Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was disappointed at the end of last Congress that, like so much other urgent business of the American people left unattended, we did not pass a measure to improve court security. We made some progress on this important issue when the Senate passed a consensus bipartisan court security bill. Unfortunately we were unable to cross the finish line because the House Republican leadership did not take up this bill. And so that still eaves our Nation's judges and their families without the vital protections that bill would have provided. Today, I join with other Senators on both sides of the aisle to try again. Along with the Majority Leader Senator Reid; the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Specter; the Majority Whip, Senator Durbin; and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Cornyn, Hatch and Collins, I introduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, a consensus measure with bipartisan support nearly identical to the bill we passed in the Senate last December. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers is introducing an identical measure in the House with bipartisan support. This bi-cameral, bi-partisan introduction sends a strong message that we intend finally to finish this difficult struggle and enact this bill that should have been enacted months ago to increase protections for the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country. This is an important issue, and one I plan to make a priority this Congress. I hope that we can have quick action on this bill to bring to fruition our efforts to provide increased security, an effort that gained new urgency after the tragedy that befell Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. As we heard in her courageous testimony in May 2005 before the Judiciary Committee, this tragedy provided a terrible reminder not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families, but of the critical importance of protecting judges both where they work and where they and their families live. The shooting last summer of a State judge in Nevada provided another terrible reminder of the vulnerable position of our Nation's State and Federal judges. We cannot tolerate or excuse or justify violence or the threat of violence against judges. In a speech last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the uncivil tone of attacks on the courts, noting that they pose a danger to the very independence of the Federal judiciary. It is most unfortunate that some in this country have chosen to use dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric when talking about judges, comparing judges to terrorists and threatening judges with punishment for decisions they do not like. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence against judges and it must stop, for the sake of our judges and the independence of the judiciary. Judicial fairness and independence are essential if we are to maintain our freedoms. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the rest of the world and a great source of our national strength and resilience. Let no one say things that might bring about further threats against our judges. We ought to be protecting them physically and institutionally. When I last chaired the Judiciary Committee, one of my first efforts was pushing for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which toughened criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their families. In order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping the Federal judiciary safe, in the last Congress Chairman Specter and I introduced S. 1968, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005. The bill we are introducing today in the Senate and House is a consensus bipartisan bill. I hope that quick action and passage of this bill can serve as a model for what we can achieve with bipartisan cooperation in the 110th Congress. Its core provisions, which previously passed the Senate not only last December, but also in June as part of the managers' package of the ``John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' S. 2766, come the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005. The bill responds to the needs expressed by the Federal judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It enacts new criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal information to harm or threaten to harm Federal judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It enacts criminal penalties for threatening Federal judges and Federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, and provides increased protections for witnesses. The bill also contains provisions making available to States new resources to improve security for State and local court systems as well as providing additional protections for law enforcement officers. I am pleased that the bill includes an extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges. Finally, the bill contains provisions that have passed the Senate several times extending and expanding to family members the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a Federal judge's mandatory financial disclosure. This expired redaction authority was used in circumstances in which the release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. I hope that we can reinstate and expand this much needed redaction authority. These protections are crucial to the preservation of the independence of our Federal judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a bulwark protecting individual rights and liberty. Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the political branches of government, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. It is the ultimate check and balance in our system of government in times of heated political rhetoric. We owe it to our judges to better protect them and their families from violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2003, Senator Campbell and I, joined by 68 other Senators, introduced a bill that allowed a qualified retired or current law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm across State lines. The Senate passed our bill by unanimous consent, which was signed into law in July 2004. Passage of the Law Enforcement Safety Officers Act was a resounding vote of confidence in the men and women who serve their communities as protectors of the peace, and their Nation as the first line of defense in any emergency. But since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, it has become clear that qualified retired officers have been subject to varying and complex certification procedures from State to State. In many cases, differing interpretations have complicated the implementation of the law, and retired officers have experienced significant frustration in getting certified to lawfully carry a firearm. With the input of the law enforcement community, this bill proposes modest amendments to streamline the current law, which will give retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification, and provides room for the variability in certification standards among the several States. For example, where a State has not set active duty standards, the retired officer can be certified pursuant to the standards set by any law enforcement agency in the State. In addition to these adjustments, the bill also makes clear that Amtrak officers, along with officers of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, are covered by the law. The bill also reduces from 15 to 10 the years of service required for a retired officer to qualify under the law. Though these changes broaden the reach of the law, the requirements for eligibility still involve a significant term of service for a retired officer to qualify, and a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement. This bill makes sensible improvements to existing law by providing the flexibility needed to permit qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in a legal and responsible manner. With the enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Congress and the President also recognized that law enforcement officers are never ``off-duty.'' The dedicated public servants who are trained to uphold the law and keep the peace deserve our support not just in their professional lives, but also when they go off-duty or into retirement. Convicted criminals often have long and exacting memories, and to the extent we can, we must aid these public servants with the tools they need to keep themselves and their families safe. Because one thing we know for sure is that a law enforcement officer is a target, whether in uniform or out, and whether active or retired. We also act in our own interest when we help law enforcement officers with the ability to answer the call of duty wherever they may be. Society's trust in the men and women who serve should include the faith that the responsibilities we entrust to them do not disappear once State lines are crossed. In 2004, Congress listened carefully to the concerns of the law enforcement community and responded appropriately. Let us do so again with these sensible improvements. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was disappointed at the end of last Congress that, like so much other urgent business of the American people left unattended, we did not pass a measure to improve court security. We made some progress on this important issue when the Senate passed a consensus bipartisan court security bill. Unfortunately we were unable to cross the finish line because the House Republican leadership did not take up this bill. And so that still eaves our Nation's judges and their families without the vital protections that bill would have provided. Today, I join with other Senators on both sides of the aisle to try again. Along with the Majority Leader Senator Reid; the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Specter; the Majority Whip, Senator Durbin; and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Cornyn, Hatch and Collins, I introduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, a consensus measure with bipartisan support nearly identical to the bill we passed in the Senate last December. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers is introducing an identical measure in the House with bipartisan support. This bi-cameral, bi-partisan introduction sends a strong message that we intend finally to finish this difficult struggle and enact this bill that should have been enacted months ago to increase protections for the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country. This is an important issue, and one I plan to make a priority this Congress. I hope that we can have quick action on this bill to bring to fruition our efforts to provide increased security, an effort that gained new urgency after the tragedy that befell Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. As we heard in her courageous testimony in May 2005 before the Judiciary Committee, this tragedy provided a terrible reminder not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families, but of the critical importance of protecting judges both where they work and where they and their families live. The shooting last summer of a State judge in Nevada provided another terrible reminder of the vulnerable position of our Nation's State and Federal judges. We cannot tolerate or excuse or justify violence or the threat of violence against judges. In a speech last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the uncivil tone of attacks on the courts, noting that they pose a danger to the very independence of the Federal judiciary. It is most unfortunate that some in this country have chosen to use dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric when talking about judges, comparing judges to terrorists and threatening judges with punishment for decisions they do not like. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence against judges and it must stop, for the sake of our judges and the independence of the judiciary. Judicial fairness and independence are essential if we are to maintain our freedoms. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the rest of the world and a great source of our national strength and resilience. Let no one say things that might bring about further threats against our judges. We ought to be protecting them physically and institutionally. When I last chaired the Judiciary Committee, one of my first efforts was pushing for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which toughened criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their families. In order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping the Federal judiciary safe, in the last Congress Chairman Specter and I introduced S. 1968, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005. The bill we are introducing today in the Senate and House is a consensus bipartisan bill. I hope that quick action and passage of this bill can serve as a model for what we can achieve with bipartisan cooperation in the 110th Congress. Its core provisions, which previously passed the Senate not only last December, but also in June as part of the managers' package of the ``John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' S. 2766, come the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005. The bill responds to the needs expressed by the Federal judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It enacts new criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal information to harm or threaten to harm Federal judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It enacts criminal penalties for threatening Federal judges and Federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, and provides increased protections for witnesses. The bill also contains provisions making available to States new resources to improve security for State and local court systems as well as providing additional protections for law enforcement officers. I am pleased that the bill includes an extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges. Finally, the bill contains provisions that have passed the Senate several times extending and expanding to family members the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a Federal judge's mandatory financial disclosure. This expired redaction authority was used in circumstances in which the release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. I hope that we can reinstate and expand this much needed redaction authority. These protections are crucial to the preservation of the independence of our Federal judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a bulwark protecting individual rights and liberty. Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the political branches of government, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. It is the ultimate check and balance in our system of government in times of heated political rhetoric. We owe it to our judges to better protect them and their families from violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2003, Senator Campbell and I, joined by 68 other Senators, introduced a bill that allowed a qualified retired or current law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm across State lines. The Senate passed our bill by unanimous consent, which was signed into law in July 2004. Passage of the Law Enforcement Safety Officers Act was a resounding vote of confidence in the men and women who serve their communities as protectors of the peace, and their Nation as the first line of defense in any emergency. But since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, it has become clear that qualified retired officers have been subject to varying and complex certification procedures from State to State. In many cases, differing interpretations have complicated the implementation of the law, and retired officers have experienced significant frustration in getting certified to lawfully carry a firearm. With the input of the law enforcement community, this bill proposes modest amendments to streamline the current law, which will give retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification, and provides room for the variability in certification standards among the several States. For example, where a State has not set active duty standards, the retired officer can be certified pursuant to the standards set by any law enforcement agency in the State. In addition to these adjustments, the bill also makes clear that Amtrak officers, along with officers of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, are covered by the law. The bill also reduces from 15 to 10 the years of service required for a retired officer to qualify under the law. Though these changes broaden the reach of the law, the requirements for eligibility still involve a significant term of service for a retired officer to qualify, and a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement. This bill makes sensible improvements to existing law by providing the flexibility needed to permit qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in a legal and responsible manner. With the enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Congress and the President also recognized that law enforcement officers are never ``off-duty.'' The dedicated public servants who are trained to uphold the law and keep the peace deserve our support not just in their professional lives, but also when they go off-duty or into retirement. Convicted criminals often have long and exacting memories, and to the extent we can, we must aid these public servants with the tools they need to keep themselves and their families safe. Because one thing we know for sure is that a law enforcement officer is a target, whether in uniform or out, and whether active or retired. We also act in our own interest when we help law enforcement officers with the ability to answer the call of duty wherever they may be. Society's trust in the men and women who serve should include the faith that the responsibilities we entrust to them do not disappear once State lines are crossed. In 2004, Congress listened carefully to the concerns of the law enforcement community and responded appropriately. Let us do so again with these sensible improvements. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, would the leader add to that, after the first vote that subsequent votes be 10-minute votes?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join, again, with a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce a bill to reform our immigration laws concerning foreign agricultural workers. America's farmers are calling for a greater number of legal foreign workers, and an improved system for obtaining those workers. We need to likewise ensure meaningful benefits and protections to the workers who will fill these jobs. I am especially pleased that measures are included to help dairy farmers, who in my home State of Vermont are an integral part of our economy, our history, and our culture. Indeed, it is difficult to think of the Green Mountain State without conjuring up the image of verdant rolling hills dotted with Holstein cows. The provisions in this bill make the H-2A program more workable for dairy farmers by lengthening the time period a foreign worker may remain in the country, providing a process by which an employer can extend the stay of a worker, and by ensuring that workers may ultimately apply for an adjustment to permanent legal resident status. The bill we introduce today goes a long way toward reforming our H-2A visa program. Along with measures to help streamline procedures for labor certification by employers, the bill will make it easier for employers to meet their responsibilities to ensure that available agricultural jobs are offered first to domestic workers. The bill also makes the process easier for an employer to apply for an extension to a worker's stay, and makes it easier for a foreign worker to switch jobs during their stay. The bill includes greater protections for workers, including the requirement that employers meet the same motor vehicle safety standards for H-2A workers that are required for domestic workers. A limited Federal right of action is provided for H-2A workers to enforce the economic benefits provided under the H-2A program, or those provided in writing by their employers. More flexibility is provided for workers and employers by permitting employers to elect to provide a housing allowance, instead of housing. These are but a few of the positive reforms contained in the bill. The bill also contains a procedure by which undocumented workers who have been working in agriculture can apply for a ``blue card,'' a system where through consistent employment, a fine, proof of the payment of taxes, and proof of no serious criminal history, an undocumented worker can continue his or her contribution legally, and eventually adjust his or her status. The ``blue card'' program encourages family unification by making special provisions for spouses and children of the card holder. The program also has a numerical cap and the built-in safeguard of a sunset provision. These reforms are a commonsense response that should help meet the needs of our farmers without burdening them with an unduly, time- consuming procedure for securing legal workers. The bill represents an effort to meet both the needs of agricultural employers while respecting the rights and interests of agricultural workers, and is an example of a bipartisan group of legislators listening and responding to the interests of all parties affected. I join with other Senators in recognizing the needs of our modern economy, and the needs of the American farmer as well as the rights of the individuals who make up the backbone of many farming operations. Working together we can ensure that no American farmer is put in the position of having to choose between obeying the law and making a living, and that no willing worker is denied a chance to work.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join, again, with a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce a bill to reform our immigration laws concerning foreign agricultural workers. America's farmers are calling for a greater number of legal foreign workers, and an improved system for obtaining those workers. We need to likewise ensure meaningful benefits and protections to the workers who will fill these jobs. I am especially pleased that measures are included to help dairy farmers, who in my home State of Vermont are an integral part of our economy, our history, and our culture. Indeed, it is difficult to think of the Green Mountain State without conjuring up the image of verdant rolling hills dotted with Holstein cows. The provisions in this bill make the H-2A program more workable for dairy farmers by lengthening the time period a foreign worker may remain in the country, providing a process by which an employer can extend the stay of a worker, and by ensuring that workers may ultimately apply for an adjustment to permanent legal resident status. The bill we introduce today goes a long way toward reforming our H-2A visa program. Along with measures to help streamline procedures for labor certification by employers, the bill will make it easier for employers to meet their responsibilities to ensure that available agricultural jobs are offered first to domestic workers. The bill also makes the process easier for an employer to apply for an extension to a worker's stay, and makes it easier for a foreign worker to switch jobs during their stay. The bill includes greater protections for workers, including the requirement that employers meet the same motor vehicle safety standards for H-2A workers that are required for domestic workers. A limited Federal right of action is provided for H-2A workers to enforce the economic benefits provided under the H-2A program, or those provided in writing by their employers. More flexibility is provided for workers and employers by permitting employers to elect to provide a housing allowance, instead of housing. These are but a few of the positive reforms contained in the bill. The bill also contains a procedure by which undocumented workers who have been working in agriculture can apply for a ``blue card,'' a system where through consistent employment, a fine, proof of the payment of taxes, and proof of no serious criminal history, an undocumented worker can continue his or her contribution legally, and eventually adjust his or her status. The ``blue card'' program encourages family unification by making special provisions for spouses and children of the card holder. The program also has a numerical cap and the built-in safeguard of a sunset provision. These reforms are a commonsense response that should help meet the needs of our farmers without burdening them with an unduly, time- consuming procedure for securing legal workers. The bill represents an effort to meet both the needs of agricultural employers while respecting the rights and interests of agricultural workers, and is an example of a bipartisan group of legislators listening and responding to the interests of all parties affected. I join with other Senators in recognizing the needs of our modern economy, and the needs of the American farmer as well as the rights of the individuals who make up the backbone of many farming operations. Working together we can ensure that no American farmer is put in the position of having to choose between obeying the law and making a living, and that no willing worker is denied a chance to work.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier today, I spoke with the Attorney General of the United States. He is going to be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning. We anticipate it will be for much of the day. He wished to inform me, as he did Senator Specter, of some changes in the so-called FISA Program. I have been very critical of the administration's actions through the National Security Agency--their wiretapping of Americans, wiretapping of people throughout the country, and apparently doing so without obtaining any warrants. Interestingly enough, the information about this spying on Americans came not from our administration reporting it either through the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee or the appropriate committees involved; it came out because, like so many other things we find out about, we read about it first in the newspaper. Apparently, the administration has decided not to continue this warrantless spying program on Americans, but instead to seek approval for all wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I say this based on the letter sent to us. This is public; this is not a classified matter. The law has required for years that they do it this way. I welcome the President's decision not to reauthorize the NSA's warrantless spying program because, as I have pointed out for some time, and as other Senators on both sides of the aisle have pointed out, the program was, at very best, of doubtful legality. Since this program was first revealed, I have urged this administration to inform Congress of what the Government is doing and to comply with the checks and balances Congress wrote into law in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We know we must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and we should do it in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists-- everybody agrees with that; all Americans do. The question is whether we can do it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. Providing efficient but meaningful court review is a major step toward addressing those concerns. I continue to urge the President to fully inform Congress and the American people about the contours of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order authorizing the surveillance program and of the program itself. Only with meaningful oversight can we assure the balance necessary to achieve security with liberty. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from the Attorney General, dated January 17, addressed to me and Senator Specter, which indicates copies to numerous other people, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I was a prosecutor for 8 years. I enjoyed being a prosecutor. But I also was well aware that we acted within checks and balances. Courts had their role, prosecutors had their role, defense attorneys had their role. It only worked when everybody did what they were supposed to, including the executive. I was also a prosecutor and on the board of the National District Attorneys Association at the time of COINTELPRO, a program of spying on Americans who disagreed with the war in Vietnam, and even, we found out later, spying on Martin Luther King because he was speaking so radically as to suggest that we might actually want equality between people, no matter what their color might be, in this country. Our Government was spying on people who objected to war. Our Government was spying on people who wanted integration in America. I don't want us to go back to that point. I shudder to think what might have happened if J. Edgar Hoover had had all the electronic capabilities we have today. The only way we stop this--it makes no difference if we have a Democratic or Republican administration--the only way we stop it is with the checks and balances we have built in. FISA and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court came about because of illegal spying on Americans who were not committing any unlawful act, but were simply questioning what their Government was doing. Many of us worry that has happened now. We have seen, for example, that the Department of Defense has had surveillance, has even recorded movies, of Quakers protesting war. Quakers always protest wars. Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes, under the same agreement.

Mr. LEAHY. They always do this. We heard in the press that there has been surveillance of Vermonters who protested the war. I can save them money. Turn on C-SPAN. I do it all the time on the Senate floor, if they want to find a Vermonter who may protest the war. The question here is a greater one. What right does our Government-- our Government, which is there to serve all of us--have to spy on individual Americans exercising their rights? Of course, go after terrorists, but to go after terrorists, you can do it within the law. The distinguished occupant of the chair, the Presiding Officer, is also a former prosecutor. She knows how we have to go to court and follow the law for search warrants or anything else. In this area of foreign intelligence, we have made it very easy and very quick for the government to go before special courts, FISA courts. Let's do that, because when this administration or any administration says they are above the law, they don't have to follow the law, they can step outside the law, they don't have to follow checks and balances, then I say all Americans, no matter what your political leaning might be, all Americans ought to ask why are they doing this, why are they doing this. Because it doesn't in the long run protect us, not if we let them take away our liberties. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kohl, Feingold, Grassley and Schumer in introducing the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act of 2007. This legislation is a continuation of a longstanding, bipartisan effort to provide consumers with more choices for medications at lower costs. Better access to affordable prescription medication is of vital importance to seniors, families, and consumers across the Nation who are struggling to keep up with the ever increasing costs of health care. This legislation builds on the Drug Competition Act, which I authored in 2001 and which became law in 2003 in the Medicare Modernization Act. Recently, two Federal courts undermined the intent of this law; the legislation we introduce today will address that problem. The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act will result in lower prescription drug costs for all Americans by preventing a pernicious practice in which brand-name pharmaceutical companies pay other drug companies not to produce and market generic drugs--which can be 80 percent less expensive than their brand-name counterparts--as part of private patent settlement agreements. The Hatch-Waxman Act was intended to facilitate the entry of lower- cost generic drugs into the market, making medication more affordable, while protecting patent rights to foster innovation. It created a process, known as the Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA, to speed approval of generics. Under ANDA, an applicant can receive expedited approval from the FDA to market a generic product. An applicant using ANDA may certify that the manufacturing of its new drug will either not infringe on a previously patented drug on which it is based, or that the existing patent is invalid. After certifying an ANDA, the generic applicant must give notice to the patent-holder, at which point the patent-holder has 45 days to file a patent infringement against the applicant. More times than not, disputes over an ANDA are resolved through private settlements. Unfortunately, the underpinnings of these private settlements are becoming more and more questionable; drug companies are abusing Hatch-Waxman provisions, and using settlement opportunities to limit consumer choices and keep consumer prices artificially high. The FTC had been policing these deals to ensure they were not anticompetitive until two recent appellate court decisions limited it's role. Hatch-Waxman created a good framework for promoting innovation while speeding the market entry of affordable drugs. The trend of anticompetitive agreements between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic companies to delay entry into the market is a troubling abuse of that good law. Some drug firms have colluded to pad their profits by forcing consumers to pay higher prices than they would pay for lower-cost generics. Congress never intended for brand-name drug companies to be able to grease the palms of generic companies by paying them not to produce generic medicines. Rarely do we have such a clear-cut opportunity as this to remove obvious impediments that prevent the marketplace from working as it should--to the benefit of consumers. Congress should seize this opportunity and enact legislation that plainly makes anticompetitive deals, such as those I have outlined, illegal. The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act will accomplish this goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this timely and needed legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my neighbor from across beautiful Lake Champlain, the State of New York, here. If the managers of the bill have no objection, I will speak for 4 or 5 minutes about a matter that has just come up. There has been a lot of interest in it. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kohl, Feingold, Grassley and Schumer in introducing the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act of 2007. This legislation is a continuation of a longstanding, bipartisan effort to provide consumers with more choices for medications at lower costs. Better access to affordable prescription medication is of vital importance to seniors, families, and consumers across the Nation who are struggling to keep up with the ever increasing costs of health care. This legislation builds on the Drug Competition Act, which I authored in 2001 and which became law in 2003 in the Medicare Modernization Act. Recently, two Federal courts undermined the intent of this law; the legislation we introduce today will address that problem. The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act will result in lower prescription drug costs for all Americans by preventing a pernicious practice in which brand-name pharmaceutical companies pay other drug companies not to produce and market generic drugs--which can be 80 percent less expensive than their brand-name counterparts--as part of private patent settlement agreements. The Hatch-Waxman Act was intended to facilitate the entry of lower- cost generic drugs into the market, making medication more affordable, while protecting patent rights to foster innovation. It created a process, known as the Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA, to speed approval of generics. Under ANDA, an applicant can receive expedited approval from the FDA to market a generic product. An applicant using ANDA may certify that the manufacturing of its new drug will either not infringe on a previously patented drug on which it is based, or that the existing patent is invalid. After certifying an ANDA, the generic applicant must give notice to the patent-holder, at which point the patent-holder has 45 days to file a patent infringement against the applicant. More times than not, disputes over an ANDA are resolved through private settlements. Unfortunately, the underpinnings of these private settlements are becoming more and more questionable; drug companies are abusing Hatch-Waxman provisions, and using settlement opportunities to limit consumer choices and keep consumer prices artificially high. The FTC had been policing these deals to ensure they were not anticompetitive until two recent appellate court decisions limited it's role. Hatch-Waxman created a good framework for promoting innovation while speeding the market entry of affordable drugs. The trend of anticompetitive agreements between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic companies to delay entry into the market is a troubling abuse of that good law. Some drug firms have colluded to pad their profits by forcing consumers to pay higher prices than they would pay for lower-cost generics. Congress never intended for brand-name drug companies to be able to grease the palms of generic companies by paying them not to produce generic medicines. Rarely do we have such a clear-cut opportunity as this to remove obvious impediments that prevent the marketplace from working as it should--to the benefit of consumers. Congress should seize this opportunity and enact legislation that plainly makes anticompetitive deals, such as those I have outlined, illegal. The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act will accomplish this goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this timely and needed legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, that is fine with the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment by myself and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, No. 2, be called up and passed by voice vote at this time. There will be no speeches. I call up amendment No. 2.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Monday, our Nation honors the life and legacy of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a national hero and man whose words and deeds brought hope and healing to America. We commemorate the timeless values he taught us through his example-- the values of courage, truth, justice, compassion, dignity, humility and service that so radiantly defined Dr. King's character and revolutionary spirit. Dr. King's belief in the strength of nonviolence was not merely aspirational--though surely it spoke to our aspirations as a nation--but it gave his leadership a unique power that resonates to this day. I am grateful for this holiday because it is a reminder to listen again to Dr. King's inspiring words and to let the children and grandchildren of those who remember Dr. King hear his voice that filled a great void in our Nation and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. A few months ago, we broke ground on a memorial to honor Dr. King. At first glance, it may seem a bit out of place that Dr. King's memorial will be located on our National Mall--a place adorned with memorials to America's greatest Presidents and wartime heroes. Dr. King was neither a President of the United States nor a hero in a foreign war. He never even held public office. Yet he deserves his place in the pantheon of great American leaders because lead a Nation he did. Through words, he gave voice to the voiceless. Through deeds, he gave courage to the faint of heart. Through his bravery and courage, he endured tremendous hardships--he was beaten and jailed 29 times, his family was threatened, his home was fire bombed, and he was placed under surveillance by the FBI--yet he overcame these hurdles and ignited a movement that would lead to historic reforms. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King noted that ``[w]hen the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.'' And it was thanks to the work of great civil rights leaders like Dr. King and his wife Coretta Scott King, whom we lost a year ago and whom we honored in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, that Jim Crow segregation was uprooted, and legal barriers to the full participation of racial minorities in the political life of the Nation were removed. Yet, as I was reminded last year during our many hearings on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and again by accounts of voter suppression during the recent midterm elections, the work of the Voting Rights Act is not yet complete and the dream of Dr. King has not yet been fully realized. And so we must not only honor Dr. King's vision by remembering him this week, but we must also continue our work to make his dream a reality. Dr. King's own words remind us that this holiday is not merely a celebration of a particular time in American history but also a living legacy to the value of service. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?''' On this day, we must urge our children and grandchildren to abide by Dr. King's message that if they serve our country and strive for what is just, they can remake a nation and transform a world.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we lost Judge Jane Bolin, the Nation's first African-American female judge, whose career marks a shining example of a person knocking down barriers and leaving a footprint for others to follow. Stirred by a strong sense of justice and a forceful determination to contribute, Judge Bolin overcame the indignity of signs saying ``no women should apply'' and ``no blacks allowed,'' and rose to have a career defined by ``firsts,'' the first African-American woman to graduate from Yale Law School, the first to join the New York City Bar Association, the first to work in the office of the New York City corporation counsel, and the first to serve on the judicial bench. Her legacy will live on, not only through her accomplishments on the bench of ending the placement of children in childcare agencies on the basis of ethnic background and ending the assignment of probation officers on the basis of race but also through the example of her lifelong struggle to show ``a broad sympathy for human suffering'' which will continue to inspire generations to come. I salute her life and hope that our Nation will continue its march towards a more representative judiciary.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. This is not just the Congress; we are talking about the ability to go after State officials, for example, who are diverting public money. We are talking about a group that receives Federal funds and uses bribery to get it, going after or diverting it when they do. This is not just naming 535 Members of Congress but goes further than that.

Mr. LEAHY. The money will still be appropriated. Simply authorizing does not appropriate money. I don't want to be in a position where the Committee on Appropriations or somebody says we are not authorized. The distinguished Senator could easily say ``zero.'' I don't want them to say it is a great idea but they cannot authorize it. We just agreed to an amendment that makes it a crime that already exists and makes it a misdemeanor. The Senator from Utah supports that. This is for prevention of crimes and to make sure they can be prosecuted. They are not being prosecuted. The Senator mentions the Jack Abramoff case. We know that is ongoing, and there were lots of people who hoped they could wait out the statute of limitations on that bad boy. Under this, they will not. I suggest we make these retroactive. I am suggesting we need enough time to investigate. And the FBI has had to divert so much money--first the hundreds of millions lost because they screwed up on the computer system, and they have had to divert a lot more from it. If they want to come up here and tell us they don't need this, fine. I haven't heard that from the Department of Justice at all. I have heard from the Inspector General that these investigations have suddenly gone way down in the last 4 years. Maybe there has been a great new wave of morality in this country and we have only seen the most egregious cases. I believe in the redemption of everyone, but I am not sure it happens all at once.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Mark Pryor to offer an amendment to the ethics bill, the Effective Prosecutions Act of 2007. Our amendment would strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. It gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory rules and resources they need to assure that corruption is detected and prosecuted. In November, voters sent a strong message that they were tired of the culture of corruption. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq to convicted administration officials, to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even Members of Congress, too many supposed public servants are serving their own interests rather than the public interests. Actually, the American people staged an intervention and made it clear they would not stand for it any longer, and they expect Congress to take action. We need to restore the people's trust by acting to clean up the people's government. The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act will help to restore the people's trust. Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but stalled in the House. This is a vital first step. But the most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people who are assuming they will not get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. But because they attack our democracy itself, they have to be found out and punished. We can send a signal we don't believe in corruption, that we want it punished. I was pleased to join Senator Pryor last week to introduce the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007, and I hope that all Senators will support us and incorporate this important bill into the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act. Our legislation gives investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to go after public corruption. Senator Pryor is a former attorney general. He understands, as I do, as I am a former prosecutor, the need for such legislation. First, it would extend the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses, extending it from 5 years to 8 years for bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by public officials. The reason this is important is these public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time consuming to investigate, before you even bring a charge. They often require use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Once you bring a charge, the statute of limitations tolls. You do not want it to run out before you can bring the charge. Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Since public corruption offenses are so important to our democracy and these cases are so difficult to investigate and prove, a more modest extended statute of limitations for these offenses is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. Corrupt officials should not be able to get away with ill-gotten gains simply because they outwait the investigators. This legislation also facilitates the investigation and prosecution of an important offense known as Federal program bribery, Title 18, United States Code, section 666. Federal program bribery is the key Federal statute for prosecuting bribery involving State and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial Federal money. This legislation would allow agents and prosecutors investigating this important offense to request authority to conduct wiretaps and to use Federal program bribery as a basis for a racketeering charge. Wiretaps, when appropriately requested and authorized, are an important method for agents and prosecutors to gain evidence of corrupt activities, which can otherwise be next to impossible to prove without an informant. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, RICO, statute is also an important tool which helps prosecutors target organized crime and corruption. Agents and prosecutors may currently request authority to conduct wiretaps to investigate many serious offenses, including bribery of Federal officials and even sports bribery, and may predicate RICO charges on these offenses, as well. It is only reasonable that these important tools also be available for investigating the similar and equally important offense of Federal program bribery. Lastly, the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act authorizes $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next four years to give Federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Last month, FBI Director Mueller in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee called public corruption the FBI's top criminal investigative priority. However, a September 2005 Report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to U.S. attorneys' offices. I am heartened by Director Mueller's assertion that there has recently been an increase in the number of agents investigating public corruption cases and the number of cases investigated, but I remain concerned by the inspector general's findings. I am concerned because the FBI in recent years has diverted resources away from criminal law priorities, including corruption, into counterterrorism. The FBI may need to divert further resources to cover the growing costs of Sentinel, their data management system. The Department of Justice has similarly diverted resources, particularly from United States Attorney's Offices. Additional funding is important to compensate for this diversion of resources and to ensure that corruption offenses are aggressively pursued. This legislation will give the FBI, the U.S. attorneys' offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. They can finally have the manpower they need to track down and make these difficult cases, and to root out corruption. These may sound like dry nuts-and-bolts measures, but what we are trying to figure out is what will actually allow us to investigate and prosecute the kinds of crimes that undermine our democracy. If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce our public corruption laws. I strongly urge Congress to pass this important amendment as a major step to restoring the public's trust in their government.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join 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''. 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 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 so that it 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. Cesar Chavez's name should be added to the law as 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. I urge the Senate quickly to take up and pass this measure as we convene the new Congress and commit ourselves again 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.