To remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth Community Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by that District from the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the name dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). We call it FYROM for short. FYROM is located just north of present day Greece, and its capital is Skopje. It is one of the countries formed from the breakup of the former Yugoslav Republic, Yugoslavia.

FYROM is an interim name. The U.N. oversees a framework where Greece and FYROM have agreed to negotiate a mutually agreeable permanent name for this new nation. As the founder and cofounder of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, this is an issue of tremendous importance to Greece and the Caucus.

All historical and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Macedonia is a Greek name that was designated in the northern area of Greece for 2,500 years.

In 1944, the name of Skopje region was changed to Macedonia as part of Tito's imperialistic campaign to gain control of the Greek province of Macedonia. The United States opposed Tito's use of the name Macedonia at that time, but in November 2004, unilaterally and without warning, this present administration decided to recognize the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia, using the Greek name. It was a shock and a disappointment to the Greek American community, and myself and many others, that the White House went against prior U.S. policy to recognize FYROM as Macedonia just 2 days after the 2004 presidential election, and before talks were completed among the nations most directly affected by the outcome.

Along with former Representative Bilirakis and 68 of our colleagues, we sent a letter to the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, expressing our concerns about this decision. We also organized meetings with the American Ambassador and other officials in the State Department. We believe that the name ``Macedonia'' properly belongs to Greek culture and, therefore, should not be used by any other country. Greek Macedonia is one of the oldest civilizations known to man, and the history of this name should be recognized and respected.

Along with my colleagues, Bilirakis, Sarbanes and Space, we have introduced legislation, H.R. 356, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the FYROM should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the U.N.-brokered interim agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding hostile activities or propaganda, and should work with the U.N. and Greece to achieve long- standing U.S. and U.N. policy goals of finding a mutually acceptable name. Our bipartisan resolution now has over 114 cosponsors.

I just want to say that, in a major good will gesture, Greece has already agreed with the word Macedonia in the name. And they say it would be acceptable as long as it is combined with some type of qualifier to make clear that there are no designs on the historical boundaries of the provinces of Macedonia. But Skopje keeps doing sort of antagonistic things. This week, they erected a billboard in Skopje that depicts the Greek flag, but in the area where the cross is, they have put in a swastika. I would like to say to my colleagues, if someone erected billboards with the American flag and put a swastika where our stars are, we would be somewhat upset.

Also, in their textbooks, and I have examples here, they print maps that show that Skopje includes territories of Greece. They have also printed on their currency the symbol of Greece; the white tower was on their currency. We have since had them remove it. But I would say to my colleagues, if at the height of the power of the USSR, if they started printing maps that showed their boundaries, including Alaska, and decided to take our Statue of Liberty and put it on their flag, I think we would be a little upset that our symbols and our territory had been used in such a way.

I bring this to my colleagues today because just this week the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will hold a Heads of State and Government summit in Bucharest, Romania. One of the major issues considered will be the expansion of NATO and the possible extension of membership invitations to Albania, Croatia and to the FYROM. In this context, I will submit for the record the March 27th article in the Huffington Post entitled, ``NATO Enlargement--the View from Athens,''

written by Greece's Ambassador to the U.N., Alexandros Mallias.

NATO Enlargement--The View From Athens

An important NATO summit will take place next week in

Bucharest, Romania. Our discussion will focus on two main

issues: the first, NATO enlargement and developments in the

Western Balkans; the second, an evaluation of the Alliance's

operations in Afghanistan (ISAF) and Kosovo (KFOR). In both

of these U.N. mandated operations, there is an important

Greek contribution of 2,000 men.

Greece, for over 15 years now, has held the position that

the future of Southeastern Europe lies in its integration

into the Euroatlantic Institutions. On the basis of this

strategic choice, we support NATO's ``open door'' policy. An

open door policy, however, must be based on the principles of

good neighborly relations and allied solidarity.

Greece supports the enlargement of NATO in the Western

Balkans, with the invitations to Croatia and Albania. It is

ready also to welcome the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia (FYROM), provided that our northern neighbor shifts

from their nationalistic logic and agree to a mutually

agreeable name for international use that differentiates the

new Balkan state from the Greek province of Macedonia; a name

that will not be a vehicle for propaganda and irredentism

against a neighboring NATO member.

Athens has shown its good will towards Skopje in many ways.

It has supported its neighbor, both politically and

economically, ranking as the number one foreign investor in

that country, with $1 billion invested capital that has

generated 30,000 new jobs. Most recently, we went the extra

mile, or rather the most important mile, when we expressed

our readiness to agree to a composite name with a geographic

qualifier. This is a major shift from Greece's initial

position, which excluded any use of the term ``Macedonia'',

in the name of our neighbor.

Some have questioned our stance on the name issue and the

possibility of a Greek veto at the NATO summit, if the name

issue is not resolved by then. Some are suggesting that we

are re-fighting old battles, not seeing the ``big picture'',

that we are drawn into the past.

My answer to these claims is that the name issue is not a

bilateral one. It is an international issue, which concerns

our broader region. Directly, or indirectly, it concerns NATO

and the U.N. And, if not resolved now, it may fester to

poison future generations, undermining stability and

cooperation in the 21st century.

We hope that with active U.N. mediation and U.S.

involvement, a resolution of this issue will be achieved

before the Bucharest summit.

On this issue, we are not alone. 115 members of the U.S.

Congress, from both parties, support House Resolution 356,

expressing the ``sense of the House of Representatives that

FYROM should stop hostile activities and propaganda against

Greece, and should work with the United Nations and Greece to

find a mutually acceptable official name''.

A similar resolution, S.R. 300, was introduced in the

Senate by Senators Menendez, Obama, Snowe.

The immediate settlement of the name issue before the NATO

Summit in a mutually agreeable way, will allow Greece, the

U.S.'s strongest ally in the Balkans, to support FYROM's

membership to NATO and ultimately to the European Union, a

strategic goal also shared by the U.S.

A prerequisite for a proper relationship as allies and

partners is that of good neighborliness. We have lived

together through good and bad times, we have shared tragedy,

but also share hope for a bright future. Let's leave behind

the former and invest in the latter.

Greece has called upon FYROM's leadership to act

responsibly and show political courage and meet Greece half

way. It will be a responsible move on the part of an aspiring

candidate, a move that will win them a European future, a

future of stability, peace and economic prosperity, based on

the principles upon which NATO and the European Union are

founded.

Alexandros P. Mallias is Ambassador of Greece to the United

States.

Greece has consistently stated its desire to have the FYROM admitted into NATO provided that they cease the use of the name ``Republic of Macedonia'' and adopt a mutually acceptable name for both parties. Along with the 114 cosponsors, we urge them to take this into consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help millions of Americans overcome a deadly addiction: the addiction to tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 will help make smoking cessation therapy available to recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health, MCH, Program.

More than 45 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. Approximately 90 percent started smoking before the age of 14. Despite the fact that we have known for decades that cigarette smoking are the leading preventable cause of death, 1,600 adults become regular smokers each day, including 4,000 kids. Depending on your race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, even where you live, the likelihood that you are a smoker varies greatly. African-Americans are twice as likely as the general population to smoke. Communities in the South are more likely to be smoker-friendly than other communities in the U.S. While 22.5 percent of the general adult population in the U.S. are current smokers, the percentage is about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.

We have a moral argument and an economic argument to end the addiction to nicotine. Morally, how do we ignore the deaths of 438,000 smokers or 8.6 million Americans living with serious smoking-related illnesses? Smoking causes virtually all cases of lung cancer and contributes to primary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and other deadly health ailments. It is too often a bleak future for smokers and their families. An American Legacy Foundation report reminds us that second- hand smoke in children of smokers leads to asthma and chronic ear infections in children but also that 43,000 children are orphaned every year because of tobacco-related deaths.

We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as well. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, health care expenditures caused by smoking is approaching $100 billion. Our federal government pays $17.6 billion in smoking-caused Medicaid payments and $27.4 billion in smoking-caused Medicare expenditures.

Ironically, we do not hear that much about how many smokers America-- 70 percent--want to quit. Unfortunately, they face long odds--in 2000, only about 5 percent of smokers were successful in quitting long-term. Overcoming an addiction to tobacco is arguably one of the single most important lifestyle changes that can improve and extend lives. However, most smokers who want to quit don't appreciate how hard it really is to break an addition to nicotine.

This is why it is essential that we make this decision and the courage that it takes as easy as possible. States are already stepping up to the plate when it comes to smoking cessation. Last year in my home State of Illinois, a record-breaking 36 cities and counties enacted smoke-free laws, more than any other State in the Nation. More and more Illinoisans and Americans nationwide are realizing that life without smoking is possible. And the support for cessation does not end there. In fact, in 2003, 37 States had some form of coverage under Medicaid for at least one evidence-based treatment for smoking addiction. States like New Jersey and Oregon now have some of the lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.

Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health improvements and cost savings. Shortly after quitting smoking, blood circulation improves, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease, the risk of heart attack decreases, lung function and breathing are improved, and coughing decreases.

Pregnant women who quit smoking before their second trimester decrease the chances that they will give birth to a low-birth-weight baby. Over the long term, quitting will reduce a person's risk of heart disease and stroke, improve symptoms of COPD, reduce the risk of developing smoking-caused cancer, and extend life expectancy.

We are fortunate to have identified clinically proven, effective strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped millions kick the habit. An updated clinical practice guideline released in May of 2008 by the U.S. Public Health Service urges health care insurers and purchasers to include counseling and FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments as a covered benefit. The Guideline also emphasizes the role that counseling, especially in conjunction with medication, increases the odds of success in quitting. As we urge healthcare insurers and purchasers to offer this important benefit, so too should our government sponsored health programs keep pace.

I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Lautenberg to introduce the Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 and require government-sponsored health programs to cover this important benefit. The Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 makes it easier for people to have access to smoking cessation treatment therapies. It does three meaningful things.

First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat tobacco related diseases over the next 20 years.

Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows States to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under Medicaid. Despite the fact that the States have received payments from their successful Federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over 7 years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save $572 million in direct medical costs.

Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered part of quality maternal and child health services.

As Congress begins to examine more closely the impact of tobacco on our country--considering regulation by the FDA or raising taxes to pay for public health priorities--we must make sure we assist those fighting this deadly addiction. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and taking a stand for the public health of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008, which is a modified version of my earlier legislation by the same name. This legislation, which adds original cosponsors, continues to address the Department of Justice's corporate prosecution guidelines. Those guidelines, last revised by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in December 2006, erode the attorney-client relationship by allowing prosecutors to request privileged information backed by the hammer of prosecution if the request is denied.

Like my previous bill, S. 186, this bill will protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting federal prosecutors and investigators from requesting waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections in corporate investigations. The bill would similarly prohibit the government from conditioning charging decisions or any adverse treatment on an organization's payment of employee legal fees, invocation

of the attorney-client privilege, or agreement to a joint defense agreement.

The new version of the bill makes many subtle improvements, including defining ``organization'' to make clear that continuing criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations will not benefit from the bill's protections. The bill also clarifies language that the Department of Justice had previously criticized as ambiguous. The bill also makes clear in its findings that its prohibition on informal privilege waiver demands is far from unprecedented. The bill states: ``Congress recognized that law enforcement can effectively investigate without attorney-client privileged information when it banned Attorney General demands for privileged materials in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(c)(2).''

There is no need to wait to see how the McNulty memorandum will operate in practice. There is similarly no need to wait for another internal Department of Justice reform that will likely fall short and be the fifth policy in the last 10 years. Any such internal reform will not address the privilege waiver policies of other government agencies that refer matters to the Department of Justice and allow in through the window what isn't allowed through the door.

As I said when I introduced S. 186, the right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The 6th Amendment is a fundamental right afforded to individuals charged with a crime and guarantees proper representation by counsel throughout a prosecution. However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law. As the Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ``the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.'' When the Upjohn Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege protections apply to corporate internal legal dialogue, the Court manifested in the law the importance of the attorney-client privilege in encouraging full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, as well as the broader public interests the privilege serves in fostering the observance of law and the administration of justice. The Upjohn Court also made clear that the value of legal advice and advocacy depends on the lawyer having been fully informed by the client.

In addition to the importance of the right to counsel, it is also fundamental that the Government has the burden of investigating and proving its own case. Privilege waiver tends to transfer this burden to the organization under investigation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware of the enormous power and tools a prosecutor has at his or her disposal. The prosecutor has enough power without the coercive tools of the privilege waiver, whether that waiver policy is embodied in the Holder, Thompson, McCallum, McNulty--or a future Filip--memorandum.

As in S. 186, this bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by adding a new section, Sec. 3014, that would prohibit any agent or attorney of the U.S. Government in any criminal or civil case to demand or request the disclosure of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The bill would also prohibit government lawyers and agents from basing any charge or adverse treatment on whether an organization pays attorneys' fees for its employees or signs a joint defense agreement.

This legislation is needed to ensure that basic protections of the attorney-client relationship are preserved in Federal prosecutions and investigations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open, and possibly closed, session to receive testimony on United States Central Command in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 3 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review pending Corporate Average Fuel Economy legislation and related matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Offshore Tax Evasion: Stashing Cash Overseas.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled ``The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys.

II. Bills: S. 376, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007. (Leahy, Specter, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn) S. 221, Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2007. (Grassley, Feingold, Kohl, Leahy, Durbin) S. 495, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007. (Leahy, Specter, Feingold, Schumer) S. 239, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2007. (Feinstein) S. 1202, A bill to require agencies and persons in possession of computerized data containing sensitive personal information, to disclose security breaches where such breach poses a significant risk of identity theft. (Sessions)

III. Nominations: Debra Ann Livingston to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; Roslynn Renee Mauskopf to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Richard Joseph Sullivan to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Joseph S. Van Bokkelen to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Seapower Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in closed and open sessions to receive testimony on Navy Force structure requirements and programs to meet those requirements in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 3, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 205 and H.R. 865, to grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines over certain Native allotments in the State of Alaska; S. 390, to direct the exchange of certain land in Grand, San Juan, and Uintah Counties, Utah; S. 647, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness; S. 1139, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System; H.R. 276, to designate the Piedras Blancas Light Station and the surrounding public land as

an Outstanding Natural Area to be administered as a part of the National Landscape Conservation System; and H.R. 356, to remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth Community Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by that District from the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 27, a bill to authorize the implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement.