Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know people are about to object. I can assure the Senator from New York--so he will not have to repeat his request--that he is going to be getting time after the objection is made. I am going to make a statement, a very short statement, but I will yield at the appropriate time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in January, I joined Senator Salazar in introducing a bill to include Cesar E. Chavez among the names of the great civil rights leaders we honor in the title of last year's Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, VRARA. We reported this bill out of committee last week, and I am pleased the Senate was able to take it up and pass it so quickly. I supported taking this action last year during the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of the VRARA when I offered an amendment on behalf of Senator Salazar to add the Hispanic civil rights leader to those for whom the law is named. As Senator Salazar reminded us, Cesar Chavez is an American hero who sacrificed his life to empower the most vulnerable in America. Like Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, for whom the VRARA is named, he believed strongly in the right to vote as a cornerstone of American democracy. I offered the amendment in the Judiciary Committee last year and it was adopted without dissent. In order not to complicate final passage of the Voting Rights Act, the Senate proceeded to adopt the House-passed bill without amendment. This was done so that the bill could be signed into law without having to be reconsidered by the House. At that time, I committed to work with Senator Salazar to conform the law to include recognition of the contribution to our civil rights, voting rights and American society by Cesar Chavez. I have supported adding Cesar Chavez's name to the law as an important recognition of the broad landscape of political inclusion made possible by the Voting Rights Act. This bill would not alter the bill's vital remedies for continuing discrimination in voting but is overdue recognition of the importance of the Voting Rights Act to Hispanic-Americans. Prior to the VRA, Hispanics, like minorities of all races, faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. We amended the bill in committee to add the names of two more great American leaders, Barbara Jordan and William C. Velasquez. Congresswoman Jordan was not only a pioneer as the first African American woman from a southern State to serve in the House of Representatives but also a great leader with an impressive career in public service as a Texas state legislator, a Member of Congress, and a professor at the University of Texas. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton in 1994. Her work on the House Judiciary Committee in 1975 was instrumental in renewing the Voting Rights Act and adding the vital minority language provisions to the VRA. Barbara Jordan's life and career, not to mention her powerful speeches, have been an inspiration to so many that I am pleased to support adding her name to the bill. On behalf of Senator Salazar, I offered an amendment to add the name of another Presidential Medal of Freedom honoree from Texas, William C. Velasquez. In 1974, Willie Velasquez founded the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, the Nation's largest voter registration project aimed at the Hispanic community. Under his leadership, the SVREP launched hundreds of successful get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives throughout the Southwest, greatly expanding the number of registered Latino voters and increasing Hispanic participation in the political process. Mr. Velasquez, who was also a leader with the United Farm Workers and helped found the Mexican American Youth Organization, MAYO, and la Raza Unida, helped others believe as he did that ``Su voto es su voz'', your vote is your voice. When President Clinton posthumously awarded Mr. Velasquez the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1995, he was only the second Latino to receive the Nation's highest civilian honor. We should honor him now by adding his name to the title of the VRARA. I offer this additional amendment on behalf of Senator Salazar. Of course, there are many great leaders we could add to honor their great contributions to the expansion of voting rights to all Americans. Without leaders like Congressman John Lewis and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, we would not have the Voting Rights Act today. We are indebted to them as we are to so many others for the strides that we have made. Taking up and passing this bill today is a sign of our commitment to ensuring that the great promises of the 14th and 15th amendments are kept for all Americans and that the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act is fully implemented to protect the rights of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, February 15, 2007, from 10 a.m. to noon in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room S. 216 of the Capitol Building. I. Nominations Beryl Howell, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. II. Bills S. 316, the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, Kohl, Grassley, Leahy, Schumer, Feingold. S. 236, the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007, Feingold, Sununu, Leahy, Akaka, Kennedy. S. 378, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, Leahy, Specter, Durbin, Cornyn, Kennedy, Hatch. S. 442, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, Durbin. III. Resolutions S. Res. 41, honoring the life and recognizing the accomplishments of Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, Brown, Voinovich. S. Res. 47, honoring the life and achievements of George C. Springer, Sr., the Northeast regional director and a former vice president of the American Federation of Teachers, Dodd. S. Res. 49, recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of Alaska into the Union as the 49th State, Stevens, Murkowski. S. Res. 53, congratulating Illinois State University as it marks its sesquicentennial, Durbin, Obama. S. Res. 69, a resolution recognizing the African-American spiritual as a national treasure, Menendez.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor this legislation on cluster munitions with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein. I commend her for the determination she has shown to prevent future harm to innocent people from these weapons. The problem of cluster munitions, which overwhelmingly maim and kill civilians, has been known for many years. Perhaps the most egregious example is Laos, where millions of these tiny explosives were dropped by United States military aircraft during the Vietnam war. Over three decades later they continue to cause horrific casualties among local villagers and unsuspecting children. I have urged the Pentagon to address this problem for nearly a decade. While they have acknowledged the problem, they have not yet taken sufficient steps to solve it. We used large numbers of cluster munitions in the invasion of Iraq, including in densely inhabited, urban areas, and many civilians paid and continue to pay a terrible price. Israel used these weapons extensively in Lebanon, including cluster munitions supplied by the United States, and again it has been civilians who have suffered disproportionately. Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have military utility. They can be effective against armor or other military infrastructure. But they are, in effect, indiscriminate, because they are scattered by the thousands over wide areas. Many of them--between 1 and 40 percent depending on the type and the condition of the terrain--fail to explode on contact and remain on the surface of the ground as hazardous duds indefinitely, no different from landmines. The duds are exploded by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is a child who thinks it is a toy. The consequences are disastrous-- lifelong disfigurement and disability, or death. No one suggests that it is possible to completely avoid civilian casualties in war. Innocent casualties are an inevitable, tragic consequence of all wars. But this legislation should not be necessary. Weapons that are so disproportionately hazardous to civilians should of course be subject to strict controls on their use. The Feinstein-Leahy bill does not prohibit the use or export of cluster munitions. Rather, it would set a standard for reliability that is the same as what the Pentagon now requires for new procurements of these weapons. The President may waive this requirement if he certifies that doing so is vital to protect the security of the United States, and he submits a report describing the steps that will be taken to protect civilians and the failure rate of the cluster munitions to be used or sold. Our bill, which is not aimed at any particular country because this is a global problem, would also require that cluster munitions be used only against military targets and not where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. This is a moral issue and it is an issue of our own self-interest. Using or selling weapons that are so indiscriminate in their effect without strict controls on their use is immoral. It is immoral. Anyone who has seen the horrific consequences of children with an arm or a leg blown off, or a part of their face, or their lifeless body cut to pieces by shrapnel, knows that. It is also contrary to our own interest to be using or selling weapons which cause such appalling casualties of people who are not the enemy. It fuels anger and resentment we can ill afford among the very people whose support we need. Again, I am pleased to join with the Senator from California. This is a thoughtful, much needed response to a serious humanitarian problem. It is also timely because other governments, following the leadership of Norway, Austria and others, are meeting in Oslo later this month to begin discussions on an international treaty to curtail the use and export of cluster munitions that pose unacceptable risks to civilians. The United States should play a visible, constructive role in those negotiations and it is our hope that this legislation will contribute to that process.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes, it is. Senator Kennedy, who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Refugees, makes an important point. I believe that the United States should contribute half of the funds, and I will work with Senator Kennedy and with the State Department to ensure that those funds are provided. I agree that America should show greater leadership by providing at least half the funds for this appeal.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, William Odom is one of the finest intelligence officers who have served in our military. Retiring at the rank of lieutenant general, his distinguished Army career culminated in his heading up the U.S. Army's intelligence division and the National Security Agency. He has worked tirelessly to help the country understand and deal with the challenges to its security and defense. I have known the general for decades, and, like many of my colleagues, I deeply value his judgment and insight. That is why I read his opinion piece from last Sunday's Washington Post, ``Victory is Not an Option,'' with great interest. General Odom lays out the truths and myths of the Nation's involvement in Iraq. Among the clear truths is that the dream of a real democracy gaining roots in that war-torn country is simply that, a dream. He rightly points out, too, that any Iraqi government is likely to be more anti than pro-American at the end of the day. As for the myths, he sensibly lays out that it is pure fantasy for anyone to think that our presence is actually preventing the horrible carnage from unfolding or holding Iran back from gaining influence with its neighbor. It is similarly a flight of the imagination to think that our military presence is actually stanching--as opposed to encouraging--al-Qaida's involvement in the country. Finally, it is a myth to think that we must stay in Iraq ``to support the troops.'' In fact, he notes, many of our brave men and women in the country understand the cold realities that unfold there every day, and many of them believe that we should get out of Iraq. General Odom makes some sensible suggestions for a new policy direction, something beyond the absurd ``surge'' that is only the same old repast of stay-the-course with a different seasoning. We should get out of Iraq and recognize that our presence there has become a source of instability for the whole Middle East. He smartly suggests that we should work with our international partners to seek order and stability, which will fundamentally alter the balance against the radicals who want to stir up even more strife. I ask unanimous consent that General Odom's article, ``Victory Is Not an Option,'' now be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to read this article closely and truly think about what General Odom is saying. The logic is clear and sensible. I think it is incontrovertible.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act,'' and once again, I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Bennett. This bipartisan legislation would enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions. At the same time, this legislation will erase an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. We have introduced this same bill in each of the past four Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the 2001 tax reconciliation bill, the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, and the Senate-passed version of the 2005 tax reconciliation bill. I would like to thank Senators Cantwell, Cardin, Cochran, Coleman, Conrad, Dodd, Domenici, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Sanders, Schumer, and Stevens for cosponsoring this tri-partisan bill. Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the works they donate to museums and libraries. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists, and it hurts museums and libraries--large and small--that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a Nation want to ensure that works of art created by living artists are available to the public in the future--for study and for pleasure--this is something that artists should be allowed to do. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters, and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses to the public like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should be corrected. Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under our legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a crucial difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public forever. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act,'' and once again, I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Bennett. This bipartisan legislation would enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions. At the same time, this legislation will erase an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. We have introduced this same bill in each of the past four Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the 2001 tax reconciliation bill, the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, and the Senate-passed version of the 2005 tax reconciliation bill. I would like to thank Senators Cantwell, Cardin, Cochran, Coleman, Conrad, Dodd, Domenici, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Sanders, Schumer, and Stevens for cosponsoring this tri-partisan bill. Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the works they donate to museums and libraries. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists, and it hurts museums and libraries--large and small--that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a Nation want to ensure that works of art created by living artists are available to the public in the future--for study and for pleasure--this is something that artists should be allowed to do. In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters, and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country. Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses to the public like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should be corrected. Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under our legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel. In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works or related activities. This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value. I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a crucial difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public forever. 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 join Senator Dodd in reintroducing the Dodd-Leahy Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. This bill strengthens the ability of our federal government to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership and commitment to enacting this meaningful civil rights bill. And I look forward to working with other Senators as this bill moves forward. I am also very pleased that the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act once again includes the Missing Child Cold Case Review Act, which I sponsored in the last Congress to provide the investigative expertise of our Inspectors General in reviewing the cold cases of missing children. Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. My bill would allow inspectors general to assign criminal investigators to assist in the review of cold case files at National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. NCMEC, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. I understand that our inspectors general are eager to provide this assistance, and this measure allows them legal authorization to do that. These cases need resolution. As parents and grandparents we all know that and, where our Government can provide its resources, it should. The primary thrust of this bill targets murders from the civil rights era. Nearly 52 years ago, the brutal murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American teenager, stirred the concience of our country. Young Emmett Till walked into a local country store in Money, MS, to buy some candy and allegedly whistled at the white store clerk. That night, two white half-brothers, J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant, kidnapped Emmett Till from his great uncle's home. Several days later, his brutally beaten and unrecognizable body was fished out of the nearby Tallahatchie River. No one was ever punished for this tragic and brutal murder. Emmett Till's death served as momentum for change. It inspired a generation of Americans to demand justice and freedom in a way America had never seen before. During the civil rights movement, the road to Mississippi became the highway of change for an entire country. Yet the movement had a darker side. Fifty-two years after Emmett Till's murder, the families of many Americans who lost their lives during the civil rights era are still awaiting justice. We must not forget their sacrifice. And one way to honor that sacrifice is acting before the window of time closes. New evidence of cold cases trickles in while older evidence continues to fade and witnesses age. We must have a sense of urgency to ensure that justice is rendered. We cannot afford to wait. The Emmett Till Unsolved Crime Act would provide the Federal Government with much needed tools to expeditiously investigate and prosecute unsolved civil rights era cold cases. To accomplish this goal, the legislation calls for the creation of new cold case units in the Justice Department and FBI solely dedicated to investigating and prosecuting unsolved cases that involved violations of criminal civil rights statutes, resulting in death, and occurring before January 1, 1970. This measure also seeks to provide proper coordination between federal officials and state and local government officials on these cases. This bill ensures that the Federal Government is held accountable by requiring the Justice Department and FBI cold case units to submit annual reports to Congress describing which cold cases were selected for further investigation and prosecution and which were not. By shedding light on unsolved civil rights era murders, I hope this bill will end our Nation's ``quiet game'' on civil rights murders. Justice is better served by allowing our entire nation to acknowledge past wrongs, including wrongs aided by lax law enforcement. Just this week, The Washington Post reported that the briefcase of slain Florida civil rights leader Harry T. Moore, which mysteriously disappeared 55 years ago from a local courthouse, was found in a barn. We must hold our .government officials more accountable. Progress has been made. According to a February 4, 2007, article in USA Today, entitled ``Civil rights-era killers escape justice,'' since 1989, authorities in seven States have reexamined 29 killings from the civil rights era and made 28 arrests that led to 22 convictions, including this month's arrest of former Klansman James Seale for the May 2, 1964, abduction and killings of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore. Despite some progress, much remains to be done. Just how many people died during that period is uncertain. At the National Civil Rights Memorial in Birmingham, AL, is the Civil Rights Memorial Center, where 86 additional names appear on a wall dedicated to the ``forgotten others.'' This bill ensures that no sacrifice in the pursuit of freedom goes unnoticed. Even today, violence or the threat of violence serves as a barrier to full and equal participation in our society. On January 11, 2007, the NAACP asked the FBI to investigate three recent acts of violence and intimidation against against African-American mayors, including shots fired into the home of Greenwood, LA's first black mayor and the mysterious shooting death of Westlake, LA's, first black mayor two days before he was scheduled to take office. And two days ago the Anti- Defamation League, which monitors racist hate groups, released a report showing that ``Klan groups have witnessed a surprising and troubling resurgence by exploiting fears of an immigration explosion.'' There is no place for racial violence or political terrorism in a democracy. We must rededicate ourselves, as a Nation and as individuals, to protecting the full human equality of all Americans. We start today by ensuring that the guilty do not go unpunished, or that justice--even if delayed--is denied. By passing this bill and enacting it into law, we continue our march toward building a more fair and just society.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one thing that should be noted, and has been noted on this floor today, is that the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its members got all the appropriations bills passed out of Committee early on last year. Had they been brought up by the then-leadership in the House and the Senate we would not even be talking about a CR because, of course, they would have been passed and signed into law. But 2 weeks ago, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees finished drafting H.J. Res. 20, the joint spending resolution. The House passed the joint resolution on January 31 by a bipartisan vote of 286 to 140. The current continuing resolution left to us by the last Congress expires on February 15. So we have to act. Total funding in the joint resolution is within the ceiling imposed by President Bush and the Republican Congress last year for fiscal year 2007. There are, however, some adjustments from the fiscal year 2006 funding levels in the continuing resolution that the Republican Congress agreed to. During the past month, we worked together on a bipartisan basis to make these adjustments so there would not be severe hardships to the most vulnerable people or layoffs of Federal employees. As chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee I am gratified by the additional funding that was included to meet urgent humanitarian needs that do not reflect any partisan interest. These are moral needs. I thank Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for their help and also the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, and also his able staff for their support and cooperation during this process, and Tim Rieser and Kate Eltrich of my staff for what they have done. The adjustments include additional funding to combat HIV and AIDS. Under the continuing resolution we enacted last year funding within State and Foreign Operations to combat HIV and AIDS totaled $2.57 billion, including $445 million for the Global Fund that fights also tuberculosis and malaria. Under H.J. Res. 20, those amounts will go to $3.84 billion and $625 million, respectively, again, with bipartisan support. I thank Senators Durbin and Brownback and the others who supported me in this effort. Currently, only 20 percent of the people needing AIDS drugs in poor countries get them, and only 10 percent of the people at risk of infection are receiving the services to help them protect themselves. If we had continued funding at last year's level, we would not have been able to provide lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to an estimated 350,000 HIV-infected people. According to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, 110,000 to 175,000 people would die of HIV-related causes if the fiscal year 2006 funding levels had not been increased in the joint resolution. Funding to combat malaria would have been frozen at the fiscal year 2006 level under the continuing resolution passed last year. Of course, malaria is something we do not have to worry about in this country. It is both preventable and treatable. Yet it kills more than a million people each year. Most of those who die are African children. An expansion of programs to combat malaria would have been stalled under the continuing resolution and the eight additional countries targeted for the next round of malaria prevention and treatment would have been placed on hold. The additional funding will enable us to meet our commitment to cut malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 of the hardest hit countries in Africa. These funds will go to support the purchase of lifesaving drugs, the distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets, and the treatment of pregnant women at risk for malaria. What we do here will help people none of us here will ever meet. Yet think of nearly a million children in Africa who would die if we do not act. So it becomes a moral issue. America, again, helping people we will never know or see, but we do it because it is the moral thing to do and we have the wealth and technology to do it. Under H.J. Res. 20, funding for international peacekeeping operations will receive an additional $113 million above the amount in the continuing resolution enacted last year. This will ensure that our assessed dues to the U.N. are paid and we do not fall further behind in our support for troops in 13 countries, including Lebanon, Sudan, Haiti, and the Congo where, again, it is in our best interests to support these peacekeeping missions. We provide $50 million to support the African Union troops in Darfur and southern Sudan. These funds had been omitted last year, but they are needed for the 7,000 troops at 34 camps throughout Sudan. When we read about the genocide in Sudan, about the children who have been murdered, women who have been raped, people who have been killed as they flee the ashes of their homes, how can we, as Americans say we can't do something to stop it? There is $20 million here to support Iraqi refugees. That is an amount which, unfortunately, will only begin to address the catastrophe that is unfolding. In fact, additional aid, as we know, will be needed for Iraqi refugees in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental. The number of refugees is going up every day. The ability to care for them is insufficient. So the clock is ticking. The urgency with which the Senate must act to pass the joint funding resolution should be measured not in time but in human lives. As Members of the Senate and the American people can readily see, this legislation involves issues of life and death. The additional funds were designated by the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to support the priorities of both Democratic and Republican Senators, without exceeding the total funding ceiling set by the President. I have said so many times on the floor of the Senate, on questions of diseases that could be prevented, if Members of the Senate have young children or grandchildren or their friends do, we know that at certain times as they are growing up they go to the pediatrician, they get vaccinated against measles and other diseases. And they are protected. We take it as a matter of course. We get the bill and we pay it, but that bill is close to the amount many people in Africa would earn in a year. They also know that their children may not get those vaccinations. They will not go to the pediatrician when they are 5 years old because many of them die before they are 5 years old. Oftentimes the mothers are not there to care for them either because of hundreds of thousands of women die needlessly in childbirth. We can make a dramatic change. I agree with the President, I agree with Members on both sides of the aisle, and I commend those who have supported this. But also to those people around the world who have urged America, the most powerful Nation on Earth, to stand up and do these humanitarian things, this is a small down payment on what the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth can do. It is something that speaks to the moral character of America and makes us a better nation and makes the lives of people we will never see better. I am reminded of my dear friend Bono, who is known all over the world for doing this, and who I commended for helping people throughout the world who would never hear his music, who do not recognize him, who will never buy a ticket to one of his concerts but whose lives are measurably better because of him. We have it in our power to do the same thing. Madam President, while I have been here the occupant of the Chair changed from the time I started my comments to now. I hope it will show on the Record and will be corrected to say ``Madam President.'' One of the problems when you have been here as long as I have is you get used to saying ``Mr. President.'' And, of course, the Chair is now occupied by the Senator from Minnesota, one of the welcome new faces in the Senate, somebody who has improved the Senate just by being here. I was reminded of some who came here at a time when this was an all- male Senate, and it has improved substantially by the fact that it is no longer nor ever will be, I believe, in our lifetimes, an all-male body. I apologize to the Presiding Officer who came to the Chair following the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. Of course, I refer to her with pride, I might say, and with gratitude, as Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Less than a minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the most senior person here and, of course, the one who serves the closest with Senator Cochran on the Appropriations Committee. I could not help but think, listening to the wonderful things my distinguished other friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was saying about Senator Thad Cochran, about a recent trip overseas we took together, and I heard him saying many of those same things out of the hearing of Senator Cochran, praising Senator Cochran very much on that trip with myself and other Senators. I mention that because sometimes praising you outside your presence means more than doing it inside your presence. Thad Cochran is as close a friend as I have ever had in the Senate. We have traveled together overseas. I have traveled to Mississippi with him. He explained to me I had to slow down my speech a little bit. He has come to Vermont with me. My late parents used to tell me what a nice young man he is. I know how much my mother and father enjoyed meeting him not only in Vermont but in subsequent visits to Washington. I recall what Senator Stennis once said of Senator Cochran: He is a Senator, all in capital letters. You could hear John Stennis's voice boom over here: He is a Senator's Senator. He is a Senator. Most importantly to me, he is my good friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today it is my honor to salute a longtime Vermont athletic coach, Bill O'Neil, of Essex High School. Bill has been named the 2006 Hockey Coach of the Year by the National Federation of State High School Associations. While he has amassed an impressive record in his 35 years of coaching hockey, softball and girls soccer, winning over 900 games and 16 State championships, Bill has always instilled in his players the simple attitude that the game is more than just the win. Learning to play the game, positive sportsmanship, community involvement and academics are even more important to Coach O'Neil. To his players, Bill is a coach, mentor, teacher and lifelong friend. I am delighted that a Vermonter has been recognized with such a prestigious honor. The Burlington Free Press recent published an article about Coach O'Neil's recognition. I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``O'Neil Tops in the Nation,'' by Ted Ryan, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in reintroducing the Dodd-Leahy Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. This bill strengthens the ability of our federal government to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership and commitment to enacting this meaningful civil rights bill. And I look forward to working with other Senators as this bill moves forward. I am also very pleased that the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act once again includes the Missing Child Cold Case Review Act, which I sponsored in the last Congress to provide the investigative expertise of our Inspectors General in reviewing the cold cases of missing children. Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. My bill would allow inspectors general to assign criminal investigators to assist in the review of cold case files at National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. NCMEC, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. I understand that our inspectors general are eager to provide this assistance, and this measure allows them legal authorization to do that. These cases need resolution. As parents and grandparents we all know that and, where our Government can provide its resources, it should. The primary thrust of this bill targets murders from the civil rights era. Nearly 52 years ago, the brutal murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American teenager, stirred the concience of our country. Young Emmett Till walked into a local country store in Money, MS, to buy some candy and allegedly whistled at the white store clerk. That night, two white half-brothers, J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant, kidnapped Emmett Till from his great uncle's home. Several days later, his brutally beaten and unrecognizable body was fished out of the nearby Tallahatchie River. No one was ever punished for this tragic and brutal murder. Emmett Till's death served as momentum for change. It inspired a generation of Americans to demand justice and freedom in a way America had never seen before. During the civil rights movement, the road to Mississippi became the highway of change for an entire country. Yet the movement had a darker side. Fifty-two years after Emmett Till's murder, the families of many Americans who lost their lives during the civil rights era are still awaiting justice. We must not forget their sacrifice. And one way to honor that sacrifice is acting before the window of time closes. New evidence of cold cases trickles in while older evidence continues to fade and witnesses age. We must have a sense of urgency to ensure that justice is rendered. We cannot afford to wait. The Emmett Till Unsolved Crime Act would provide the Federal Government with much needed tools to expeditiously investigate and prosecute unsolved civil rights era cold cases. To accomplish this goal, the legislation calls for the creation of new cold case units in the Justice Department and FBI solely dedicated to investigating and prosecuting unsolved cases that involved violations of criminal civil rights statutes, resulting in death, and occurring before January 1, 1970. This measure also seeks to provide proper coordination between federal officials and state and local government officials on these cases. This bill ensures that the Federal Government is held accountable by requiring the Justice Department and FBI cold case units to submit annual reports to Congress describing which cold cases were selected for further investigation and prosecution and which were not. By shedding light on unsolved civil rights era murders, I hope this bill will end our Nation's ``quiet game'' on civil rights murders. Justice is better served by allowing our entire nation to acknowledge past wrongs, including wrongs aided by lax law enforcement. Just this week, The Washington Post reported that the briefcase of slain Florida civil rights leader Harry T. Moore, which mysteriously disappeared 55 years ago from a local courthouse, was found in a barn. We must hold our .government officials more accountable. Progress has been made. According to a February 4, 2007, article in USA Today, entitled ``Civil rights-era killers escape justice,'' since 1989, authorities in seven States have reexamined 29 killings from the civil rights era and made 28 arrests that led to 22 convictions, including this month's arrest of former Klansman James Seale for the May 2, 1964, abduction and killings of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore. Despite some progress, much remains to be done. Just how many people died during that period is uncertain. At the National Civil Rights Memorial in Birmingham, AL, is the Civil Rights Memorial Center, where 86 additional names appear on a wall dedicated to the ``forgotten others.'' This bill ensures that no sacrifice in the pursuit of freedom goes unnoticed. Even today, violence or the threat of violence serves as a barrier to full and equal participation in our society. On January 11, 2007, the NAACP asked the FBI to investigate three recent acts of violence and intimidation against against African-American mayors, including shots fired into the home of Greenwood, LA's first black mayor and the mysterious shooting death of Westlake, LA's, first black mayor two days before he was scheduled to take office. And two days ago the Anti- Defamation League, which monitors racist hate groups, released a report showing that ``Klan groups have witnessed a surprising and troubling resurgence by exploiting fears of an immigration explosion.'' There is no place for racial violence or political terrorism in a democracy. We must rededicate ourselves, as a Nation and as individuals, to protecting the full human equality of all Americans. We start today by ensuring that the guilty do not go unpunished, or that justice--even if delayed--is denied. By passing this bill and enacting it into law, we continue our march toward building a more fair and just society.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is, as I am sure the Senator from Texas knows, somewhat unusual, and not the way this is normally done. Normally we would alternate from side to side. I have actually discussed this with some of the Senators on her side. However, in the interests of at least having some idea of where we are going to go so we won't have to do the procedural fix of having Senators stand up and propound speeches that are put in the form of a question as we have been seeing here for some time, I will not object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, Congress quietly made it easier for this President or any President to declare martial law. That's right: In legislation added at the Administration's request to last year's massive Defense Authorization Bill, it has now become easier to bypass longtime posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the Federal Government's use of the military, including a federalized National Guard, to perform domestic law enforcement duties. That change runs counter to our founding principles, to the optimal use of our superb National Guard here at home, and to whatever sensible reforms are needed to improve our Nation's emergency response capabilities. Today Senator Bond and I are introducing legislation to repeal these unwarranted and perilous changes, which were made to a little-known law called the Insurrection Act. Our amendment replaces every word, comma, and period from the original act and returns it to its original form. Repealing this ill-considered change in the Insurrection Act would allow Congress to have a more orderly, thoughtful, open and consultative discussion on whether such sensitive and massive powers should be changed, if at all. It is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue. The Insurrection Act is a Reconstruction-era law that provides the major exemption from posse comitatus--the legal doctrine that bars the use of the military for law enforcement directed at the American people here at home. The Insurrection Act is designed to ensure that Federal laws are enforced and to ensure that American citizens' basic constitutional rights are respected and protected. When the Insurrection Act is invoked, the President can--without the consent of the respective governors--federalize the National Guard and use it, along with the entire military, to carry out law enforcement duties. Treading as this does across basic constitutional issues relating to separation of power and to state and local sovereignty, this is a sweeping grant of authority to the President. Because the use of the military for domestic law enforcement is so sensitive an issue, the Act has been invoked only sparingly since it was enacted. The primary reason that the law has been invoked so rarely is that there has been an inherent tension in the way it was crafted. Before it was changed last year, the law was purposefully ambiguous about when the President could invoke the Act in cases beyond a clear insurrection or when a state clearly violated Federal law in its actions. Because there was this useful ambiguity--a constructive friction in the law--a President until now would have to use the power with great caution, and with the impetus for appropriate consultation. Yet by the time committee work was completed in the House and the Senate on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization Bill, the law had been changed and that useful ambiguity had vanished. In addition to the cases of insurrection, the Act can now be invoked to restore public order after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or--and this is extremely broad--``other condition.'' Restoring public order has suddenly become an entirely new purpose for the Insurrection Act. And, as if to underscore this fundamental change, the conference committee changed the name of the Act from ``Insurrection'' to ``Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.'' This significant change was made without consulting the Nation's Governors, mayors, sheriffs, or the National Guard Adjutants General. It was made without consulting the other relevant policy committees in the Senate and the House. It was merely slipped in, at the Administration's request, as rider to a bill that was hundreds of pages long. And when the Nation's Governors learned of the change and expressed their strong opposition, they were ignored, and this facilitation of presidential ability to federalize the National Guard-- even over the objections of the Nation's Governors--remained in the bill that was signed into law by President Bush. Now this President and future Presidents can more easily take control of the National Guard and use our entire military apparatus for law enforcement at home. In a situation like another Katrina or even a more contained incident like a terrorist incident, the President will be able to bring in Federal troops and take away control from the Governors, the Emergency Managers, the Sheriffs, and the State Adjutants General who know their communities best and are responsible for responding. What we should be doing instead is buttressing the response abilities of these local and State officials. We should ensure every State has a state-of-the-art emergency operations center, that our first responders have the best equipment and training, and that the National Guard has adequate equipment and available people at home to provide support. Any Federal assets--military or otherwise--that might come into a State should be in a supporting and not commanding role. The local officials who know their communities are in the best positions to control the situation, not the President or the military. Some have argued that the changes made were only a clarification of existing law or that the Insurrection Act already gave the power to the President to use the military for law enforcement in an emergency. I strongly disagree with that explanation, and so do the Governors, Adjutants General, and a host of other officials. They see it, as Senator Bond and I see it, as a tangible and troubling expansion of the President's powers and a parallel reduction in State sovereignty. But if some believe the original Act already gave the President this expansive power, they should not object to bringing the law back to its original form. Repeal of the recent changes to the Insurrection Act will help ensure that our National Guard and larger emergency response capabilities remain strong. Repeal is crucial to ensuring that our Governors and local officials remain in control and that they are consulted when anyone considers overriding their authority. Repeal is simply essential to ensuring the military is not used in a way that offends and endangers some of our more cherished values and liberties. We enter this effort with the strong support of Governors and of the National Guard community, including the National Governors Association, the National Guard Association, the Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard. I ask unanimous consent that support letters from the National Governors Association, the Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard be printed at this point in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Last year's Insurrection Act rider reflects the general lack of close oversight that has taken a toll on our system of government. I hope the days of rubberstamping are over, and I hope the Senate will quickly remedy this situation by considering and passing the bill that we introduce today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, Congress quietly made it easier for this President or any President to declare martial law. That's right: In legislation added at the Administration's request to last year's massive Defense Authorization Bill, it has now become easier to bypass longtime posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the Federal Government's use of the military, including a federalized National Guard, to perform domestic law enforcement duties. That change runs counter to our founding principles, to the optimal use of our superb National Guard here at home, and to whatever sensible reforms are needed to improve our Nation's emergency response capabilities. Today Senator Bond and I are introducing legislation to repeal these unwarranted and perilous changes, which were made to a little-known law called the Insurrection Act. Our amendment replaces every word, comma, and period from the original act and returns it to its original form. Repealing this ill-considered change in the Insurrection Act would allow Congress to have a more orderly, thoughtful, open and consultative discussion on whether such sensitive and massive powers should be changed, if at all. It is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue. The Insurrection Act is a Reconstruction-era law that provides the major exemption from posse comitatus--the legal doctrine that bars the use of the military for law enforcement directed at the American people here at home. The Insurrection Act is designed to ensure that Federal laws are enforced and to ensure that American citizens' basic constitutional rights are respected and protected. When the Insurrection Act is invoked, the President can--without the consent of the respective governors--federalize the National Guard and use it, along with the entire military, to carry out law enforcement duties. Treading as this does across basic constitutional issues relating to separation of power and to state and local sovereignty, this is a sweeping grant of authority to the President. Because the use of the military for domestic law enforcement is so sensitive an issue, the Act has been invoked only sparingly since it was enacted. The primary reason that the law has been invoked so rarely is that there has been an inherent tension in the way it was crafted. Before it was changed last year, the law was purposefully ambiguous about when the President could invoke the Act in cases beyond a clear insurrection or when a state clearly violated Federal law in its actions. Because there was this useful ambiguity--a constructive friction in the law--a President until now would have to use the power with great caution, and with the impetus for appropriate consultation. Yet by the time committee work was completed in the House and the Senate on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization Bill, the law had been changed and that useful ambiguity had vanished. In addition to the cases of insurrection, the Act can now be invoked to restore public order after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or--and this is extremely broad--``other condition.'' Restoring public order has suddenly become an entirely new purpose for the Insurrection Act. And, as if to underscore this fundamental change, the conference committee changed the name of the Act from ``Insurrection'' to ``Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.'' This significant change was made without consulting the Nation's Governors, mayors, sheriffs, or the National Guard Adjutants General. It was made without consulting the other relevant policy committees in the Senate and the House. It was merely slipped in, at the Administration's request, as rider to a bill that was hundreds of pages long. And when the Nation's Governors learned of the change and expressed their strong opposition, they were ignored, and this facilitation of presidential ability to federalize the National Guard-- even over the objections of the Nation's Governors--remained in the bill that was signed into law by President Bush. Now this President and future Presidents can more easily take control of the National Guard and use our entire military apparatus for law enforcement at home. In a situation like another Katrina or even a more contained incident like a terrorist incident, the President will be able to bring in Federal troops and take away control from the Governors, the Emergency Managers, the Sheriffs, and the State Adjutants General who know their communities best and are responsible for responding. What we should be doing instead is buttressing the response abilities of these local and State officials. We should ensure every State has a state-of-the-art emergency operations center, that our first responders have the best equipment and training, and that the National Guard has adequate equipment and available people at home to provide support. Any Federal assets--military or otherwise--that might come into a State should be in a supporting and not commanding role. The local officials who know their communities are in the best positions to control the situation, not the President or the military. Some have argued that the changes made were only a clarification of existing law or that the Insurrection Act already gave the power to the President to use the military for law enforcement in an emergency. I strongly disagree with that explanation, and so do the Governors, Adjutants General, and a host of other officials. They see it, as Senator Bond and I see it, as a tangible and troubling expansion of the President's powers and a parallel reduction in State sovereignty. But if some believe the original Act already gave the President this expansive power, they should not object to bringing the law back to its original form. Repeal of the recent changes to the Insurrection Act will help ensure that our National Guard and larger emergency response capabilities remain strong. Repeal is crucial to ensuring that our Governors and local officials remain in control and that they are consulted when anyone considers overriding their authority. Repeal is simply essential to ensuring the military is not used in a way that offends and endangers some of our more cherished values and liberties. We enter this effort with the strong support of Governors and of the National Guard community, including the National Governors Association, the National Guard Association, the Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard. I ask unanimous consent that support letters from the National Governors Association, the Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard be printed at this point in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Last year's Insurrection Act rider reflects the general lack of close oversight that has taken a toll on our system of government. I hope the days of rubberstamping are over, and I hope the Senate will quickly remedy this situation by considering and passing the bill that we introduce today.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I heard what the distinguished majority leader said. I agree with him. The Senate, as I have often said, should be the conscience of the Nation. There are only 100 of us to represent 300 million people. Americans expect us to speak up on the war. Americans expect us to vote on the war. Americans expect us to vote on the issue of the surge. Now, I understand some Senators will support the surge, some will oppose it, but allow us to have those votes. Allow us to express the conscience of this Nation. I ask unanimous consent that a column by E.J. Dionne entitled ``The War To Save The Surge'' from today's Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Specter in reintroducing the Leahy-Specter Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. This is a comprehensive data privacy package aimed at better protecting Americans' privacy. Senator Specter has been a valuable partner on this, and I also thank Majority Leader Reid for his leadership and commitment to enacting data privacy legislation this year. When Senator Specter and I introduced this bill in 2005, we had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. The Judiciary Committee reported this bill favorably in November of 2005, but with the last Congress, it simply sat on the calendar. The leadership would not bring it forward. The irony is while they refused to bring it forward, the problems of data breaches remained a persistent and pernicious threat to Americans' privacy. Yesterday we learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs has lost a portable hard drive containing the sensitive personal information on as many as 48,000 veterans. I can imagine what the veterans in my State feel about that. I can imagine what the veterans in Montana feel about that. Last week, there was a major data breach involving a State computer server in my home State of Vermont. It jeopardized the financial data of at least 69,000 Vermonters whose personal financial information had been stored on the computer used by the Vermont Agency of Human Services. Can you imagine 69,000 people, in a State of barely over 600,000 people. This is not unique to Vermont. Last month mega retailer TJX disclosed that it suffered a major computer breach involving credit and debt card purchases involving possibly hundreds of thousands of American consumers. And, even as disturbing as that is, while they knew about the breach in mid-December, none of those customers were told about it until a month later. It is as if a thief had gone to each one of their houses and stolen their data. Of course, all of this comes on the heels of the theft of the personal data of 26.5 million of our veterans and active-duty personnel at the VA last year. Think about this: You are a man or a woman serving your country in Afghanistan or Iraq, and this information is stolen-- with data about where you live and what family members are left at home while you are overseas. How do you think that makes you feel? According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 100 million records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. We need strong Federal data privacy and security laws to protect Americans' personal data, and to address the ills of lax data security. Our bill requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them and to allow individuals to correct this. It is a simple matter of fairness. There is a clear precedent for our approach in the credit reporting context. Our bill also requires that companies who have databases with sensitive personal information about Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In the information age, any company that wants to be trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the databases that they use and maintain. In addition, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people need to know when they may be exposed to a data breach. Whether it is a government agency or a private company, if they lose your sensitive information, your Social Security number, your address, or anything about you, you have a right to know. If they are holding that information about you, and they lose it, you have the right to know it has been lost. We also have tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally or willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when that breach causes economic damage to consumers. Then finally, we address the important issue of the Government's use of personal data. This would require Federal agencies to notify affected individuals when Government data breaches occur. We should never have to worry about our Government having this information on us and losing it, but certainly in the last 2 or 3 years, we have seen so many millions of files that have been lost or put in jeopardy. We live in a world in which our Government also is increasingly turning to the private sector to get personal data that they, in some instances, couldn't legally get on their own. To address this, our bill puts protecting Americans' privacy first and foremost: Government data has to be protected and we have to know if the Government falls down on the job. This is a comprehensive bill. It not only deals with the need to provide Americans notice when they have been victims of a data breach, it also deals with the underlying problems of lack of security and lack of accountability to prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Today, Americans live in a world where their most sensitive personal information can be accessed and sold to the highest bidder with a few keystrokes on their computer. Our privacy laws greatly lag behind both the capabilities of our technology and the cunning of identity thieves. This legislation closes that gap. I commend the leadership for being willing to bring up our data privacy bill. I wish that the leadership in the last Congress had brought this bill up last year. But, I am glad that the new leadership will do so this year. For the sake of all Americans, I urge all Senators to support this legislation and to act now to pass comprehensive data privacy and security legislation. 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 join Senator Specter in reintroducing the Leahy-Specter Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. This is a comprehensive data privacy package aimed at better protecting Americans' privacy. Senator Specter has been a valuable partner on this, and I also thank Majority Leader Reid for his leadership and commitment to enacting data privacy legislation this year. When Senator Specter and I introduced this bill in 2005, we had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. The Judiciary Committee reported this bill favorably in November of 2005, but with the last Congress, it simply sat on the calendar. The leadership would not bring it forward. The irony is while they refused to bring it forward, the problems of data breaches remained a persistent and pernicious threat to Americans' privacy. Yesterday we learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs has lost a portable hard drive containing the sensitive personal information on as many as 48,000 veterans. I can imagine what the veterans in my State feel about that. I can imagine what the veterans in Montana feel about that. Last week, there was a major data breach involving a State computer server in my home State of Vermont. It jeopardized the financial data of at least 69,000 Vermonters whose personal financial information had been stored on the computer used by the Vermont Agency of Human Services. Can you imagine 69,000 people, in a State of barely over 600,000 people. This is not unique to Vermont. Last month mega retailer TJX disclosed that it suffered a major computer breach involving credit and debt card purchases involving possibly hundreds of thousands of American consumers. And, even as disturbing as that is, while they knew about the breach in mid-December, none of those customers were told about it until a month later. It is as if a thief had gone to each one of their houses and stolen their data. Of course, all of this comes on the heels of the theft of the personal data of 26.5 million of our veterans and active-duty personnel at the VA last year. Think about this: You are a man or a woman serving your country in Afghanistan or Iraq, and this information is stolen-- with data about where you live and what family members are left at home while you are overseas. How do you think that makes you feel? According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 100 million records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. We need strong Federal data privacy and security laws to protect Americans' personal data, and to address the ills of lax data security. Our bill requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them and to allow individuals to correct this. It is a simple matter of fairness. There is a clear precedent for our approach in the credit reporting context. Our bill also requires that companies who have databases with sensitive personal information about Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In the information age, any company that wants to be trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the databases that they use and maintain. In addition, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people need to know when they may be exposed to a data breach. Whether it is a government agency or a private company, if they lose your sensitive information, your Social Security number, your address, or anything about you, you have a right to know. If they are holding that information about you, and they lose it, you have the right to know it has been lost. We also have tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally or willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when that breach causes economic damage to consumers. Then finally, we address the important issue of the Government's use of personal data. This would require Federal agencies to notify affected individuals when Government data breaches occur. We should never have to worry about our Government having this information on us and losing it, but certainly in the last 2 or 3 years, we have seen so many millions of files that have been lost or put in jeopardy. We live in a world in which our Government also is increasingly turning to the private sector to get personal data that they, in some instances, couldn't legally get on their own. To address this, our bill puts protecting Americans' privacy first and foremost: Government data has to be protected and we have to know if the Government falls down on the job. This is a comprehensive bill. It not only deals with the need to provide Americans notice when they have been victims of a data breach, it also deals with the underlying problems of lack of security and lack of accountability to prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Today, Americans live in a world where their most sensitive personal information can be accessed and sold to the highest bidder with a few keystrokes on their computer. Our privacy laws greatly lag behind both the capabilities of our technology and the cunning of identity thieves. This legislation closes that gap. I commend the leadership for being willing to bring up our data privacy bill. I wish that the leadership in the last Congress had brought this bill up last year. But, I am glad that the new leadership will do so this year. For the sake of all Americans, I urge all Senators to support this legislation and to act now to pass comprehensive data privacy and security legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate continues to make significant progress in its consideration of judicial nominations. The Senate will consider and, I believe, confirm the nominations of Lawrence Joseph O'Neill for the Eastern District of California, Valerie L. Baker for Central District of California, and Gregory Kent Frizzell for the Northern District of Oklahoma. When they are confirmed, the Senate will have granted its consent to 263 of President Bush's nominations for lifetime appointments to our Federal courts. Moreover, with these three confirmations today, we will have confirmed more of President Bush's nominations in the 18 months I have served as Judiciary Committee chairman with a Democratic majority in the Senate than in the more than 2 years when Senator Hatch chaired the committee with a Republican Senate majority or during the last Congress with a Republican Senate majority. This is the 105th confirmation during my time as Judiciary chairman. I know some on the other side of the aisle have tried to raise a scare since I, again, became chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They rant as if the sky is falling and we would not proceed on any judicial nominations. We have proceeded promptly and efficiently. Last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee held its first business meeting of the year. We might have met earlier but for the delay in organizing the Senate from January 4, when this session first began, until the Republican caucus finally agreed to the resolutions assigning Members to Senate committees on January 12. The three nominations we consider today were among the five nominations for lifetime appointments Federal judges that I included on the agenda at our first meeting. Like the two judges confirmed on Tuesday, Judge O'Neill's nomination is for a vacancy that has been designated a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. All five were among those returned to the President without Senate action at the end of last year when Republican Senators objected to proceeding with certain nominees in September and December last year. Before proceeding, I inquired of each member of the committee whether a hearing was requested on these nominations this year. I, again, thank all, members of the Judiciary Committee for working with me to expedite consideration of these nominations this year. In particular, I extend thanks to our new members, the Senators from Maryland and Rhode Island. These nominations were not even sent to the Senate until January 9. They were considered by the committee in a little over 2 weeks and are being approved by the Senate in a little over 3 weeks from their nomination. I have worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle on our committee and in the Senate to move quickly to consider and report judicial nominations so that we can fill vacancies and improve the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts. I appreciate the interests of Senator Chambliss and Senator Isaakson in the confirmation of Judge Wood, the first judge confirmed this year. Likewise, I was pleased to be able to respond to the needs of Senator Inhofe and Senator Coburn by expediting consideration of Judge Frizzell. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer of California for their efforts on some of these nominations and for working to fill the vacancies in California. I have long urged the President to fill vacancies with consensus nominees. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts list 57 judicial vacancies, 28 of them have been deemed to be judicial emergencies. So far this Congress, the President has yet to send us nominees for 17 of those judicial emergency vacancies. I have also scheduled a confirmation hearing for next week for additional judicial nominees and another business meeting at which the committee may consider still more judicial nominations. When a Republican chaired the committee in 1999 and there was a Democratic President, the first hearing on a judicial nominee was not held until June 16. We intend to hold a hearing on February 6. I had initially thought that we would include the nomination of Norman Randy Smith of Idaho to the Ninth Circuit at that hearing next week. However, with the cooperation of the Senators from California and the members of the Judiciary Committee, I now hope to be able to avoid another hearing on the Smith nomination. I was pleased when the White House changed course and nominated Randy Smith for the Idaho seat on the Ninth Circuit. I had urged President Bush to take this action last year when he insisted on resubmitting the Smith nomination for a California seat on the Ninth Circuit. I thank the President for finally doing the right thing. I will urge the Senate to confirm his nomination of Randy Smith to the vacant seat on the Ninth Circuit from Idaho. At long last Senator Craig and Senator Crapo will then have a judge on that important court from their home State. Each of the nominees we consider today has the support of home State Senators. Lawrence Joseph O'Neill is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, another seat deemed to be a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He is a well-qualified nominee who has over 15 years of experience on the bench, seven of them as a magistrate judge on the district court to which he is now nominated. Before becoming a magistrate judge, Judge O'Neill spent 9 years as a Fresno County superior court judge and, before that, a decade in private practice. Judge O'Neill will bring a valuable perspective to the Federal bench, having served as a police officer for 5 years in the city of San Leandro, CA. He graduated from law school at the University of California, Hastings and then clerked for Judge Robert F. Kane on the California Court of Appeals. Valerie L. Baker, who is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, already has over 20 years of experience on the bench. As a Los Angeles County municipal and then superior court judge, she has handled thousands of cases and has been the recipient of the Alfred J. McCourtney Trial Judge of the Year Award by Consumer Lawyers of Los Angeles. After graduating from UCLA Law School, Judge Baker served as an assistant U.S. attorney and as a commercial litigator in private practice. Judge Baker was rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association and has the support of both her home State Democratic Senators. As a courtesy to Senator Inhofe, I included the nomination of Gregory Kent Frizzell on the agenda for Judiciary Committee's first executive business meeting last week. I was glad to see Senator Inhofe say that he was ``pleased with the committee action'' and that Judge Frizell was ``fast-tracked through.'' Judge Frizzell is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. He has a decade of experience on the bench as an Oklahoma district judge in Tulsa County. In his 23 years as a lawyer, Judge Frizzell has served as general counsel to the Oklahoma Tax Commission and tried more than 25 cases in private practice as a sole practitioner and an attorney at Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C., representing community colleges, insurance companies, and other businesses. After graduating from the University of Tulsa and the University of Michigan Law School, Judge Frizzell served as a law clerk to Judge Thomas R. Brett on the court to which he has now been nominated. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today. We continue to make progress towards filling longstanding judicial vacancies. I intend to do what I can to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent and able to provide justice to all Americans.