culture of neighbors helping neighbors. Our neighbors are not just next door; they are often in the most rural parts of the State, which can be difficult to reach. Our roads and our bridges connect us in a most basic way, and Hurricane Irene was a stark reminder that our infrastructure connects us not only in commercial ways, but in practical social ways that are integral to the spirit of Vermont communities. After Irene, with some of our roads and bridges completely destroyed, we saw, felt and lived what it truly meant to be cut off and isolated from our surrounding communities. As Congress faces a deadline in the Highway Trust Fund, we are facing yet another artificial, made-in-Congress crisis for our States, their people, and for the Nation. Congress is senselessly imposing these strains and lost opportunities on this country. There are those in Congress in recent years whose approach to governing is ``my way, or the highway.'' This time, even the highway is not safe from their obstructionism. This is a crisis we can avert if we would only work together to agree on a long-term funding plan for the Nation's transportation programs. I commend the Committee on Environment & Public Works for their hard work on legislation to reauthorize the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, MAP-21, and I commend the Committee on Finance for its hard work in trying to solve the funding issues we face in developing and improving our country's infrastructure. However, I had hoped the Senate would have responsibly agreed to a long-term plan to give State and local governments the certainty and stability they need to plan. Unfortunately, that was not the case. And while a short term fix avoids a transportation catastrophe this summer, it will also increase costs of transportation projects, limit the ability of State and local governments to plan infrastructure improvement, and ultimately result in the degradation of our country's infrastructure. Start-and-stop highway construction is even more wasteful than start-and-stop driving is on our roads. It is wasteful, it hurts our communities and our economy, and it is needless. The Highway Trust Fund is a critical asset for Vermont, as it is for every State. It provides millions of dollars to repair our roads and bridges and creates jobs for thousands of Vermonters. According to the State of Vermont, every $1 million of transportation funding supports about 35 jobs in Vermont, directly and through the maintenance of the State's transportation infrastructure. Construction companies, sign- makers, State employees, and every citizen will suffer the consequence of the inability to make progress on this vital issue. While this short-term fix has become necessary, we must acknowledge what long-term funding for infrastructure represents: opportunity. Large, long-term investments in infrastructure have paid off in the past. President Eisenhower's ``grand plan'' for the Interstate Highway System was an ambitious project that many questioned at the time. Today, it is indisputable that the vision of President Eisenhower and the foresight of the legislators in Congress who authorized the Interstate Highway System have strengthened our economy in every corner of the Nation, providing the opportunity for the American people and their families and businesses to grow, travel, and invest in the future. There are many Vermonters, and citizens all across the Nation, who are counting on us to provide a comprehensive, long-term solution to this problem. By coming together, we have an incredible opportunity to invest in the wellbeing of future Americans, and of our country. Let us not continue this latest made-in-Congress crisis. Let us pass the reauthorization of MAP-21 before the new December deadline. I thank the Presiding Officer very much and yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak on another issue. I see my distinguished colleague from Utah Senator Lee is on the floor. It is an issue he has worked with me on. We have tried to join together. It was more than a year ago that not only here in the United States but the whole world learned some very startling details about the massive scope of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. Since then the American people, and actually, all three branches of government have been debating the same fundamental questions about the extent of government power that the Framers considered when they crafted the Constitution. Many of us had been arguing those same issues, whether in the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, or others. But it was hard to get anybody's attention. Suddenly the whole world was listening. The obvious question is, when and how should the government be permitted to gather information about its citizens? How do we protect our country while we preserve our fundamental principles and our constitutional liberties? These questions are even more relevant and more complex as technology develops rapidly, and as more data is created every second. Nobody questions that the government cannot just walk into our houses, rifle through our drawers, our filing cabinets, and our cupboards, to see what we might have there. But that is not where we keep our data anymore. It is on computers. By the same token, they shouldn't have the right to rifle through our electronic files either. If they collect all this data, should the government be allowed to collect and use all of it? To what extent does this massive collection of data improve our national security and at what cost to our privacy and free expression? If we pick up everything, do we actually have anything? The Senate Judiciary Committee considered these and other important questions during the course of six public hearings held over the past year. During this deliberative process, the Committee considered whether the bulk collection of Americans' phone records has been effective in preventing terrorist attacks, the privacy implications of the program, and the effect on the U.S. technology industry. Those hearings helped to demonstrate the need for additional limits on government surveillance authorities. As these hearings continued, the call for an end to bulk collection under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act grew louder and more persistent. The President's own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology testified before the Judiciary Committee to call for an end to bulk collection, concluding that ``[t]he information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.'' The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board also called for an end to bulk collection, concluding that the program ``lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215.'' Technology executives, legal scholars and privacy advocates called for an end to bulk collection. These witnesses also proposed meaningful reforms to other government authorities, such as Section 702 of FISA, the pen register and trap and trace authorities under FISA, and the national security letter statutes. Then, earlier this year, President Obama himself embraced the growing consensus that the bulk collection of phone records should not continue in its current form. Just this week two new reports highlighted the costs of not placing reasonable limits on government surveillance, not just the significant economic cost if you don't put limits but the impact of journalistic freedom and also our right to counsel--our right to counsel--something we assume is an unalienable right, and it is, but it is being undermined. That is why the technology industry, the privacy and civil liberties community are unified in support for this bill. It is actually now time for Congress to act. That is why I am introducing the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. It builds on the legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives in May, as well as the original bicameral, bipartisan legislation I introduced with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner 10 months ago--last October. I continue to prefer the original version of the USA FREEDOM Act, but we are running short on time in this Congress. Since passage of the House version in May, I have been working to address concerns that the text of the House bill--though clearly intended to end bulk collection--did not do so effectively. I have worked with both Republicans and Democrats, House Members and Senators. I spent the past several months in discussions with the intelligence community and a wide range of stakeholders, other Senators, privacy and civil liberties groups, and our U.S. technology industry. The bill I am introducing today is the result of those hundreds of hours of negotiations and meetings. First, and most importantly, this bill ensures that the ban on bulk collection is a real ban on bulk collection and that it is effective. It ensures the government cannot rely on section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act--the FISA pen register and trap-and-trace device statute or the national security letter statutes--to engage in the indiscriminate collection of Americans' private records: yours, mine or anybody else's who may be watching this debate. Under this legislation, when the government uses these authorities to collect information, it has to narrowly limit its collection based on a ``specific selection term'' that identifies the focus of the collection. ``Specific selection term'' is carefully defined. For Section 215 and the pen register statute, the definition ensures that the government must use a term that is narrowly limited to the greatest extent reasonably practicable consistent with the purpose for seeking the information. The bill specifies the term cannot be a broad geographic area, such as city or State or ZIP Code or area code, nor can it simply be a service provider. For national security letters, the government must specifically identify the target about whom it seeks information. These provisions preclude the government from seeking large swaths of information that it does not need--and that might very well include private details about the lives of law-abiding Americans. As a backstop, the bill also mandates additional minimization procedures when the government's collection under Section 215 is likely to be overbroad. It requires the government to destroy data unrelated to its investigation within a reasonable time frame. Second, the bill enhances transparency regarding the government's use of surveillance tools. That is one of the best checks on a runaway government. FISA and other national security laws provide law enforcement with an extraordinary amount of power. The American people have a right to know how that power is exercised. Among other things, this bill requires the government to report to the public key information about the scope of the collection under a range of national security authorities, including the number of queries about Americans that it conducts in databases collected under Section 702. It also allows private companies more leeway to disclose the number of FISA orders and national security letters they receive. I see the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken, on the floor. I thank him in particular for his leadership and helping to draft these transparency provisions. Likewise, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his work on the bill's key reforms to the FISA Court. The bill requires the FISA Court and the FISA Court of Review, in consultation with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, to appoint a panel of special advocates who can advance legal positions supporting individual privacy and civil liberties--in other words, it will not be just one voice that is heard, we will actually have dissenting voices--and improve judicial review. The FISA Court would be required to appoint one of these advocates whenever it confronts a significant or novel issue of law, or it must issue a written finding that appointment of an advocate is not appropriate. The bill also requires the FISA Court to report the number of times that it appoints or declines to appoint an advocate when confronting a novel or significant issue of law. This bill additionally provides a certification mechanism for appellate review of FISA Court decisions when the government prevails, and it provides a declassification process for significant FISA Court decisions. Finally, this bill improves the judicial review procedures for nondisclosure orders that accompany Section 215 orders and national security letters. These have been so overused. This legislation responds to decisions by Federal courts that found these provisions violate the First Amendment. While this bill contains significant reforms and improvements, it doesn't fix every problem, and we know there is more work to be done-- in particular, with regard to Section 702 of FISA and other broad government surveillance authorities that implicate the privacy rights of Americans. We could spend the next 20 years waiting to get 100 percent of everything we need. I would like to get most of what we need and then work on the rest. The bill provides for public reporting on Section 702. That will help set the stage for reform, but transparency alone is not enough. I will continue to work with both Republican and Democratic Senators and other outside experts to work on these issues. For developing the legislation, I consulted closely with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the NSA, the FBI, and the Department of Justice--and every single word of this bill was vetted with those agencies. I am grateful for their receptiveness to the public's concerns and for their constructive participation in this process. Together, we worked hard to ensure that this bill enacts significant and meaningful reforms to protect individual privacy, while providing the Intelligence Community with operational flexibility to safeguard this country. The Intelligence Community will still have the ability to safeguard this country--nobody is suggesting they shouldn't, but collecting everything is the same as having nothing. That was the mistake we had before 9/11, where we had the information that could have stopped the attack on 9/11, but we failed to look at it all. I am pleased the executive branch supports our bill. I am pleased the President agrees it should be enacted as soon as possible. But ultimately we--Senators and our colleagues in the other body--have the responsibility of the American people to do what is right and to protect the privacy of the American people. That is why we have worked hard with everybody to ensure the bill enacts meaningful reforms. This is the most important thing to remember: We can enact this bill, get it signed into law, and it would represent the most significant reform of government surveillance authorities since Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act 13 years ago. It is a historic opportunity. We would be derelict in our duty to this country if we passed up that opportunity. I think if people such as Senator Lee, Senator Durbin, Senator Heller, Senator Franken, Senator Cruz, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Coons, Senator Heinrich, Senator Markey, Senator Hirono, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Whitehouse have joined, this is not a partisan bill, this is not a Democratic or Republican bill, this is a good bill that protects America. I also note the particular contributions over many years of Senator Wyden and Senator Mark Udall. They have worked tirelessly to protect Americans' privacy from their posts on the Intelligence Committee. I am introducing this revised version of the USA FREEDOM Act today because we cannot afford to wait any longer to end the bulk collection of Americans' records. I am concerned that we are running out of time on the legislative calendar. Typically, my strong preference would be to take up the bill in the Judiciary Committee and mark it up. But given the need to act quickly, I am willing to forego regular order and take this bill directly to the Senate Floor. We cannot let this opportunity go by. This is a debate about Americans' fundamental relationship with their government, about whether our government should have the power to create massive databases of information about its citizens or whether we are in control of our own government, not the other way around. I believe we have to impose stronger limits on government surveillance powers. I am confident that most Vermonters, and most Americans, agree with me. We need to get this right, and we need to get it done without further delay. I close with one very quick story I have used before. About the only thing I have actually saved from a newspaper that was written about me, and I liked it so much I framed it. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, I live on a dirt road, a place where my wife and I celebrated our honeymoon 52 years ago. The adjoining farmer has known me since I was a little kid. The whole story in that paper goes like this: A man in an out-of- State car on a Saturday morning drives up, sees the farmer on the porch, and says: Does Senator Leahy live up this way? He says: Are you a relative of his? Well, no, I am not. Are you a friend of his? Well, not really. Is he expecting you? No. Never heard of him. We like our privacy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak on another issue. I see my distinguished colleague from Utah Senator Lee is on the floor. It is an issue he has worked with me on. We have tried to join together. It was more than a year ago that not only here in the United States but the whole world learned some very startling details about the massive scope of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. Since then the American people, and actually, all three branches of government have been debating the same fundamental questions about the extent of government power that the Framers considered when they crafted the Constitution. Many of us had been arguing those same issues, whether in the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, or others. But it was hard to get anybody's attention. Suddenly the whole world was listening. The obvious question is, when and how should the government be permitted to gather information about its citizens? How do we protect our country while we preserve our fundamental principles and our constitutional liberties? These questions are even more relevant and more complex as technology develops rapidly, and as more data is created every second. Nobody questions that the government cannot just walk into our houses, rifle through our drawers, our filing cabinets, and our cupboards, to see what we might have there. But that is not where we keep our data anymore. It is on computers. By the same token, they shouldn't have the right to rifle through our electronic files either. If they collect all this data, should the government be allowed to collect and use all of it? To what extent does this massive collection of data improve our national security and at what cost to our privacy and free expression? If we pick up everything, do we actually have anything? The Senate Judiciary Committee considered these and other important questions during the course of six public hearings held over the past year. During this deliberative process, the Committee considered whether the bulk collection of Americans' phone records has been effective in preventing terrorist attacks, the privacy implications of the program, and the effect on the U.S. technology industry. Those hearings helped to demonstrate the need for additional limits on government surveillance authorities. As these hearings continued, the call for an end to bulk collection under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act grew louder and more persistent. The President's own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology testified before the Judiciary Committee to call for an end to bulk collection, concluding that ``[t]he information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.'' The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board also called for an end to bulk collection, concluding that the program ``lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215.'' Technology executives, legal scholars and privacy advocates called for an end to bulk collection. These witnesses also proposed meaningful reforms to other government authorities, such as Section 702 of FISA, the pen register and trap and trace authorities under FISA, and the national security letter statutes. Then, earlier this year, President Obama himself embraced the growing consensus that the bulk collection of phone records should not continue in its current form. Just this week two new reports highlighted the costs of not placing reasonable limits on government surveillance, not just the significant economic cost if you don't put limits but the impact of journalistic freedom and also our right to counsel--our right to counsel--something we assume is an unalienable right, and it is, but it is being undermined. That is why the technology industry, the privacy and civil liberties community are unified in support for this bill. It is actually now time for Congress to act. That is why I am introducing the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014. It builds on the legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives in May, as well as the original bicameral, bipartisan legislation I introduced with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner 10 months ago--last October. I continue to prefer the original version of the USA FREEDOM Act, but we are running short on time in this Congress. Since passage of the House version in May, I have been working to address concerns that the text of the House bill--though clearly intended to end bulk collection--did not do so effectively. I have worked with both Republicans and Democrats, House Members and Senators. I spent the past several months in discussions with the intelligence community and a wide range of stakeholders, other Senators, privacy and civil liberties groups, and our U.S. technology industry. The bill I am introducing today is the result of those hundreds of hours of negotiations and meetings. First, and most importantly, this bill ensures that the ban on bulk collection is a real ban on bulk collection and that it is effective. It ensures the government cannot rely on section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act--the FISA pen register and trap-and-trace device statute or the national security letter statutes--to engage in the indiscriminate collection of Americans' private records: yours, mine or anybody else's who may be watching this debate. Under this legislation, when the government uses these authorities to collect information, it has to narrowly limit its collection based on a ``specific selection term'' that identifies the focus of the collection. ``Specific selection term'' is carefully defined. For Section 215 and the pen register statute, the definition ensures that the government must use a term that is narrowly limited to the greatest extent reasonably practicable consistent with the purpose for seeking the information. The bill specifies the term cannot be a broad geographic area, such as city or State or ZIP Code or area code, nor can it simply be a service provider. For national security letters, the government must specifically identify the target about whom it seeks information. These provisions preclude the government from seeking large swaths of information that it does not need--and that might very well include private details about the lives of law-abiding Americans. As a backstop, the bill also mandates additional minimization procedures when the government's collection under Section 215 is likely to be overbroad. It requires the government to destroy data unrelated to its investigation within a reasonable time frame. Second, the bill enhances transparency regarding the government's use of surveillance tools. That is one of the best checks on a runaway government. FISA and other national security laws provide law enforcement with an extraordinary amount of power. The American people have a right to know how that power is exercised. Among other things, this bill requires the government to report to the public key information about the scope of the collection under a range of national security authorities, including the number of queries about Americans that it conducts in databases collected under Section 702. It also allows private companies more leeway to disclose the number of FISA orders and national security letters they receive. I see the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken, on the floor. I thank him in particular for his leadership and helping to draft these transparency provisions. Likewise, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his work on the bill's key reforms to the FISA Court. The bill requires the FISA Court and the FISA Court of Review, in consultation with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, to appoint a panel of special advocates who can advance legal positions supporting individual privacy and civil liberties--in other words, it will not be just one voice that is heard, we will actually have dissenting voices--and improve judicial review. The FISA Court would be required to appoint one of these advocates whenever it confronts a significant or novel issue of law, or it must issue a written finding that appointment of an advocate is not appropriate. The bill also requires the FISA Court to report the number of times that it appoints or declines to appoint an advocate when confronting a novel or significant issue of law. This bill additionally provides a certification mechanism for appellate review of FISA Court decisions when the government prevails, and it provides a declassification process for significant FISA Court decisions. Finally, this bill improves the judicial review procedures for nondisclosure orders that accompany Section 215 orders and national security letters. These have been so overused. This legislation responds to decisions by Federal courts that found these provisions violate the First Amendment. While this bill contains significant reforms and improvements, it doesn't fix every problem, and we know there is more work to be done-- in particular, with regard to Section 702 of FISA and other broad government surveillance authorities that implicate the privacy rights of Americans. We could spend the next 20 years waiting to get 100 percent of everything we need. I would like to get most of what we need and then work on the rest. The bill provides for public reporting on Section 702. That will help set the stage for reform, but transparency alone is not enough. I will continue to work with both Republican and Democratic Senators and other outside experts to work on these issues. For developing the legislation, I consulted closely with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the NSA, the FBI, and the Department of Justice--and every single word of this bill was vetted with those agencies. I am grateful for their receptiveness to the public's concerns and for their constructive participation in this process. Together, we worked hard to ensure that this bill enacts significant and meaningful reforms to protect individual privacy, while providing the Intelligence Community with operational flexibility to safeguard this country. The Intelligence Community will still have the ability to safeguard this country--nobody is suggesting they shouldn't, but collecting everything is the same as having nothing. That was the mistake we had before 9/11, where we had the information that could have stopped the attack on 9/11, but we failed to look at it all. I am pleased the executive branch supports our bill. I am pleased the President agrees it should be enacted as soon as possible. But ultimately we--Senators and our colleagues in the other body--have the responsibility of the American people to do what is right and to protect the privacy of the American people. That is why we have worked hard with everybody to ensure the bill enacts meaningful reforms. This is the most important thing to remember: We can enact this bill, get it signed into law, and it would represent the most significant reform of government surveillance authorities since Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act 13 years ago. It is a historic opportunity. We would be derelict in our duty to this country if we passed up that opportunity. I think if people such as Senator Lee, Senator Durbin, Senator Heller, Senator Franken, Senator Cruz, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Coons, Senator Heinrich, Senator Markey, Senator Hirono, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Whitehouse have joined, this is not a partisan bill, this is not a Democratic or Republican bill, this is a good bill that protects America. I also note the particular contributions over many years of Senator Wyden and Senator Mark Udall. They have worked tirelessly to protect Americans' privacy from their posts on the Intelligence Committee. I am introducing this revised version of the USA FREEDOM Act today because we cannot afford to wait any longer to end the bulk collection of Americans' records. I am concerned that we are running out of time on the legislative calendar. Typically, my strong preference would be to take up the bill in the Judiciary Committee and mark it up. But given the need to act quickly, I am willing to forego regular order and take this bill directly to the Senate Floor. We cannot let this opportunity go by. This is a debate about Americans' fundamental relationship with their government, about whether our government should have the power to create massive databases of information about its citizens or whether we are in control of our own government, not the other way around. I believe we have to impose stronger limits on government surveillance powers. I am confident that most Vermonters, and most Americans, agree with me. We need to get this right, and we need to get it done without further delay. I close with one very quick story I have used before. About the only thing I have actually saved from a newspaper that was written about me, and I liked it so much I framed it. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, I live on a dirt road, a place where my wife and I celebrated our honeymoon 52 years ago. The adjoining farmer has known me since I was a little kid. The whole story in that paper goes like this: A man in an out-of- State car on a Saturday morning drives up, sees the farmer on the porch, and says: Does Senator Leahy live up this way? He says: Are you a relative of his? Well, no, I am not. Are you a friend of his? Well, not really. Is he expecting you? No. Never heard of him. We like our privacy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, at a ceremony at the White House, President Obama awarded the National Medal of Arts to a distinguished author who calls the Green Mountains of Vermont home: Julia Alvarez. Born in the United States but raised in the Dominican Republic, Julia Alvarez grew up under the brutal dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo. Fearing for their lives after her father became involved in the revolution to overthrow Trujillo, Ms. Alvarez and her family fled to the United States. Just months later, three of the leaders of that underground movement--Patria Mirabal Reyes, Minerva Mirabel Reyes, and Maria Mirabal Reyes--were brutally murdered. It was this series of events that compelled Ms. Alvarez to author, ``In the Time of the Butterflies.'' The fiction novel based on real-life events is a story incorporated into the curriculum of schools around the world, including many Vermont schools. Ms. Alvarez's novel explains the complexities of family and cultural divide, while celebrating strength in the face of oppression. Julia Alvarez has been a trailblazer in Latino literature. When Julia started writing, Latino literature was only considered an ``ethnic interest.'' Today, her work is well known in America and around the world, thanks to her passion and creativity. Ms. Alvarez first came to Vermont as a student at Middlebury College. She graduated with a bachelor of arts, summa cum laude. Years later, she has returned to Middlebury College as the author-in-residence. She continues to mentor students and gives back to the institution that nurtured her soul as a writer. Julia has now spent more time in Vermont than anywhere else in the world, and she calls our great State ``the mother of [her] soul.'' I can think of no more fitting recipient of the National Medal of Arts than Julia Alvarez. Vermonters are proud of the courage that her works display, and the passion with which she weaves her own personal history into compelling novels.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to end the filibuster against the nomination of Pamela Harris to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. She is a highly accomplished lawyer with excellent legal credentials and has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. Her nomination received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified''. Pam Harris is currently a visiting professor at my alma mater, Georgetown University Law Center. In her diverse career she has served in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, as a partner in private practice, as a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School, and the executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown. After graduating from Yale Law School, she served as a law clerk to Judge Harry Edwards on the DC Circuit and Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. She is beyond qualified--an experienced appellate practitioner with background in both criminal and civil litigation and a command of the law that rivals that of any lawyer in the United States. Some partisans have tried to misrepresent her past statements in order to caricature her. This account of her record is simply unrecognizable to those individuals who actually know Pam Harris and who know that as a judge she would be committed to the rule of law. Many lawyers who have practiced with Pam Harris have written in support of her nomination, including many prominent Republicans who are respected in the legal community. One letter, signed by more than 80 of her professional peers, including Gregory Garre, the former U.S. Solicitor General for President George W. Bush, reads, ``We are lawyers from diverse backgrounds and varying affiliations, but we are united in our admiration for Pam's skills as a lawyer and our respect for her integrity, her intellect, her judgment, and her fair-mindedness.'' Another letter of support from a number of current and former partners at O'Melveny and Myers LLP, including A.B. Culvahouse, who served as White House Counsel during the Reagan administration, and Walter Dellinger, who served as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel and Acting U.S. Solicitor General during the Clinton administration, reads, ``Although we may not all share Pam's views on a range of legal and political issues, we are united in the belief that Pam possesses the intellect, fair-mindedness, humility, and fundamental decency to make an excellent federal judge.'' I ask that these and other letters of support received for Pam Harris' nomination be printed in the Record. When asked about her judicial philosophy at her nomination hearing she testified that ``the role of a judge is to decide cases through impartial application of law and precedent. It is a limited role . . . they decide the concrete disputes in front of them with attention to particular facts, attention to the arguments of the parties and their briefs, and by applying law and precedent to those facts.'' Both her testimony and the letters of bipartisan support for her nomination demonstrate that Pam Harris has a clear understanding of the role of a judge and make clear her commitment to follow Supreme Court precedent and to uphold the Constitution. I believe Pam Harris will be an outstanding judge, and she has my full support. I urge all Senators to vote to end this filibuster and confirm Pam Harris to serve on the Fourth Circuit.

Mr. LEAHY. I have to object. I have no objection to having more time after the vote, but I object before the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to introduce the Leahy-Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. The prevalence of homelessness among young people in America is deplorable. There are 1.6 million homeless teens in the United States. This problem is not limited to large cities. Its impact is felt strongly in smaller communities and rural areas, including in my home State of Vermont. It affects our young people directly and reverberates throughout our families and communities. The Runaway Youth Act, first signed into law in 1974, has proven essential to providing the services and resources that runaway and homeless youth need, and our continued support is vital. Thirty-nine percent of the homeless population is under the age of 18, and the average age at which a teen becomes homeless is 14.7 years old. These numbers are stark reminders of our duty as a nation to protect the most vulnerable among us. This bill reauthorizes funding for key elements of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs, including the Basic Center Program, which provides short-term emergency shelter and family reunification services to runaway and homeless youth. The Transitional Living Program provides longer term residential services, life skills, education, and employment support to older homeless youth. This bill reauthorizes the Street Outreach Program, which is staffed by workers who go out into the community to provide crisis intervention and services referrals to runaway and homeless youth on the street and at drop-in centers. It also supports funding for national support activities like the national runaway youth crisis line, and access to evaluation tools to help grantees track the success of their efforts and ensure that Federal funding is supporting only the most effective programs. This reauthorization includes new and important provisions to combat human trafficking. Victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons and runaway and homeless youth--two of our most vulnerable populations--are intersecting populations. Runaway and homeless youth service providers are uniquely situated to identify victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons. These youth have specific needs and this bill ensures that victims of trafficking will be identified as such, and receive the appropriate services. Another improvement made by this reauthorization is a provision to improve support for family reunification and intervention. Service providers will be able to use grant funds to encourage the resolution of family problems through counseling and other services. Family support is critical to providing stability for homeless youth, and this new provision will help boost positive outcomes. I am proud that this bill contains a new nondiscrimination clause to prohibit any grantee from discriminating against a child based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is estimated that 40 percent of the runaway and homeless youth population identifies as LGBT. It is clear that this community needs the services authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. No young person should be turned away from these essential services. Supporting our youth when they are most in need and helping to get them back on their feet benefits us all. Homeless children are less likely to finish school, more likely to enter our juvenile justice system, and are ill-equipped to find a job. The services authorized by this bill are designed to intervene early and encourage the development of successful, productive young adults. I have heard from dozens of service providers urging swift passage of this legislation. These are the people who are there on the frontlines when youth have nowhere else to turn. Without the programs funded through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, hundreds of thousands of children would be left on the street. I thank Senator Collins for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as an original cosponsor. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting the prompt passage of the Leahy-Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to introduce the Leahy-Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. The prevalence of homelessness among young people in America is deplorable. There are 1.6 million homeless teens in the United States. This problem is not limited to large cities. Its impact is felt strongly in smaller communities and rural areas, including in my home State of Vermont. It affects our young people directly and reverberates throughout our families and communities. The Runaway Youth Act, first signed into law in 1974, has proven essential to providing the services and resources that runaway and homeless youth need, and our continued support is vital. Thirty-nine percent of the homeless population is under the age of 18, and the average age at which a teen becomes homeless is 14.7 years old. These numbers are stark reminders of our duty as a nation to protect the most vulnerable among us. This bill reauthorizes funding for key elements of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs, including the Basic Center Program, which provides short-term emergency shelter and family reunification services to runaway and homeless youth. The Transitional Living Program provides longer term residential services, life skills, education, and employment support to older homeless youth. This bill reauthorizes the Street Outreach Program, which is staffed by workers who go out into the community to provide crisis intervention and services referrals to runaway and homeless youth on the street and at drop-in centers. It also supports funding for national support activities like the national runaway youth crisis line, and access to evaluation tools to help grantees track the success of their efforts and ensure that Federal funding is supporting only the most effective programs. This reauthorization includes new and important provisions to combat human trafficking. Victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons and runaway and homeless youth--two of our most vulnerable populations--are intersecting populations. Runaway and homeless youth service providers are uniquely situated to identify victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons. These youth have specific needs and this bill ensures that victims of trafficking will be identified as such, and receive the appropriate services. Another improvement made by this reauthorization is a provision to improve support for family reunification and intervention. Service providers will be able to use grant funds to encourage the resolution of family problems through counseling and other services. Family support is critical to providing stability for homeless youth, and this new provision will help boost positive outcomes. I am proud that this bill contains a new nondiscrimination clause to prohibit any grantee from discriminating against a child based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is estimated that 40 percent of the runaway and homeless youth population identifies as LGBT. It is clear that this community needs the services authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. No young person should be turned away from these essential services. Supporting our youth when they are most in need and helping to get them back on their feet benefits us all. Homeless children are less likely to finish school, more likely to enter our juvenile justice system, and are ill-equipped to find a job. The services authorized by this bill are designed to intervene early and encourage the development of successful, productive young adults. I have heard from dozens of service providers urging swift passage of this legislation. These are the people who are there on the frontlines when youth have nowhere else to turn. Without the programs funded through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, hundreds of thousands of children would be left on the street. I thank Senator Collins for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as an original cosponsor. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting the prompt passage of the Leahy-Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Tennessee who has said that the trial he described is not a trial. It is a sham, and no honest and civilized country, no country that has even a pretense upon the rule of law should accept that kind of a trial. So I applaud the senior Senator from Tennessee for his comments.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been on this floor many times to talk about the need to support law enforcement and to ensure our criminal justice system serves everyone fairly. I do so again in light of a very disturbing report issued by the Justice Department's inspector general last week which describes serious flaws in some of our Nation's crime labs. The report focused on 13 crime lab examiners whose work was seriously flawed, but the worst part is that their testimony contributed to the convictions of thousands of offenders, including 60 people on death row. The FBI launched an investigation. They discovered these mistakes, but even after they discovered them, it took them 5 years to notify those who were impacted--5 years that people were sitting in prison. During that time 3 of the 60 people on death row who were convicted and put on death row on potentially flawed evidence were executed and thousands more sat behind bars. It is shocking and unacceptable. I mention this because even in a country such as ours, our criminal justice system is not infallible, and that is why I again urge the Senate to take up and pass the Justice For All Reauthorization Act. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Cornyn last year. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation which includes the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, which seeks to prevent travesties such as those described in the IG report. It is named for Kirk Bloodsworth, a man who has become a friend to me over the years. He was convicted and sent to prison and could have been executed. In 1993, he became the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. Two hundred fifty additional people have been exonerated using this technology. Thomas Haynesworth was exonerated in 2011 after spending 27 years in prison for crimes he did not commit, thanks to a grant provided by the Justice for All Act. He was accused of rape in 1984, and wrongfully convicted. The real perpetrator went on to rape more than a dozen women. The Justice for All Act takes important steps to strengthen the rights of victims of crime and reauthorizes the Debbie Smith Act which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits. The program is named for Debbie Smith, who waited years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not experience such horror. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. Just yesterday, a few blocks from here at the DC Superior Court, a man was exonerated by DNA evidence. Now that is the good news. He was exonerated. Kevin Martin was exonerated, but he spent 26 years in prison for the 1982 rape and murder of a Washington woman he had nothing to do with. We know that in our criminal justice system mistakes are inevitable. But the Justice for All Act reauthorization gives us the chance to fix some of our most grievous errors. Senator Cornyn and I believe that pursuit of justice is not a partisan issue, which is why we were pleased when our bill was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee back in October. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is also a cosponsor of the bill. Every single Senate Democrat has signed off on passing this. Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, called the inspector general's report ``shocking.'' I agree completely, we all agree, which is why it is time for the full Senate to reach an agreement and consider the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. I thank the many law enforcement, victim services and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed. Let's pass the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I served with Dick Clark and traveled with him to different parts of the country, including a very cold day in the winter in Vermont. One of the finest Senators I served with was Dick Clark from Iowa and I still think of all I learned from him. I was so happy to see David Rogers' article about him in Politico. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the past few years, Marcelle and I have come to know Christopher Nolan and his wife Emma Thomas, both of whom are extraordinarily talented and have made breakthrough movies. One of the things that we have enjoyed talking about with both of them is the concept of what movies can be as real entertainment, and that movie theaters provide an audience an experience they would not have otherwise. Recently, Chris wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining just how movie theaters will survive. That was music to my ears, as I too want them to survive. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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