Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Specter in reintroducing the Leahy-Specter Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. This is a comprehensive data privacy package aimed at better protecting Americans' privacy. Senator Specter has been a valuable partner on this, and I also thank Majority Leader Reid for his leadership and commitment to enacting data privacy legislation this year.

When Senator Specter and I introduced this bill in 2005, we had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. The Judiciary Committee reported this bill favorably in November of 2005, but with the last Congress, it simply sat on the calendar. The leadership would not bring it forward.

The irony is while they refused to bring it forward, the problems of data breaches remained a persistent and pernicious threat to Americans' privacy. Yesterday we learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs has lost a portable hard drive containing the sensitive personal information on as many as 48,000 veterans. I can imagine what the veterans in my State feel about that. I can imagine what the veterans in Montana feel about that.

Last week, there was a major data breach involving a State computer server in my home State of Vermont. It jeopardized the financial data of at least 69,000 Vermonters whose personal financial information had been stored on the computer used by the Vermont Agency of Human Services. Can you imagine 69,000 people, in a State of barely over 600,000 people.

This is not unique to Vermont. Last month mega retailer TJX disclosed that it suffered a major computer breach involving credit and debt card purchases involving possibly hundreds of thousands of American consumers. And, even as disturbing as that is, while they knew about the breach in mid-December, none of those customers were told about it until a month later. It is as if a thief had gone to each one of their houses and stolen their data.

Of course, all of this comes on the heels of the theft of the personal data of 26.5 million of our veterans and active-duty personnel at the VA last year. Think about this: You are a man or a woman serving your country in Afghanistan or Iraq, and this information is stolen-- with data about where you live and what family members are left at home while you are overseas. How do you think that makes you feel?

According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 100 million records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. We need strong Federal data privacy and security laws to protect Americans' personal data, and to address the ills of lax data security.

Our bill requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them and to allow individuals to correct this. It is a simple matter of fairness. There is a clear precedent for our approach in the credit reporting context. Our bill also requires that companies who have databases with sensitive personal information about Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In the information age, any company that wants to be trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the databases that they use and maintain. In addition, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people need to know when they may be exposed to a data breach. Whether it is a government agency or a private company, if they lose your sensitive information, your Social Security number, your address, or anything about you,

you have a right to know. If they are holding that information about you, and they lose it, you have the right to know it has been lost.

We also have tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally or willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when that breach causes economic damage to consumers.

Then finally, we address the important issue of the Government's use of personal data. This would require Federal agencies to notify affected individuals when Government data breaches occur.

We should never have to worry about our Government having this information on us and losing it, but certainly in the last 2 or 3 years, we have seen so many millions of files that have been lost or put in jeopardy. We live in a world in which our Government also is increasingly turning to the private sector to get personal data that they, in some instances, couldn't legally get on their own. To address this, our bill puts protecting Americans' privacy first and foremost: Government data has to be protected and we have to know if the Government falls down on the job.

This is a comprehensive bill. It not only deals with the need to provide Americans notice when they have been victims of a data breach, it also deals with the underlying problems of lack of security and lack of accountability to prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place.

Today, Americans live in a world where their most sensitive personal information can be accessed and sold to the highest bidder with a few keystrokes on their computer. Our privacy laws greatly lag behind both the capabilities of our technology and the cunning of identity thieves. This legislation closes that gap. I commend the leadership for being willing to bring up our data privacy bill. I wish that the leadership in the last Congress had brought this bill up last year. But, I am glad that the new leadership will do so this year.

For the sake of all Americans, I urge all Senators to support this legislation and to act now to pass comprehensive data privacy and security legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.