Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, and Byrd, Pryor, Enzi, and Clinton are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect consumers--especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont. This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help corporations, but to help home satellite viewers. A Federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly and repeatedly violated Federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this: EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the free, over-the-air broadcast networks. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and-- most importantly--pro-consumer solution to a problem of Echo Star's creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1, will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no local station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring localities that are considered ``significantly viewed'' by the Federal Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations, could be carried. This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright office to cover any future violations. This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying for these services. 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 Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, and Byrd, Pryor, Enzi, and Clinton are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect consumers--especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont. This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help corporations, but to help home satellite viewers. A Federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly and repeatedly violated Federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this: EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the free, over-the-air broadcast networks. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and-- most importantly--pro-consumer solution to a problem of Echo Star's creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1, will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no local station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring localities that are considered ``significantly viewed'' by the Federal Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations, could be carried. This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright office to cover any future violations. This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying for these services. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Thirty-nine?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how long did we spend in that last 15- minute rollcall?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of amendment 5123 offered by Senators Collins and Feingold. This bipartisan amendment would extend the life of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR, and restore the bipartisan agreement made regarding the termination of the SIGIR in the Senate- passed fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. The Collins-Feingold amendment is necessary to undo the damage of a veiled provision inserted in the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization conference report by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that terminates the SIGIR by an artificial date that has no basis in the progress of reconstruction projects. This amendment will sustain the valuable work of the special IG to monitor, audit, and inspect funds made available for assistance for Iraq in both the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund and in other important accounts, which totals nearly $32 billion. The amendment will restore the formula for calculating the SIGIR's termination to 10 months after 80 percent of the funds appropriated for Iraq reconstruction have been expended. While I strongly support this amendment, I believe the SIGIR's authority should extend as long as necessary to ensure that the billions of dollars appropriated for Iraq's reconstruction be granted adequate oversight. It is important that the special IG auditors continue their work as long as taxpayer funds are being spent on reconstruction efforts. Thus aspects of this amendment--including the 80 percent expended trigger and the exclusion of future Iraq reconstruction appropriations will need to be revisited in the coming months. I intend to work with other Senators to ensure that all future Iraq reconstruction funds are subject to the continued oversight of the SIGIR. Wasteful spending and profiteering are especially offensive in wartime, and our soldiers and the American people deserve more oversight of how their tax dollars are being spent in Iraq, not less oversight. The special inspector general's work to date has been enormously valuable to the executive branch, to Congress, and to American taxpayers. The SIGIR has completed more than 55 audit reports, issued more than 165 recommendations, and seized more than $13 million in assets. What the SIGIR has uncovered proves the need for the work of this office to continue. The SIGIR's investigations have sent American reconstruction officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed numerous instances of colossal mismanagement in construction projects, and uncovered case after case of waste, fraud, and abuse at the taxpayers' expense. In fewer than 3 years, the special IG's operations have resulted in savings to the U.S. Government and the taxpayers of more than $24 million and uncovered considerable wasteful or fraudulent spending. The Collins-Feingold amendment will abolish the artificial and arbitrary termination date inserted by one Member of the other body and extend the SIGIR's charter with the recognition that the office has performed crucial work, with much more remaining to be done. I appreciate the work of Senators Collins and Feingold in offering this commonsense amendment and urge its adoption by the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning, our Nation took an important step toward honoring one of our most preeminent leaders. The National Mall in Washington, DC, is graced with memorials to America's greatest presidents. Today we broke ground on a memorial to honor the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Although never elected to national office, Dr. King courageously led the Nation through a crucial chapter of American history and became the voice of the entire civil rights movement. In his famous ``I Have A Dream'' speech on the National Mall, Dr. King noted that ``[w]hen the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.'' This past summer we reaffirmed and reauthorized one of the most important methods of enforcing this promise and upholding the Constitution--the Voting Rights Act. Over the course of dozens of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups, we recalled the great historic struggle for civil rights led by American heroes of vision and strength, including Martin Luther King, Jr., and his widow, Coretta Scott King. The pervasive discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. As a Nation, this effort to ensure equal protection dates back more than 135 years to the ratification of the 15th amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. It took the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for people of all races in many parts of our country to effectively begin exercising the rights granted 95 years earlier by the 15th amendment. Despite the additional gains we have made in enabling racial minorities to participate fully in the political life of our country, the work of the Voting Rights Act is not yet complete, and the dream of Dr. King has not yet been fully realized. But his dream lives on, as vital and as inspirational as the day it was delivered. Just last week, we had an historic national election. Men and women of every color and creed came to polling places around the country to have their voices heard. Nonetheless, some citizens experienced problems casting their votes. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a long-overdue oversight hearing this week to examine shortcomings in the enforcement of our civil rights laws and the guarantees of political equality enshrined in the 14th and 15th amendments. In doing so, we continue to honor the promissory note written to all Americans. I look forward to bringing my children and grandchildren to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial when it is completed in 2008. I trust it will be a moving tribute befitting one of our Nation's greatest leaders.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter, along with Senators Landrieu and Lott, in introducing the ``Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006.'' In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, giving the insurance industry almost complete immunity from Federal antitrust laws. The Act acknowledges the significant role States have in the regulation of the business of insurance, and implements this policy by preempting Federal antitrust laws which would intrude upon State authority in the area. Industry specific statutory exemptions from antitrust laws are rare, and when they are enacted, it is important that we periodically revisit them to ensure that the benefits of the exemption are not outweighed by the potential harms that could be imposed on consumers from the loss of competition. The McCarran-Ferguson Act is no exception and, for good reason, has recently been revisited by the Senate Judiciary Committee. At a recent hearing before the Committee, it became abundantly clear that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is no longer a justified or practical law; it is overly complex and stifles competition. Recognizing that the insurance industry has unique characteristics, including the dependence on collective claim and loss data, Senator Specter and I drafted a bill to accommodate those legitimate needs while still providing Federal regulators with the tools to investigate and prevent collusion and other anticompetitive behaviors. More specifically, our bill authorizes Federal enforcement agencies to police violations of antitrust laws, without weakening the States' comprehensive regulatory power. American consumers, from sophisticated multi-national businesses to Vermonters shopping for personal insurance, have the right to be confident that the cost of their insurance reflects competitive market conditions and not collusive behavior. Yet, when consumers are continually faced with higher prices, fewer options, and declining quality of service from their insurance providers, there are no such assurances. There is little disagreement that consumers are increasingly frustrated with the cost and quality of their insurance policies. This bill is an important step towards restoring integrity in our insurance markets. I hope it will act as a catalyst for action to ensure market forces are at work in the insurance industry.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006. If enacted, this bill will save lives and improve the quality of health for millions of families living in impoverished nations. Recently, I have introduced and cosponsored six bills to address the increasingly important issues that relate to global health and the need for earlier access to generic medicines in the United States. Each year, millions of people needlessly suffer from disease in impoverished countries worldwide because they lack access to lifesaving medicines. And each year, America's world-renowned research universities develop innovative treatments to combat these diseases. However, under our current system, these treatments do not get to the families in impoverished nations who so desperately need them. Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume about 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of lifesaving medicines-- medicines we take for granted--puts them far beyond the reach of millions of the most vulnerable populations. While the concept of my bill is simple, the implications are profound. If passed, my bill would greatly lessen the cost burden of generic drugs in the developing world. It would achieve this by requiring federally funded research institutions to permit their inventions, such as, drugs, vaccines, and innovative medical devices, to be provided inexpensively by generic companies distributing medical supplies to the developing world. Federally funded labs and research institutions have a vital role to play in meeting this goal. For example, Yale University has an agreement with Doctors Without Borders to permit their generic version of its lifesaving AIDS drug to be used for a pilot treatment program in South Africa. To date, Yale's humanitarian endeavor, which in no way reduced their licensing revenues, continues to save thousands of lives. It is time to ensure that public funds truly serve public purposes-- in this instance, delivering essential health care needs at minimal costs to American taxpayers, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, this Congress has been tied up in knots recently and has been unable to pass even critical appropriations bills. The measures before us are crucial. This comprehensive approach toward providing better global health aid and better access to generic drugs should become law, and I am committed to trying to make it so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress or the next, to enact this important legislation. I have recently introduced or sponsored six bills to address the need for better access to low-cost generic medicines. Two of these bills relate to global health, and four of them address the need for earlier access to generic medicines in the United States. Federally funded laboratories and other research institutions have a critical role to play in delivering affordable medicines to those sick and suffering worldwide. In 2000, a Senate Joint Economic Committee Report found that public research was instrumental in developing 15 of the 21 drugs considered by experts to have had the highest therapeutic impact on society. Between 1970 and 2001, there was a ten-fold increase in the number of U.S. patents issued annually to U.S. academic institutions. American universities, hospitals, and other nonprofit research centers concluded that more than 4,500 license and option agreements were executed in 2003, more than double the license and option agreements executed in 1993. A major share of these patents is in the biomedical field. The World Health Organization's 2006 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health has also recently recognized the crucial role of universities. The WHO recommended that universities adopt licensing practices designed to increase access to medicines in developing countries. The report also tells the story of one way in which the crucial role of university innovations and other publicly funded research in promoting global public health first came into the public eye. It is an interesting story. In 2001, the international organization Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF, requested Yale University's permission to use its generic life- saving AIDS drug, stavudine, for a pilot treatment project outside Cape Town. This was at a time when HIV drugs were first being introduced in the developing world. The costs were prohibitive. Scientists at Yale University had discovered stavudine's value in the fight against AIDS, and Yale University was the key patent holder. In response to MSF's request, Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb jointly announced that they would permit the sale of generics in South Africa and that Bristol-Myers Squibb would lower the price of its brand-name stavudine by 96 percent throughout sub-Saharan Africa. The Yale/Bristol-Myers Squibb announcement was highly significant in the campaign for access to affordable first-line AIDS treatments. Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb's humanitarian action did not reduce licensing revenues with respect to Yale. Meanwhile, Yale's invention to this day continues to save thousands of lives. According to a recent report by the WHO's AIDS Medicines and Diagnostics Service, stavudine is one of the three first-line HIV medicines that together constituted almost 90 percent of total procurement in 2005. Unfortunately, this has been an isolated success story rather than the road to greater access for the many important inventions that come out of publicly funded research institutions. With respect to HIV/AIDS treatment alone, at least two major drugs based on university inventions have come to market since the 2001 stavudine announcement: emtricitabine, developed in large part at Emory University and sold by Gilead Sciences as Emtriva; and T-20 developed in large part at Duke University and marketed as Fuzeon by Hoffmann-La Roche and Trimeris. Just this summer, Yale University announced the license of a new candidate for an AIDS drug based on stavudine. Called ``4'-ethynyl-stavudine'', (or abbreviated more simply as Ed4T). Early testing suggests that it may be both more effective and less toxic than its famous predecessor. But the question is: Will these lifesaving drugs ultimately be available in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population? This bill, the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006, would focus on this problem. By allowing licensing by generic companies of inventions coming out of publicly funded research institutions--and other associated inventions required to produce marketable medicines-- it would drive down the price of new, innovative drugs in areas where they would otherwise be effectively unavailable. Because the licensing regime this bill proposes is self-enforcing, it minimizes both administrative overhead and eliminates the need for case-by-case decisions, while preserving important intellectual property protections. Because the Act allows the introduction of generic or reduced-price drugs only into markets too poor to otherwise afford them, its terms do not threaten corporate investments or profits in wealthy nations. All generic drugs manufactured under the bill must be clearly differentiated from the versions sold in developed nations, where the brand-name companies make their profits. Moreover, publicly funded research institutions would receive royalties from the sale of inventions covered by this bill in developing markets. While the initial payment of the royalties will typically go to the research institution itself, the bill leaves complete freedom to these institutions and their licensee to decide how such royalties will ultimately be shared. This freedom is especially important because the inventions from universities and other research institutions often form only one part of the collection of intellectual property necessary to manufacture a finished, marketable drug. The appropriate division of the royalties paid by generics for this package of rights in the developing world will be different for different drugs and medical devices, depending on whether the university's contribution is more or less central to the finished product. This Act would allow all the various parties the flexibility to divide these royalties appropriately. I should be clear, however, that the bill I introduce today is an initial proposal. I look forward to working with research universities in the United States on this important matter. I also intend to work with the companies involved in creating, licensing, and bringing to market the fruits of America's unparalleled research institutions as we continue to shape this solution. Indeed, the best answer may not be legislative at all, if the groups involved can come together around a different approach. But however it is achieved, I believe that increasing the availability of the many medical inventions that come from publicly funded research centers is a good solution to pressing global health concerns. Universities, in particular, are unique institutions with unique public commitments. They are, before anything else, institutions dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge in the public interest. The Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006 is designed in the spirit of that commitment. This bill completes a package of six bills that I have recently introduced to increase access to medicines in the United States and to address the global public health crisis. While it is the magnitude of this problem that demands that we, as a Nation, take action, it is the small things, the individual stories that often speak to us most clearly at a personal level. In my office hangs a photograph I took of three young boys on the side of a mountain in Turkey. I found them flying a kite off the edge of a cliff that overlooks a vast slum. They had made the toy out of scraps of paper, patched together with tape and string, and were flying it on the currents rushing up the face of the rock. I recalled fearing for their safety as they played so precariously close to the edge. But these children faced much greater risks. When my grandchildren get sick, we can always be sure they will get the medicines they need. For these boys, there is no such guarantee. These boys, and the millions of children and others like them around the world are the reason behind each of the six bills I have introduced. Earlier this summer, I introduced a bill which can be the catalyst for empowering U.S. generic companies to save the lives or improve the health of millions of families in impoverished nations. Under the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act,'' U.S. companies can make low-cost generic versions of any medicine for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises when those impoverished nations cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves. This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need. The World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that implement that agreement. On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export lifesaving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' This bill addresses the urgent needs of millions of low-income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines. As in the Public Research in the Public Interest Act, introduced today, generic companies are only permitted to use the compulsory license in the bill in developing nations, where low-income families are simply too poor to purchase the ``brand-name'' versions, and the generic versions must be clearly marked as not for resale in developed nations. Thus, both bills pose the risk of minimal losses for patent holders while generating new revenue for the brand-name companies from the royalties on generic sales. The four additional bills that complete this ``Access to Medicines'' package seek to preserve incentives for U.S. generic companies to enter and compete in the market. Increased competition leads to lower prices and saved lives. First, in the wake of the Supreme Court refusal to hear the drug patent case called Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Schering-Plough, I joined fellow Judiciary Committee members--Senators Kohl, Grassley and Schumer--in introducing legislation to explicitly prohibit brand-name drug manufacturers from using pay-off agreements to keep cheaper generic equivalents off the market. Such payments are a distortion in the market that harms patients. I was stunned that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case so important to our senior citizens. The Federal Trade Commission asked the Supreme Court to hear the arguments but the Court refused at the request of the Justice Department. It seems there may be no justice--until that bill is passed--for our seniors needing costly patented medicines but live where the brand-name company has paid generic companies not to compete. Then, in July, I joined Senators Rockefeller and Schumer in introducing legislation to ban ``authorized generics'' that can stifle true generic competition. I said at the time that ``the giant drug companies keep coming up with ways to avoid real competition and consumers need to be able to count on Congress to close each new anticompetitive loophole they come up with.'' If enacted, that bill will close this anti-competitive loophole in the Hatch-Waxman Act and will preserve the incentives Congress created for generic companies to enter the market to supply American citizens and seniors with lower- cost drugs. The fifth bill introduced was with Senator Kohl. That bill is intended to stop frivolous Citizen Petitions designed to delay introduction of generic drugs into the market place. Recently, large pharmaceutical companies have exploited that petition process to keep their profits high. In addition, I joined with Senators Schumer, Clinton and Stabenow on the Access to LifeSavings Medicine Act which related to developing a fast-track process for approving generic versions of biologic medicines. I want to thank Stacy Kern-Scheerer with Senate Legislative Counsel who provided very helpful guidance under extreme pressure in drafting this short, but complex bill. She and Bill Baird, also with Senate Legislative Counsel, did a great job with a rapid turnaround. I believe that these six bills, together, can save millions of lives. Recognizing the great need, there have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and nonprofits who have already donated life-saving medicines, time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases both in America and abroad. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. My bills will both add to and complement existing efforts, by making sure even cutting edge treatments are available in developing countries, and by ensuring that America's aid dollars and the contributions of private philanthropists are used as efficiently as they can possibly be used. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Report to Congress reported that ``[i]n every case generics prices present an opportunity for cost savings; in some cases, the branded price per pack of a drug is up to 11 times the cost of the approved generic version.'' The current global public health crisis is one of the great callings of our time. As a nation, we cannot afford to ignore this threat. Our own health and aspects of our national security depend on it. We have become far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or the encroaching menace of multi-drug resistant bacteria, we are all at risk. We are only an airplane flight away from wherever an outbreak may occur--a place where the medical innovations developed in this country to combat these devastating diseases may not be available to keep the outbreak under control. In a post-9/11 world, our well-being is intimately connected with that of other nations. Health is an essential building block for a strong economy, and vital to maintain a thriving democracy. Through increasing access to essential medicines throughout the world, the United States can help to give developing nations a chance to flourish, while improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population. President Franklin Roosevelt once said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough, for those who have little.'' We are fortunate, at some times and on some issues, to be able to do both. Now is one of those times, and this is one of those issues. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my efforts this year on the global public health crisis, including today's addition, the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to express my gravy reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill conference report. This legislation poorly handles key provisions related to the National Guard, which--as the events since September 11th have highlighted--is critical to our Nation's defense. The final conference report drops the reforms known as the National Guard Empowerment Act, a bill that would have given the National Guard more bureaucratic muscle inside the Pentagon. It would have cleared away some of these administrative cobwebs and given the Guard the seat at the decision-making table that it needs and deserves. It also should concern us all that the conference agreement includes language that subvert solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Combined, these moves amount to a double punch against the National Guard. The National Guard has done so much to protect the security and safety of our country. Yet the authorization bill sends the signal that we are not interested in truly supporting them. This conference report says we do not want to address glaring problems that have surfaced during their increasingly frequent deployments. And, incredibly enough, it says to the Guard that other military forces are better to carry out tasks here at home. In short, this bill goes in the wrong direction. Let's review what the 500,000 men and women of the National Guard do for the country. The National Guard is essential to the military's missions at home and abroad. More than 10,000 members of the National Guard are currently called up for domestic options, most along the border and involved in counter-drug operations. Almost 60,000 citizen-soldiers are deployed overseas, almost 40,000 involved in Iraq deployments. Over 6,000 members of the Air Guard are deployed. And let's remember, that at the high-water mark, the Guard made up almost 40 percent of the troops on the ground in Iraq. It is also clear that we are going to need the Guard even more in the future. Consider the information reported in a New York Times article from last Friday. The active U.S. Army is being deployed at such a high rate that it appears increasingly likely that the National Guard is going to need to be tapped once again to make the troop levels. Any way you cut it, the National Guard is absolutely essential to our Nation's defense. We cannot fight our wars abroad, we cannot secure the country at home, and we cannot response to large-scale emergencies without the Guard. Given the fact that the National Guard is one of the country's most valuable and needed forces, one would think that our leaders in the Department of Defense would be spending significant time developing policies and budgets plans that truly support the Guard. For example, I would think it logical to make the replacement of the Guard's aging and worn equipment a priority. I would think it logical to give the National Guard a stronger voice in policymaking decisions and in setting budgetary priorities that affect the National Guard. I clearly see the benefits of deferring to the Adjutants General and the Nation's governors, those who control and oversee the Guard, when determining how best to utilize Guard at home during domestic emergencies. Instead of these good policy goals and practices, we have only a long list of unfair and ill-conceived decisions from the Pentagon that do very little to support the Guard in reality. And these examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Last December, the Army and the Air Force decided to try to make precipitous cuts to the National Guard. The Army sought to cut the Army Guard by almost 17,000 soldiers, while the Air Force drove for reductions of almost 14,000 airmen. These personnel cuts were made without consultation with the National Guard Bureau, the States Adjutants General, and the Nation's Governors. While Congress was successful in turning those recommendations back, the fact remains that the active force still desired to balance its budgets at the expense of the Guard. In late Spring of last year, the Air Force forwarded a list of base closure recommendations the cut deeply into the Air National Guard. The closure list took away flying missions in States in which the Air National Guard is the only Air Force presence in the State. No consideration was made of this crucial link between local communities and the armed forces. Nor did the Air Force consider the Air National Guard's homeland security capabilities. Why were such ill-advised recommendations made? The reason is that the Air National Guard was not involved in the force structure review process. Similarly, in 2002, there was no consultation with the Air National Guard when the Air Force decided to take away the Air National Guard's B-1 bomber units, which, as a GAO study underscored, were cheaper to operate, more efficient, and more effective than their active duty counterparts. Further, since September 11, torturous debate has developed in the Pentagon whenever the National Guard is needed for a large-scale operation at home, such as during Hurricane Katrina. We have learned that the Guard works optimally at home when it serves under the command-and-control of the Nation's Governors, with Federal reimbursement, under title 21 of the Federal Code. This title 32 status ensures that locally elected officials remain in control of military forces operating at home. Because the National Guard comes directly out of these local communities, posse comitatus statutes do not apply. This title 32 arrangement has been used most recently to increase security at the border, but it has previously been used effectively to have the Guard provide added security at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, the G8 Summit, the Nation's airports, and around the Capitol Building in Washington. There seems to be some kind of reflexive reaction within the Department of Defense against having the Guard and the Governors remain in control of operations at home. In fact, a sizeable contingent exists within the Pentagon to have the active duty military control the National Guard and other military personnel and assets. So every time there is a natural disaster or other emergency, the Pentagon engages in a lengthy debate back-and-forth about control of the Guard. To date, these debates have led to sensible outcomes. But it should not be so difficult and uncertain. Finally, the National Guard has little influence at the senior ranks within the Army and the Air Force. The number of high-ranking officers is completely imbalanced between the Guard and the active forces. While the National Guard constitutes a high percentage of our total number of ground troops, it has just a sliver of the overall percentage of three- and four-star general officers. And, while the Air National Guard constitutes a high percentage of the Air Force's mobility assets and a similarly high percent of its strike assets, the Air Guard has a negligible share of the high-ranking positions, where important decisions are made. The National Guard Empowerment Act seemed to be a logical response to these ill-advised policy positions and imbalanced bureaucratic structure. The entire thrust of the legislation rests in increasing the bureaucratic muscle of the National Guard. The idea behind it is to prevent some of these ill-advised policies from moving forward. More importantly, the legislation is designed to firmly identify the uses of the National Guard, ensure the force is ready and equipped for its critical homeland security missions by bringing its organizational ties in line with its real responsibilities and accomplishments. Specifically; the legislation, as included in the Senate's version of the Defense authorization bill contained four major provisions. First, it would elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from the rank of lieutenant general to full general. Second, the Deputy Commander of United States Northern Command, the military headquarters designed to oversee military forces used in the United States operationally would be mandated to come out of the ranks of the National Guard. Third, the National Guard would be redefined as a joint bureau of the Department Defense, rather than a branch of Army and the Air Force, enabling the Guard to maintain its role as the primary military reserve, while allowing the National Guard to avoid bureaucracy within the Defense Department. Finally, the National Guard would have formally be tasked with working with the States to identify gaps in their resources to respond to emergencies at home. This proposal is not only targeted, but also modest. Our original legislation, S. 2658, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006, would have additionally placed the Guard Bureau chief on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and given the National Guard separate budget authority. Though we still believe these provisions are important to empowering the National Guard fully, we listened and understood the objections of other senators. We dropped those provisions in the amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to reach a consensus where even more members would agree to the amendment, beyond the already 40 senators who are cosponsoring the baseline legislation. We can all acknowledge that the National Guard is essential to our Nation's defense, that there has been some questionable policymaking affecting the Guard in recent years, and that the empowerment bill represents a positive step towards strengthening the Guard. Yet where does the final conference report on the defense authorization bill end up on Guard empowerment? Not only does this conference report unfortunately drop the Empowerment amendment entirely, it adopts some incredible changes to the Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the States. The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three--three--in recent history. The implications of changing the act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals. While the Conference made hasty changes to the Insurrection Act, the Guard empowerment bill was kicked over for study to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which was established only a year ago and whose recommendations have no real force of law. I would have never supported the creation of this panel--and I suspect my colleagues would agree with me--if I thought we would have to wait for the panel to finish its work before we passed new laws on the Guard and Reserve. In fact, we would get nothing done in Congress if we were to wait for every commission, study group, and research panel to finish its work. I have been around here over 30 years, and almost every Senator here knows the National Guard as well as any commission member. We don't need to wait, and we don't need to study the question of enhancing the Guard further. This is a terrible blow against rational defense policy- making and against the fabric of our democracy. Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. I can only surmise that we arrived at this outcome because we are too unwilling to carry out our article I, section 8 responsibilities to raise and support an Army. We have it in our constitutional power to organize the Department of Defense. The Goldwater-Nicholas Act that established a highly effective wartime command structure and the Nunn- Cohen legislation that established the now-critical Special Operations Command came out of Congress. If the then-stale leadership of the Pentagon had its way, these two critical bills would never have seen the light of day. Today, however, the Pentagon is just as opposed to the Empowerment legislation, and instead of asserting its power, the Congress is punting--just kicking it down the field and out of play. Also, it seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it. It is easy to see the attempts of the President and his advisors to avoid the debacle involving the National Guard after Hurricane Katrina, when Governor Blanco of Louisiana would not give control of the National Guard over to President and the Federal chain of command. Governor Blanco rightfully insisted that she be closely consulted and remain largely in control of the military forces operating in the State during that emergency. This infuriated the White House, and now they are looking for some automatic triggers--natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or a disease epidemic--to avoid having to consult with the Governors. And there you have it--we are getting two horrible policy decisions out of this conference because we are not willing to use our constitutional powers to overcome leadership that ranges from the poor to the intemperate in the Pentagon and the White House. We cannot recognize the diverse ways that the Guard supports the Country, because the Department of Defense does not like it--simply does not like it. Because of this rubberstamp Congress, these provisions of this conference report add up to the worst of all worlds. We fail the National Guard, which expects great things from us as much as we expect great things from them. And we fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty. The conference report was agreed to. (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in the Record of September 29, 2006.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, In the autumn of 2001, while the Nation was still reeling from the reality of our airplanes being turned into weapons of terror, someone, somewhere, launched another deadly terrorist attack using our postal system to deliver their weapon of choice--anthrax. Those anthrax-laced letters targeting several journalists and public officials, among them Senator Daschle and myself, jarring an already fearful Nation. Receiving that letter was a chilling and personal reminder that the threat of terrorism was not temporary, nor was it an ocean away. Thankfully, my staff and I were unharmed, but others were not so lucky. The terrorists who sent these letters struck 22 people ranging in age from 7 months to 94 years, and the attacks resulted in the deaths of five Americans. They were people who died by simply touching an envelope--in some cases the mail was addressed to them, and in other instances, it was an envelope meant for someone else. Yet all of these people died as a result of doing what so many of us do every day--our jobs. Five years after those attacks and 5 years into the global war on terror, there is still no perpetrator who has been arrested or convicted for these attacks. Every year around the time of the anniversary--we learn that the FBI is still working on this case and that it remains a high priority for the Bureau. Many skilled and talented people have worked diligently on this case, bringing to bear some of the most advanced forensic technology in the world. The victims of the anthrax attacks varied in gender, race, religion, age, economic status and locale, but they all shared in the suffering. The victims who suffered the most were employees of the U.S. Postal Service, of the Department of State, of news organizations and of the Senate, and the aides, the children, and the senior citizens whose mail came in contact with the anthrax-laden letters. Robert Stevens, a photo editor at The Sun newspaper in Boca Raton, Florida, died on October 5, 2001, at the age of 63. Thomas Morris, Jr., a Washington, DC, postal worker, died on October 21 at the age of 55. Joseph Curseen, also a Washington, DC, postal worker, died on October 22 at the age of 47. Kathy T. Nguyen, a New York City hospital worker, died on October 31 at the age of 61. And Ottilie Lundgren, a 94-year- old Connecticut retiree, died on November 21. Many of those who survived anthrax exposure remain severely debilitated, suffering from chronic cough, fatigue, joint swelling and pain, and memory loss. Several victims have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and are still tormented by nightmares. Many cannot return to work, and some of those who have returned are unable to do even routine tasks without difficulty. Victims say they communicate very little with one another, mostly fighting their battles alone. On October 16, 2003, I introduced a bill to amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to provide compensation for anthrax victims on the same basis as compensation is provided to victims of September 11. The bill never made it out of the Judiciary Committee. Without this appropriate help, the surviving victims struggle to pay their medical bills and get by on worker's compensation, and many report feeling like they have borne the brunt of the anthrax attacks alone. This surely exacerbates the emotional and psychological difficulties that many anthrax victims experience. Congress should act to help these people, who are victims of the national experience of these terrorist attacks, and they should be treated accordingly. Congress and the American people hope for answers and for a resolution of this case. We hope that lessons have been learned from it that will help prevent or minimize future biological attacks. In the meantime, let us remember the loss and the suffering of those who fell victim to this deadly episode of terrorism on our soil.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. The heart wrenching reports of civilian casualties in Iraq, each one of whom represents a mother, father, son or daughter who has been injured or killed in the crossfire or as a result of deliberate attacks, should deeply concern us. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died as a result of suicide bombs, shootings, improvised explosive devices, or from tragic mistakes at U.S. military checkpoints. There is not enough time today to discuss this issue in depth. There are too many incidents, and too many issues, from the widespread and inappropriate use of cluster munitions in populated areas which indiscriminately and disproportionately injure and kill civilians, to the despicable acts of terrorism that are designed to cause the maximum amount of suffering among innocent people. I do want to mention that both the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development have programs in both Iraq and Afghanistan to provide condolence payments or assistance to civilians who have been injured or the families of those killed as a result of U.S. military operations. The USAID program is named after Marla Ruzicka who died in a car bombing in Baghdad on April 16, 2005, at the age of 28. Marla devoted the last years of her life getting assistance to innocent victims of the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the organization she founded, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, continues to work on these issues in both countries. The Pentagon's condolence program, which is administered by Judge Advocate General officers in the field, provides limited amounts of compensation depending on the nature of the loss. The program has suffered from some administrative weaknesses which I will speak about at greater length at another time. However, it does represent an acknowledgement by U.S. military commanders that it is neither right, nor is it in our interest, to turn our backs on innocent people who have been harmed as a result of our mistakes. I also want to mention a June 6, 2006, Wall Street Journal article entitled ``U.S. Curbs Iraqi Civilian Deaths In Checkpoint, Convoy Incidents,'' and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. This article describes laudable efforts by the Department of Defense to reduce civilian casualties that have so often resulted from mistakes that could have been avoided with relatively simple precautions at checkpoints. For years, I and others urged the Pentagon to ensure that U.S. checkpoints were clearly marked and that soldiers at checkpoints in Iraq are trained to warn drivers in ways that avoid confusion, not simply with lights or by firing their guns into the air which a driver might not see or that could cause a driver to panic. For years, we were ignored, with horrific incident after horrific incident, whole families gunned down, or only young children left alive after their parents in the front seat were riddled with bullets. Iraq is an extraordinarily dangerous place and attacks against our troops often happen without a moment's notice. Split second decisions are sometimes necessary. No one suggests that our troops should not be able to defend themselves or that they should be penalized for unavoidable mistakes. But Pentagon officials stubbornly refused to heed the most reasonable, constructive suggestions, always insisting that they were acting according to procedures. Those procedures were woefully inadequate and they devalued innocent Iraqi lives. It is inexcusable, because it was so obvious and many casualties could have been avoided with the changes that field commanders have recently made. All it took was caring enough to do it. The article also mentions that the Pentagon has finally been investigating and reporting on civilian casualties. It is not an exact science, since sometimes a person dressed like a civilian is actually an enemy combatant, but it is vitally important that we do our best to determine the cause of civilian casualties that result from our actions. Section 1223 of H.R. 1815, the fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization Act, requires a report on the Pentagon's procedures for recording civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. That report, a copy of which I only just received, is an embarrassment. It totals just two pages and it makes clear that the Pentagon does very little to determine the cause of civilian casualties or to keep a record of civilian victims. No one expects our troops to be forensic investigators, but we do expect the Pentagon to take this issue seriously and to do its best to document and maintain a record of civilian casualties. By doing so we can make clear that we value innocent lives, we are better able to know when and how to assist the families of those injured or killed, and we can make changes to procedures to prevent such mistakes in the future. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2006] U.S. Curbs Iraqi Civilian Deaths In Checkpoint, Convoy Incidents (By Greg Jaffe) Washington--The U.S. military has cut the number of Iraqi civilians killed at U.S. checkpoints or shot by U.S. convoys to about one a week today from about seven a week in July, according to U.S. defense officials in Iraq. The reduction in civilian casualties shows that months before the killing of 24 Iraqis in the western Iraqi town of Haditha came to light, the military was pushing to reduce the number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded at the hands of U.S. forces. The drop since July, however, suggests that hundreds of Iraqi civilians were killed at U.S. checkpoints or on Iraqi highways during the first two years of the war. The shooting of civilians in such instances has angered Iraqi civilians and political leaders. It also likely has helped fuel the insurgency. Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lashed out at U.S. forces for showing ``no respect for citizens, smashing civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch.'' Mr. Maliki's comments were driven in part by the news that U.S. military investigators had opened a pair of formal probes into the mid-November incident in Haditha in which Marines allegedly killed two dozen unarmed civilians, including several women and children without provocation. Evidence indicates that the Marines tried to blame the incident on a roadside bomb and an ambush from insurgents, say lawmakers and U.S. officials familiar with the probes. In contrast with the Haditha incident, where the killings are alleged to be intentional, checkpoint and convoy shootings are almost always the result of mistakes in which confused or disoriented Iraqi drivers don't respond to initial warnings from U.S. forces to slow down or back off, U.S. officials say. U.S. forces, worried about their own security and that of their colleagues, must make split-second decisions to fire warning shots or open fire. Such shooting incidents--or escalation-of-force incidents, as military officials call them--result in civilian casualties in 12% of the cases. The numbers don't include civilians killed in raids resulting from bad intelligence or Iraqis killed in the crossfire of battles with insurgents. Until July 2005, the U.S. military didn't track civilian casualties in these incidents, senior military officials say. In December, President Bush estimated that about 30,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed since the war started. His spokesman, however, said the estimate was based on media reports and not a formal military count. The military's failure to track such killings has drawn criticism from human-rights experts. ``If you don't keep track of the civilians you harm, you don't know how you are doing,'' said Sarah Sewall, director of the Carr Center for- Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. She praised the military for paying more attention to the problem but lamented that it took so long. Since arriving in Iraq as the No.2 military official in January, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli has made reducing Iraqi civilian casualties in escalation-of-force incidents a bigger priority. Gen. Chiarelli has been critical of the U.S. military for using force too quickly. ``It is something he has been pushing since we got into theater, and we have been making good progress,'' said a military officer familiar with the general's efforts. Some of the decrease has been the result of changes in tactics and training. Military commanders have been ordered to ensure that their checkpoints all use the same signs and setup to minimize confusion. U.S. soldiers have been given new equipment such as sirens and green lasers that allow them to get Iraqi drivers' attention without firing warning shots. Soldiers also have been schooled in new ways of spotting suicide bombers. In April, Gen. Chiarelli directed his subordinate commanders to investigate all escalation-of-force incidents that result in an Iraqi being seriously wounded or killed or cause more than $10,000 in property damage. The results must be sent to Gen. Chiarelli's Baghdad headquarters. Before his order, such incidents weren't always investigated. In recent months, senior military officials have focused less on finding insurgents and more on keeping soldiers in one place, where they provide daily security for the population. ``They are getting into small towns more and staying for a longer period of time. That cuts down on mistakes,'' says Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington defense think tank.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter, along with Senators Landrieu and Lott, in introducing the ``Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006.'' In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, giving the insurance industry almost complete immunity from Federal antitrust laws. The Act acknowledges the significant role States have in the regulation of the business of insurance, and implements this policy by preempting Federal antitrust laws which would intrude upon State authority in the area. Industry specific statutory exemptions from antitrust laws are rare, and when they are enacted, it is important that we periodically revisit them to ensure that the benefits of the exemption are not outweighed by the potential harms that could be imposed on consumers from the loss of competition. The McCarran-Ferguson Act is no exception and, for good reason, has recently been revisited by the Senate Judiciary Committee. At a recent hearing before the Committee, it became abundantly clear that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is no longer a justified or practical law; it is overly complex and stifles competition. Recognizing that the insurance industry has unique characteristics, including the dependence on collective claim and loss data, Senator Specter and I drafted a bill to accommodate those legitimate needs while still providing Federal regulators with the tools to investigate and prevent collusion and other anticompetitive behaviors. More specifically, our bill authorizes Federal enforcement agencies to police violations of antitrust laws, without weakening the States' comprehensive regulatory power. American consumers, from sophisticated multi-national businesses to Vermonters shopping for personal insurance, have the right to be confident that the cost of their insurance reflects competitive market conditions and not collusive behavior. Yet, when consumers are continually faced with higher prices, fewer options, and declining quality of service from their insurance providers, there are no such assurances. There is little disagreement that consumers are increasingly frustrated with the cost and quality of their insurance policies. This bill is an important step towards restoring integrity in our insurance markets. I hope it will act as a catalyst for action to ensure market forces are at work in the insurance industry.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006. If enacted, this bill will save lives and improve the quality of health for millions of families living in impoverished nations. Recently, I have introduced and cosponsored six bills to address the increasingly important issues that relate to global health and the need for earlier access to generic medicines in the United States. Each year, millions of people needlessly suffer from disease in impoverished countries worldwide because they lack access to lifesaving medicines. And each year, America's world-renowned research universities develop innovative treatments to combat these diseases. However, under our current system, these treatments do not get to the families in impoverished nations who so desperately need them. Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume about 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of lifesaving medicines-- medicines we take for granted--puts them far beyond the reach of millions of the most vulnerable populations. While the concept of my bill is simple, the implications are profound. If passed, my bill would greatly lessen the cost burden of generic drugs in the developing world. It would achieve this by requiring federally funded research institutions to permit their inventions, such as, drugs, vaccines, and innovative medical devices, to be provided inexpensively by generic companies distributing medical supplies to the developing world. Federally funded labs and research institutions have a vital role to play in meeting this goal. For example, Yale University has an agreement with Doctors Without Borders to permit their generic version of its lifesaving AIDS drug to be used for a pilot treatment program in South Africa. To date, Yale's humanitarian endeavor, which in no way reduced their licensing revenues, continues to save thousands of lives. It is time to ensure that public funds truly serve public purposes-- in this instance, delivering essential health care needs at minimal costs to American taxpayers, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, this Congress has been tied up in knots recently and has been unable to pass even critical appropriations bills. The measures before us are crucial. This comprehensive approach toward providing better global health aid and better access to generic drugs should become law, and I am committed to trying to make it so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress or the next, to enact this important legislation. I have recently introduced or sponsored six bills to address the need for better access to low-cost generic medicines. Two of these bills relate to global health, and four of them address the need for earlier access to generic medicines in the United States. Federally funded laboratories and other research institutions have a critical role to play in delivering affordable medicines to those sick and suffering worldwide. In 2000, a Senate Joint Economic Committee Report found that public research was instrumental in developing 15 of the 21 drugs considered by experts to have had the highest therapeutic impact on society. Between 1970 and 2001, there was a ten-fold increase in the number of U.S. patents issued annually to U.S. academic institutions. American universities, hospitals, and other nonprofit research centers concluded that more than 4,500 license and option agreements were executed in 2003, more than double the license and option agreements executed in 1993. A major share of these patents is in the biomedical field. The World Health Organization's 2006 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health has also recently recognized the crucial role of universities. The WHO recommended that universities adopt licensing practices designed to increase access to medicines in developing countries. The report also tells the story of one way in which the crucial role of university innovations and other publicly funded research in promoting global public health first came into the public eye. It is an interesting story. In 2001, the international organization Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF, requested Yale University's permission to use its generic life- saving AIDS drug, stavudine, for a pilot treatment project outside Cape Town. This was at a time when HIV drugs were first being introduced in the developing world. The costs were prohibitive. Scientists at Yale University had discovered stavudine's value in the fight against AIDS, and Yale University was the key patent holder. In response to MSF's request, Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb jointly announced that they would permit the sale of generics in South Africa and that Bristol-Myers Squibb would lower the price of its brand-name stavudine by 96 percent throughout sub-Saharan Africa. The Yale/Bristol-Myers Squibb announcement was highly significant in the campaign for access to affordable first-line AIDS treatments. Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb's humanitarian action did not reduce licensing revenues with respect to Yale. Meanwhile, Yale's invention to this day continues to save thousands of lives. According to a recent report by the WHO's AIDS Medicines and Diagnostics Service, stavudine is one of the three first-line HIV medicines that together constituted almost 90 percent of total procurement in 2005. Unfortunately, this has been an isolated success story rather than the road to greater access for the many important inventions that come out of publicly funded research institutions. With respect to HIV/AIDS treatment alone, at least two major drugs based on university inventions have come to market since the 2001 stavudine announcement: emtricitabine, developed in large part at Emory University and sold by Gilead Sciences as Emtriva; and T-20 developed in large part at Duke University and marketed as Fuzeon by Hoffmann-La Roche and Trimeris. Just this summer, Yale University announced the license of a new candidate for an AIDS drug based on stavudine. Called ``4'-ethynyl-stavudine'', (or abbreviated more simply as Ed4T). Early testing suggests that it may be both more effective and less toxic than its famous predecessor. But the question is: Will these lifesaving drugs ultimately be available in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population? This bill, the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006, would focus on this problem. By allowing licensing by generic companies of inventions coming out of publicly funded research institutions--and other associated inventions required to produce marketable medicines-- it would drive down the price of new, innovative drugs in areas where they would otherwise be effectively unavailable. Because the licensing regime this bill proposes is self-enforcing, it minimizes both administrative overhead and eliminates the need for case-by-case decisions, while preserving important intellectual property protections. Because the Act allows the introduction of generic or reduced-price drugs only into markets too poor to otherwise afford them, its terms do not threaten corporate investments or profits in wealthy nations. All generic drugs manufactured under the bill must be clearly differentiated from the versions sold in developed nations, where the brand-name companies make their profits. Moreover, publicly funded research institutions would receive royalties from the sale of inventions covered by this bill in developing markets. While the initial payment of the royalties will typically go to the research institution itself, the bill leaves complete freedom to these institutions and their licensee to decide how such royalties will ultimately be shared. This freedom is especially important because the inventions from universities and other research institutions often form only one part of the collection of intellectual property necessary to manufacture a finished, marketable drug. The appropriate division of the royalties paid by generics for this package of rights in the developing world will be different for different drugs and medical devices, depending on whether the university's contribution is more or less central to the finished product. This Act would allow all the various parties the flexibility to divide these royalties appropriately. I should be clear, however, that the bill I introduce today is an initial proposal. I look forward to working with research universities in the United States on this important matter. I also intend to work with the companies involved in creating, licensing, and bringing to market the fruits of America's unparalleled research institutions as we continue to shape this solution. Indeed, the best answer may not be legislative at all, if the groups involved can come together around a different approach. But however it is achieved, I believe that increasing the availability of the many medical inventions that come from publicly funded research centers is a good solution to pressing global health concerns. Universities, in particular, are unique institutions with unique public commitments. They are, before anything else, institutions dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge in the public interest. The Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006 is designed in the spirit of that commitment. This bill completes a package of six bills that I have recently introduced to increase access to medicines in the United States and to address the global public health crisis. While it is the magnitude of this problem that demands that we, as a Nation, take action, it is the small things, the individual stories that often speak to us most clearly at a personal level. In my office hangs a photograph I took of three young boys on the side of a mountain in Turkey. I found them flying a kite off the edge of a cliff that overlooks a vast slum. They had made the toy out of scraps of paper, patched together with tape and string, and were flying it on the currents rushing up the face of the rock. I recalled fearing for their safety as they played so precariously close to the edge. But these children faced much greater risks. When my grandchildren get sick, we can always be sure they will get the medicines they need. For these boys, there is no such guarantee. These boys, and the millions of children and others like them around the world are the reason behind each of the six bills I have introduced. Earlier this summer, I introduced a bill which can be the catalyst for empowering U.S. generic companies to save the lives or improve the health of millions of families in impoverished nations. Under the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act,'' U.S. companies can make low-cost generic versions of any medicine for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises when those impoverished nations cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves. This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need. The World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that implement that agreement. On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export lifesaving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' This bill addresses the urgent needs of millions of low-income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines. As in the Public Research in the Public Interest Act, introduced today, generic companies are only permitted to use the compulsory license in the bill in developing nations, where low-income families are simply too poor to purchase the ``brand-name'' versions, and the generic versions must be clearly marked as not for resale in developed nations. Thus, both bills pose the risk of minimal losses for patent holders while generating new revenue for the brand-name companies from the royalties on generic sales. The four additional bills that complete this ``Access to Medicines'' package seek to preserve incentives for U.S. generic companies to enter and compete in the market. Increased competition leads to lower prices and saved lives. First, in the wake of the Supreme Court refusal to hear the drug patent case called Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Schering-Plough, I joined fellow Judiciary Committee members--Senators Kohl, Grassley and Schumer--in introducing legislation to explicitly prohibit brand-name drug manufacturers from using pay-off agreements to keep cheaper generic equivalents off the market. Such payments are a distortion in the market that harms patients. I was stunned that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case so important to our senior citizens. The Federal Trade Commission asked the Supreme Court to hear the arguments but the Court refused at the request of the Justice Department. It seems there may be no justice--until that bill is passed--for our seniors needing costly patented medicines but live where the brand-name company has paid generic companies not to compete. Then, in July, I joined Senators Rockefeller and Schumer in introducing legislation to ban ``authorized generics'' that can stifle true generic competition. I said at the time that ``the giant drug companies keep coming up with ways to avoid real competition and consumers need to be able to count on Congress to close each new anticompetitive loophole they come up with.'' If enacted, that bill will close this anti-competitive loophole in the Hatch-Waxman Act and will preserve the incentives Congress created for generic companies to enter the market to supply American citizens and seniors with lower- cost drugs. The fifth bill introduced was with Senator Kohl. That bill is intended to stop frivolous Citizen Petitions designed to delay introduction of generic drugs into the market place. Recently, large pharmaceutical companies have exploited that petition process to keep their profits high. In addition, I joined with Senators Schumer, Clinton and Stabenow on the Access to LifeSavings Medicine Act which related to developing a fast-track process for approving generic versions of biologic medicines. I want to thank Stacy Kern-Scheerer with Senate Legislative Counsel who provided very helpful guidance under extreme pressure in drafting this short, but complex bill. She and Bill Baird, also with Senate Legislative Counsel, did a great job with a rapid turnaround. I believe that these six bills, together, can save millions of lives. Recognizing the great need, there have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and nonprofits who have already donated life-saving medicines, time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases both in America and abroad. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. My bills will both add to and complement existing efforts, by making sure even cutting edge treatments are available in developing countries, and by ensuring that America's aid dollars and the contributions of private philanthropists are used as efficiently as they can possibly be used. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Report to Congress reported that ``[i]n every case generics prices present an opportunity for cost savings; in some cases, the branded price per pack of a drug is up to 11 times the cost of the approved generic version.'' The current global public health crisis is one of the great callings of our time. As a nation, we cannot afford to ignore this threat. Our own health and aspects of our national security depend on it. We have become far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or the encroaching menace of multi-drug resistant bacteria, we are all at risk. We are only an airplane flight away from wherever an outbreak may occur--a place where the medical innovations developed in this country to combat these devastating diseases may not be available to keep the outbreak under control. In a post-9/11 world, our well-being is intimately connected with that of other nations. Health is an essential building block for a strong economy, and vital to maintain a thriving democracy. Through increasing access to essential medicines throughout the world, the United States can help to give developing nations a chance to flourish, while improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population. President Franklin Roosevelt once said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough, for those who have little.'' We are fortunate, at some times and on some issues, to be able to do both. Now is one of those times, and this is one of those issues. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my efforts this year on the global public health crisis, including today's addition, the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Like Alaskans, Vermonters have strong economic ties to Canada and depend on the efficient movement of products across international borders. Many Vermont families, including mine, frequently travel to Canada to visit family members living there or to spend a weekend in the beautiful cities of Montreal or Quebec City. Similarly, our Canadian friends enjoy many Vermont treasures, including our ski resorts and our own ``great lake,'' Lake Champlain. In 2003, more than 2 million Canadians visited Vermont, spending $188 million while here. Additionally, Vermont has a number of small towns along the border that depend on access to neighboring Canadian towns. In some cases, these towns share emergency assistance, grocery stores, and other basic services. Residents sometimes cross the border on foot several times a day just to conduct routine business. Other northern border States enjoy similar trade and tourism benefits with Canada and could face significant downturns in their economies if this law is not implemented properly. At a cost of about $100, passports are an expensive hardship for many, especially families would not otherwise travel abroad. The proposed PASS Card is a less costly alternative but also raises a number of new concerns, including issues of privacy and effectiveness. On top of that, DHS and State are still arguing over what technology to embed in the card. I find it highly unlikely that the State Department will be able to process the flood of requests for passports and PASS cards that will come from this initiative by the deadline when key decisions have still not been made.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my colleagues from the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, Subcommittee Chairman Gregg and Subcommittee Ranking Member Byrd. We would like to discuss the intent of section 546 of the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations conference report regarding the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI. In 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which included a provision creating WHTI as a means of better securing our borders. The provisions require that all individuals, including U.S. citizens, present a passport or its equivalent in order to verify identity and citizenship when they enter the United States from neighboring countries, including Canada or Mexico. As currently set out by the administration, the law would take effect on January 1, 2007, for airports and seaports and on January 1, 2008, for land crossings. As those deadlines loom ever closer, my colleagues and I have grown more and more concerned that the plan has been poorly planned and there is a considerable lack of adequate coordination not only among the Departments of Homeland Security and State, which are charged with implementing the initiative but also with the governments of Canada and Mexico. I fear that we face a train wreck on the horizon if the plan steams along as is. The senior senator from Alaska most definitely recognizes how improper implementation of WHTI could impede the flow of people and goods across our borders. The residents of his home State especially would face unique challenges under WHTI because all Alaskans have to cross into Canada before entering the continental United States by land.

Mr. LEAHY. My colleagues are both correct. While hasty implementation could result in avoidable problems for all those who will be affected by this Initiative, we also want to make sure that it is done on a reasonable timetable. Our amendment requires a modest implementation delay to June 1, 2009, and also requires that certain technological goals are met in the design of the PASS Card to ensure that the strictest standards are in place to protect personal information. Though it has been two years since the Intelligence Act requirement became law, the agencies have made little progress to implement WHTI. This provision (Sec. 546) provides additional guidance to the agencies to insure smooth implementation. Our language also requires the Departments of Homeland Security and State to certify prior to implementation that a cost for the PASS Card has been agreed upon, that all border authorities are familiar with the technology, and that the technology has been shared with the Canadian and Mexican authorities. These are just a few of the steps we have taken in this amendment to ensure that the transition to an increased security environment is done without creating unnecessary obstacles. And the Senate and House Appropriations Committees will most certainly share the Homeland Security Department and the State Department report to us on how they are progressing in meeting the program criteria and moving toward implementation. I thank my colleagues for all their hard work on reaching an agreement on this language. With it, we greatly increase our chances for the successful implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. Senators and staff worked tirelessly to negotiate and pass that bill, which was a comprehensive, fair solution that respected human dignity, and recognized the need for strong border security. The response we got from the majority in the House of Representatives was obstruction. Rather than proceed to a conference to try to hammer out a meaningful solution, the House leadership ignored our calls to proceed and spent the month of August holding sham hearings on the Senate's bill meant only to undermine the work we completed and inflame anti- immigrant passions. Now the House leadership, enabled by the majority leader, asks us to forget all about the efforts we made and take up and pass a narrow, unbalanced bill to help their election chances. If there is any doubt that this effort by the majority leader is political, consider the timing of this bill. On September 21st of this year, just as the majority leader brought this bill to the floor, the Department of Homeland Security announced the beginning of its Secure Border Initiative with the award of a multi-year, billion-dollar contract to the Boeing Corporation to begin work on a state-of-the-art border security system. Yet, at the same time the Department of Homeland Security tries to secure the border with 21st Century technology, the Senate majority seeks to duplicate and confuse those efforts with a plan straight out of the 18th century. Despite the numerous problems in that agency, it is still a better idea to let them proceed with the Secure Border Initiative than it is to throw even more taxpayer money at a redundant and inferior project. The majority leader seeks to pass this legislation--with little debate and no amendments--to pander to the anti-immigration crowd. I understand that the Republican majority wants to leave this session with something they can take with them and hold up as a Republican victory for national security, but true security means more than hiding behind walls. We should be unwilling to sacrifice our chances at comprehensive reform to appease the isolationist faction in this country. Voting against this bill is not a vote against national security; it is a vote in favor of the comprehensive bill the Senate already passed. Regrettably, this bill also contains a requirement for a study to be conducted on the necessity and feasibility of a barrier on the Canadian-American border. I have filed an amendment to strike this study, but the majority leader, as is his practice when bringing up controversial bills to score political points, has obstructed Democratic Senators from offering amendments to improve this bill. To think that we would even consider engaging in this type of unilateral behavior is mind-boggling. Have we learned nothing from the Bush-Cheney administration's go-it-alone strategy? As a Senator from a northern border state, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for us to engage our neighbors in a cooperative manner when it comes to security. If we were to pass this legislation, we would send a message to our Canadian allies that we don't trust their ability to achieve security and we would ignore the fact that border security is in both of our best interests. We will achieve much more by working respectfully and cooperatively with the Canadian government than we will by conducting studies as to whether we should wall off one of our most valuable allies. Another deeply troubling aspect of this bill is the virtually unlimited grant of authority to the Department of Homeland Security to ``take all actions . . . necessary and appropriate'' to secure the country's border. The bill's grant of authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security lacks any boundaries--any delineation of where such authority ends. It would abdicate congressional authority and delegate, with no intelligible principle, unlimited power to an executive agency to achieve broad goals, for which the method of achievement is left undefined. Recall that this is the same agency that was responsible for the utter failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina. We are still coming to grips with the fallout from that disaster, which was made worse by the administration's incompetence during the storm, and its continuing failures to curb contracting abuses that have slowed the reconstruction. People along the gulf coast continue to suffer as a result of the administration's incompetence, and we are here debating whether to embark on yet another billion-dollar contracting folly. This is a disgrace. This week, the U.S. inspector general for Iraq reconstruction released a report on a $75 million project to build the Baghdad Police College, which the inspector general called ``the most essential civil security project in the country.'' In his report, the inspector general called the project a ``disaster'' and said ``the truth needs to be told about what we didn't get for our dollar from Parsons,'' the contractor responsible for the debacle. For $75 million in taxpayer funds, the American people and the Iraq police forces got a building that is currently uninhabitable due to substandard workmanship, and which may have to be demolished. When the Bush administration proves that it cannot even ensure that one of the most critical aspects of Iraq reconstruction is done competently, I shudder to think about the potential abuses that could come along with the building of 700 miles of fence. At the rate that this administration's crony contractors are performing, I have to wonder if a fence ever could get built that didn't have gaping holes in it. Before we hand over even more authority to the Bush-Cheney administration to create yet another opportunity for their crony contractors to rip off the American people, maybe we should actually conduct some oversight and demand some sorely needed accountability. Groups from all over this country, from all sectors of our society have weighed in against the building of this fence. From religious leaders to immigration advocates, from environmental organizations to trade associations, from women's rights organizations to academics; opposition to this last-minute, cobbled-together-proposal is widespread. It is clear to me that the idea of turning our country into a fortress is an idea that many Americans view as contrary to our values and our heritage, and I will stand with them in opposition to this bill. The proposed footprint of this fence will trench through the sovereign territory of the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona, who will be precluded from any involvement in the project. Chairwoman Vivian Juan-Sanders of the Tohono O'odham Nation wrote Members of Congress urging legislators to rethink this proposal before we decide to significantly impair a fragile environment and a long-developed working relationship between the O'odham Nation and the United States government to improve border security. We would do well to listen to the concerns of those whom this bill will affect most. Secretary Chertoff has said the border fencing provisions contained in the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill are what the department needs to secure our borders. During our debate on comprehensive immigration reform, Republican Senators held out Secretary Chertoff's desire for the 370 miles of fence as justification for supporting that amendment. Those same Senators who spoke so forcefully about the need for 370 miles of fencing now are saying we need more, nearly twice as much. It seems clear now that the arguments from those Senators meant very little. For those who fear that voting against this bill will allow them to be viewed as ``soft'' on national security, remember that this body already passed a bill that contained provisions for a border fence, along with many other significant security measures. The American people are smart enough to understand what is going on here, and I am confident that the American people are sick and tired of being scared into swallowing every irresponsible proposal put forth by this Republican Congress under the guise of national security. Yesterday, a majority of this body voted to erode key elements of our Constitution beyond recognition, and passed a bill that I am certain we will come to regret. If we pass this fence legislation, we will continue this downward spiral of reactionary, fear-driven legislating. It is time for us to stand up against those who seek to corrupt the underpinnings of our democracy. I have had enough, and I suspect that a majority of the American people have had enough. We need to stop and think about the mark a fence like this will make on our character as a nation. Once this fence is built, it will be very difficult to go back, and we will have taken a step down a road that I do not think a civilized and enlightened nation should travel. In a country on the cutting-edge of technology, with a history of legendary ingenuity, and driven by innovators of the highest caliber, we can do better: we can secure our borders through human innovation, technology, and vigilance. When we approach our immigration situation in a comprehensive manner, we will see how unnecessary this wall is. When we achieve comprehensive reform, rather than piecemeal false solutions, we will realize the security we need. Long after the political and cultural storms over immigration pass, this cobbled-together fence will remain an ugly scar, and will serve as a reminder of a very poor decision made out of fear rather than reason. Rather than strength, this fence will symbolize weakness and a lack of confidence in ourselves. I will vote against this bill, and I hope other Senators join me in rejecting this blatant and costly political stunt.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Texas has said. I appreciate the colloquy and the days we spent trying to work through this issue. He and I talked about this before the break in August. I knew working with him we would work out a solution. I believe we have. It is a complicated solution for competition law and obviously important for Texas. The Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for ensuring competition--and thereby protecting consumers--through enactment and enforcement of antitrust laws. I support repeal of the Wright amendment, but the bill originally introduced by Senator Hutchison went well beyond a simple repeal. It would have explicitly insulated from competition review private agreements among competitors. Such insulation is inappropriate and unprecedented, and it is bad for consumers. I am sensitive to the hard work that the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, and the airport authority there, have put in to craft a solution to the complicated web of problems created by the Wright amendment. It is more than unfortunate that Congress permitted such a clearly anticompetitive situation to exist in the first place, and it is certainly our obligation to try to rectify that problem. Doing so in a way that creates a new set of anticompetitive issues--and the resulting harm to consumers--would only be to repeat the errors of the past. I appreciate the changes we have been able to agree to, stripping the explicit antitrust exemption from the bill, and speaking only to the obligations of the city of Dallas, rather than blessing the agreement among the cities, the airport authority, and two airlines. I am still concerned, however, because while Congress is no longer explicitly deeming the contract in compliance with competition laws, an implicit protection from those important guardians of consumer welfare may remain. The parties to the contract, both public and private, all assure me that the contract is not anticompetitive, and that the statute should not be read to create an exemption. I would prefer to be more precise in the statutory language, but I trust that they are correct. Senator Cornyn and I share a concern about providing antitrust immunity to agreements involving private parties. While I would prefer greater clarity on this point in the bill, I am pleased that Senator Cornyn and I agree that this is an entirely unique situation, which should not be repeated. I understand that in the view of the Senators from Texas, this unique situation requires a unique, if inelegant solution. I disagree and would have preferred a solution that more clearly preserves the antitrust laws. I have worked hard both with the affected parties and Senator Cornyn, to craft such a solution. The similar respect Senator Cornyn and I have for preserving competition laws has made our conversations productive and moved the legislative process forward. While my concerns remain about this legislation, I am prepared to accept it. We have come a long way from where this process started with an explicit antitrust exemption. I expect that in the future, legislation that may have anticompetitive effects will be referred to, and vetted by, the Senate Judiciary Committee so that concerns over competition can be handled in regular order and addressed early.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I don't want to interfere with others who are on the floor already planning things. I wonder if there would be a difficulty if Senator Cornyn and I did our colloquy. I can assure the Senate that I will keep my time to 2 minutes. I do not know how much time the Senator from Texas would request.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I shall not object--I believe the Senator from Texas is discussing time for a colloquy that Senator Cornyn and I intend to do which will take about 5 to 10 minutes. When would we have our colloquy?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from California for addressing concerns I had with an earlier version of this bill. I was particularly concerned about the apparent disconnect between the substantive offense created by the bill and the misdemeanor penalty for its violation. The offense requires proof that a defendant, for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise, ``intentionally damages, or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records)'' used by an animal enterprise. By contrast, the misdemeanor penalty provision applied to offenses involving ``exclusively non-violent physical obstruction'' of an animal enterprise facility, resulting in no bodily injury, no property damage, and no loss of profits. It is difficult to imagine how a person can intentionally damage property, or intentionally cause the loss of property, while at the same time be engaged exclusively in nonviolent physical obstruction that causes no real harm. The only way these provisions could be reconciled would be by watering down the criminal prohibition to extend to peaceful conduct that the bill was never intended to cover. The current version of the bill clears up the confusion. It strikes the misdemeanor provision in its entirety and clarifies that the substantive offense created by the bill requires proof of intentional damage to real or personal property, not simply a loss of profits. These changes will ensure that legitimate, peaceful conduct is not chilled by the threat of Federal prosecution, and that prosecution is reserved for the worst offenders.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have recently been reminded of the tremendous threat to consumer privacy posed by what is known as phone pretexting--the use of fraud and deception to acquire consumer phone records. The investigation into pretexting at Hewlett-Packard is just the latest example of why there is a need to enact legislation to safeguard the privacy and security of Americans' sensitive personal data. Consumer telephone records have become a hot commodity and this information is a treasure trove for those who would misuse it to make a profit or who exploit it for harmful purposes. More and more, this sensitive personal information is being collected, stored and disseminated without our knowledge or consent. Last Spring, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported a bipartisan bill that would protect the privacy interests of millions of American consumers who use cell phones, by making the act of pretexting illegal. The Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act--TRAPP Act-- S. 2178, clarifies that it is illegal to use deception and fraud to obtain and sell confidential phone records. The bill ensures that the Department of Justice has the legal authority to seek criminal penalties and up to 10 years imprisonment for anyone who engages in pretexting. The legislation also preserves the rights of State and local governments to enforce their own privacy laws, to best protect the privacy rights of consumers. In April, the House unanimously passed an essentially identical phone pretexting bill, H.R. 4709. The language used in that bill was worked out with Senators from both sides of the aisle before it was considered by the House, so that when adopted by the Senate it could be sent directly to the President for his signature. I have worked for months now to make progress on that bill and it has been cleared for passage twice by all Democratic Senators. First, we cleared it with an amendment that would have also passed the Second Chance Act and consensus court security measures. When Senate Republicans refused to clear that measure, Senate Democrats also cleared the bill for passage in the identical form that it passed the House and without any amendments. An anonymous Republican hold on the measure is preventing its passage. I know of no legitimate reason for this delay. The Senate could pass this bill today and send it to the President to be signed into law. Instead of passing this bipartisan privacy legislation, it appears this Republican-led Congress will recess without acting on this bill-- forcing millions of Americans to continue to play Russian roulette with their sensitive personal information. This week the former chair of Hewlett Packard, Patricia Dunn, called on Congress to pass bright-line laws regarding phone pretexting to avoid a repeat of the fiasco at HP. The TRAPP Act would do exactly that. This bill would help shut down the growing black market for consumer telephone records. I support this bill and I commend the bill's lead cosponsors in the Senate and the House--Senators Specter, Schumer and Durbin, and Representatives Lamar Smith and John Conyers--for their leadership on this privacy issue. I hope whoever is objecting on the Republican side will stop the needless delay of this legislation. If there is a legitimate concern, come forward and work with us. The Senate should also act on a more comprehensive privacy bill that Chairman Specter and I have cosponsored--the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, S. 1789. This important measure was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee last November. But, the Republican Senate leadership would not allow this bill to be considered by this Congress either. Our bill requires companies that have databases with sensitive personal information about Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. The bill also requires data brokers to provide notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised. We have a bill that significantly advances the ball in protecting the privacy of all Americans, and I will continue to work to move this legislation toward passage.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I wish to applaud the Washington Nationals and the Vermont Lake Monsters for extending their player development contract for the next 2 years. This new agreement will keep Vermont as the New York-Penn League affiliate for Washington through at least the 2008 season. Vermont has been the NY-Penn League affiliate of the Montreal Expos/ Washington Nationals since joining the league in 1994, and the Vermont- Montreal/Washington affiliation is now the longest current partnership in the league. The Vermont team's on-field success is highlighted by winning the New York-Penn League championship in 1996. Since beginning the partnership in 1994, Vermont has seen 46 of its players reach the Major Leagues. Eighteen of those 46 players were on Major League rosters during the 2006 season. On top of that, two players have been part of World Series championship teams--Geoff Blum for the Chicago White Sox in 2005, and Orlando Cabrera for the Boston Red Sox in 2004. While the teams have struggled on the field of late, I am confident that the new Washington ownership will make a firm commitment to bolstering their player development program. The Lake Monsters' owner Ray Pecor and general manager C.J. Knudsen also should be commended for their hard work and dedication in running a top-notch franchise in Vermont. In short order, the Lake Monsters should get back to its winning ways and fans in Vermont and Washington will benefit.