Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in reintroducing legislation that has already attracted broad support from across the social and political spectrum. An almost identical version was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee two years ago, and then last December it was cleared by both sides for passage by unanimous consent but the Senate adjourned shortly before it could be adopted. This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights and humanitarian problem--the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities. On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many in pretrial detention having never been brought before a judge or formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom in abysmal conditions, often for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted. Others are imprisoned after being convicted of offenses, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity. Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or press reports of what they are like, understands that this is about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages. A few examples illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the 2010 earthquake, more than 4,100 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility filled up again. Senator Whitehouse and I visited that facility just last month. It currently holds more than 3,700 prisoners of which more than 3,400 are awaiting trial. Thanks to the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a small Florida-based organization, Health Through Walls, a new infirmary and X-ray machine have dramatically reduced the incidence of HIV and tuberculosis. A small Vermont-based organization, the Rural Justice Center, is using USAID funds to chip away at the pretrial detention problem. These are examples of how modest funding can save lives and improve access to justice for prisoners in facilities plagued by abysmal conditions. I recall a newspaper article about how in Benin, in West Africa, the skin of prisoners was ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, an affliction that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin, was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. A year or two ago, more than 1,000 were reportedly confined there. Last February, a fire at the Comayagua Prison in Honduras killed 360 inmates. In one overcrowded cell block only four of 105 prisoners survived. More than half of those who died were waiting to be charged or tried. It is common in prisons from Latin America to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals. Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common. Prisoners in many countries die in prison from lack of proper medical care. Inmates suffer from AIDS and other illnesses in facilities with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released they infect the local population. A New York Times article described how prisoners in one African country were punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf-high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how that country's prison service conducted its own audit, appointed a new medical director, and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The legislation Senator Inhofe and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following: First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know. Second, it sets forth primary indicators for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food and safe drinking water. Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities in at least 30 countries receiving United States assistance or under sanction by the United States, selected by the Secretary's determination that such conditions raise the most serious human rights or humanitarian concerns. Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to furnish assistance for the purpose of eliminating inhumane conditions where such assistance would be appropriate and beneficial. For countries that are not making significant efforts to eliminate such conditions, the Secretary is to enter into consultations with their government to achieve the purposes of the Act. The legislation also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and directs the Secretary to designate, within the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, an official with responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act. Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the Act. Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life. In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money prison conditions can be significantly improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a defender of justice. This legislation will further that goal and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. It has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including Amnesty International, USA; Baptist World Alliance, Division of Freedom and Justice; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; International CURE; International Justice Mission; International Prison Chaplains' Association; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Just Detention International; Justice Fellowship/Prison Fellowship Ministries; National Association of Evangelicals; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; Open Society Policy Center; Penal Reform International; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to thank these groups for their support and their efforts to focus attention on this urgent problem. Identical legislation is planned for reintroduction in the House by Representative Chris Smith who cares deeply about this issue, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Finally, I want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has visited many African countries and has witnessed the problems this legislation seeks to address, as well as his staff, who have been very helpful throughout this process. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is another example of how two Senators, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act. The Senate will soon turn to comprehensive immigration reform and the changes to the refugee system contained in this bill are a critical component of fixing our broken immigration system. As we address the many complex immigration issues facing our country, we must ensure that America upholds its longstanding commitment to refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Act of 2013 reaffirms the commitments we made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and will help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This legislation seeks to repeal the most harsh, inefficient, and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world. During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. I believe this bill is needed more now than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. Ongoing political struggles in the Middle East and North Africa are causing dislocation of significant populations. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in dire need of protection. The Refugee Protection Act helps ensure that America will continue to be a haven for these individuals and their families, just as it has been historically. Since passage of the landmark Refugee Act of 1980, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. In my home State of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of these refugees and asylum seekers, almost 5,600 in the last 20 years, has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last 5 years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. As they become small business owners, nurses, and soccer coaches, they contribute to the well-being of our communities and their culture enriches my historically Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadian state. Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylum-seekers to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. Despite this generous community support, however, Vermont's resettlement program is not without its challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. To help address these hurdles, the Refugee Protection Act of 2013 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively. In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill concerns several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office, rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and is able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we have heard from many immigration experts, the immigration courts are overburdened, under-resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads. The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid provider and a collaborator in the New England Survivor of Torture and Trauma program, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or from applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts that could harm national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States. Finally, the bill recognizes the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identities and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at great distance, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards to ensure that reforms are meaningful and enforceable. These reforms are humane and fair, but they will also save taxpayer dollars because of the high costs associated with unnecessary detentions. There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2013. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act. The Senate will soon turn to comprehensive immigration reform and the changes to the refugee system contained in this bill are a critical component of fixing our broken immigration system. As we address the many complex immigration issues facing our country, we must ensure that America upholds its longstanding commitment to refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Act of 2013 reaffirms the commitments we made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and will help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This legislation seeks to repeal the most harsh, inefficient, and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world. During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. I believe this bill is needed more now than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. Ongoing political struggles in the Middle East and North Africa are causing dislocation of significant populations. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in dire need of protection. The Refugee Protection Act helps ensure that America will continue to be a haven for these individuals and their families, just as it has been historically. Since passage of the landmark Refugee Act of 1980, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. In my home State of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of these refugees and asylum seekers, almost 5,600 in the last 20 years, has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last 5 years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. As they become small business owners, nurses, and soccer coaches, they contribute to the well-being of our communities and their culture enriches my historically Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadian state. Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylum-seekers to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. Despite this generous community support, however, Vermont's resettlement program is not without its challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. To help address these hurdles, the Refugee Protection Act of 2013 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively. In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill concerns several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office, rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and is able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we have heard from many immigration experts, the immigration courts are overburdened, under-resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads. The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid provider and a collaborator in the New England Survivor of Torture and Trauma program, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or from applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts that could harm national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States. Finally, the bill recognizes the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identities and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at great distance, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards to ensure that reforms are meaningful and enforceable. These reforms are humane and fair, but they will also save taxpayer dollars because of the high costs associated with unnecessary detentions. There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2013. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, President Obama arrived in the Middle East today. It is his first visit as President to Israel and the West Bank. Some in the press have focused on the fact that the White House has lowered expectations for what will be accomplished in the 3 days of the President's visit. Others, including Members of Congress, have signed letters to the President. Rather than prejudge what can be achieved by this trip or try to tie the President's hands concerning the Middle East, I want to simply make a few straightforward points. First, no one who knows the Middle East can honestly expect momentous accomplishments from a short visit like this, especially when the new Israeli Government is still in the process of forming. But despite that, it is very positive that the President is traveling to the region, and this is as good a time as any. Second, the peace process, as we have come to refer to it, between Israelis and Palestinians has been stalled for a dozen years. In many ways the prospects for an end to the conflict are worse today than in the mid-1990s, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Just traveling to Israel and the West Bank reaffirms this administration's interest in helping the parties find ways to make progress on the key issues. Ultimately, however, it is up to them, not the United States, to resolve their differences. Third, it reaffirms President Obama's longstanding support for Israel. While during the Presidential campaign there were shameful attempts to portray the President as somehow not committed enough or supportive enough of Israel, that was pure politics. The record is abundantly clear that he has been, is--and, there is every reason to believe, will continue to be--a strong supporter of Israel. Top Israeli officials have acknowledged this. That is not to say that we and the Israeli Government are going to agree on every issue. Israel and the United States share fundamental interests, but we are different countries and sometimes our interests diverge. That is to be expected. Fourth, the President's visit is an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to recognize that the status quo is unsustainable. Maintaining this untenable limbo is neither in their interests nor in the interests of our great Nation. Unilateral actions by either side are harmful to the peace process. Rhetoric that dehumanizes or demonizes the other is harmful. Settlement construction in disputed territory is harmful. Incitement to violence is harmful. Both sides need to demonstrate that they want lasting peace through negotiations. The President will also visit Jordan, which is facing increasing pressure from the flood of Syrian refugees, an issue that concerns us all. The fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution that is expected to pass the Senate this week includes additional assistance for Jordan and for Syria's other neighbors to help address these needs. And, of course, there are growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. I believe the President has wisely proceeded with caution in the way his administration has responded to this grave threat. While some have urged the President to adopt a purely military policy toward Iran, the advice of our top military leaders is restraint. We should exhaust other means at our disposal to try to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and to avoid another war in that part of the world. Mr. President, I commend President Obama for traveling to the Middle East. Real peace with enduring security between Israelis and Palestinians has long been and remains a key goal of the United States. It is one toward which the Congress and the administration should work together.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the past 50 years there has been significant progress in improving living standards in developing countries. Some of the successes have been particularly noteworthy: eradicating smallpox and almost eradicating polio, stabilizing population growth rates in many areas, longer life spans, lower infant mortality, fewer people living in poverty, the expansion of democracy. Investments in international development made by government agencies, nonprofits, businesses, and philanthropic foundations in the United States and around the world have made a difference. Our country is more secure and our economy more resilient than it would otherwise be, thanks to these investments. Yet there is plenty of room for improvement to get better value for our overseas investments, particularly to increase the sustainability of the assistance we provide. Too often we set unrealistic goals, do not hold governments accountable for corruption, ignore local input, and channel our aid through contractors that charge high fees and put profit over results. There are other critical areas that have not received nearly the attention they deserve, either by our government or other donors, including the explosive growth of cities and the world's changing climate. The President mentioned the looming threat of climate change in his inauguration speech, and like many others I am glad he did. To date, our efforts to address this global challenge have been painfully slow and woefully inadequate. As anyone who works the land will tell you, the world's climate is changing fast--spring is coming earlier, polar ice and glaciers are melting, and storms are more violent. Scientists say these changes are potentially catastrophic, and that we will experience even more frequent severe weather events, shrinking water supplies, more intense heat waves and droughts, the spread of disease, and more and more threats to food production. It is the poorest people who are most vulnerable to these phenomena, and who are most likely to be uprooted from their homes as a result. If the international community does not mobilize quickly to address this challenge we risk the reversal of many or most of the international development gains of the last 50 years, leaving an unprecedented crisis for our children and future generations. Then there is the related challenge of urbanization. I am proud to say that a Vermont organization called the Institute for Sustainable Communities, founded by former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, is leading an effort to accelerate climate solutions among more than 320 U.S. cities--and the list is growing. The institute is focusing on cities because it is in densely populated areas that the opportunity to quickly strengthen climate resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is greatest. This work should be expanded on a global scale. Currently, only a very small percentage of international development dollars is spent to address problems in urban areas, yet 70 percent of the world's population will live in cities by 2030. The number of people migrating to New Delhi, Mumbai, Dhaka, Lagos, Kinshasa, and Karachi each year is greater than the entire population of Europe. Between now and 2030--only 17 years--the world will need to build a city of 1 million people every 5 days to keep up with the urbanization of the developing world. That is a staggering and frightening statistic. Those cities are not remotely prepared to handle this flood of desperate people. These are not places like Boston or London, Washington or Paris that expanded gradually over centuries becoming stronger as they grew. Cities in developing countries expand through shantytowns, like the vast slums of Nairobi and Lagos. And bit by bit, the edges of the city creep out and suddenly the city's size has doubled, or quadrupled. Closer to home, Tijuana, on the United States Mexican border, is one of Mexico's fastest growing cities. Tijuana adds about 80,000 people each year, and is projected to be the second largest city in Mexico by 2030. Many of its inhabitants arrive with no place to live and no job. The city's infrastructure is utterly unprepared to handle them. It is a recipe for crime and misery. Slums are not infrastructure, and in general most infrastructure decisions are not well planned. Most of the developing world does not have running water or reliable electricity, and nearly 40 percent of the world's population does not have access to basic sanitation, including 1 billion children. That number is likely to rise as rapidly expanding cities become even less able to meet the demand for basic sanitation and health care. This immense growth in cities is a cauldron for chaos and instability. People living in cities without safe water or electricity, plagued by hunger, disease and unhealthy living conditions, threatened by rising sea levels and violent storms--these desperate conditions are likely to lead to violence, displacement, and even the toppling of governments. Rapid urbanization is already putting tremendous pressure on the environment and threatens productive farmland. What will happen when there is not enough food or water for cities filled with millions of people? What will happen if the population of Jakarta doubles without an improvement in living conditions? Yet as cities grow we also have an opportunity to prevent chaos. Growing cities are going to be constructing new buildings--let's make sure they are energy efficient. They are going to be creating new transport systems--let's focus on low-carbon strategies that move people, not just cars. They are going to need to feed hundreds of millions of hungry people--let's make sure urban centers are connected to the rural economy in a sustainable way. And as they build new infrastructure, let's make sure that it is designed to support livable communities and built in ways that are more resilient to extreme weather and sea level rise. Investing in cities gives us economies of scale. We can accomplish a great deal through investing in efficient infrastructure, and we can apply lessons learned all across the developing world. An estimated 60 percent of the infrastructure needed to keep pace with the growth in urban centers has not been built yet, but it will be by 2030. Let's focus on helping cities build smarter. It is a lot easier and cheaper to build it right the first time, than to go back and fix it later. And here in the United States there are companies that produce some of the world's best technology and some of the world's best thinking about creating smart cities. Together with our international partners we can meet this challenge if we share our expertise. International donors, led by the U.S. Agency for International Development, should devote a larger portion of resources and effort to addressing the urgent problems of climate change and rapid urbanization. It is a critical investment for the 21st century.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 129, as modified.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a technical correction amendment. Current law prohibits transfers of U.S. cluster munitions that do not meet certain reliability requirements. Years ago Japan purchased U.S. cluster munitions that do not meet such requirements, and that Japan now wants to dispose of. Japan has contracted with a company in Germany to do this. But transferring the cluster munitions to Germany violates the law. Section 1706(c) of the continuing resolution provides an exception to the prohibition on transfers if the purpose is to dispose of the cluster munitions. The Leahy amendment #129, which is supported by Senator Graham, fixes a minor drafting error. It is a purely technical amendment which does not affect the substance of section 1706(c). Mr. President, I suggest we dispose of this amendment by voice vote. It should not be controversial. I yield back all time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is much at the Organization of American States that needs to be reformed, but the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR, is not among them. Yet that is what the Government of Ecuador and some other Latin American governments purport to be calling for when the OAS general assembly meets this coming Friday. In reality, it is not about reform at all but a concerted effort to severely weaken the IACHR, the one institution in the Americas that has been a consistent, strong defender of free expression and other fundamental human rights that have been too often denied by those same governments. I have spoken previously about the courageous work of Colombian lawyer Dr. Catalina Botero, the special rapporteur for freedom of expression. I have also spoken about the efforts by Ecuador's President Rafael Correa to intimidate and control what remains of an independent press in his country. So I will not repeat myself here. But the United States is the largest contributor to the OAS, and we have provided additional funds in recent years to support the critically important work of the IACHR. I want to be sure Senators are aware of what is happening, as it could have serious consequences for our future support for the OAS. I ask unanimous consent that an article in the Washington Post by Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, former President of Colombia and Secretary General of the OAS, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve Vermonters for many years as a voice on foreign policy matters, and I am always reminded that my work is a reflection of the outward looking posture of the people of my State. Vermonters have a long history of defending human rights and social justice at home and abroad. The longest functioning international exchange program is based in Vermont, and there are over 3,600 nonprofits registered in Vermont that are carrying out programs to protect the environment, support public health, and many other activities here and abroad. These small businesses help bring Vermont values to such far off places as Vietnam, central Africa, the Middle East, and Central America. One example of the far-reaching contributions Vermont small businesses make every day is the BOMA Project. Based in Manchester, VT, Kathleen Colson started the BOMA Project in the mid-2000s as a way to help women in Kenya escape extreme poverty. Kathleen's company replaces loans with grants and creates opportunities for these women to start small, sustainable income-generating businesses. To date, her company has launched over 1,100 micro-enterprises across northern Kenya. Other examples of Vermont organizations doing innovative work to improve the lives of people overseas are the Institute for Sustainable Communities, Pure Water for the World, Clear Path International, the ARAVA Institute for Environmental Studies, and World Learning. And there are many others. A February 10, 2013, article by the Associated Press quoted Peace Corps recruiter Brian Melman as he spoke about the people who work with these Vermont organizations: ``These are people who are willing to think big with small resources. They will go out of their way to make relationships with anyone that they can and to make believers out of all they come across because the passion is so genuine.'' That article, entitled ``Vt. home to many worldwide development groups,'' is notable because it points out the many ways our small State has contributed in a big way to those less fortunate all across the globe. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Paul to introduce the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which will start to take on the problem of the ever-increasing Federal prison population and spiraling costs that spend more and more of our justice budget on keeping people in prison, thereby reducing opportunities to do more to keep our communities safe. This bill will combat injustice in Federal sentencing and the waste of taxpayer dollars by allowing judges appropriate discretion in sentencing. As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep violent criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime. I have come to believe, however, that mandatory minimum sentences do more harm than good. As Justice Kennedy said, ``In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.'' Currently a ``safety valve'' provision allows low-level drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if certain conditions are met. The bill we introduce today would extend that safety valve to all Federal crimes subject to mandatory minimum penalties, allowing a judge to impose a sentence other than a statutorily designated mandatory sentence in cases in which key factors are present. The judge would be required to provide notice to the parties and to state in writing the reasons justifying the alternative sentence. The United States has a mass incarceration problem. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated grew by 700 percent. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of its prisoners. At the end of 2011, 2.2 million people were in jail or prison in the United States. That means we incarcerate roughly 1 in every 100 adults. As of last week, the Federal prison population was over 217,000. Almost half of those men and women are imprisoned on drug charges. Compare this with 1980, when the Federal prison population was just 25,000. Since 2000 alone, the Federal prison population has increased by 55 percent. As more and more people are incarcerated for longer and longer, the resulting costs have placed an enormous strain on the Justice Department's budget and have at the same time severely limited the ability to enact policies that prevent crimes effectively and efficiently. At a time when our economy has been struggling to recover from the worst recession in the last 75 years and our budget is limited, we must look at the wasteful spending that occurs with overincarceration. At the federal level, over the last 5 years, our prison budget has grown by nearly $2 billion. In 2007, we spent approximately $5.1 billion on Federal prisons. Last year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons requested more than $6.8 billion. That means less money for Federal law enforcement, less aid to State and local law enforcement, and less funding for crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs. In short, we have less to spend on the kinds of programs that evidence has shown work best to keep crime rates down. Building more prisons and locking people up for longer and longer--especially nonviolent offenders--is not the best use of taxpayer money and is, in fact, an ineffective means of keeping our communities safe. The proliferation of Federal mandatory minimum sentences is not the only factor driving the increase in incarceration rates, but it is an important factor. The number of mandatory minimum penalties in the Federal code nearly doubled from 1991 to 2011. Even those defendants not subject to mandatory minimums have seen their penalties increase as a result of mandatory penalties being incorporated into the U.S. sentencing guidelines. In addition to driving up our prison population, mandatory minimum penalties can lead to terribly unjust results in individual cases. This is why a large majority of judges oppose mandatory minimum sentences. In a 2010 survey by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of more than 600 Federal district court judges, nearly 70 percent agreed that the existing safety valve provision should be extended to all Federal offenses. That is what our bill does. Judges, who hand down sentences and can see close up when they are appropriate and just, overwhelmingly oppose mandatory minimum sentences. Congress has too often moved in the wrong direction by imposing new mandatory minimum sentences unsupported by evidence while failing to reauthorize crucial programs like the Second Chance Act to rehabilitate prisoners who will be released to rejoin our communities. Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly nonviolent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one- size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer. This is a bipartisan issue. Sentencing reform works. States, including very conservative States such as Texas, that have implemented sentencing reform have saved money and seen their crime rates drop. I thank Senator Paul for his dedication to this cause and for working with me on this legislation. I hope other Senators will join us in advancing this legislation and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently to better prevent crime rather than simply building more prisons.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Paul to introduce the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which will start to take on the problem of the ever-increasing Federal prison population and spiraling costs that spend more and more of our justice budget on keeping people in prison, thereby reducing opportunities to do more to keep our communities safe. This bill will combat injustice in Federal sentencing and the waste of taxpayer dollars by allowing judges appropriate discretion in sentencing. As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep violent criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime. I have come to believe, however, that mandatory minimum sentences do more harm than good. As Justice Kennedy said, ``In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.'' Currently a ``safety valve'' provision allows low-level drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if certain conditions are met. The bill we introduce today would extend that safety valve to all Federal crimes subject to mandatory minimum penalties, allowing a judge to impose a sentence other than a statutorily designated mandatory sentence in cases in which key factors are present. The judge would be required to provide notice to the parties and to state in writing the reasons justifying the alternative sentence. The United States has a mass incarceration problem. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated grew by 700 percent. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of its prisoners. At the end of 2011, 2.2 million people were in jail or prison in the United States. That means we incarcerate roughly 1 in every 100 adults. As of last week, the Federal prison population was over 217,000. Almost half of those men and women are imprisoned on drug charges. Compare this with 1980, when the Federal prison population was just 25,000. Since 2000 alone, the Federal prison population has increased by 55 percent. As more and more people are incarcerated for longer and longer, the resulting costs have placed an enormous strain on the Justice Department's budget and have at the same time severely limited the ability to enact policies that prevent crimes effectively and efficiently. At a time when our economy has been struggling to recover from the worst recession in the last 75 years and our budget is limited, we must look at the wasteful spending that occurs with overincarceration. At the federal level, over the last 5 years, our prison budget has grown by nearly $2 billion. In 2007, we spent approximately $5.1 billion on Federal prisons. Last year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons requested more than $6.8 billion. That means less money for Federal law enforcement, less aid to State and local law enforcement, and less funding for crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs. In short, we have less to spend on the kinds of programs that evidence has shown work best to keep crime rates down. Building more prisons and locking people up for longer and longer--especially nonviolent offenders--is not the best use of taxpayer money and is, in fact, an ineffective means of keeping our communities safe. The proliferation of Federal mandatory minimum sentences is not the only factor driving the increase in incarceration rates, but it is an important factor. The number of mandatory minimum penalties in the Federal code nearly doubled from 1991 to 2011. Even those defendants not subject to mandatory minimums have seen their penalties increase as a result of mandatory penalties being incorporated into the U.S. sentencing guidelines. In addition to driving up our prison population, mandatory minimum penalties can lead to terribly unjust results in individual cases. This is why a large majority of judges oppose mandatory minimum sentences. In a 2010 survey by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of more than 600 Federal district court judges, nearly 70 percent agreed that the existing safety valve provision should be extended to all Federal offenses. That is what our bill does. Judges, who hand down sentences and can see close up when they are appropriate and just, overwhelmingly oppose mandatory minimum sentences. Congress has too often moved in the wrong direction by imposing new mandatory minimum sentences unsupported by evidence while failing to reauthorize crucial programs like the Second Chance Act to rehabilitate prisoners who will be released to rejoin our communities. Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly nonviolent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one- size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer. This is a bipartisan issue. Sentencing reform works. States, including very conservative States such as Texas, that have implemented sentencing reform have saved money and seen their crime rates drop. I thank Senator Paul for his dedication to this cause and for working with me on this legislation. I hope other Senators will join us in advancing this legislation and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently to better prevent crime rather than simply building more prisons.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you. Mr. President, I couldn't help but think, watching the debate, that it has been more than 2 weeks since we had an all-too-familiar stalemate in Congress that prevented the passage of commonsense legislation. As a result, it triggered the across-the-board budget cuts better known as sequestration. When these automatic budget cuts first became a possibility, everybody said that no Congress would be irresponsible enough to allow them to go into place. Well, in the weeks leading up to sequestration, we heard almost daily from Federal agencies, defense contractors, and Members from both sides of the aisle about how harmful these cuts would be. Notwithstanding the talk about how ridiculous it is to let them go forward, the deadline for sequestration has come and gone. Now the focus appears not to be upon the wide swath of harm that is beginning to descend on communities across the Nation but instead on the closure of White House tours and whether we are going to have the Easter egg roll. Come on. I hope the American public and I hope the press and everybody else will focus on how serious these cuts are. In fact, to simply accept and avoid fixing these indiscriminate and harmful cuts is irresponsible. They are slowly being implemented, and they have already begun to affect our States and communities. I was up in Vermont this weekend for 3 days, and I was all over the State. Everywhere I went--just as I do every day--I heard from Vermonters about the consequences for their jobs, for their children, for their communities. I have heard from Vermont families who have begun to plan for the furloughs that will hit their family budgets; through no fault of theirs--these are hard-working, honest Vermonters--but because Congress has failed to act. I have heard from community organizations about the difficult decisions they will have to make in the weeks ahead. It should alarm everyone that reductions are expected, for example, in the number of children being served by Head Start. I have heard from young scientists at the University of Vermont who have already been denied research grants because of sequestration. Vermonters facing already high rents are facing a 7-year wait for section 8 housing assistance. Until the sequester is resolved, housing authorities in Vermont will not be granting any new rental vouchers, and hundreds of Vermonters are going to lose this vital lifeline. To put it in reality, at my home in Vermont, overnight we had 8 or 9 inches of snow. During the next 24 hours, we had another 8 or 9 inches. Once it got past 15 inches, we actually had schools close. This is very unusual. But think of the people who do not have housing, what that is doing to them. It is an unfortunate, needless reality. I have heard about the impact sequestration is having on our military families in Vermont, as some members of the National Guard prepare for furloughs. These are Guard members who have been called up and are willing to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line for America, but now they prepare for furloughs and reductions in staff who provide services to their families. Then we have the elimination of the Army tuition assistance program that serves veterans--a promise we made to our men and women in uniform when they were willing to stand up and go into combat for America. These are the impacts felt in the small State of Vermont so far. We haven't yet seen the consequences for Vermont schools and how sequestration will affect students and teachers. We haven't yet felt the true impact on funding for the grants that support our law enforcement people, our job search assistance, the Meals on Wheels programs, or those programs that provide lifesaving vaccines. Members have filed amendments to the spending bill we are currently debating to attempt to insulate and protect programs that impact their States most, but they want to do it at the cost of other States. We need to stop looking at how we can save just a single program and get back to the table and negotiate a sensible, balanced approach that addresses deficit reduction in a responsible way and not on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. We cannot simply cut our way out of this deficit. We created the situation partly by putting two wars on the Nation's credit card. This morning it was estimated that the war in Iraq is going to cost $2 trillion. It is the first war in our Nation's history where we went to war and said: We don't have to pay for it. We will just borrow the money. Vietnam and Korea were very unpopular wars. Yet we still passed the taxes to pay for them. In Iraq--although it is going to be over in a matter of weeks and we don't have to pay for it 10 years later-- thousands of Americans were killed and wounded, to say nothing about our allies and tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and we are stuck with a $2 trillion bill and growing, all on borrowed money. The only people who pay the price in that war for America are the brave men and women who serve there and their families. They pay a huge price. We don't have a draft, so most families didn't get touched by it. Certainly a lot of people have made a lot of money on that war. They didn't pay a price. And the people, including people who were in the administration at the time who lied to the Congress about what was there--weapons of mass destruction, a connection with 9/11, things they knew were untrue--they simply lied about it, and we ended up having that war. There is $2 trillion. Do not tell me now--the same people who voted for that war--do not stand here and tell me how we have to take the money out of medical research in America to pay for it, how we have to take the money out of educating our children to pay for it, how we have to take the money out of seniors who need help to pay for it, how we have to take the money out of repairing our bridges and roads in America to pay for it. My answer to them is you voted for that; you should be willing to pay for it. We have already reduced the debt by $2.5 trillion, with the vast majority of those savings coming from spending cuts. The American people want and expect us to take a balanced approach. They know it is not wise to protect endless corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans instead of investing in our schools, our factories, our roads, and our workers. I think of the billions of dollars we spend on roads and bridges, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan. As one Vermonter said: Yes, we spend billions to build roads and bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then they blow them up. Build them here in the United States--in Vermont or West Virginia or Oklahoma. We Americans will take good care of them. There is a simple bottom line: Putting our fiscal house in order, which we should do, has to go hand in hand with targeted, commonsense steps to promote economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class--all things President Obama and Democrats in both Houses of Congress are eager to do. But we need some cooperation from the other side of the aisle. We need cooperation. Putting on mindless autopilot the crucial decisions about what should be our budget and growth priorities is a terrible and dishonest way to treat the American people. It is a recipe for economic dysfunction. It threatens tangible harm to millions of families and for communities across the Nation. Difficult decisions are in front of us. Every single Member of the Senate should go back and read their campaign promise of: Oh, of course, I will face up to difficult questions. Really? We are stalled here. People want to filibuster rather than face difficult questions, but we have to face them. We cannot punt them. We in Congress need to put aside talking points and turn to the task of replacing these harmful autopilot cuts with sensible and balanced budget decisions. Instead of slogans, let's have some substance. The American people expect more from Congress, and they certainly deserve a lot more from Congress. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013--a bill to strengthen the privacy protections for email and other electronic communications. Last year, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported substantially similar legislation with strong bipartisan support. I thank Republican Senator Mike Lee for cosponsoring this important privacy bill. Senator Lee and I understand that protecting Americans' privacy rights is something that is important to all Americans, regardless of political party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that the Senate will pass this privacy legislation this year. Like many Americans, I am concerned about growing and unwelcome intrusions into our private lives in cyberspace. I also understand that we must update our digital privacy laws to keep pace with these threats and the rapid advances in technology. When I led the effort to write ECPA 27 years ago, email was a novelty. No one could have imagined the way the Internet and mobile technologies would transform how we communicate and exchange information today. Three decades later, we must update this law to reflect the realities of our time, so that our Federal privacy laws keep pace with American innovation and the changing mission of our law enforcement agencies. My bill takes several important steps to improve Americans' digital privacy rights, while also promoting new technologies, like cloud computing, and accommodating the legitimate needs of law enforcement. First, the bill requires that the government obtain a search warrant based on probable cause to obtain the content of Americans' email and other electronic communications, when those communications are requested from a third-party service provider. There are balanced exceptions to the warrant requirement to address emergency circumstances and to protect national security under current law. Second, the bill requires that the government promptly notify any individual whose email content has been accessed via a third-party service provider, and provide that individual with a copy of the search warrant and other details about the information obtained. The bill permits the government to seek a court order temporarily delaying such notice in order to protect the integrity of ongoing government investigations. In addition, the bill permits the government to ask a court to temporarily preclude a service provider from notifying a customer about the disclosure. The bill contains several important provisions to ensure that the reforms to ECPA do not hinder law enforcement. The bill adds a new notice requirement to the law that requires service providers to notify the government of their intent to inform a customer about a disclosure of electronic communications information at least three business days before giving such notice. Furthermore, to help law enforcement investigate and prosecute corporate wrongdoing, the bill adds civil discovery subpoenas to the existing tools that the government may use to obtain non-content information under ECPA. In addition, the bill makes clear that the government may also continue to use administrative, civil discovery and grand jury subpoena to obtain corporate email and other electronic communications directly from a corporate entity, when those communications are contained on an internal email system. Lastly, the bill also provides that the search warrant requirement in the bill does not apply to other Federal criminal or national security laws, including Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986, commonly known as the Wiretap Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1801, et seq., commonly known as FISA. Since I first put forward proposals to update ECPA in early 2011, I have worked to make sure that these updates carefully balance privacy interests, the needs of law enforcement and the interests of our thriving American tech sector. During the past 2 years, I have consulted with many stakeholders from the Federal, state and local law enforcement communities, including--the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, and the National Sheriffs Association. I have also consulted closely with many leaders in the privacy, civil liberties, civil rights and technology communities who support these reforms. The 113th Congress has an important opportunity to address the digital privacy challenges that Americans face today. We should do so by enacting the commonsense privacy reforms contained in this bill. When the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Electronic Communications Privacy Act on September 19, 1986, it did so with the unanimous support of all Democratic and Republican Senators. At the time, the Committee recognized that protecting Americans' privacy rights should not be a partisan issue. In that bipartisan spirit, I am pleased to join with Senator Lee in urging the Congress to enact these important privacy reforms without delay. Senator Lee and I are joined in this effort by a broad coalition of more than 50 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights and tech industry leaders from across the political spectrum that have also endorsed the ECPA reform effort. I thank the Digital Due Process Coalition, the Digital 4th Coalition and the many other individuals and organizations that have advocated for ECPA reform for their support. I hope that all Members of the Senate will follow their example, so that we can enact this digital privacy bill with strong, bipartisan support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013--a bill to strengthen the privacy protections for email and other electronic communications. Last year, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported substantially similar legislation with strong bipartisan support. I thank Republican Senator Mike Lee for cosponsoring this important privacy bill. Senator Lee and I understand that protecting Americans' privacy rights is something that is important to all Americans, regardless of political party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that the Senate will pass this privacy legislation this year. Like many Americans, I am concerned about growing and unwelcome intrusions into our private lives in cyberspace. I also understand that we must update our digital privacy laws to keep pace with these threats and the rapid advances in technology. When I led the effort to write ECPA 27 years ago, email was a novelty. No one could have imagined the way the Internet and mobile technologies would transform how we communicate and exchange information today. Three decades later, we must update this law to reflect the realities of our time, so that our Federal privacy laws keep pace with American innovation and the changing mission of our law enforcement agencies. My bill takes several important steps to improve Americans' digital privacy rights, while also promoting new technologies, like cloud computing, and accommodating the legitimate needs of law enforcement. First, the bill requires that the government obtain a search warrant based on probable cause to obtain the content of Americans' email and other electronic communications, when those communications are requested from a third-party service provider. There are balanced exceptions to the warrant requirement to address emergency circumstances and to protect national security under current law. Second, the bill requires that the government promptly notify any individual whose email content has been accessed via a third-party service provider, and provide that individual with a copy of the search warrant and other details about the information obtained. The bill permits the government to seek a court order temporarily delaying such notice in order to protect the integrity of ongoing government investigations. In addition, the bill permits the government to ask a court to temporarily preclude a service provider from notifying a customer about the disclosure. The bill contains several important provisions to ensure that the reforms to ECPA do not hinder law enforcement. The bill adds a new notice requirement to the law that requires service providers to notify the government of their intent to inform a customer about a disclosure of electronic communications information at least three business days before giving such notice. Furthermore, to help law enforcement investigate and prosecute corporate wrongdoing, the bill adds civil discovery subpoenas to the existing tools that the government may use to obtain non-content information under ECPA. In addition, the bill makes clear that the government may also continue to use administrative, civil discovery and grand jury subpoena to obtain corporate email and other electronic communications directly from a corporate entity, when those communications are contained on an internal email system. Lastly, the bill also provides that the search warrant requirement in the bill does not apply to other Federal criminal or national security laws, including Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986, commonly known as the Wiretap Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1801, et seq., commonly known as FISA. Since I first put forward proposals to update ECPA in early 2011, I have worked to make sure that these updates carefully balance privacy interests, the needs of law enforcement and the interests of our thriving American tech sector. During the past 2 years, I have consulted with many stakeholders from the Federal, state and local law enforcement communities, including--the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, and the National Sheriffs Association. I have also consulted closely with many leaders in the privacy, civil liberties, civil rights and technology communities who support these reforms. The 113th Congress has an important opportunity to address the digital privacy challenges that Americans face today. We should do so by enacting the commonsense privacy reforms contained in this bill. When the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Electronic Communications Privacy Act on September 19, 1986, it did so with the unanimous support of all Democratic and Republican Senators. At the time, the Committee recognized that protecting Americans' privacy rights should not be a partisan issue. In that bipartisan spirit, I am pleased to join with Senator Lee in urging the Congress to enact these important privacy reforms without delay. Senator Lee and I are joined in this effort by a broad coalition of more than 50 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights and tech industry leaders from across the political spectrum that have also endorsed the ECPA reform effort. I thank the Digital Due Process Coalition, the Digital 4th Coalition and the many other individuals and organizations that have advocated for ECPA reform for their support. I hope that all Members of the Senate will follow their example, so that we can enact this digital privacy bill with strong, bipartisan support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. That case affirmed a fundamental principle of our democratic society, that no person, regardless of economic status, should face prosecution without the assistance of a lawyer. It is worth pausing today to celebrate Gideon and the extraordinary idea that in a free society the government which seeks to convict someone must also assume the cost of providing an effective defense. In the last 50 years, we have come a long way in ensuring equal justice for all Americans and there is much about our criminal justice system in which to take pride. But we must also be honest and recognize that in too many courtrooms it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. The rich will have competent counsel, but those who have little often find their lives placed in the hands of underpaid court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, overworked, inept, uninterested, or worse. The bottom line is that the promise made in Gideon remains unfulfilled. At the core of this problem is the fact that too many States still lack adequate programs for providing effective representation. That failure results in miscarriages of justice, including wrongful convictions, in violation of our constitutional obligation to provide effective assistance of counsel. In his column yesterday in The New York Times, Lincoln Caplan noted, ``by well-informed estimates, at least 80 percent of state criminal defendants cannot afford to pay for lawyers and have to depend on court-appointed counsel.'' A recent article on the front page of USA Today correctly calls the problem a ``national crisis,'' highlighting one public defender's office in Pennsylvania that has four investigators to handle its 4,000 cases a year and where some lawyers have no desk or phone. A similar AP article which ran in the Washington Post cites additional examples of this ongoing failure of our criminal justice system, including one public defender in Indianapolis who was asked to represent 300 clients at a time. I know what it takes to work a case effectively from my time as a prosecutor, and no lawyer can provide effective counsel to 300 defendants at once. We can no longer ignore the disturbing examples discussed in these articles. We are on notice that a constitutional right is consistently being violated and, if we are to call ourselves a country of laws, it is our obligation as a nation, and particularly as the Congress, to take action and make a change. That is why today, I am introducing the Gideon's Promise Act of 2013. This legislation takes important new steps to breathe life into Gideon and ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all participants. I first introduced this legislation last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Justice For All Act. That law, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and to improve public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. I plan to reintroduce the reauthorization of the Justice for All Act, again, later this spring and it will include this critical provision to ensure that our criminal justice system operates effectively and consistent with our constitutional obligations. The Gideon's Promise Act takes several important new steps to improve the quality of the criminal justice system. First, it seeks to encourage States to adopt a comprehensive approach in using the Federal funds received through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, Program. This will help to ensure that their criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. Specifically, the bill reinstates a previous requirement of the Byrne JAG Program that States develop, and update annually, a strategic plan detailing how grants received under the program will be used to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. The requirement was removed from the Byrne JAG grant application several years ago, but groups representing States and victims have requested that it be reinstated in order to improve the efficient and effective use of criminal justice resources. The plan must be formulated in consultation with local governments and all segments of the criminal justice system. The Attorney General will also be required to provide technical assistance to help States formulate their strategic plans. This legislation also takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. That realization was reflected in the testimony of District Attorney Patricia Lykos of Houston that competent defense attorneys are critical to a prosecutor's job. Our system requires good lawyers on both sides. Incompetent counsel can result not only in needless and time-consuming appeals but, far more importantly, can lead to wrongful convictions and overall distrust in the criminal process. In working on this legislation, I have also learned that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. I remain committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system operates as effectively and fairly as possible. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Too often the quality of justice a defendant receives in our system depends on how much he or she can pay for an attorney. The Constitution requires that we do better. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system that keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our Constitution for all people. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal and I urge all Senators to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and three articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. That case affirmed a fundamental principle of our democratic society, that no person, regardless of economic status, should face prosecution without the assistance of a lawyer. It is worth pausing today to celebrate Gideon and the extraordinary idea that in a free society the government which seeks to convict someone must also assume the cost of providing an effective defense. In the last 50 years, we have come a long way in ensuring equal justice for all Americans and there is much about our criminal justice system in which to take pride. But we must also be honest and recognize that in too many courtrooms it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. The rich will have competent counsel, but those who have little often find their lives placed in the hands of underpaid court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, overworked, inept, uninterested, or worse. The bottom line is that the promise made in Gideon remains unfulfilled. At the core of this problem is the fact that too many States still lack adequate programs for providing effective representation. That failure results in miscarriages of justice, including wrongful convictions, in violation of our constitutional obligation to provide effective assistance of counsel. In his column yesterday in The New York Times, Lincoln Caplan noted, ``by well-informed estimates, at least 80 percent of state criminal defendants cannot afford to pay for lawyers and have to depend on court-appointed counsel.'' A recent article on the front page of USA Today correctly calls the problem a ``national crisis,'' highlighting one public defender's office in Pennsylvania that has four investigators to handle its 4,000 cases a year and where some lawyers have no desk or phone. A similar AP article which ran in the Washington Post cites additional examples of this ongoing failure of our criminal justice system, including one public defender in Indianapolis who was asked to represent 300 clients at a time. I know what it takes to work a case effectively from my time as a prosecutor, and no lawyer can provide effective counsel to 300 defendants at once. We can no longer ignore the disturbing examples discussed in these articles. We are on notice that a constitutional right is consistently being violated and, if we are to call ourselves a country of laws, it is our obligation as a nation, and particularly as the Congress, to take action and make a change. That is why today, I am introducing the Gideon's Promise Act of 2013. This legislation takes important new steps to breathe life into Gideon and ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all participants. I first introduced this legislation last Congress, as part of the reauthorization of the Justice For All Act. That law, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and to improve public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. I plan to reintroduce the reauthorization of the Justice for All Act, again, later this spring and it will include this critical provision to ensure that our criminal justice system operates effectively and consistent with our constitutional obligations. The Gideon's Promise Act takes several important new steps to improve the quality of the criminal justice system. First, it seeks to encourage States to adopt a comprehensive approach in using the Federal funds received through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, Program. This will help to ensure that their criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. Specifically, the bill reinstates a previous requirement of the Byrne JAG Program that States develop, and update annually, a strategic plan detailing how grants received under the program will be used to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. The requirement was removed from the Byrne JAG grant application several years ago, but groups representing States and victims have requested that it be reinstated in order to improve the efficient and effective use of criminal justice resources. The plan must be formulated in consultation with local governments and all segments of the criminal justice system. The Attorney General will also be required to provide technical assistance to help States formulate their strategic plans. This legislation also takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the Constitution. This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for States to do so. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. That realization was reflected in the testimony of District Attorney Patricia Lykos of Houston that competent defense attorneys are critical to a prosecutor's job. Our system requires good lawyers on both sides. Incompetent counsel can result not only in needless and time-consuming appeals but, far more importantly, can lead to wrongful convictions and overall distrust in the criminal process. In working on this legislation, I have also learned that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save States money. I remain committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system operates as effectively and fairly as possible. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Too often the quality of justice a defendant receives in our system depends on how much he or she can pay for an attorney. The Constitution requires that we do better. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system that keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our Constitution for all people. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal and I urge all Senators to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and three articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken many times on the floor of the Senate about Antonio Pomerleau of Burlington, VT. As my wife, Marcelle, has often said, he is her ``favorite Uncle Tony.'' Given his extraordinary service and dedication to the people of our state, it is safe to say that he is every Vermonter's ``favorite Uncle Tony.'' Tony has done so much for so many, from his enormously generous contribution to help the survivors of Hurricane Irene, through his constant and generous support of our Vermont National Guard and their families, to most recently his large donation to the Community Health Centers of Burlington, in memory of his daughter, Anne Marie. Marcelle and I of course knew her cousin Anne Marie, and we warmly remember her spirit and her life. Even though health problems nearly immobilized her toward the end, the cheer, love and friendship she gave--not only to members of the family but to everyone else--was a treasure in all of our lives. Tony continues to lift Vermonters' spirits and make lives better in so many ways. I have an article from The Burlington Free Press that highlights yet another token of Uncle Tony's generosity. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not engage the Senator from Arizona with questions. I don't want to delay his reading time. I appreciate the work the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee has done, and the distinguished ranking member, the senior Senator from Alabama. I worked with both of them for decades on the Appropriations Committee. I know they are diligent. They are hard working. In fact, I recall a discussion with the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland when she agreed to take this assignment. I told her I couldn't think of anybody better on our side of the aisle to be the chair of this committee because I know how hard she works and how well she works with the ranking member. I spoke also with the distinguished Senator from Alabama at the time--again, somebody who knows how to get things done on appropriations. He and I have negotiated things over the years. We have always kept our word to each other, just as the Senator from Maryland has. Now it is time to debate the bill on the floor and it pains me that having got this far, two senators are preventing anyone else from offering amendments. It is unfortunate we are discussing a continuing resolution because if left to the three Senators who are currently on the floor--the Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Maryland, and myself--we know we would be fully capable of completing action on individual appropriations bills. In fact, they were painstakingly negotiated by the Senate and the House as part of an omnibus legislative package last December. But then, for reasons we don't have to go into here, a year's work of seven appropriations subcommittees was dumped in the wastebasket, not because of the two leaders but because of others. Unfortunately, that means we have been funding the government on autopilot. None of us who have spent time on the Appropriations Committee wants this because we know it wastes money and sequestration will make a bad situation even worse. Having said that, I think what Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby have done in negotiating this continuing resolution is far better than putting the government on autopilot as we did last December. I wish to talk about title 7 of this resolution, which concerns the Department of State and Foreign Operations. The House continuing resolution included several changes in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act. The Senate incorporated those changes with minor modifications. Senator Lindsey Graham and I included other changes we believe are critical to our national security. Top officials at the State Department and the Pentagon agree with us. We did our best to avoid spending money on things that may have made sense in fiscal year 2012 but are a waste today. I will give an example. The House continuing resolution includes another $250 million for the Iraq police training program, the same amount as in fiscal year 2012. Yet the State Department plans to spend zero in fiscal year 2013. That is just an example of why we should go, if we could, by the regular order, because nobody wants this money. There have been a lot of changes in the world since December 2011 when the 2012 bill was signed by the President. There is the catastrophe in Syria, with millions of people fleeing their homes, which threatens to engulf the entire region. Benghazi and Mali are other examples. Conditions are changing in Egypt, Afghanistan, and in our own hemisphere. We face growing challenges in East Asia and the Pacific. Now, we should not say, as these challenges come up--sometimes overnight--that well, two or three years ago we passed a bill, so there is no need to do one this year. The world does not stand still. I think the chairwoman is doing a superb job, and Ranking Member Shelby is showing, as usual, his many years of experience and hard work. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham and his staff, who have provided very constructive input. In the past, appropriations bills were always a bipartisan effort. We worked together. I think of Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens on this floor working things out; my predecessor as President pro tempore, Senator Inouye, and Senator Cochran working things out. Title VII of this resolution is a grand total of 11\1/2\ pages. Out of over 500 pages, it is 11\1/2\ pages. It should not take long to read. We do not expect amendments, but if we get them, I hope we can act on them quickly. Mr. President, if nobody is seeking the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue for 5 minutes as though in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week the Obama administration announced that Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, had been brought to the United States to be prosecuted. Several of us who have oversight in particular committees were notified a week before this became public. We were briefed on what was happening as he was being flown here to this country to be prosecuted. I commend the work of our Nation's dedicated law enforcement and intelligence officials who are helping bring him to justice. I was briefed on exactly what they did and how they did it, and there was a superb combination of work by the Justice Department and intelligence communities, at the CIA, FBI, and other agencies. And I applaud the Obama administration for their unanimous decision within the National Security Council to prosecute him in a Federal court. We have reason to be proud of our courts. Our Federal courts are an example of impartiality, competence, and integrity seen the world over. We, as Americans, are not afraid to take somebody who has acted against us and prosecute them in our courts. We should not act as though we are afraid and simply say that we can't have them in our Federal court, and that we should just lock them up in Guantanamo. As a practical matter, our Federal prosecutors have established a tremendous record of convictions of terrorism defendants. They have convicted over 450 terrorism-related defendants since September 11, 2001. The military commissions at Guantanamo Bay--where some said they wanted to send Abu Ghaith--are largely untested. There have only been 8 convictions there--not the 450 we have seen in Federal courts but 8-- and on average the sentences handed down in military commissions are shorter than those given in the Federal court. In fact, two of these military commission convictions were overturned just last year. Indeed, based on the recent decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, it is unclear whether a conspiracy case against this defendant could even be legally sustained in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay. Why do we act as though we are afraid to bring this terrorist before our Federal courts where we bring mass murderers and everybody else, and instead argue that we should send him off somewhere where he may never be convicted? In fact, regardless of the outcome of a military commission proceeding against Abu Ghaith, it is possible that he could have been stuck there without the possibility of a Federal prosecution, given the shortsighted limitations on detainee transfers imposed by Congress. When you look at how well the Federal courts have done, I am surprised to hear people criticize the decision to bring him before an Article III Federal court. I would say that using our justice system is not mutually exclusive from gathering intelligence. In fact, from public accounts--and I refer to what has been in the press--it appears the FBI gathered information and intelligence from him for about a week before he was formally even arraigned in court last week. In fact, according to one of the prosecutors, law enforcement officials were able to obtain detailed, extensive audio recordings and roughly 22 pages of post-arrest statements from Abu Ghaith. And the fact is, also, as we have seen in some of these other cases, once you present the defendant in court, oftentimes they continue to cooperate and talk. It is clear to me that President Obama's national security team did the right thing. But we also show the rest of the world that we are not afraid, that as Americans we are not cowering and afraid to use our courts, and that we are not afraid to use the law and procedures that have made us free and strong. We have had several hearings in the Judiciary Committee on how best to handle terrorism suspects. I am convinced that the Attorney General and the administration must have all options available. For example, the case of the Fort Hood shooter went to a military trial, as it should have. That case involved a military officer committing a crime on a military base against other military personnel, even though influenced by somebody from al-Qaida overseas. But in the Abu Ghaith case we have somebody that we can and should prosecute on conspiracy charges in Federal court. As a former prosecutor, I have looked at that, and I have absolute faith in the abilities of our Federal courts and our prosecutors and law enforcement officials to bring terrorists to justice. They have a tremendous record. Let's not be afraid of these people. Let's not say: Oh, we have to hide them down there in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay. No, we are Americans. We are America. We are not afraid of terrorists. Bring them before our courts, and let them face American justice. Let them face our prosecutors and our courts. Let's do it in a way that we can show the rest of the world how justice truly works. When we tell them, why aren't you running your courts in an open way, or when we criticize other countries, as we often do, let us not give them an opportunity to come back and say, well, you don't do it that way yourselves. No--we can and must say that we do. We have captured the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, who conspired with him to commit a horrible crime against our Nation. It took us years to find him, but we got him. We brought him back here. And now we are taking him to court, and we are going to let a jury decide his guilt or innocence. That is the way it should be done. That is the American way. And that shows that we do not have to hide. We Americans are willing to stand up and face those who would attack us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maryland for her kind comments. We do a lot. It is interesting. In the foreign aid part, it is less than 1 percent of our budget. But what we do is show the face of America--the best of the face of America throughout the world. The distinguished Senator has been, throughout her career, both in the other body and here, a strong supporter of those programs and made life better for an awful lot of people who never know who Senator Mikulski is or Senator Leahy or anybody else. All they know is that life is better because of the things we have done. I was in Haiti just a couple of weeks ago. I have been there several times since the earthquake. I have seen how our programs have helped, including the Leahy War Victims Fund, which helps land mine victims around the world. The Senator from Alabama knows, as he was there with me a year ago. I saw youngsters with prosthetics learning to walk again. I saw people from other parts of the world who were inspired by what the United States was doing. I remember a physician from Brussels who had gone to Haiti. When I asked him why he spent so much time volunteering there, We were speaking French with each other, but I remember the emotion in his voice as he grabbed my arm and said, ``pour les enfants,'' for the children. Those children are not rich. They are not powerful. They will never vote for us. But we are human beings, and we have a responsibility. The Senator from Maryland has spoken about security at our embassies. We tell people to go to some of the most dangerous parts of the world and show the best face of America. We have a responsibility to protect them. We have tried to get that money passed only to have had it held up in the other body. Let's continue our work. I yield the floor.