Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to talk about privacy because privacy is not a partisan issue. It never has been, and never should be. Remember, 30 years ago I was in the minority. The Republicans were in the majority and controlled the Senate. It was then that I worked with my colleagues and led the effort to write the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA.

It required a lot of education because back then, electronic mail was an emerging technology. The World Wide Web was unimaginable. Electronic data storage was astronomically expensive. No one could have envisioned the way mobile technologies would transform our lives. Yet fortunately many of us in Congress had the foresight to anticipate that these new electronic communications would also need privacy protections.

That was 30 years ago. Look at what has changed since then. Now three decades later, that law is out of date. So today the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, and I are reintroducing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. We want to bring this law into the 21st century. Our legislation is very straightforward. It ensures that the private information that we Americans electronically store in the cloud gets the same protections as the private information we Americans physically store at home. As it did in 1986, I hope the Senate will come together on a bipartisan basis to support these commonsense protections.

All of us have an expectation that the things we store in our house are private. If law enforcement wants access to them, they have to get the proper search warrants. Today, there seems to be an idea that if they are stored electronically, these rules should not apply.

I believe they should.

The bill Senator Lee and I introduced today protects Americans' digital privacy--in their emails and all the other files and photographs they store in the cloud. It promotes cloud computing and other new technologies by building consumer trust. And it also provides law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to ensure public safety.

I would remind my colleagues that several years ago the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that email was fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. It said that ``the Fourth Amendment must keep pace with the inexorable march of technological progress, or its guarantees will wither and perish.'' This bill takes up that challenge.

Obviously we have technologies today that nobody would have dreamed of just a couple of generations ago. But we have a Constitution that has protected this country for well over 200 years, and we hope it will protect it for hundreds of years into the future. We need to make sure our laws keep up with the protections we Americans expect from our Constitution.

First and most importantly, the bill enshrines in statute the fundamental Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for email, texts, and other electronic data. It requires that the government have a criminal search warrant based on possible cause to obtain the stored content of Americans' email and other electronic communications from third-party providers. This ensures that email communications have the same protections as phone calls and private documents stored in your home.

However, the bill's warrant requirement contains an important exception to address emergency circumstances. It explicitly states that it does not affect current authorities under the Wiretap Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it ensures that law enforcement can continue to investigate corporate wrong-doing by using grand jury subpoenas to obtain emails directly from corporate entities when held on their internal systems.

The second major component of the bill requires law enforcement agencies to promptly notify individuals when the government has obtained their emails through their service providers, but permits a delay of that notice to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations--no different from what we do in other law enforcement matters. The bill would also require service providers to notify the government three days before they inform a customer that the provider disclosed their information to the government.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it liberal or conservative. In fact, Senator Lee and I would note that we have a broad coalition of more than 50 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights, and technology industry groups and leaders from across the political spectrum who have endorsed this reform effort. Support spans from the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform, to the Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 22, 2015, coalition letter in support of the bill.

I am also pleased that Senators Shaheen, Moran, Cornyn, Merkley, Gardner, and Blumenthal have joined this effort with Senator Lee and I. I commend them because we do have an opportunity this year to make progress on bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect the privacy of Americans' email and update our laws to keep pace with technology. And I also congratulate our House partners, Representatives Yoder and Polis, who are introducing this legislation today in the House of Representatives with 228 cosponsors from both parties.

In the last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously supported this bill, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have continued the hard work of building a broad bipartisan coalition in support of this bill. Now is the time to act swiftly to bring our privacy protections into the digital age.

I will continue to work with Senator Lee, Senator Cornyn, Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, Senator Merkley, Senator Gardner, and Senator Blumenthal on this issue because while I am proud to have them as cosponsors, I am also proud that we are doing the right thing

Mr. President, I want to talk about privacy because privacy is not a partisan issue. It never has been, and never should be. Remember, 30 years ago I was in the minority. The Republicans were in the majority and controlled the Senate. It was then that I worked with my colleagues and led the effort to write the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA.

It required a lot of education because back then, electronic mail was an emerging technology. The World Wide Web was unimaginable. Electronic data storage was astronomically expensive. No one could have envisioned the way mobile technologies would transform our lives. Yet fortunately many of us in Congress had the foresight to anticipate that these new electronic communications would also need privacy protections.

That was 30 years ago. Look at what has changed since then. Now three decades later, that law is out of date. So today the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, and I are reintroducing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. We want to bring this law into the 21st century. Our legislation is very straightforward. It ensures that the private information that we Americans electronically store in the cloud gets the same protections as the private information we Americans physically store at home. As it did in 1986, I hope the Senate will come together on a bipartisan basis to support these commonsense protections.

All of us have an expectation that the things we store in our house are private. If law enforcement wants access to them, they have to get the proper search warrants. Today, there seems to be an idea that if they are stored electronically, these rules should not apply.

I believe they should.

The bill Senator Lee and I introduced today protects Americans' digital privacy--in their emails and all the other files and photographs they store in the cloud. It promotes cloud computing and other new technologies by building consumer trust. And it also provides law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to ensure public safety.

I would remind my colleagues that several years ago the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that email was fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. It said that ``the Fourth Amendment must keep pace with the inexorable march of technological progress, or its guarantees will wither and perish.'' This bill takes up that challenge.

Obviously we have technologies today that nobody would have dreamed of just a couple of generations ago. But we have a Constitution that has protected this country for well over 200 years, and we hope it will protect it for hundreds of years into the future. We need to make sure our laws keep up with the protections we Americans expect from our Constitution.

First and most importantly, the bill enshrines in statute the fundamental Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for email, texts, and other electronic data. It requires that the government have a criminal search warrant based on possible cause to obtain the stored content of Americans' email and other electronic communications from third-party providers. This ensures that email communications have the same protections as phone calls and private documents stored in your home.

However, the bill's warrant requirement contains an important exception to address emergency circumstances. It explicitly states that it does not affect current authorities under the Wiretap Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it ensures that law enforcement can continue to investigate corporate wrong-doing by using grand jury subpoenas to obtain emails directly from corporate entities when held on their internal systems.

The second major component of the bill requires law enforcement agencies to promptly notify individuals when the government has obtained their emails through their service providers, but permits a delay of that notice to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations--no different from what we do in other law enforcement matters. The bill would also require service providers to notify the government three days before they inform a customer that the provider disclosed their information to the government.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it liberal or conservative. In fact, Senator Lee and I would note that we have a broad coalition of more than 50 privacy, civil liberties, civil rights, and technology industry groups and leaders from across the political spectrum who have endorsed this reform effort. Support spans from the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform, to the Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 22, 2015, coalition letter in support of the bill.

I am also pleased that Senators Shaheen, Moran, Cornyn, Merkley, Gardner, and Blumenthal have joined this effort with Senator Lee and I. I commend them because we do have an opportunity this year to make progress on bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect the privacy of Americans' email and update our laws to keep pace with technology. And I also congratulate our House partners, Representatives Yoder and Polis, who are introducing this legislation today in the House of Representatives with 228 cosponsors from both parties.

In the last Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously supported this bill, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have continued the hard work of building a broad bipartisan coalition in support of this bill. Now is the time to act swiftly to bring our privacy protections into the digital age.

I will continue to work with Senator Lee, Senator Cornyn, Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, Senator Merkley, Senator Gardner, and Senator Blumenthal on this issue because while I am proud to have them as cosponsors, I am also proud that we are doing the right thing

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on whether it should proceed to a bill that attempts to link two critical yet independent debates: the day-to-day operations of one of the Nation's key national security agencies, and addressing our broken immigration system. Now, in doing that, it appears that leadership wants to hold hostage the operations of the Department of Homeland Security, an office charged with protecting our national security. And frankly, that is simply irresponsible.

Sometimes the sense of history around here is whatever was the last sound bite heard on television, but let's take an honest look at the real history and how we got here: It has been well over a year and a half since a strong, bipartisan majority, Democrats and Republicans, came together in the Senate and approved a package of comprehensive immigration reforms. We did this after the Senate Judiciary Committee had held hundreds of hours of hearings and debate in markup. We passed it here overwhelmingly. The Republican House leadership refused to allow a vote on that measure even though most of it would have passed the House of Representatives. Now, because they wouldn't act at all, and left a void, the President acted. The President acted when he had waited for a couple of years to see if Congress would act--waited for the House of Representatives to take up the bill we passed. He had to act. This is almost like ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The Republican leadership refuses to act on the immigration bill and then they get mad because the President, who has to take responsibility for this country, acts. They now want to put at risk the very operations of the agency charged with enforcing the immigration laws in question and blame it on the President because they failed to act. This is ``Alice in Wonderland.''

I know Republicans object to the President's Executive action. We spent hours hearing their complaints last week as the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to be considering the qualifications of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General. It had nothing to do with her but they wanted to vent for the cameras. It went on until the cameras were turned off. I would say that instead of complaining about what they failed to do and complaining about what the President does to protect this country, why don't they offer some meaningful solutions for fixing our broken immigration system. A good place to start would be the comprehensive immigration bill we passed last Congress by a vote of 68- 32. There was plenty in that bill I did not like but it included meaningful reforms to all aspects of our immigration system that was negotiated and improved through the full committee process and that is what made it a real compromise.

Now, instead of voting on that bipartisan compromise or other alternative solutions, all we see are attempts to

undermine any efforts at comprehensive reform. By blocking all alternatives, the Republicans are keeping us locked in a status quo that hurts our economy, makes us less safe and pulls families apart.

The President's Executive action is a positive step to toward keeping our communities safe because it requires DHS to prioritize the deportation of dangerous criminals. And it encourages those immigrants with longstanding ties to our communities who do not pose a danger to register with the government and come out of the shadows.

Law enforcement officers and victims' advocates tell us the President's Executive action will make our communities and families safer because people will not hesitate to call the police for fear of being deported themselves.

Business leaders, economists and labor leaders tell us it will grow our economy and increase wages for all workers. It will level the playing field for American workers and raise revenues by more than $22.6 billion over 5 years.

Immigration and constitutional law experts have concluded that it is constitutional and the President acted within his authority.

Mayors from 33 major cities across the country who work every day to make our communities safe and our businesses flourish, have said the Executive action will fuel growth in local economies, increase public safety, and facilitate the integration of immigrants. These are not political partisans. They are frontline leaders who understand the daily problems posed by our broken immigration system. They are telling us that we must act. And until we do, they are supportive of the temporary steps the President has taken.

House Republicans have said their proposal will bolster border security in a way the President's Executive actions did not but those claims ignore reality. Border security has become a game of who can develop the most outlandish, unrealistic proposals. Round-the-clock drone surveillance. Doubling the border patrol. Waiving all environmental laws. Requiring DHS to prevent every last undocumented person from crossing the southern border. These proposals are not serious. They never worked in the past. They are not going to work now. We are not at war with Mexico and Canada. We cannot seal our borders. Nor should we.

We already have devoted an enormous amount of resources to border security. The overall budget for CBP and ICE has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. Hundreds of miles of border fencing has been constructed. We have more than 21,000 border patrol agents. And, the Department has deployed advanced technologies and airborne assets. The most effective border security measure would be approving the comprehensive immigration reforms passed by the Senate last Congress that reduce the number of people trying to come here in the first place.

The Senate has a choice. We can set aside politics and act like grownups or we can waste days debating the legislation sent to us by the House, which the President has made clear he will veto.

What I suggest is that we respond to the American people and act like grownups--consider legislation introduced last week by Senator Shaheen and Senator Mikulski. That bill, negotiated last year by Senate and House members, Democrats and Republicans alike, would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the critical resources it needs to protect our national interests. That bill will raise DHS funding by $400 million, and fund the largest operation force of border patrol agents and CBP officers in history. It will provide resources to respond quickly when natural disasters devastate our states and communities. It will provide funding for the essential services provided by the Coast Guard and Secret Service. It will invest in FEMA's State and Local Grants Program, which also helps all of our states--including rural, border ones like Vermont. And it will support our state and local law enforcement, fire departments and first responder emergency services. It replaces rhetoric with reality. I think the American people are tired of rhetoric. They'd like some reality.

We all know our current immigration system needs comprehensive reform. That's why I held hundreds of hours of hearings and markups in the Judiciary Committee and why this Senate, Republicans and Democrats, came together last Congress and passed a comprehensive immigration bill. And I'm so sorry that the House Republican leadership refused to bring it up even though there were the votes to pass it. So the President took the first step. Now, Congress must act. But this appropriations bill is not the place for that debate. Have a real debate on immigration. We cannot send the message that we are more willing to play politics than promote and protect national security. That posturing is beneath the Senate. We should pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, and renew our efforts to enact meaningful, comprehensive immigration reforms such as those passed by the Senate in 2013.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for generations, Vermonters have contributed to the global culture of winter sports. Whether the sport is snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling or

snowboarding, Vermonters never pass up an opportunity to claim the first run of the day.

Almost four decades ago, Jake Burton's passion for winter sports led to the creation of Burton Snowboards, one of the leading snowboard manufacturers in the world. Jake at a young age enjoyed ``snurfing''-- surfing on snow--but he never anticipated the path he would eventually take, becoming one of the pioneers in snowboard manufacturing.

In the late 1970s, Jake started exploring the idea of manufacturing snowboards, building prototypes from a barn in Londonderry, VT. At the time, most ski resorts did not allow snowboarders, as snowboarding was not yet considered a sport, and gaining recognition as a sport proved to be harder than one might expect. Jake didn't let his optimism or passion wane, and interest in the fledgling sport finally spread. Jake and his wife Donna explored the European market, eventually opening a distribution center in Austria, while maintaining their national headquarters in Burlington, VT. For a little-known sport, it quickly gained international notoriety and stature. In 1998, snowboarding debuted at the winter Olympics in Nagano.

Jake is now one of the most successful business leaders Vermont has ever known. His commitment and passion allow him to remain one with the pulse of his company, with consumers, and, most of all, with the sport, on a level unique to Burton Snowboards.

The Wall Street Journal recently chronicled the multiple ways in which Jake keeps himself healthy, in shape, and on the slopes. Jake's lifestyle is one that truly speaks to the Vermont spirit. Marcelle and I are proud to have Jake and Donna as friends.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. President, I am proud to once again join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the FOIA Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill that will make our Federal government more accountable to all Americans by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Senator Cornyn and I introduced an almost identical bill last year, and despite it passing the Senate unanimously, the House failed to act. This was deeply disappointing, and was a missed opportunity for Congress. But Senator Cornyn and I have worked together for more than a decade to make our government more open, through Democratic and Republican administrations and Republican and Democratic-led Congresses. We have a strong partnership, and we will not quit. We are determined to make progress on creating a more open and transparent government for all Americans.

The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 codifies what President Obama laid out in his historic 2009 memorandum by requiring Federal agencies to adopt a ``Presumption of Openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. Under this bill, when considering FOIA requests Federal agencies must find a reasonable foreseeable harm in order to invoke a discretionary exemption and withhold information from the public. The government should always err on the side of disclosure. Our legislation also provides additional independence to the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, an office created by the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act in 2007 that helps mediate disputes between the Federal Government and FOIA requesters. Finally, our legislation will limit the use of Exemption 5 by placing a 25 year limitation on information covered by the exemption.

I have fought for years to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA including the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests.

After four decades in the Senate, I appreciate that legislating requires compromise. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 reflects the input of both sides of the aisle, the open government community, the administration, and many other stakeholders. It is the product of nearly a year of careful negotiations on behalf of Senator Cornyn and me. It is supported by more than 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency and it had the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. Above all, it marks an historic step forward in our continued effort to open the government by codifying what President Obama set out to achieve in 2009 when he said ``In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' This is common sense, and so I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this bill and for the House to follow suit so we can show the American people, in a bipartisan fashion, that we are committed to advancing their interests

above special interests, no matter who holds control of Congress or the White House.

Mr. President, I am proud to once again join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the FOIA Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill that will make our Federal government more accountable to all Americans by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Senator Cornyn and I introduced an almost identical bill last year, and despite it passing the Senate unanimously, the House failed to act. This was deeply disappointing, and was a missed opportunity for Congress. But Senator Cornyn and I have worked together for more than a decade to make our government more open, through Democratic and Republican administrations and Republican and Democratic-led Congresses. We have a strong partnership, and we will not quit. We are determined to make progress on creating a more open and transparent government for all Americans.

The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 codifies what President Obama laid out in his historic 2009 memorandum by requiring Federal agencies to adopt a ``Presumption of Openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. Under this bill, when considering FOIA requests Federal agencies must find a reasonable foreseeable harm in order to invoke a discretionary exemption and withhold information from the public. The government should always err on the side of disclosure. Our legislation also provides additional independence to the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, an office created by the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act in 2007 that helps mediate disputes between the Federal Government and FOIA requesters. Finally, our legislation will limit the use of Exemption 5 by placing a 25 year limitation on information covered by the exemption.

I have fought for years to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA including the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests.

After four decades in the Senate, I appreciate that legislating requires compromise. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2015 reflects the input of both sides of the aisle, the open government community, the administration, and many other stakeholders. It is the product of nearly a year of careful negotiations on behalf of Senator Cornyn and me. It is supported by more than 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency and it had the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. Above all, it marks an historic step forward in our continued effort to open the government by codifying what President Obama set out to achieve in 2009 when he said ``In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' This is common sense, and so I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this bill and for the House to follow suit so we can show the American people, in a bipartisan fashion, that we are committed to advancing their interests

above special interests, no matter who holds control of Congress or the White House.

Mr. President, I have the privilege of being a lifelong Vermonter, as were my parents and my brother and sister. All Vermonters realize that in a small State like ours, it takes the dedication and hard work of very special and talented people to make our State great.

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

Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Leahy- Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. It is deplorable that in the wealthiest country in the world, 1.6 million teenagers live on the streets because they have no home. We know that those who do not have a safe place to sleep at night are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked. A recent study found that nearly one in four homeless young people have been victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation. We often talk about human trafficking as an international problem, but the sad truth is that it is a major problem right here at home. It is time we provide the resources to help protect our children from this very real threat.

The Runaway Youth Act, first signed into law in 1974, has proven essential to providing the basic services and resources that runaway and homeless youth need, and our continued support is vital. Thirty- nine percent of the homeless population is under the age of 18, and the average age at which a teen becomes homeless is 14.7 years old. Think about that. The average teen living on the streets is not even old enough to drive. These young people represent our country's future and its optimism, and as a father and a grandfather, I believe that we must do more to address the needs of the 1.6 million homeless youth in our country.

Teens run away and become homeless for myriad reasons. A U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services study found that 46 percent of homeless youth had run away because of physical abuse and 17 percent because of sexual abuse. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT and report leaving home because of a lack of acceptance. By including a new provision that prohibits grantees from denying services based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the homeless youth, this bill takes important new steps to make sure that we are meeting the needs of this growing and particularly vulnerable population. No young person should be turned away from these essential services.

We have made great strides in recent years in our efforts to combat human trafficking. Most recently, we reauthorized the comprehensive Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bipartisan bill I introduced and was proud to see enacted as part of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. And last year, we saw historic levels of funding for victims of trafficking, an urgently needed increase that I was proud to support as the most senior member of the Appropriations Committee. But we must not forget the importance of investing in prevention efforts as well, and I was disappointed that Congress failed to pass the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. If we are to make a real difference to end modern day slavery, we must protect those who are most vulnerable and prevent the exploitation in the first place. We cannot simply focus on ending demand and arrest our way out of this problem; we must eliminate the conditions that make these children so vulnerable. That means investing in stable housing and support services for more kids in need; we are not doing enough. I hope that we can finally enact this meaningful bill in 2015.

In addition to the dangers of human trafficking, homeless youth are at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. They are less likely to finish school, more likely to enter our juvenile justice system, and are often ill-equipped to find a job. The services authorized by this bill are designed to intervene early and encourage the development of successful, productive young adults.

I have heard from dozens of service providers from across the country, including in my home state of Vermont, that these programs work. I am proud to say that last year, 95 percent of youth receiving services from the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs were able to exit to a safe living situation upon their completion of programming. Without the programs funded through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, hundreds of thousands of children would be left on the street and vulnerable to exploitation. Congress has an opportunity to respond in a meaningful and historic way.

I thank Senators Collins, Booker, and Ayotte for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as original cosponsors. We have the chance to make a real difference by passing the Runway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. Every day we wait is another night too many children are sleeping on the streets.

Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Leahy- Collins Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. It is deplorable that in the wealthiest country in the world, 1.6 million teenagers live on the streets because they have no home. We know that those who do not have a safe place to sleep at night are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked. A recent study found that nearly one in four homeless young people have been victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation. We often talk about human trafficking as an international problem, but the sad truth is that it is a major problem right here at home. It is time we provide the resources to help protect our children from this very real threat.

The Runaway Youth Act, first signed into law in 1974, has proven essential to providing the basic services and resources that runaway and homeless youth need, and our continued support is vital. Thirty- nine percent of the homeless population is under the age of 18, and the average age at which a teen becomes homeless is 14.7 years old. Think about that. The average teen living on the streets is not even old enough to drive. These young people represent our country's future and its optimism, and as a father and a grandfather, I believe that we must do more to address the needs of the 1.6 million homeless youth in our country.

Teens run away and become homeless for myriad reasons. A U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services study found that 46 percent of homeless youth had run away because of physical abuse and 17 percent because of sexual abuse. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT and report leaving home because of a lack of acceptance. By including a new provision that prohibits grantees from denying services based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the homeless youth, this bill takes important new steps to make sure that we are meeting the needs of this growing and particularly vulnerable population. No young person should be turned away from these essential services.

We have made great strides in recent years in our efforts to combat human trafficking. Most recently, we reauthorized the comprehensive Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bipartisan bill I introduced and was proud to see enacted as part of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. And last year, we saw historic levels of funding for victims of trafficking, an urgently needed increase that I was proud to support as the most senior member of the Appropriations Committee. But we must not forget the importance of investing in prevention efforts as well, and I was disappointed that Congress failed to pass the bipartisan Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. If we are to make a real difference to end modern day slavery, we must protect those who are most vulnerable and prevent the exploitation in the first place. We cannot simply focus on ending demand and arrest our way out of this problem; we must eliminate the conditions that make these children so vulnerable. That means investing in stable housing and support services for more kids in need; we are not doing enough. I hope that we can finally enact this meaningful bill in 2015.

In addition to the dangers of human trafficking, homeless youth are at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. They are less likely to finish school, more likely to enter our juvenile justice system, and are often ill-equipped to find a job. The services authorized by this bill are designed to intervene early and encourage the development of successful, productive young adults.

I have heard from dozens of service providers from across the country, including in my home state of Vermont, that these programs work. I am proud to say that last year, 95 percent of youth receiving services from the Vermont Coalition for Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs were able to exit to a safe living situation upon their completion of programming. Without the programs funded through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, hundreds of thousands of children would be left on the street and vulnerable to exploitation. Congress has an opportunity to respond in a meaningful and historic way.

I thank Senators Collins, Booker, and Ayotte for working with me on this legislation and for joining me as original cosponsors. We have the chance to make a real difference by passing the Runway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. Every day we wait is another night too many children are sleeping on the streets.

Mr. President, during the closing days of the 112th Congress, and for the duration of the 113th Congress, I had the privilege of serving the Senate as the President pro tempore. It of course was a great honor, and a humbling one, to serve the Senate and to represent Vermont in this position. With this designation, because of the matter of presidential succession procedures, I was assigned a security detail. I have spoken before about the outstanding work of the U.S. Capitol Police, and about how much Marcelle and I appreciate the sacrifices they made in the course of their service.

Today I want to thank the Vermont State Police for their outstanding service and steadfast support during my time as President pro tempore. With their extensive and comprehensive knowledge of Vermont's unique landscape and communities, the Vermont State Police coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police and provided essential guidance, information and support. I

thank them for their professionalism and dedication.

I would like to thank in particular Lieutenant Garry Scott who commands the Traffic Safety Unit of the Vermont State Police Department; Corporal Owen Ballinger, who was an integral part of the everyday operations; Sergeant Teresa Randall; Sergeant Mark Perkins; Sergeant Trevor Carbo; Trooper Jerry Partin; and Trooper Dustin Robinson. These law enforcement officers were able to blend the requirement of a full security detail in unobtrusive ways that enabled us to go about our daily lives and to perform our responsibilities. These dedicated and courteous officers went above and beyond the call of duty, and for that Marcelle and I are infinitely grateful.

I also thank Colonel Thomas L'Esperance and Lieutenant Colonel Matt Birmingham for their constant support.

Mr. President, it is a delight to call the Senate's attention to an outstanding Vermonter who was recently recognized for his work to help Vermonters who have struggled with social and economic injustice.

Since 1997, the Burlington Free Press has invited readers to nominate a Vermont resident to be recognized as Vermonter of the Year. Those nominated are among the best doers and visionaries the Green Mountain State has to offer, and each nominee has made a difference in his or her community. Previous winners have included philanthropists, college presidents, a former Governor and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. On the eve of the New Year, the Burlington Free Press named Hal Colston the 2014 Vermonter of the Year.

Hal is a resident of Winooski and certainly deserves this honor. Since relocating to Vermont 25 years ago, Hal's dedication to social, economic, and racial justice has served his community well. He has maintained a steadfast voice for those unable to be heard on their own.

Hal is well known for his entrepreneurial spirit, and he has successfully created and led numerous nonprofit initiatives. In announcing Hal's selection, the Free Press aptly calls him a ``serial do-gooder.'' He received national recognition after founding Good News Garage, which enables individuals and families to move away from poverty by providing reliable transportation. Similarly, he recognized that those in poverty are often without the support networks necessary to move beyond such vulnerable circumstances. As a result, he established NeighborKeepers, an organization that focuses on building supportive community networks that direct families toward the resources they need to succeed. Today he leads the Partnership for Change, a diverse group of community stakeholders seeking to remodel the Burlington and Winooski School Districts by establishing a student- centered learning system.

As communities work to overcome the challenges of poverty and individuals pursue more prosperous lives for themselves and their families, it is the passionate dedication to serve by leaders such as Hal Colston that makes the greatest difference.

In recognition of Hal Colston's service, I ask unanimous consent that Aki Soga's article from the December 31, 2014, edition of the Burlington Free Press be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 30.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this will be set aside in a moment. First, I wish to note that my amendment is simply to make sure that if people have appeals on actions under this law, they be able to appeal in the courts within their jurisdictions and not have to trundle their way to Washington, DC. Too many people think Washington has the answers to everything.

My amendment simply says it is a States rights issue. It says the appeals will be in courts within their districts. That is a simple explanation. I spoke earlier on the floor, and I will speak more when the amendment comes up.

Mr. President, I want to thank the senior Senator from Illinois for what he said about my dear friend Senator Wendell Ford.

I was fortunate to come here to the Senate the same year that Senator Ford did. We were different in age, and I must say, different in experience. He had a lot more experience than I did, and I relied on his experience and his help. We traveled together, and we talked together so often. He had the unfailing characteristic of the best of the Senators--both Republicans and Democrats. He always kept his word. He was always very honest and direct with you. If he made a commitment, you could go to the bank with it.

I remember the night we had a dinner for his retirement. There was a dozen of us that came in that year. There were only four left and three were retiring that night--Wendell Ford, John Glen, and Dale Bumpers. It was wonderful to listen to the three of them reminisce about the Senate.

I said to Wendell Ford at that time: Save me a seat on that lifeboat as you are leaving. I thought how lonely it would be without him. Fortunately, I have a good friend like the senior Senator from Illinois to fill the void.

But Wendell Ford had probably more knowledge and sense of politics-- not just knowledge but sense--of how to work things out, how to get liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats together, than most people ever have.

He had a raspy voice, but he was good natured, with a sense of humor. And when I go back through the people I have met, the 300 or more Senators I have had the opportunity to serve with, I think of Wendell Ford as one who epitomizes what a Senator should be.

I had talked to him just a few months ago. I will speak more about him later on, but I think the Senator from Illinois has given probably as good a description of this wonderful man as any of the rest of us might, and I thank him for that.

I yield the floor.

Quorum Call

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute to explain the States rights amendment.

That is correct. I will probably need about 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his usual courtesy, and I appreciate it.

As the most senior Member of this body, I have served in both the majority and minority numerous times, under three Democratic Presidents, four Republican Presidents, and Democratic and Republican majorities. Throughout that time, I learned that the Senate can be productive. The Keystone Pipeline legislation we are considering today, though, is not one of those productive topics.

I hoped we would begin the 114th Congress by showing the American people that Congress is putting the needs of hard-working American families over those of powerful special interests, from job creation to charting a sustainable energy future for this country. We ought to be considering legislation that supports the highway trust fund. That would create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. We should be considering tax legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.

The Senator from North Dakota.

I thank my friend from North Dakota for his usual courtesy shown earlier. Unfortunately, I had a nose bleed, and I had to stop my speech. I think I am not used to the elevation--the altitude of the Senate--but after over 40 years I should be.

I was saying earlier, I had hoped we begin this 114th Congress by showing the American people that Congress is putting the needs of hard- working American families first. I wish we were considering legislation to support the Highway Trust Fund. That supports tens of thousands of jobs around the country in every one of our States. I wish we were considering tax legislation to bring investments to our small local businesses and encouraging energy efficiency in construction and investment. I wish we were finding places to support the educational pursuits of our children. I would like to maintain our status as a premier leader on the world stage.

Instead, we are considering legislation that puts Canadian tar sands--which are intended for export, not to be used in the United States--as our priority. The pipeline will support 35 permanent jobs-- just 35--not hundreds, not thousands--35. I would like to be considering legislation that creates thousands of jobs. It is hard not to question whether the new Senate majority is truly focused on the needs of hardworking Americans.

Some who support the legislation claim the pipeline is truly ``shovel ready.'' They claim the project has been thoroughly studied and analyzed, and that the Administration sat for 6 years with no decision on the permit.

Even before the Nebraska Supreme Court recently released its decision on the location of this pipeline, the Republican leadership said this should be our priority even ahead of that decision. The decision did not clarify lingering questions about the process. In fact, the majority of the justices said the decision to circumvent the public process and block Nebraskans' ability to raise concerns about the pipeline was unconstitutional. Four of the seven justices said that it is unconstitutional under State law. But in their state procedure, you need a supermajority of 5 of the 7 justices to halt this project, so the landowners' appeal was rejected.

What bothers me is not only that the majority opinion is being ignored in Nebraska but that the legislation approved last week by the House in consideration here would remove consideration of all appeals. You have to take them out of local Federal courts and put them before the DC Circuit. In other words, if you are in a State where this pipeline goes through your community and you have a question, you would have to make an appeal to the DC Circuit. What that is saying is that Congress believes that Washington knows best. Frankly, the people in my State of Vermont--and I suspect in States across the country--would prefer to trust the courts in their States.

We ought to be showing the American people that Congress cares more about the public process and the public's access to their courts, than about the wishes of foreign special interests. That is why I have offered an amendment that would strike the judicial review provision and restore the role of local federal district courts in reviewing challenges arising from the Keystone Pipeline.

The majority leader promised an open debate and open amendment process. I appreciate that. I certainly have concerns about circumventing what would be normal court procedure and the President's approval process, and I want to be able to address that. But more than that, I hope this debate can be an open and honest conversation, not about a pipeline that supports special interests but about the direction in which our country is moving on sustainable energy, on job creation, and on issues as fundamental to all Americans--Republicans or Democrats--as who will have access to our courts. Will it just be special interests or will it be the American people? I prefer the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 12 in Saudi Arabia a prominent human rights lawyer, Mr. Waleed Abu al-Khair, was handed a 5-year extension to his 10-year prison sentence. Mr. Abu al-Khair, who is the founder and director of the watchdog group Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, was also fined, banned from travel outside the county for 15 years after his release, and his websites will be shut down. What were the crimes that brought about this sentence? He was charged with harming the kingdom's reputation and insulting judicial authority, among other violations related to his non-violent activism.

This case and others like it certainly have harmed the kingdom's reputation, and insulted its judicial system, but the fault is not Mr. Abu al-Khair's.

After years of defending human rights activists as a legal advocate in Saudi courts, he was called in front of a terrorism tribunal at the end of 2013 for a trial that from its earliest days was declared a farce by human rights organizations. This was not the first time Mr. Abu al-Khair was made a target of the justice system, having first faced trial in 2011 for signing a petition that called for government reform.

During the fifth hearing in front of the terrorism tribunal he was jailed mid-trial under the January 2014 antiterrorism law, which covers verbal acts that harm the reputation of the state. Mr. Abu al-Khair was eventually sentenced to 10 years for his activism amid growing international condemnation of Saudi repression. His decision not to disavow his beliefs led to this week's further sentencing.

Unfortunately, Mr. Abu al-Khair's case is not unique. As more Saudis have begun to speak out against government repression, the monarchy has responded by escalating its crackdown on dissent, including by using the already dubious terrorism tribunal system to punish human rights defenders.

It is ironic that while Saudi officials condemned the brutal killings of journalists at Charlie Hebdo, and their Ambassador attended the rally in Paris, their Justice Ministry was preparing to carry out the first of 1,000 public lashings of Raif Badawi. Like the cartoonists, Mr. Badawi has been accused of insulting Islam, and like them and his former lawyer, Mr. Abu al-Khair, he was simply exercising his nonviolent right of freedom of expression. Needless to say, his persecution has drawn an international outcry, including by many of those who joined the Saudi government in denouncing the attacks in Paris.

The United States and Saudi Arabia have long been strategic allies, and we want that relationship to continue. But the fundamental right of free expression cannot be a casualty of convenience. The injustices I have described must be addressed. Not only do these actions violate the Saudi government's stated policy and its commitment as a member of the UN Human Rights Council to protect human rights, but they are a flawed strategy for discouraging dissent. Ominously, as we have seen in many countries, they may cause critics of the government to resort to violence to achieve their goals.

I urge the Saudi government to release Mr. Abu al-Khair and Mr. Badawi and dismiss the spurious charges against them. This kind of repression and barbarity have no place in the 21st century.

Mr. President, I would like to publicly thank U.S. attorney Tristram Coffin for his service to Vermont and our country. I have known Tris for decades, and I am proud that Vermont has been served by someone as thoughtful and fair as Tris. I join my fellow Vermonters in thanking him for his service to our State.

Tris earned his undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University and his law degree from Columbia University. He worked for me as a staff attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1991 to 1994 before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney in Vermont's civil division from 1994 to 1998 and in their criminal division from 1996 to 2006. He then worked in private practice in Burlington with the firm of Paul Frank & Collins, P.C. In 2009 I recommended Tris for the vacant U.S. attorney position, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in August 2009 to be Vermont's 36th U.S. attorney.

Throughout his time as U.S. attorney, Tris has demonstrated thoughtful leadership in partnering with State and local law enforcement agencies and Vermont communities on a wide range of issues, including efforts to confront the crisis of heroin and opioid addiction. In September 2010 he convened a timely and constructive symposium in the State house in Montpelier to discuss the problem of opiate drug abuse. Impressed by his work, last year I invited Tris to deliver testimony at a Judiciary Committee field hearing in Rutland examining community solutions to the opioid crisis. At that hearing, I was moved by the dedication and passion Tris has brought to developing partnerships with Vermont schools to raise awareness and focus on prevention.

Vermont is a safer and better place because of dedicated public servants like Tris. I commend Tris for his years of service to the Green Mountain State and wish him the best in his future endeavors. He is a friend I treasure.