[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2476-S2480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Heller):
  S. 1108. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to include court security officers in the public safety 
officers' death benefits program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1108

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stanley Cooper Death 
     Benefits for Court Security Officers Act''.

     SEC. 2. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS.

       Section 1204(9) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(9)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``; or'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) a court security officer who is under contract with 
     the United States Marshals Service.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year to carry out the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any injury 
     sustained on or after January 1, 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mr. Lankford):
  S. 1109. A bill to require adequate information regarding the tax 
treatment of payments under settlement agreements entered into by 
Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Truth in 
Settlements Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I introduced 
earlier today with my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford, the 
Presiding Officer, will help the public hold Federal agencies 
accountable for settlements they make with corporate wrongdoers.
  When companies break the law, Federal enforcement agencies are 
responsible for holding them accountable. In nearly every instance, 
agencies choose to resolve cases through settlements rather than a 
public trial. They defend this practice by arguing that settlements are 
in the best interest of the American people. That sounds good, but 
their actions paint a very different picture.
  If agencies were truly confident that these settlements were good 
deals for the public, they would be willing to publicly disclose all of 
the key details of those agreements. Instead, time after time, agencies 
do the opposite, hiding critical details about their settlements in the 
fine print--or worse, hiding them entirely from public view.
  Consider that copies of these agreements or even basic facts about 
them are not easily accessible online. Many agencies regularly deem 
agreements confidential without any public explanation of why the 
public cannot see what has been done in their name. When agencies do 
make public statements about these agreements, they often trumpet large 
dollar amounts of money recovered for taxpayers while failing to 
disclose that this sticker price isn't what the companies will actually 
pay, since the number that is listed includes credits for engaging in 
routine activities and doesn't reflect massive tax deductions that many 
of these companies get.
  Add all of these tricks, and you will end with a predictable result. 
Too often the American people learn only what the agencies want them to 
learn about these agreements. That is not good enough.
  These hidden details can make a huge difference. Below the surface, 
settlements that seem tough and fair don't always look so impressive.
  For example, 2 years ago, Federal regulators entered into a 
settlement with 10 mortgage servicers accused of illegal foreclosure 
practices. The sticker price on the settlement was $8.5 billion. Now, 
that is a big number. But $5.2 billion was in the form of credits, or 
what the agencies described in their press release as ``loan 
modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.''
  That vague public statement left out a key detail: Servicers could 
rack up those credits by forgiving mere fractions of large, unpaid 
loans. For example, a servicer that wrote down $15,000 of a $500,000 
unpaid loan balance would get a credit for $500,000--not the $15,000 
that was actually written down. That

[[Page S2477]]

undisclosed method of calculating credits could end up cutting the 
overall value of the $8.5 billion settlement by billions and billions 
of dollars.
  Failure to disclose possible tax deductions is another way agencies 
can hide the ball. Two years ago, a Federal court found that a company 
that allegedly defrauded Medicare and other Federal health programs--
for years--was entitled to a $50 million tax deduction for government 
settlements that it had made. That deduction came on top of earlier tax 
deductions the company had already taken in their settlement payment.
  The end result? A $385 million settlement that was touted at the time 
as the largest civil recovery to date in a health care fraud case was, 
in fact, $100 million smaller once taxpayers had picked up part of the 
settlement.
  At least in these two cases, the text of the settlements was public, 
allowing the American people the chance to dig into the fine print and 
uncover these unflattering details. But for settlements that are kept 
confidential, the public is kept entirely in this the dark.
  Recently, Wells Fargo agreed to pay the Federal Housing Finance 
Agency $335 million for allegedly fraudulent sales of mortgage-backed 
securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is about 6 percent of 
what JPMorgan Chase paid in a public settlement with FHFA to address 
very similar claims. Now, in what ways did the actions of Wells Fargo 
differ from those of JPMorgan? We will never know, because while the 
JPMorgan settlement is public, the much smaller Wells Fargo settlement 
is held confidential.
  The American people deserve better. These enforcement agencies don't 
work for the companies they investigate; they work for us. Agencies 
should not be able to cut bad deals and then hide the embarrassing 
details. The public deserves transparency.
  The Truth in Settlements Act requires that transparency. It requires 
agencies making public statements about their settlements to include 
explanations of how those settlements are categorized for tax purposes 
and what specific conduct will generate credits that apply toward the 
sticker price. The bill also requires agencies to post text and basic 
information about their settlements online. And while the legislation 
does not prohibit agencies from deeming settlements confidential, it 
requires agencies to disclose additional information about how 
frequently they are invoking confidentiality and their reasons for 
doing so.
  If we expect agencies to hold companies accountable for breaking the 
law, then we should be able to hold agencies accountable for enforcing 
the law. We cannot do that if we are being held in the dark. The Truth 
in Settlements Act shines a light on these agency decisions and gives 
the American people a chance to hold agencies accountable for enforcing 
our laws.
  I introduced this bill in the last Congress with Senator Lankford's 
predecessor, Senator Coburn. The bill advanced through the Senate's 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by voice vote but 
was blocked on the Senate floor.
  I hope that in this Congress we can finally make this commonsense 
legislation law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1112. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 to expand coverage under the Act, to increase protections for 
whistleblowers, to increase penalties for high gravity violations, to 
adjust penalties for inflation, to provide rights for victims or their 
family members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the need for a safer and healthier workplace and to urge my colleagues 
to join me and Senator Murray in supporting the Protecting America's 
Workers Act, which I am proud to introduce today.
  Today, April 28, is Workers' Memorial Day--a day for our Nation to 
remember and focus on those workers who have died or been injured on 
the job. Today is also a day to acknowledge the significant suffering 
experienced by families and communities when workers die or are injured 
and to recommit ourselves to maintaining safe and healthy workplaces 
for all of our workers.
  April 28 is also the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970, the OSH Act, which created the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration. When the bill was passed on a bipartisan 
basis and signed into law by President Nixon 45 years ago, 14,000 
workers were dying on the job each year. Now the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics estimates that there were 4,405 worker fatalities in 2013. 
That is a huge improvement, and it would not have happened without the 
OSH Act. But it also means that far too many workers are still getting 
hurt and dying on the job.
  Our workforce and workplaces have changed significantly in 45 years, 
but our laws have not kept pace. We have made no real updates to our 
workplace safety laws even though thousands of workers die every year 
on the job, many in large industrial disasters that could be prevented.
  Unfortunately, too often, we are told that we cannot afford to 
strengthen our workplace safety laws. But I believe our country cannot 
afford the economic and emotional costs incurred by middle-class 
families when workers lose their lives or their livelihoods on the job. 
And it is not just those families; law-abiding businesses that invest 
in safe workplaces cannot afford to subsidize the corporations that cut 
corners on workplace safety and then leave the American public to pick 
up the tab.
  Let me remind you of a few of the tragedies that have happened in 
just the past decade that show the cost to our country.
  On March 23, 2005, fire and an explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery 
killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others. On February 7, 
2008, 13 people were killed and 42 people were injured in a dust 
explosion at a sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, GA.
  On April 17, 2014, 15 people were killed--13 of them volunteer first 
responders--and another 200 people were injured after a fertilizer 
company in West Texas exploded. The explosion leveled roughly 80 homes 
and a middle school. Mr. President, 133 residents of a nearby nursing 
home were trapped in the ruins.
  And just last week, we recognized the 5-year anniversary of the 
explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of 
Mexico in 2010. That accident killed 11 workers and is considered the 
largest accidental marine oilspill in the history of the petroleum 
industry, costing millions to the local economy and causing 
unprecedented damage to the environment.
  All of the reports following these accidents cited weak compliance 
and gaps in our safety laws. They all point to the fact that our 
workplace safety laws are too weak. They are so weak that they cannot 
ensure the safety of American workers, and they do not level the 
playing field for law-abiding businesses that make sure their workers 
are safe.
  These are not isolated incidents. Since the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics began collecting data on worker fatalities on the job in 
1992, over 124,000 workers have died on the job. To put that in 
perspective, on average, in the United States, about six times as many 
people die on the job each year as died in airplane crashes last year 
worldwide. The fact is that many of these accidents could have been 
prevented. Many of these workers could still be with their families 
today. But, unfortunately, even after the reports outlining the details 
of these accidents and recommending commonsense updates to our laws to 
protect workers from these types of incidents, there have been no 
significant updates made to the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
  We all rely on the sacrifice of American workers who are employed in 
difficult and often dangerous industries. We all depend on 
construction, manufacturing, natural gas production, and agriculture to 
help build and heat our homes and put food on the table. The Americans 
who work in those fields should not have to choose between their health 
and safety and providing for their families.
  We can do something about that. That is why today I am proud to 
reintroduce the Protecting America's Workers Act with Senator Patty 
Murray, who has long been a champion of workers' rights. After 45 
years, this legislation will modernize the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act for the 21st century.

[[Page S2478]]

  This legislation will expand the number of workers in safe workplaces 
and make it harder to violate workplace safety laws. It will also 
protect whistleblowers who bravely speak out about unsafe work 
conditions for themselves, their coworkers, and their families. This 
legislation protects the public's right to know about safety violations 
and about OSHA investigations. It will also help us track and respond 
to workplace safety issues by requiring tracking of worker injuries.
  Nothing can bring back the workers lost in Texas City; Port 
Wentworth, GA; West Texas; the Deepwater Horizon disaster; or the many 
tens of thousands of other workers who have lost their lives on the 
job. But we owe it to those who have died and to their surviving 
families to learn from those accidents and to try to stop them from 
happening so that other families do not have to suffer the same loss.
  Good jobs are safe jobs, and I believe this bill will help us create 
safer workplaces. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murray in 
supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that we in Congress should be 
working to grow the economy from the middle out, not from the top down, 
and we should make sure that our government is working for all of our 
families, not just the wealthiest few. An important part of this is 
making sure that workers have access to a safe and healthy workplace 
and the basic protection of earning a living without fearing for their 
safety.
  That effort takes on special meaning today. April 28, today, is 
Workers' Memorial Day, the day when we remember those who lost their 
lives just for doing their job. When a worker is injured or is killed 
on the job, it has devastating impacts for their families and their 
communities. In 2014, more than 4,500 workers were killed on the job. 
That is more than 12 deaths every single day.
  So we need to do everything we can to make sure employers are taking 
the necessary precautions to keep their workers safe.
  So today, let's keep the families and communities that have suffered 
from these losses in our thoughts, and let's make sure this Workers' 
Memorial Day is about recommitting ourselves to improving safety 
protections at workplaces across the country. Every worker in every 
industry should have basic worker protections. While workers are doing 
their jobs, employers should be doing everything they can to protect 
them.

  In 1970, Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act to 
protect workers from unsafe working conditions. Back in 1970, that law 
finally gave workers some much needed protection so they could earn a 
living without sacrificing their health or safety.
  Since then, of course, American industry has changed significantly. 
Businesses have become more complex. Workers are performing 21st-
century tasks, but we are still using a 1970s approach to protect 
employees. That doesn't make sense, and it is time for it to change.
  I support the bill Senator Franken introduced today called Protecting 
America's Workers Act. I want to note that Senator Franken is the new 
ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety. In that role, he will 
bring a focus and a passion for moving this legislation forward, and I 
look forward to working with him to that end.
  The Protecting America's Workers Act is a long overdue update to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act and is a good step toward making 
workplaces across America safer and healthier. The legislation will 
increase protections for workers who report unsafe working conditions, 
and adding these whistleblower protections will protect workers from 
retaliation. The bill will make sure workers have the option to appeal 
to Federal courts if they are being mistreated for telling the truth 
about dangerous practices. This bill will also improve reporting, 
inspection, and enforcement of workplace health and safety violations. 
It expands the rights of victims of unsafe workplaces and makes sure 
employers quickly improve unsafe workplaces to avoid further 
endangering worker health and safety because we owe it to all workers 
to make sure they are truly protected on the job.
  Our economy is finally recovering after the worst downturn since the 
Great Depression. We are not all the way back yet, and there is a lot 
more that needs to be done to create jobs and help our middle class and 
working families. But while we continue that work, we must also 
recommit to our bedrock responsibilities to workers and their safety. 
Workers should be able to go to work confident their employers are 
doing their part to provide safe and healthy workplaces, and they 
should know their government is looking out for them, their families, 
and their economic security.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the workers who lost their 
lives this past year. I am hopeful we can honor their legacy by working 
together to pass the Protecting America's Workers Act and make these 
commonsense updates to meet our obligations to the best workforce in 
the world and continue our work growing the economy from the middle 
out, not the top down.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Reed) (by request):
  S. 1118. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I are introducing, by 
request, the administration's proposed National Defense Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 2016. As is the case with any bill that is 
introduced by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose of 
placing the administration's proposals before Congress and the public 
without expressing our own views on the substance of these proposals. 
As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, we look 
forward to giving the administration's requested legislation our most 
careful review and thoughtful consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Burr):
  S. 1120. A bill to make aliens associated with a criminal gang 
inadmissable, deportable, and ineligible for various forms of relief; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill I am 
introducing today with my colleagues from North Carolina, Senators 
Tillis and Burr, related to criminal gangs. Our bill would reform our 
immigration laws to protect the homeland and the public's safety by 
ensuring that criminal gang members are not eligible for deportation 
relief and are swiftly removed from the country.
  Under current immigration laws, alien gang members are generally not 
deportable or inadmissible based on their gang membership, and they are 
eligible for various benefits and forms of relief.
  Just this month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, 
admitted it erred in granting deferred deportation to a known gang 
member who is now charged with four counts of 1st degree murder in 
North Carolina. In response to a letter Senator Tillis and I sent them, 
USCIS stated that Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez's request for 
deferred deportation under President Obama's Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals, DACA, executive order ``should not have been 
approved'' based on its procedures and protocols. This individual was 
placed in the removal process in March 2012, following drug charges, 
but was shielded from removal by USCIS even though the agency knew of 
his gang membership. After having received DACA, Mr. Rangel-Hernandez 
allegedly murdered four people.
  Secretary Johnson testified today before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and said, ``If you are a member of a gang, a known member of 
a criminal gang, you should not receive DACA. You should be considered 
priority for removal.'' The Secretary said that Rangel-Hernandez should 
not have been approved for DACA, and that there was a lapse in the 
background checks for this applicant.
  The Rangel-Hernandez case shows that USCIS is not doing a thorough 
job reviewing the individuals who it allows

[[Page S2479]]

to stay in this country under the President's deferred action program. 
It remains unclear whether USCIS has a zero tolerance policy for 
criminals and criminal gang members applying for DACA, or any other 
immigration benefit or form of relief from removal. It is unclear how 
many individuals have received DACA that shouldn't have. So far, since 
2013, 282 individuals who are known gang members or criminals have had 
their DACA benefit terminated. The review of all cases, as ordered by 
Secretary Johnson, is ongoing, so that number could climb.
  In April 2015, nearly 1,000 gang members and associates from 239 
different gangs were arrested in 282 cities across the U.S. during 
Project Wildfire, a 6-week operation led by U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's, ICE, Homeland Security Investigations. Of those 
arrested, 199 were foreign nationals from 18 countries in South and 
Central America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean.
  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director expressed concern 
about criminal gangs and said, ``Criminal gangs inflict violence and 
fear upon our communities, and without the attention of law 
enforcement, these groups can spread like a cancer.''
  Despite the concern about violent criminal gangs, ICE arrests are 
down. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, ``arrests peaked 
in 2012, then dropped by more than 25 percent in 2013, and continued to 
decline in 2014.''
  Furthermore, under the Fourth Circuit's decision in Holder v. 
Martinez, former gang members may argue that their status as a former 
gang member similarly entitles them to remain in the United States. 
This ruling has opened the door to violent gang members renouncing 
their membership as a ruse to stay in the country. Unfortunately, the 
Department of Justice didn't appeal the ruling, signaling support for 
gang members to remain in the country.
  The Grassley-Tillis-Burr bill seeks to ensure that alien gang members 
are not provided a safe haven in the United States. It defines a 
criminal alien gang, renders them inadmissible and deportable, and 
requires the government to detain them while awaiting deportation. The 
bill also prohibits criminal alien gang members from gaining U.S. 
immigration benefits such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status, 
Special Immigrant Juvenile visas, deferred action or parole, with 
limited exceptions for law enforcement purposes. Lastly, the bill 
provides an expedited removal process for terrorists, criminal aliens 
and gang members.
  I hope my colleagues will agree that our immigration laws, and the 
administration's policies, must be reformed so that those who pose a 
threat to the public are not allowed to remain in the United States and 
take advantage of the benefits we provide.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Franken):
  S. 1122. A bill to provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United 
States Code, relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, 
shall not apply to enrollment agreements made between students and 
certain institutions of higher education, and to prohibit limitations 
on the ability of students to pursue claims against certain 
institutions of higher education; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1122

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Court Legal Access and 
     Student Support (CLASS) Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9, UNITED 
                   STATES CODE, TO ENROLLMENT AGREEMENTS MADE 
                   BETWEEN STUDENTS AND CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF 
                   HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States 
     Code (relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements) 
     shall not apply to an enrollment agreement made between a 
     student and an institution of higher education.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``institution of 
     higher education'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON ABILITY OF STUDENTS TO 
                   PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF 
                   HIGHER EDUCATION.

       Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(30) The institution will not require any student to 
     agree to, and will not enforce, any limitation or restriction 
     (including a limitation or restriction on any available 
     choice of applicable law, a jury trial, or venue) on the 
     ability of a student to pursue a claim, individually or with 
     others, against an institution in court.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Heller, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Cruz, Mr. Franken, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Daines, 
        and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1123. A bill to reform the authorities of the Federal Government 
to require the production of certain business records, conduct 
electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, 
and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, 
counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, almost 2 years ago, Vermonters and the 
American people learned for the first time the shocking details of the 
National Security Agency's dragnet collection program. Relying on a 
deeply flawed interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the 
NSA has been indiscriminately sweeping up Americans' private telephone 
records for years.
  It is long past time to end this bulk collection program. Americans 
have made clear that they will not tolerate such intrusion into their 
private lives. The President has called for an end to bulk collection 
under section 215. The Director of National Intelligence and the 
Attorney General supported legislation last year that would have shut 
this program down. National security experts have testified that the 
program is not necessary, and the American technology industry has 
called for meaningful reform of this program because it has lost 
billions to competitors in the international marketplace due to a 
decline in the public's trust.
  Yet in the face of this overwhelming consensus, Congress has failed 
to act. Last year, when we had an opportunity to pass my bipartisan 
legislation to end this program and reform other surveillance 
authorities, some Members of this body chose to play political games 
rather than engage in constructive debate.
  The time for posturing and theatrics is over. It is time for Congress 
to answer to the American people.
  Today, I--along with Senator Mike Lee--introduce the USA FREEDOM Act 
of 2015. This bipartisan bill is also being introduced in the House 
today by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, House Judiciary Committee 
chairman Bob Goodlatte, ranking member John Conyers, and a large 
bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members.
  If enacted, our bill will be the most significant reform to 
government surveillance authorities since the USA PATRIOT Act was 
passed nearly 14 years ago. Most importantly, our bill will 
definitively end the NSA's bulk collection program under section 215. 
It also guarantees unprecedented transparency about government 
surveillance programs, allows the FISA Court to appoint an amicus to 
assist it in significant cases, and brings the national security letter 
statutes in line with the First Amendment.
  The bipartisan, bicameral bill we introduce today is the product of 
intense and careful negotiations. It enacts strong, meaningful reforms 
while ensuring that the intelligence community has the tools it needs 
to keep this country safe.
  Some will say that this bill does not go far enough. I agree. But in 
order to secure broader support for reform legislation that can pass 
both the House and Senate and be signed into law, changes had to be 
made to the bill that I introduced last year. This new bill

[[Page S2480]]

does not contain all the reforms that I want. It contains some 
provisions I believe are unnecessary but that were added to secure 
support from the House Intelligence Committee. But we should pass it 
and continue fighting for more reform.
  I have been in the Senate for more than 40 years--and I have learned 
that when there is a chance to make real progress, we have to seize it. 
This is not my first fight and certainly will not be my last. I have a 
responsibility to Vermonters and the American people to do everything I 
can to end the dragnet collection of their phone records under section 
215. And I know for a fact that the upcoming June 1 sunset of section 
215 is our best opportunity for real reform. We cannot squander it.
  Last year, a broad and bipartisan coalition worked together to craft 
reasonable and responsible legislation. Critics resorted to scare 
tactics. They would not even agree to debate the bill. I hope that we 
do not see a repeat of that ill-fated strategy again this year. The 
American people have had enough of delay and brinksmanship. Congress 
now has an opportunity to show leadership and govern responsibly.
  The intelligence community is deeply concerned about the possibility 
of a legislative standoff that could result in the expiration of 
section 215 altogether. The USA FREEDOM Act is a path forward that has 
the support of the administration, privacy groups, the technology 
industry--and most importantly, the American people. I urge 
congressional leaders to take up and swiftly pass the USA FREEDOM Act 
of 2015--because I will not vote for reauthorization of section 215 
without meaningful reform.

                          ____________________