Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, Private Health Records: Privacy Implications of the Federal Government's Health Information Technology Initiative.

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 1, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold an open hearing.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a confirmation hearing on the President's nomination of Mr. Carl Joseph Artman, to be Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, to be followed immediately by a business meeting to approve the nomination of Mr. Carl Joseph Artman, to be Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 9:15 a.m., to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Future of CHIP: Improving the Health of America's Children''.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine accelerated biofuels diversity, focusing on how home-grown, biologically derived fuels can blend into the Nation's transportation fuel mix.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the sessions of the Senate on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to assess the communications marketplace.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of General George W. Casey, Jr., USA, for reappointment to the grade of general and to be Chief of Staff, United States Army.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time we have remaining on this side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregory Frizzell nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time we have remaining on this side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregory Frizzell nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, regarding the Baker of California nomination, we are perfectly willing to have a voice vote. I understand the Senators from Oklahoma want to have a recorded vote on Frizzell. Valerie Baker is next on the list. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, regarding the Baker of California nomination, we are perfectly willing to have a voice vote. I understand the Senators from Oklahoma want to have a recorded vote on Frizzell. Valerie Baker is next on the list. I yield back the remaining time.

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.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I received notice this morning that President Bush has agreed to our bipartisan request for key recent orders from the FISA Court. Let me explain this a little bit. I have been very critical now for some time of the warrantless wiretapping of Americans done, apparently, under the President's order. We have, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which sets up a special court where you can go in secret if you suspect a terrorist is phoning into the United States, and you can get an order to wiretap that call. But according to the press, the administration has not followed that law, has not gone into the court. They have allowed widespread wiretapping of Americans without a court order. This has been troublesome to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. So we learned recently--Senator Specter and I--that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had issued orders authorizing NSA's wiretapping program, which meant the President was going back to the court, as he should have, of course, before. We asked the court to make these orders available to the Judiciary Committee. The chief judge of the court approved providing the orders but left the final decision to the executive branch. I made it clear, when Attorney General Gonzales appeared before us, that we expected to see the orders. After all, we write the law as to how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is supposed to work, and we have the responsibility to make sure it is followed. The President has made the right decision in changing his previous course of unilaterally authorizing the warrantless surveillance program. He is now going to follow the law in seeking court approval for wiretaps. Senator Specter and I, on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, will have to look at the contours of the wiretapping program. We have to look at the Court's orders to determine whether the administration reached the proper balance to protect Americans, while following the law and the principles of checks and balances. I hope the administration will eventually allow all members of the Judiciary Committee to look at these orders. We all want to catch terrorists, but we don't want a country where we have warrantless wiretapping of Americans. If we start down that slope, we all lose the right to privacy and the values this Nation has stood for for more than 200 years. So Senator Specter and I will review the court orders to make sure the law is being followed. I believe in this case, the President has taken the right first step, and I commend him for it. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join Senators Obama, Schumer, Cardin, Feinstein, Feingold, Clinton, and Kerry to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, a measure that would create new protections and expand existing protections against the use of deceptive practices in elections. There are few things as critical to the fabric of our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. The right to vote and to have your vote count is a foundational right, like our first amendment rights, because it secures the effectiveness of other protections. The legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. We saw last year in nearly 20 hearings in the House and Senate on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that there is a continuing need for the vital voting rights protections that landmark civil rights law provides for all Americans. But our need to protect the effective access of voters to the political process does not stop with those vital protections against discrimination. I am concerned about increasing efforts on behalf of some candidates and political parties to interfere with recent elections and undermine the participation of many voters. So today we take another step toward protecting the exercise of the effective exercise of voting rights by ensuring that the access to vote is not undermined by those who would take away that access through deceit and false information. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 would provide additional tools and criminal penalties to help combat the kinds of practices used during the 2006 midterms in places like Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, Republican leaders admitted to distributing misleading flyers in African-American communities on election day suggesting that prominent African-American Democrats supported Republican candidates. In Virginia, the FBI has investigated calls received by many voters in heavily Democratic precincts directing them to the wrong polling sites, giving incorrect information about their eligibility to vote, or encouraging them not to vote on election day. I supported a similar bill, S. 1975, in the last Congress, and I hope that we can move forward in this Congress. Regrettably, the problems leading up to and on election day last year were not limited to a few isolated incidents. In the ninth precinct in Tucson, AZ, an area with a heavy percentage of Latino voters, it has been reported that three vigilantes armed with a clipboard, a video camera, and a visible firearm stopped only Latino voters as they entered and exited the polls on election day, issuing implied and overt threats. In Orange County, CA, Republican congressional candidate Tan Nguyen admitted that his campaign staffer sent letters to 73,000 households, spreading misinformation about voting requirements apparently designed to suppress Latino voter turnout. In letters to the Attorney General and other officials at the Justice Department and in oversight hearings last November and 2 weeks ago, we have asked the Justice Department for more information about what it has been doing to investigate and combat these practices. In the information we have obtained so far, it is apparent that the Justice Department has not done enough and additional tools are needed. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 would expand the conduct currently prohibited by law to include the dissemination of false information within 60 days of an election about the time, place, and manner of the election, the qualifications for voter eligibility, or the sponsor of public communications about an election. In addition, it would provide new means of enforcing these prohibitions and combating such dissemination: it creates a private right of action for persons aggrieved by the dissemination of such false information; it provides criminal penalties for such false dissemination of up to 5 years and $100,000; and it provides that any person may report such false dissemination to the Attorney General, and if it is determined that such information is false or deliberately misleading, the Justice Department would be required to take action to provide corrective information. In addition, this bill provides an additional tool for effective oversight by requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress on allegations of the dissemination of false information within 90 days of an election. By passing this bill and enacting it into law, we can continue our march towards a more inclusive democracy for all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join Senators Obama, Schumer, Cardin, Feinstein, Feingold, Clinton, and Kerry to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, a measure that would create new protections and expand existing protections against the use of deceptive practices in elections. There are few things as critical to the fabric of our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. The right to vote and to have your vote count is a foundational right, like our first amendment rights, because it secures the effectiveness of other protections. The legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. We saw last year in nearly 20 hearings in the House and Senate on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that there is a continuing need for the vital voting rights protections that landmark civil rights law provides for all Americans. But our need to protect the effective access of voters to the political process does not stop with those vital protections against discrimination. I am concerned about increasing efforts on behalf of some candidates and political parties to interfere with recent elections and undermine the participation of many voters. So today we take another step toward protecting the exercise of the effective exercise of voting rights by ensuring that the access to vote is not undermined by those who would take away that access through deceit and false information. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 would provide additional tools and criminal penalties to help combat the kinds of practices used during the 2006 midterms in places like Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, Republican leaders admitted to distributing misleading flyers in African-American communities on election day suggesting that prominent African-American Democrats supported Republican candidates. In Virginia, the FBI has investigated calls received by many voters in heavily Democratic precincts directing them to the wrong polling sites, giving incorrect information about their eligibility to vote, or encouraging them not to vote on election day. I supported a similar bill, S. 1975, in the last Congress, and I hope that we can move forward in this Congress. Regrettably, the problems leading up to and on election day last year were not limited to a few isolated incidents. In the ninth precinct in Tucson, AZ, an area with a heavy percentage of Latino voters, it has been reported that three vigilantes armed with a clipboard, a video camera, and a visible firearm stopped only Latino voters as they entered and exited the polls on election day, issuing implied and overt threats. In Orange County, CA, Republican congressional candidate Tan Nguyen admitted that his campaign staffer sent letters to 73,000 households, spreading misinformation about voting requirements apparently designed to suppress Latino voter turnout. In letters to the Attorney General and other officials at the Justice Department and in oversight hearings last November and 2 weeks ago, we have asked the Justice Department for more information about what it has been doing to investigate and combat these practices. In the information we have obtained so far, it is apparent that the Justice Department has not done enough and additional tools are needed. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 would expand the conduct currently prohibited by law to include the dissemination of false information within 60 days of an election about the time, place, and manner of the election, the qualifications for voter eligibility, or the sponsor of public communications about an election. In addition, it would provide new means of enforcing these prohibitions and combating such dissemination: it creates a private right of action for persons aggrieved by the dissemination of such false information; it provides criminal penalties for such false dissemination of up to 5 years and $100,000; and it provides that any person may report such false dissemination to the Attorney General, and if it is determined that such information is false or deliberately misleading, the Justice Department would be required to take action to provide corrective information. In addition, this bill provides an additional tool for effective oversight by requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress on allegations of the dissemination of false information within 90 days of an election. By passing this bill and enacting it into law, we can continue our march towards a more inclusive democracy for all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation about the National Guard with Senator Kit Bond, my fellow co-chair of the Senate's National Guard Caucus, and Senator Ben Nelson, a longtime caucus member and a subcommittee chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 would improve the management of the National Guard, and it will give the Guard more responsibility in improving our defense arrangements at home, where the Guard works in tandem with the Nation's governors to help keep our communities safe. This legislation will strengthen the National Guard, the military, and our Nation, and I believe it is something that deserves our attention and approval. As Senators, we know all too well the many ways in which our communities rely on the National Guard. The soldiers of the National Guard, like their active duty counterparts, have expended an extraordinary amount of will and sacrifice in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard comprised almost 50 percent of the forces on the ground in Iraq less than 2 years ago, and now, as the Pentagon plans to implement the President's plans for a troop escalation, the percentage of Guard troops on the ground is set to rise once again. At the same time, we are constantly witness to the equally heralded work that the National Guard has done to increase security at home. Along with efforts to increase security along both the northern and southern borders, the Guard has bolstered security at special events across the country, including the Olympics, the national political party conventions, and events here in our Nation's capital. Most importantly, the National Guard provided the best--the very best-- response of any agency, Federal, State or local, in the disastrous aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sending tens of thousands of troops to the hardest-hit communities in relatively short order. When you look at these examples, it is indisputable that the National Guard is only limited in what it can do for us by the authorities, policies, available equipment, responsibilities, and support that we give them. It is time to give the Guard more tools and support to effectively carry out these responsibilities. With the knowledge that the use of the National Guard is sure to increase in the future, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs need unfettered and unmediated advice about how to utilize the force, whether balancing both the domestic and overseas missions of the National Guard or using the Guard to support the Nation's governors in domestic emergencies. Given this need for greater input on Guard matters, it is only logical that the leadership within the National Guard should be the ones doing the advising. And, as the Guard becomes more active within the military's total force, it only makes sense to increase the number of Guard generals at the highest reaches of the military command, where key force management decisions are made. At the same time, the National Guard is in a position to deal with some of the basic missions at home that are simply not being address by the Department of Defense. We have some real heroes at the recently established Northern Command, which is working with various civilian agencies to prevent another attack at home. Yet, the processes to deal with the mission of having military support of civilian authorities in domestic emergencies are as yet undefined. Northern command, meanwhile, is taking only perfunctory input from the nation's governors who, along with local officials, will bear much of the responsibility in disaster situations. Five years after September 11, we cannot wait to give more definition to how the military will support civil authorities in an emergency, and we cannot wait until an actual emergency to inform State governors about what resources are available to them. With some new authorities, we can give the Guard the mission of leading the effort to support civilian authorities at home and in working with the States and governors to plan for such disasters. Elevating the National Guard bureaucratically, increasing the quality advice on the Guard to the senior command, and improving response to domestic emergencies are exactly what the provisions of the National Guard Empowerment Act will accomplish. First, the National Guard Empowerment Act elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from the rank of lieutenant general to general with four-stars, with a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This move will give the Nation's governors and adjutants general a straight line of communication to the Joint Chiefs Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. Having personnel with more knowledge and experience with the Guard involved in key budget and policy deliberations, the branches of the active duty services will be less willing to try to balance budgets on the back of the reserve forces like the Guard, which only goes against our overall ability to respond. Second, the act gives the National Guard the responsibility of working with the States to identify gaps in their response capabilities, of setting equipment requirements, and procuring these much needed items. The act will ensure that a National Guard commander is the deputy commander of Northern Command and that the Guard--and thus, in turn, the governors--work in tandem with the command to set out specific plans to support our elected and civilian leaders in an emergency. Let me be clear about what this legislation does not do. The Guard Empowerment Act does not make the National Guard a separate armed service. The Guard will remain an integral partner of the Army and the Air Force. Nor is the act some kind of wanton power grab. Instead, the act would bring the National Guard's bureaucratic position in line with what it is already doing and what we will expect of it in the future. Passage of the act will, utmost, not disturb or undermine our defense arrangements. Rather, it will empower the entire military to deal with critically important problems that it is simply not addressing. This legislation has been carefully crafted over the past year and a half, and it incorporates the input we received from the adjutants general, the National Guard leadership, the governors, and key officers across the defense establishment. I would like to submit for the Record letters of support from the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Adjutants General Association of the United States. This drive to empower the Guard is also gaining momentum in Congress. Since 9/11 we have been asking the Guard to do more and more, and they have superbly handled their dual role at home and abroad. But strains are showing in the system. The Guard is a 21st century military organization that has to operate under a 20th century bureaucracy. The Guard's ability to help the Nation is limited only by the resources, authorities, and responsibility we give it. Let us put the trust in the men and women of the Guard that they have deserved and earned, by giving them the seat at the table that they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators Rockefeller, Kohl and Schumer in introducing legislation to end the use of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the 180-day period that Congress intended for true generic market exclusivity. Authorized generics are nothing more than repackaged brand name drugs purporting to be a generic, but without the benefit of a true generic's lower cost. This practice is anticompetitive and anti-consumer. Amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (Title XI, PL 108-173) in 2003, generally grant a generic company that successfully challenges the patent of a name brand pharmaceutical company 180 days of marketing exclusivity on that generic drug. Having co-sponsored those amendments, I know that they were designed to give greater incentives for generic manufacturers to bring generic drugs quickly to the market, thus promoting competition and lowering prices for consumers. In 2005, Senators Grassley and Rockefeller and I raised concerns about the practice of manufacturing authorized generics. We feared that practice could have a negative impact on competition for both blockbuster and smaller drugs, because the generic industry would be less inclined to invest in their production. According to a recent Generic Pharmaceutical Association study, our fears were well founded: Authorized generics diminish Hatch-Waxman incentives for generic firms to challenge brand name patents, resulting in higher consumer prices. The legislation we introduce today bars brand name drug firms from producing ``authorized generics.'' Slapping a different name on a patented drug and calling it generic is not real competition, and it saps incentives from real generic drug makers to compete by making lower-cost generic drugs. Consumers deserve the lower costs and real choices of truly generic medicines. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this good bill into a good law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Philip S. Gutierrez is the second nomination we consider today to a seat deemed to be a judicial emergency. We considered his nomination in the Judiciary Committee late last week and the two Senators from California have urged we move this nomination without further delay. I am pleased that we are able to do so today. As I said earlier before the vote to confirm Lisa Godbey Wood to fill an emergency vacancy in Georgia, Judge Gutierrez's nomination will be the 102nd to be confirmed while I have served as Judiciary Committee chairman and the 260th nominee of President Bush to be confirmed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation about the National Guard with Senator Kit Bond, my fellow co-chair of the Senate's National Guard Caucus, and Senator Ben Nelson, a longtime caucus member and a subcommittee chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 would improve the management of the National Guard, and it will give the Guard more responsibility in improving our defense arrangements at home, where the Guard works in tandem with the Nation's governors to help keep our communities safe. This legislation will strengthen the National Guard, the military, and our Nation, and I believe it is something that deserves our attention and approval. As Senators, we know all too well the many ways in which our communities rely on the National Guard. The soldiers of the National Guard, like their active duty counterparts, have expended an extraordinary amount of will and sacrifice in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard comprised almost 50 percent of the forces on the ground in Iraq less than 2 years ago, and now, as the Pentagon plans to implement the President's plans for a troop escalation, the percentage of Guard troops on the ground is set to rise once again. At the same time, we are constantly witness to the equally heralded work that the National Guard has done to increase security at home. Along with efforts to increase security along both the northern and southern borders, the Guard has bolstered security at special events across the country, including the Olympics, the national political party conventions, and events here in our Nation's capital. Most importantly, the National Guard provided the best--the very best-- response of any agency, Federal, State or local, in the disastrous aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sending tens of thousands of troops to the hardest-hit communities in relatively short order. When you look at these examples, it is indisputable that the National Guard is only limited in what it can do for us by the authorities, policies, available equipment, responsibilities, and support that we give them. It is time to give the Guard more tools and support to effectively carry out these responsibilities. With the knowledge that the use of the National Guard is sure to increase in the future, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs need unfettered and unmediated advice about how to utilize the force, whether balancing both the domestic and overseas missions of the National Guard or using the Guard to support the Nation's governors in domestic emergencies. Given this need for greater input on Guard matters, it is only logical that the leadership within the National Guard should be the ones doing the advising. And, as the Guard becomes more active within the military's total force, it only makes sense to increase the number of Guard generals at the highest reaches of the military command, where key force management decisions are made. At the same time, the National Guard is in a position to deal with some of the basic missions at home that are simply not being address by the Department of Defense. We have some real heroes at the recently established Northern Command, which is working with various civilian agencies to prevent another attack at home. Yet, the processes to deal with the mission of having military support of civilian authorities in domestic emergencies are as yet undefined. Northern command, meanwhile, is taking only perfunctory input from the nation's governors who, along with local officials, will bear much of the responsibility in disaster situations. Five years after September 11, we cannot wait to give more definition to how the military will support civil authorities in an emergency, and we cannot wait until an actual emergency to inform State governors about what resources are available to them. With some new authorities, we can give the Guard the mission of leading the effort to support civilian authorities at home and in working with the States and governors to plan for such disasters. Elevating the National Guard bureaucratically, increasing the quality advice on the Guard to the senior command, and improving response to domestic emergencies are exactly what the provisions of the National Guard Empowerment Act will accomplish. First, the National Guard Empowerment Act elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from the rank of lieutenant general to general with four-stars, with a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This move will give the Nation's governors and adjutants general a straight line of communication to the Joint Chiefs Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. Having personnel with more knowledge and experience with the Guard involved in key budget and policy deliberations, the branches of the active duty services will be less willing to try to balance budgets on the back of the reserve forces like the Guard, which only goes against our overall ability to respond. Second, the act gives the National Guard the responsibility of working with the States to identify gaps in their response capabilities, of setting equipment requirements, and procuring these much needed items. The act will ensure that a National Guard commander is the deputy commander of Northern Command and that the Guard--and thus, in turn, the governors--work in tandem with the command to set out specific plans to support our elected and civilian leaders in an emergency. Let me be clear about what this legislation does not do. The Guard Empowerment Act does not make the National Guard a separate armed service. The Guard will remain an integral partner of the Army and the Air Force. Nor is the act some kind of wanton power grab. Instead, the act would bring the National Guard's bureaucratic position in line with what it is already doing and what we will expect of it in the future. Passage of the act will, utmost, not disturb or undermine our defense arrangements. Rather, it will empower the entire military to deal with critically important problems that it is simply not addressing. This legislation has been carefully crafted over the past year and a half, and it incorporates the input we received from the adjutants general, the National Guard leadership, the governors, and key officers across the defense establishment. I would like to submit for the Record letters of support from the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Adjutants General Association of the United States. This drive to empower the Guard is also gaining momentum in Congress. Since 9/11 we have been asking the Guard to do more and more, and they have superbly handled their dual role at home and abroad. But strains are showing in the system. The Guard is a 21st century military organization that has to operate under a 20th century bureaucracy. The Guard's ability to help the Nation is limited only by the resources, authorities, and responsibility we give it. Let us put the trust in the men and women of the Guard that they have deserved and earned, by giving them the seat at the table that they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators Rockefeller, Kohl and Schumer in introducing legislation to end the use of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the 180-day period that Congress intended for true generic market exclusivity. Authorized generics are nothing more than repackaged brand name drugs purporting to be a generic, but without the benefit of a true generic's lower cost. This practice is anticompetitive and anti-consumer. Amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (Title XI, PL 108-173) in 2003, generally grant a generic company that successfully challenges the patent of a name brand pharmaceutical company 180 days of marketing exclusivity on that generic drug. Having co-sponsored those amendments, I know that they were designed to give greater incentives for generic manufacturers to bring generic drugs quickly to the market, thus promoting competition and lowering prices for consumers. In 2005, Senators Grassley and Rockefeller and I raised concerns about the practice of manufacturing authorized generics. We feared that practice could have a negative impact on competition for both blockbuster and smaller drugs, because the generic industry would be less inclined to invest in their production. According to a recent Generic Pharmaceutical Association study, our fears were well founded: Authorized generics diminish Hatch-Waxman incentives for generic firms to challenge brand name patents, resulting in higher consumer prices. The legislation we introduce today bars brand name drug firms from producing ``authorized generics.'' Slapping a different name on a patented drug and calling it generic is not real competition, and it saps incentives from real generic drug makers to compete by making lower-cost generic drugs. Consumers deserve the lower costs and real choices of truly generic medicines. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this good bill into a good law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Judiciary Committee held its first business meeting of the year. I can now report to the Senate that we have organized our subcommittees, including our creation of a new subcommittee on Human Rights, named our subcommittee chairs and ranking members, adopted our committee rules and adopted our funding resolution. I thank our ranking member, Senator Specter, and all members of the committee for their cooperation. We were delayed a few weeks by the failure of the Senate to pass organizing resolutions on January 4, when this session first began. The Republican caucus had meetings over several days after we were in session before finally agreeing on January 12 to S. Res. 27 and S. Res. 28, the resolutions assigning Members to Senate committees. The Judiciary Committee has traditionally met on Thursday. Regrettably, the delay in Senate organization meant that I could not notice or convene a meeting of the committee the morning of January 11, as I had hoped. We devoted the intervening Thursday to our oversight hearing with the Attorney General. January 18 was the date the Attorney General selected as most convenient for him, and we accommodated him in that scheduling. Today, I can report to the Senate, in accordance with Senate Rule 26.3, that the Judiciary Committee has, again, designated Thursday mornings as our regular meeting days for the transaction of business. The Judiciary Committee has also reported the authorization resolution required by Senate Rule 26.9. In addition, the Judiciary Committee adopted its rules. In accordance with Senate Rule 26.2, I ask that a copy of the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.