Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area Act

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act along with Senators Graham, Biden, and Alexander.

The need to protect creative works has been an important principle recognized in our country since the time when our Constitution was first drafted.

However, the founding fathers could not have predicted the path innovation would eventually lead us down, nor the amazing new technologies that we now take for granted.

While many of us still enjoy traditional radio, this too is rapidly changing.

Recently, radio stations have begun advertising for a national campaign to switch to High Definition, or HD, radio. This new platform is changing the way music is transmitted and, according to its promoters, ``radio has never sounded better.''

In addition, we can now have music radio programs provided not just in our cars, or on traditional home stereos, but radio programs have expanded to be available through Internet, cable, and satellite music stations.

And radio services are looking to use the new digital transmissions and new technologies to change how music is delivered so that the audience can not only listen but also record, manipulate, collect and create individual music play lists.

Thus, what was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where consumers can create their own personalized music libraries.

As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so must our laws change.

The government granted a compulsory license for radio-like services by Internet, cable, and satellite providers in order to encourage competition and the creation of new products.

However, as new innovations alter these services from a performance to a distribution, the law must respond.

In addition, as the changing technology evolves the distinctions between the services become less and less, and the differences in how they are treated under the statutory license make less and less sense.

Therefore, I am introducing a bill that will begin to fix the inequities currently in the statute and open the door to further debate about additional issues that need to be addressed.

First, the bill I am introducing today, the PERFORM Act, would create rate parity. All companies covered by the government license created in section 114 of title 17 would be required to pay a ``fair market value'' for use of music libraries rather than having different rate standards apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music.

The bill would also establish content protection. All companies would be required to use reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.

This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music outside of the statutory license.

The bill also contains language to make sure that consumers' current recording habits are not inhibited. Therefore, any recording the consumer chooses to do manually will still be allowed.

In addition, if the device allows the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel, or time period that would still be permitted under the statutory license.

For example, if a listener chooses to automatically record a news station every morning at 9:00 a.m.; a jazz station every afternoon at 2:00 p.m., a blues station every Friday at 3:00 p.m., and a talk radio show every Saturday at 4:00 p.m., that would be allowable. In addition, that listener could then use their recording device to move these programs so that each program of the same genre would be back to back.

What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs being played on the radio-service and only record those songs. By making these distinctions this bill supports new business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and performers in the process.

Unfortunately, this bill was unable to move last Congress primarily because of misinformation about what the bill does and does not do.

However, there were also some questions that were raised, not about problems with the bill, but about ways to expand its reach. For example, currently the bill does not apply to traditional radio distributed by the broadcasters. This legislation only covers businesses that are under the section 114 license: Internet, cable, and satellite. Yet, some of my Republican colleagues argued that the bill should apply the same recording limitations to over-the-air broadcasters as are applied to Internet, cable, and satellite. While this change has not been made in the version of the bill I am introducing today, I believe it is an issue we should look at in the 110th Congress.

Also, the bill as introduced does not address the other conditions applied to Internet, cable, and satellite services in order for them to get the benefit of the statutory license. The one that I am most concerned with is interactivity.

I think there is real confusion about what is and what is not allowed under the current statute: how much personalization and customization may these new services offer?

Currently, licensing rates are higher for interactive services. However, there are clear disagreements as to what constitutes an ``interactive'' service. I tried to have the parties meet to negotiate a solution to this issue so that we could include new language in this bill; however, the parties were so far apart that a solution could not be reached.

Despite this, I still believe this is an important issue that must be addressed. As introduced, the bill calls for the Copyright Office to make recommendations to Congress, but I am hopeful that through the process of moving this bill through the Senate we can develop a solution sooner rather than rely on a study.

Finally, some have raised concerns that applying content protection to all providers is unfair. They argue that if there is no connection between the distributor of the music and the technology provider that allows for copying and manipulating of performances then they should not be required to protect the music that they broadcast. In general, I do not agree. We know that there are websites out there now that provide so-called stream-ripping services that allow an individual to steal music off an Internet webcast.

It is not enough to turn a blind eye to this type of piracy and do nothing simply because there is no formal connection between the businesses. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the concerns that if the type of technology a company uses is inadequate or ineffective, through no fault of their own, they should not be saddled with huge mandatory penalties.

I am interested in looking at this issue more closely to see if there is some way to address this concern and find a compromise solution.

To be clear, I see this as the beginning of the process. I think this legislation is a good step forward in addressing a real problem that is occurring in the music industry. Changes or additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward, but I believe to wait and do nothing does a disservice to all involved.

Music is an invaluable part of all of our lives. The new technologies and changing delivery systems provide exciting new options for all consumers. As we continue to move forward into new frontiers we must ensure that our laws can stand the test of time.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I are introducing legislation today that will enhance our national security by expanding and strengthening the current passport and visa fraud laws.

The Passport and Visa Security Act bill adds much needed law to punish trafficking in passports and visas and clarifies the current criminal law. It also punishes those who engage in schemes to defraud immigrants based on changes in the immigration law.

This bill is an improved version of a bill Senator Sessions and I introduced in the 109th Congress. We both have long been concerned about the need to strengthen our national security by strengthening our document fraud laws.

In fact, we introduced our passport fraud bill well before the comprehensive immigration reform bill was passed in the Senate last Spring.

For that reason, I was pleased that the comprehensive immigration reform bill contained important document fraud provisions. This bill builds on those provisions.

The evidence has shown repeatedly that false immigration documents provide a gateway for organized crime and terrorism. The need to take action against this crime is clear.

For too long, the Federal Government has moved too slowly--or not at all--to enhance our border security. According to the 9/11 National Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel, prior to September 11, 2001, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal.

Still today, over five years since the tragic attacks on September 11, the Federal Government has failed to devote sufficient time, technology, personnel and resources to make border security a cornerstone of our national security policy.

Last year, Congress passed a law to build a border fence. I believe this law was an important first step, but a fence alone cannot sufficiently protect our vulnerable borders.

In fact, as the 9/11 Commission report demonstrates, individuals with fraudulent documents can pose a far greater threat to our national security than those traveling with no documents at all.

Fraudulent documents give criminals free reign to create a new identity and to plan and carry out attacks in the United States.

We know, for example, that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers used passports that were altered when they entered this country and as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers could have been intercepted by border officials, based in part on their travel documents.

The 9/11 Commission Report detailed the way the terrorist operatives carefully selected the documents they used for travel--most often relying on fraudulent ones.

The terrorists altered passports by substituting photographs, adding false visas, bleaching stamps, and by substituting pages.

The terrorists devoted extensive resources to acquiring and manipulating passports--all to avoid detection of their nefarious activities and objectives.

Today, over five years later, Interpol reports that they have records of more than 12 million stolen and lost travel documents from 113 different countries. These are only the ones we know about.

Interpol estimates that 30 to 40 million travel documents have been stolen worldwide.

We know that over the past few years, passport and visa forgery has become even easier thanks to home computers, digital photography, scanners and color laser printing.

News articles document that passport and visa fraud has become so lucrative that gangs are offering franchises in the multimillion-dollar scam to forgers.

Unfortunately, it's not only foreign passports that can be forged. Forged and fraudulent United States passports can be the most dangerous when in the wrong hands.

With a U.S. passport, criminals can establish American citizenship and have unlimited access to virtually every country in the world.

It's no surprise, then, that passport and visa fraud are often linked to other, very serious crimes in the United States and abroad: narcotics trafficking, organized crimes, money laundering, human trafficking, and identity theft.

For example, this past December, the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, Charles McArthur Emmanuel, who headed a violent paramilitary unit in his father's government, was sentenced in Miami for passport fraud.

A day later, a Federal grand jury indicted him on charges of torture and conspiracy involving acts committed in Liberia in 2002.

Emmanuel, also known as Charles ``Chuckie'' Taylor and Roy Belfast Jr., was on Interpol's Most Wanted list and the United Nations travel watch list.

Nevertheless, he escaped detection by falsifying his passport application, ultimately gaining easy entry and exit from the United States while he perpetrated his crimes.

Despite evidence that these crimes are widespread and that millions of travel documents are on the black market, in 2004, the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service reports that it made about 500 arrests for passport fraud, with only 300 convictions.

For these reasons, Senator Sessions and I are introducing a bill today to strengthen current passport and visa laws in a number of key ways.

First, this bill adds two new laws with strong penalties to punish those who traffic in fraudulent travel documents. The current law makes no distinction between those caught with multiple false travel documents--the very worst offenders who are often part of organized crime rings--and those with only one false document. Our bill would change that.

The bill also updates the current travel document fraud laws--using plain language advocated for by the practitioners that passed the Senate as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Thirdly, the bill adds provisions to the current passport and visa fraud laws to ensure that conspiracies and attempts to commit these crimes are investigated and prosecuted just as vigorously as the completed crime.

Fourth--the bill makes explicit that there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over these offenses, so that individuals who counterfeit travel documents while abroad but are caught trying to enter the United States are still subject to prosecution.

The bill also directs the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Commissions to reconsider the relatively low sentencing guidelines to reflect the potential seriousness of these crimes.

Currently, offenders who engage in passport or visa fraud generally serve less than a year imprisonment, providing little incentive for U.S. Attorney's Offices to expend scarce resources in prosecuting these crimes.

Finally, the bill creates a law to punish sham attorneys who cheat immigrants out of thousands of dollars by preying on their fears that they could be forced to leave the country. We know that when Congress discusses changing the immigration law, scam artists target and exploit these vulnerable populations. These crimes should not go unpunished.

This bill provides much needed reform. It strengthens the security of documents used to illegally gain entry to this country and empowers the agents and prosecutors who enforce our borders to take swift and strong action against these criminals.

I ask my colleagues to join Senator Sessions and me in supporting this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary and the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing with my dear friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, and several of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, a bill paying tribute to one of this body's most loyal servants. The Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna Memorial Archives bill honors Henry K. Giugni, our former Sergeant-at-Arms of the U.S. Senate, through the establishment of cultural and historical digital archives. Mr. Giugni would have turned 82 today, if he were still alive. These archives will enable the sharing and perpetuation of the culture, collective memory, and history of peoples Mr. Giugni so dearly loved.

As many of my colleagues are aware, Henry was a man full of life and loyalty who served our country with distinction. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at the age of 16 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. During World War II he served in combat at the battle of Guadalcanal. Following World War II, he continued to serve the State of Hawaii and our Nation by working as a police officer and firefighter. After nearly a decade of service with Senator Inouye in the Hawaii territorial legislature, he came to Washington, DC, as the senior Senator's senior executive assistant and then chief of staff for more than 20 years. Mr. Giugni was appointed in 1987 to serve as Sergeant-at-Arms of our revered body--a position that each of my colleagues and I know as crucial to the running of the Senate.

Henry also sought to tear down barriers in society. In 1965 it was Mr. Giugni who represented Senator Inouye's office, and thus the people of Hawaii, in the famous 1965 Selma to Montgomery civil rights march led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As Senator Inouye's chief of staff, Mr. Giugni served as a vital link between the Senator's office and minority groups. He was the first person of color and the first Native Hawaiian to be appointed Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. In this influential position, he sought out capable minorities and women for promotion to ensure that our workforce reflects America. He appointed the first minority, an African-American, to lead the Service Department, and was the first to assign women to the Capitol Police plainclothes unit. Because of his concern about people with disabilities, Mr. Giugni enacted a major expansion of the Special Services Office, which now conducts tours of the U.S. Capitol for the blind, deaf, and wheelchair- bound, and publishes Senate maps and documents in Braille.

Further in his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms, Henry was the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. Senate and an able manager of a majority of the Senate's support services. He oversaw a budget of nearly $120 million and approximately 2,000 employees. As Sergeant-at- Arms, Mr. Giugni presided over the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush, and escorted numerous dignitaries on their visits to the U.S. Capitol, including Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Vaclav Havel.

Establishing the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives would be a poignant and appropriate way to honor our loyal friend, colleague, and fellow American, as well as his dear wife Lani, who recently followed him to the great beyond. Henry lived a life full of rich experiences, and along the way he accumulated a wealth of wisdom. His memory and spirit live on, but it is essential we perpetuate his wisdom and

experiences, and those of others like him, so what was learned and accomplished will not be lost to future generations. This is the primary impetus behind creating these archives. There is a dearth of physical archives, museums, or libraries devoted to preserving and perpetuating the history, culture, achievements and collective narratives of indigenous peoples. As one generation passes, a wealth of traditional knowledge could be lost forever. Establishing these archives to perpetuate the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples such as Henry will ensure that future generations have access to that widsom and, in a sense, will be able to learn from the original sources themselves.

The development of the Internet in managing knowledge in electronic format has enabled the most pervasive storing and sharing of information the world has ever seen. Electronic, digital archives would facilitate the sharing, preservation and perpetuation of the unique native culture, language, tradition and history. These archives will be a source of enduring knowledge, accessible to all. It will help to ensure that the children of today and tomorrow will not be deprived of the rich culture, history and collective knowledge of indigenous peoples. These archives will help to guarantee that the experiences, wisdom and knowledge of kupuna, or elders such as Henry, will not be lost to future generations.

The first section of the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill authorizes a grant awarded to the University of Hawaii's Academy for Creative Media for the establishment, maintenance and update of the archives which are to be located at the University of Hawaii. These funds would be used to enable a statewide archival effort which will include the acquisition of a secure, web-accessible repository that will house significant historical and cultural information. This information may include oral histories, collective narratives, photographs, video files, journals, creative works and documentation of practices and customs such as traditional dance and traditional music that were used to convey historical and cultural knowledge in the absence of written language. The funds will enable this important effort by assisting in the purchasing of equipment, hiring of personnel, and establishment of space for the collection and transfer of media, housing the archives, and creating this in-depth database.

The second section of this bill authorizes the use of these grant funds for several different educational activities, many of which are intended to magnify the resourcefulness of these archives and benefit the student populations who will likely access the archives the most. This includes the development of educational materials from the archives that can be used in teaching indigenous students. Despite their focus, these materials are meant to enhance the education of all students, even students from non-native backgrounds. This also includes developing outreach initiatives to introduce the archives to elementary and secondary schools, and as enabling schools to access the archives through the computer.

Grant funds would also be available to help make a college education possible for students who otherwise could not independently afford such an education through scholarship awards. Additionally, funds can be used to address the problem of cultural incongruence in teaching, an issue that impedes effective learning in our Nation's classrooms. Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the eastern seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can muddy the effective transmission of knowledge. Many of us, especially those from rural, indigenous, or ethnic minority backgrounds, including Henry Giugni, have experienced barriers to learning as we have worked our way through the education system. This bill seeks to improve student achievement by addressing cultural incongruence between teachers and the student population. This will be accomplished by providing professional development training to teachers, enabling them to better communicate with their students.

Finally, as financial illiteracy is a growing problem, especially among college age youth who are exposed to a variety of financial products, funds can be used to increase the economic and financial literacy of college students. This will be accomplished through the propagation of proven best practices that have resulted in positive behavioral change in regards to improved debt and credit management, and economic decision making. Such activities can help to ensure that students stay in school, graduate in a better financial position, and remain disciplined in effectively managing their finances throughout their working and retirement years.

Henry K. Giugni served among us with distinction and honor. I am very grateful to have known him and his family. I encourage all of my colleagues to perpetuate his memory by supporting the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill. These archives are the most fitting way we can honor and remember our friend and dear public servant, Henry Kuualoha Giugni.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that support letters from University of Hawaii President David McClain and Academy for Creative Media Director Christopher Lee also be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, which will make much needed changes to the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. I am pleased once again to be

joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Grassley, Levin, Lieberman, Leahy, Voinovich, Carper, Durbin, Pryor, and Lautenberg.

Senator Levin and I first introduced this legislation in 2000. In the House, Representatives Henry Waxman and Tom Davis, the chairman and ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Representative Todd Platts, who has sponsored companion legislation since 2003, have been working to enact strong whistleblower protections.

Over the years, we've worked to educate our colleagues on the need to strengthen the WPA and build consensus for the legislation. I'm especially pleased that last year our bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act. While the measure was removed with other non-defense specific material in conference, I believe the Senate's action will provide the momentum to make a real difference for Federal whistleblowers in the 110th Congress.

We agree that to ensure the success of any government program there must be appropriate checks in place to weed out mismanagement and wasteful spending. A strong and vibrant WPA is a critical tool in saving taxpayer money and ensuring an open government.

The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act addresses many court decisions that have eroded protections for Federal employees and have ignored congressional intent. Our legislation ensures that Federal whistleblowers are protected from retaliatory action when notifying the public and government leaders of waste, fraud, and abuse. If we fail to protect whistleblowers, then our efforts to improve government management, protect the public, and secure the nation will also fail.

The legislation: clarifies congressional intent that Federal employees are protected for any disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse-- including those made as part of an employee's job duties; provides an independent determination as to whether the loss or denial of a security clearance is retaliation against a whistleblower; and suspends the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower cases for 5 years, which would ensure a fuller review of a whistleblower's claim.

Given that the United States will be fighting the war on terror for years to come and that funding such operations requires significant resources, it is imperative that government funds are spent wisely. That is why Federal employees must be confident that they can disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of retaliation. Restoring credibility to the WPA is no less than a necessity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Specter and Ensign, in reintroducing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this important bill finally become the law of the land.

There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs.

It's all done for ``entertainment'' and illegal gambling. Children are sometimes brought to these spectacles, and the fights are frequently accompanied by illegal drug trafficking and acts of human violence. In 2006, nine murders related to animal fighting occurred across the country.

Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a ``cost of doing business'' by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide. These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as I evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them.

Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers'' and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting. Cockfighting magazines I and websites contain hundreds of advertisements for mail- order knives and gaffs, revealing a thriving interstate market for the weapons used in cockfights.

This is long overdue legislation. Both the Senate and House approved felony animal fighting provisions in their Farm Bills in 2001, but they were stripped out in conference. The Senate included felony animal fighting provisions in the 2003 Health Forest Bill, but they were again dropped in conference. In September 2004, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but did not reach the floor. In April 2005, the Senate passed a bill nearly identical to the one we are introducing today, when it unanimously approved S. 382. In May 2006, the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the House companion bill, H.R. 817, which garnered 324 cosponsors but was not considered on the House floor. The legislative history of this animal fighting felony legislation shows it has broad bipartisan support of more than half the Senate, and it has won unanimous approval on the floor time and time again.

It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. With the bird flu threat looming, we can't afford to wait any longer. The economic consequences are staggering--the World Bank projects worldwide losses of $1.5 to $2 trillion. We must be able to say we did all we could to prevent such a pandemic, and this is an obvious, easy and necessary step.

Interstate and international transport of birds for cockfighting is known to have contributed to the spread of avian influenza in Asia and poses a threat to poultry and public health in the United States. According to the World Health Organization and local news reports, at least nine confirmed human fatalities from avian influenza in Thailand and Vietnam may have been contracted through cockfighting activity since the beginning of 2004. Several children are among those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of exposure through cockfighting, including 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18-year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam.

There have been many news stories focusing on the connection between bird flu and cockfighting. For example, an MSNBC report headlined, ``Cock-fights blamed for Thailand bird flu spread.'' A World Health Organization Asia regional spokesperson interviewed recently on the CBS Evening News described the risk of spreading disease through cockfighting with infected animals as a ``total disaster waiting to happen.''

Because human handling of fighting roosters is a regular occurrence, the opportunity of disease transmission from fighting birds to people is substantial. Fighting-bird handlers come into frequent, sustained contact with their birds during training and during organized fights. It is common practice for handlers to suck saliva and blood from roosters' beaks to help clear their airways and enable them to keep fighting.

Cockfighters frequently move birds across State and foreign borders, bringing them to fight in different locations and risking the spread of infectious diseases. Communications in national

cockfighting magazines and websites have shown that U.S. cockfighters regularly transport their birds to and from other parts of the world, including Asia.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in endorsing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, noted that strengthening current Federal law on the inhumane practice of animal fighting would enhance the agency's ability to safeguard the health of U.S. poultry against deadly diseases such as avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease (END). The USDA has stated that cockfighting was implicated in an outbreak of END that spread through California and the Southwest in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets. The costs of an avian influenza outbreak in this country could be much higher--with the Congressional Budget Office estimating losses between 1.5 and 5 percent of GDP ($185 billion to $618 billion).

The National Chicken Council, which represents 95 percent of all U.S. poultry producers and processors, has also endorsed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, expressing concern that avian influenza and other diseases can be spread by the movement of game birds and that the commercial chicken industry remains under considerable threat because it operates amidst a national network of game bird operations.

Avian influenza has not yet crossed the species barrier in this country, as it has in Asia. But we must do all we can to minimize this risk. Establishing a more meaningful deterrent to illegal interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting purposes is an obvious step we can take to reduce this risk.

Besides those associated with the poultry industry, this legislation has been endorsed by a number of other organization including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Sheriffs' Association, and more than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments covering every State in the country. Those law enforcement agencies recognize that animal fighting often involves the movement of animals across State and foreign borders, so they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to do its part to help curb this dangerous activity.

Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' rights in the two States where cockfighting is still allowed, and it protects States' rights the other 48 States--and all 50, for dogfighting--where weak Federal law is compromising their ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders.

The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 382, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, except for one change. The new bill provides for up to three years' jail time, compared to two in S. 382, in order to bring this more in line with penalties for other federal animal cruelty-related felonies. For example, in 1999, Congress authorized imprisonment of up to 5 years for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty, including animal fighting, P.L. 106- 152, and mandatory jail time of up to 10 years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or horse (P.L. 106-254).

With every week, there are new reports of animal fighting busts, as local and state law enforcement struggle to rein in this thriving industry. In my own State of Washington, police arrested 5 people on Christmas Day at a cockfight in Brewster, and about 50 people ran off, according to recent news accounts. Three days later, six more were arrested in Okanogan for promoting cockfighting. And nine people were arrested in Tacoma last spring, where investigators seized methamphetamines, marijuana, weapons, thousands of dollars, and fighting roosters.

It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. State and local law enforcement will have a tough law on the books necessary to help them crack down on this interstate industry. I thank my colleagues for their support, and look forward to working with them to finally enacting this common-sense measure into law.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her hard work on document security issues. She currently serves as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Kyl is Ranking Member, and I am looking forward to working with her on the document security that issues I am sure our subcommittee will address this Congress.

This year will mark the 3rd year Senator Feinstein and I have worked together on legislation aimed at making it easier to prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents.

One of the most dangerous document security issues we face is how to keep passports and visas out of the hands of the people we don't want to have them.

As a 2004 U.S. News and World Report article rightly stated, ``When it comes to terrorists' most valuable weapons, passports and visas probably rank higher than bullets and bombs.'' A 2004 study done by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General titled ``A Review of the Use of Stolen Passports From Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States,'' found that ``[there are] over 10 million lost or stolen passports that might be in circulation.'' As background for the report, the Forensics Documents Laboratory informed the Office of the Inspector General that ``criminals consider a passport'' from a Visa Waiver Country ``a very valuable commodity.''

To keep out terrorists and others we do not want to allow into the United States, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people who lie or give us fraudulent information to obtain a U.S. visa or a passport.

Additionally, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with a passport or visa that belongs to someone else.

Perhaps most importantly, we must effectively prosecute those possessing multiple passports and visas they intend to distribute to others. We must be able to take these ``career'' document traffickers, those caught with more than 10 fraudulent passports or visas, off the streets.

Under current law, violators are not being prosecuted effectively because there is no statute that specifically makes trafficking in multiple (10 or more) documents its own crime. This bill will add that new crime--punishable by 20 years in jail--to the passport and visa fraud sections of the criminal code.

In addition to creating a new crime to penalize trafficking in 10 or more fraudulent immigration documents, 20 year maximum sentence, Title I of the bill simplifies the language of several of the current passport fraud provisions of the criminal code and changes the maximum penalties for these offenses from 10 years for the first offense and 15 years for subsequent offenses, to simply 15 years for each offense.

The bill also includes a new protection for immigrants. Anyone who engages in a scheme to defraud them in connection with matters under Federal immigration law, or who pretends to be an immigration lawyer, will be charged under a new crime that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Although this provision is not strictly related to passport fraud, it will protect immigrants from sham attorneys and legal ``experts'' who cheat them out of their money by pretending to offer them immigration benefits or legitimate documents.

Many of the bill's provisions simply clean up sections of the criminal code. For example--one section modifies the alternative sentencing penalties to make sure the penalties for severe passport fraud offenses (such as those used to facilitate a drug trafficking crime or an act of international terrorism) are consistent throughout the code.

Other provisions codify common law principles needed for effective prosecution of document fraud offenses. For example--one section makes needed clarifications on venue. Currently, false statements or documents are often included in the application which is mailed from one location but processed in another location. This section makes clear that the offense is perpetrated both at the location of the mailing and at the location of the adjudication. If the application containing false statements is prepared overseas, this section clarifies that the offense is still punishable in the United States.

In March of 2004, Mark Zuckerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Hampshire, testified before the United States Sentencing Commission. New Hampshire's National Passport Center processed 2 million of the 7 million passports issued in 2003. The National Passport Center also receives nearly all of the applications for passport renewals filed with the State Department. New Hampshire conducted a passport fraud initiative in its U.S. Attorney's Office as part of its anti-terrorism effort. Zuckerman's testimony provides some insight into the problems that arose during the initiative.

Though the passport applications were processed in New Hampshire, cases of passport fraud resulting from those applications were not being handled in New Hampshire. Typically, they were sent back to the district from which they were mailed. Once returned, they were often declined for prosecution by their local U.S. Attorney's office.

One of the reasons frequently given by the regional U.S. Attorney's Offices for declining passport fraud cases was: ``The sentencing guidelines do not treat passport fraud as a serious offense for which a period of incarceration is likely.''

I would reiterate what Mr. Zuckerman so astutely pointed out in his testimony. Under the current Criminal Code, the most common forms of passport fraud--unless they constitute terrorism or drug trafficking-- are just class C felonies. When the defendant has no criminal history, the court is simply required to incarcerate the defendant for 0-6 months. This is the lowest and least consequential sentencing range that can be assigned to any felony under the U.S.

Code. (page 5 of Zuckerman's testimony)

The 9/11 Commission also recognized the lack of routine prosecutions for passport fraud offenses. Page 386 of their report noted:

Fraudulent travel documents, for instance, are usually

returned to travelers who are denied entry without further

examination for terrorist trademarks, investigation into

their source, or legal process.

Importantly, the bill we are introducing today directs the Sentencing Commission to reevaluate the current low sentencing guidelines for passport and visa fraud offenses to reflect the potential seriousness of these crimes and the changes made by our bill.

Additionally, we will require the Sentencing Commission to report back to the Congress on the rationale behind their decision to change (or not change) the sentencing guidelines as a result of this direction.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly stated that one of the items at the top of the Democratic agenda early this Congress is the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to their comments on the lack of prosecutions, the 9/11 Commission had a lot more say about the use of fraudulent and altered passports and visas in the Commission of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

``[W]e endeavor to dispel the myth that their [the hijackers'] entry into the United States was `clean and legal'. It was not. . . . two [hijackers] carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications'' Preface, 9/11 Commission staff report.

``To avoid detection of their activities and objectives while engaging in travel that necessitates using a passport, terrorists devote extensive resources to acquiring and manipulating passports, entry and exits stamps, and visas. The al Qaeda terrorist organization was no exception. High-level members of Al Qaeda were expert document forgers . . .'' Page 1. 9/11 Commission staff report.

``Travel history, however, is still recorded in passports with entry- exit stamps called cachets, which al Qaeda has trained its operatives to forge and use to conceal their terrorist activities''. Page 403, 9/ 11 Commission report.

``[C]ertain al Qaeda members were charged with organizing passport collection schemes to keep the pipelines of fraudulent documents flowing.'' Page 186., ibid

``For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. They must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack . . . In their travels, terrorists use evasive measures, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas . . .'' Page 384. ibid.

I hope that Senator Reid plans to include the Feinstein/Sessions Passport and Visa Fraud Bill in his 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Package.

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.