Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007

Mr. President, I intend, in a few minutes, to call up a bill for passage, and I think I will be joined on the floor by Senator Reid at the appropriate time. The bill I am going to speak about in a minute is the Catastrophic Disaster Recovery Fairness Act of 2007, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Lott and others. We have been working on trying to get this bill cleared, and I will come back to that in a moment, but before I call this bill up for final passage, I would like to speak for a moment about the emergency supplemental bill that we passed.

The Congress must--and usually does--and is required to take care of emergency issues. These are situations that, by the nature of emergencies, we cannot plan for. The war we are prosecuting and trying to win has extended well beyond the boundaries that many of us believed initially, so there are new costs associated with that war. There have been emergencies right here in the country that have taken place that could never have been predicted or anticipated.

We are still recovering, as you know, from two of those very terrible storms, two of the worst to ever hit the United States of America, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The aftermath of those storms was the multiple failure of a levee system that has protected this great community for over 300 years. It is not just any city or any region, it is a very special historic city and region, the city of New Orleans. It is also of great economic significance for the Nation.

We could not necessarily predict this in our regular budgets, and so it is appropriate that we provide emergency funding for emergencies, and that is what the supplemental is. It isn't a war spending bill, it is an emergency bill. There are things associated with the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan that are emergencies, but there are things happening in the United States also that are emergencies.

For Senators to come to this floor and argue over the last 2 weeks that there are no emergencies in the United States that we need to take care of and that all we need to do is to focus on the war in Iraq, I would ask them to go home and talk to their constituents because that is not what my constituents are saying, Republicans and Democrats. I don't think that is what anyone is saying, any constituent in anybody's State. I think they are saying, whatever their feelings are about the war and how we should prosecute it, there are most certainly emergencies right here in the United States that need to be dealt with.

I am proud that many of us on the Democratic side, as well as some of our Republican friends, decided to put some money in this emergency supplemental bill to take care of real American emergencies right here on the home soil--right here in America. One of those emergencies is the ongoing attempts to rebuild the gulf coast, primarily in Louisiana and Mississippi, but we also have friends in the southern part of Texas who are still hurting and also in the southern part of Alabama and through some parts of Florida. So I like to always say we are fighting hard for the gulf coast and trying to rebuild the gulf coast.

This Congress has been generous, has been innovative, and has been trying to think outside of the box to respond to an unprecedented disaster. Again, the scope of this disaster is beyond anything we have attempted. You know the long and sorry record: When we went to call on FEMA, it showed up but it was weak, anemic, underled, and underresourced. When we called on the Red Cross, as respectable as that organization and that name is, and they have done remarkable work, they too were overwhelmed. This is a job that was beyond the ability of the tools that we normally have to rebuild, and so we have been scrambling as a Congress to redesign tools. Some we have done a good job on and some we haven't.

There is a lot of redtape we unwittingly created, and not with any ill intent, but that has been the consequences of many of the things we have passed. And so people are caught up in a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of redtape. There has been a lot of money thrown at them, which is very frustrating because they hear about it, they think they are going to get it, but they can't feel it because the bureaucracy has it basically tied up.

So part of what we have done in this supplemental, which is very good, is we have removed some of the redtape and added some additional funding where we thought we were short, so that the hundreds of thousands of people on the gulf coast who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses, who have seen everything they have worked for, some for 50 years or 60 years, literally washed away by floodwaters or collapsed levees, they could have a chance to rebuild.

I feel very strongly about this. I have been very generous as an appropriator with help to foreign countries. I have helped send money to Afghanistan, to countries in Africa, and to South America. I was one of the first Senators on the ground when Hurricane

Mitch hit Honduras. I believe in helping people when they are in their hour of need. But I can tell you people on the gulf coast are starting to ask: Does anybody remember that we are here in the United States and we need help as well?

So that is what this supplemental bill did. Let me say a couple of things we tried to do in it.

We passed in this supplemental emergency spending bill for the United States of America a waiver of a 10-percent match. In every disaster, we require the locals to put up money. It makes sense, and normally it works, and that is appropriate. But in a case where the disaster is so catastrophic, let's say in St. Bernard Parish, which is the parish I represent, there were 67,000 people who lived there before the storm. It was a middle-class, working-class community. Every single home was destroyed. Every fire station was destroyed. Every police station was destroyed.

The sheriff had to swim out of the second floor with his deputies. He is a big, strong sheriff, thank goodness, and a good swimmer. If he wasn't, he would have drowned--Jack Stevens, my good friend. He swam out, literally saving his deputies. His headquarters was destroyed.

Now, I ask you: How is St. Bernard Parish going to come up with a 10- percent match? It sounds reasonable, but in this case it is not.

No. 2, these 10-percent waivers, or matches, have been waived before. In 32 of the last 38 disasters, they have been waived. I asked the administration and others to waive this one. They said ``no.'' So we have done it now, as a matter of fact, in this bill. Congress said yes, it is right that this be waived. It will not only provide several hundred million dollars more in emergency disaster money for Louisiana and Mississippi, but, most importantly, it will completely eliminate the 10-percent match requirement which is required on each individual project worksheet.

Now, somebody may ask how many project worksheets we have, which means how many individual public entities have requested rebuilding, whether it is a library or half a library; a wing of a school or a whole school; a light post or a sewer system. We have 23,000 of those project worksheets pending for Louisiana alone. Because of this 10- percent requirement, there is a NEPA review, a FEMA review, a HUD review--we are being reviewed to death. We can't do this in this fashion. We have to waive this 10 percent.

Not only will $750 million be immediately available, but more than the money, the redtape goes away. Ninety percent of the redtape goes away, and we can actually do what we say we are going to do, which is rebuilding the gulf coast, one fire station, one police station, one library at a time. This is not theory, this is practical. If you want to rebuild a city, you have to rebuild the fire stations, you have to rebuild the police stations, you have to actually rebuild homes, pave streets, et cetera, et cetera. All of this is at a slow crawl because of this 10 percent.

So I am proud of my colleagues who voted for this supplemental, because we waived this big piece of redtape, and I wish to thank them. I hope the President does not veto this bill because of that. I hope to be negotiating with the President and the administration in good faith to perhaps explain some things he is not quite understanding about the difficulty we are facing in the gulf coast and see if he can work with us to keep this waiver in place.

In addition, we put in the supplemental $1.3 billion for levees. One of the most memorable speeches the President made was in Jackson Square, and I was pleased he came down right after the storms and spoke in Jackson Square when there weren't many lights on in the whole region. We put up lights that night for that speech. Generators were brought in to turn the lights on so the President could be seen when he made the speech. The rest of the French Quarter was completely dark. If you were in the city that night he made that speech, you wouldn't have been able to see your hand in front of your face, but the world saw the President because we got generators to turn those lights on so he could be seen. When he stood there in the dark, he said he would do whatever his administration needed to do to rebuild the levees in this metropolitan area.

I am not talking about little rinky-dink levees, I am talking about federally authorized levees that collapsed because they were not funded correctly, they were not maintained correctly, and the Corps of Engineers has admitted it was their fault and they need to fix it. Where I come from, if you break something, you fix it. The Corps of Engineers' levees collapsed, and they need to fix them.

So here comes the supplemental request, and lo and behold there is no new money for levees. We get a request from the administration that it wanted to move $1.3 billion from one set of projects to another, claiming this set of projects isn't ready to go, and they want to move it from the east bank to the west bank. Senator Vitter and I discussed this, and we said ``no.'' The days of moving money from the east bank to the west bank, in hopes that next year we would come back and find some new money for the east bank, are over with. We did that for the last 40 years, and then 18 months ago New Orleans and the surrounding area went underwater.

No more moving the money. No more shell games. This supplemental says ``no,'' and we put in an additional $1.3 billion. We are not moving levee monies from one of our constituent groups to another constituent group in hopes we will come back next year and fill in the pot. It is akin to musical chairs. You keep moving chairs, and when the music stops, somebody is going to be without a chair. I am not doing that anymore.

Every person in south Louisiana and in Mississippi who deserves a federally protected levee is going to get it. Those levees are going to hold, and we are not moving this money around anymore. So that money is in the supplemental, and I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Murray and Senator Dorgan particularly for their strong support of that principle.

Two more things, and then I will call up this bill for discussion.

We also got some funding--and I thank Senator Kennedy particularly for his help in this--for recruiting teachers. I can't tell you how difficult it has been for our teachers, our parents, and our students. We did have a happy success story, though, regarding education. Since I have talked about things that didn't work, let me spend a minute talking about something that did work.

On Monday morning, when the city of New Orleans was 80 percent underwater, and we looked up and millions of people had fled their homes along the gulf coast, we realized there were about 330,000 children who had no school to go to on Monday morning. I want that to sink in for a minute. There were 330,000 children, from kindergarten to 12th grade, who had no school to go to on Monday morning. That was a problem, and we had no solution for it.

There was no tool in the toolbox. FEMA didn't have a plan. There was nothing we could do. So we thought for a minute, and between the work of this Congress, the administration, and the good people down in Louisiana and Mississippi, we came up with a plan that basically said this: If every parent will show up at a school and get your child registered, the Federal Government will send that school a check. Don't worry about it. You don't have to pay for it, we will take care of it.

It was a most extraordinary effort because, you know what, it worked. For the most part, after this major disaster, almost all of those 330,000 children actually attended school somewhere last year and the schools were actually reimbursed. So when people tell me Congress can't do anything well, I like to point this out, to say: Yes, sometimes we actually manage to do something really well. And that worked.

What we failed to realize, though, is it was not just the tuition for the children we had to send--whether they left parochial school and went to public or public school and went to parochial, we covered it, no questions asked. But what we didn't think about is what happens to the thousands of teachers whose schools were ruined, whose homes were flooded, whose churches were destroyed, and they had to move--but they want to come back now and teach--how do we get them to come back and live in a community that is so destroyed? What incentives can we give them to come back?

Many of these teachers are very dedicated, and many of them have come back under harsh conditions. But we think it might be wise, when you are trying to rebuild from a nuclear bomb explosion--and we hope that never happens--or a dirty bomb or Tsunami or major terrorist attack or perhaps just a terrible storm or tornado or hurricane, if you have to rebuild a devastated area, you need to encourage some key people to come back: doctors, nurses, teachers. We have some money in this bill to give the appropriate incentives for teachers to come back.

We are not just going to build the old school system we had which was failing students and disappointing parents and not really a very successful story. We are in the process, with the help of Republicans and Democrats here, of building a new kind of public school system.

So this money in this supplemental will help us to recruit quality teachers, to acknowledge what we are asking of them. Teaching under normal circumstances is difficult. To teach children in a classroom that is a temporary and sometimes wholly inadequate structure, where these children are living in trailers at night, where the teachers themselves have to live in 16-by-8 trailers--the least we could do is give them some financial incentive to just make it through the next year or two until we can stabilize the situation and rebuild the infrastructure of this city. I am excited about that.

I am not going to go into any more detail about the historic preservation funding. Obviously, people in America know that New Orleans and south Louisiana have some of the most historic structures in the Nation and that they are at risk. This additional funding helps us preserve that.

We also have some funding in here for our fisheries. Our fishermen are small businesspeople, many of them. They don't work on the land; they work on the water. They don't work in an office; they work on their boats. Their boats were destroyed. We don't think of them as businesspeople, but they are. Our disaster assistance has to take care of our farmers, our ranchers, our urban and rural--and our fisheries. We have determined we had not done enough for them and for their needs, so we have some money to help them.

People say: Where do we get this funding? It comes off budget. This country is a great country. It is one of the great benefits of belonging to a great and powerful nation--if your region gets devastated, the rest of the country's money will be pooled to help you. If something happens--and it did in New York--we all pool our resources to help out. Now New York is doing magnificently. There was a question, after 9/11, as to what would happen, but because we all helped and they did a great job, that area is being rebuilt. Even though we still mourn the loss of those 3,000 Americans who lost their lives and it is still a very sad thing for us to think about, we are proud of helping to rebuild that great city.

If something were to happen, Mr. President, in your State--and your State is a coastal State as well; you have had your share of disasters--even though your State is tiny and you might not be able to bail yourself out, you are part of a great nation that will step up and help you as well.

I would like to speak for a minute about the Catastrophic Disaster Recovery Fairness Act. I will ask, at the appropriate time, for this bill to be called up and to clear it by unanimous consent. This particular bill was not included in the supplemental. It has not been included in any other major legislation. This bill will eliminate a great barrier to construction of homes in the gulf coast.

People ask me all the time: Senator, how is it possible that we have sent over $100 billion and yet we cannot seem to get massive rebuilding underway? This is one of the answers, and I hope I can explain this simply and clearly because it will help people understand.

The Small Business Administration, in a disaster, will lend money to people if they qualify for a small business disaster loan, and 81,000 people in my State qualified and have received approval for a loan-- 81,000. That is a huge number of homes. That is not all the homes which were destroyed. We had 250,000 homes destroyed. Of those, 81,000 families qualified for a home loan through the Small Business Administration.

It was painfully slow. It took months for these applications to get out, with us beating them every day and working with them and pushing, pushing, with Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe, who were, together, terrific to push the SBA. Then we got rid of the SBA Director, we got a new SBA Director, and they pushed those loans out the door. The good news is 81,000 people have gotten loans. The bad news is that as soon as these same people get their Road Home grants, which they are entitled to under another program we created, the SBA is interpreting their law so as to require these homeowners to immediately pay back their loan.

This bill which I am sponsoring with Senator Lott will release the homeowners, the borrowers, from that obligation. They must repay the loan. This is not a loan-forgiveness program. If you borrowed money, you must repay it under the terms you borrowed it. This is not a charity. This is not loan forgiveness. You must repay it under the terms of your loan. But you don't have to pay it today. You don't have to pay it next week when you get your Road Home money. You can pay it under the terms that it was lent to you, whether it was 5 years or 20 years, whether it was at 2 percent or 4 percent or 6 percent.

Mr. President, 81,000 people in Louisiana and 31,000 people in Mississippi have been told: The good news is you got an SBA loan; the bad news is the minute you get your Road Home Program money from the Federal Government, you have to pay this loan in full.

Believe me, this was not our intention when we passed these community development block grants. I do not believe there is a Senator in this Chamber who would expect that of a homeowner who has lost everything. In some cases, they had insurance. In some cases, they didn't. In most cases, neither their insurance nor the money we are giving them is making them whole. There is no coverage for contents. This is not for contents. Some people might have $100,000 of contents in their home. Some people might have $200,000 of contents. Some people might have only $25,000 of contents. We are not even covering contents.

We are not covering the expedited or accelerated cost of labor and materials. So people are already with no coverage for contents. Unless they had insurance, they have lost that. We are not covering the 30- percent increase in labor costs or the 30-percent increase in cost of supplies. That is not calculated.

This loan is very important for people. It is saving many of them from bankruptcy. If they manage to get their loan, we most certainly do not want them to have to pay their loan back in full when they get their Road Home grant. This is for Louisiana and for Mississippi. If you add up 81,000 people in Louisiana and 31,000, this is over 100,000 families--110,000 families. That is probably affecting more than a quarter of a million people. That is a lot of people.

When this bill passes, which it will--it may not pass today, but I wish it would. I wish no one would object to it. But when this bill passes, 250,000 people are actually going to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and they will be able to say: This is hard. I don't know if I can rebuild. I don't know if I want to rebuild. But at least I have a fighting chance to make that decision. If this bill does not pass, these 200,000-plus people who live in my State and Mississippi--I predict many of them will have to file bankruptcy.

I have said this before and I am going to say it again. The people I represent who lived behind these levees were not sunbathing when these levees broke. They were loading tankers on the river. They were working at the docks. They were drilling and exploring for oil and gas in the gulf. They were going to work at hospitals and nursing homes and teaching and running our libraries. This is not a resort community. These levees were not protecting a beach. These levees were protecting a port, and the levees failed.

In working-class neighborhoods, Black and White, in rich and poor neighborhoods, people's homes were destroyed, homes that had never had an inch of water. Let me repeat that. People's homes were destroyed, homes that had never had an inch of water. They were not in a flood plain.

When you lose everything you have--and for most Americans, their largest

asset is their home--it is our obligation to think about ways we can strengthen the insurance system; strengthen our levees so they do not break again and while people are struggling give them a hand.

Again, I am not asking for loan forgiveness. They have to pay back every penny. But let's give them a fighting chance to pay it back, over 10 years or 15 years. Let's not require them to take one grant program we have given them to build their home and the same day take it away because they have to fully pay their small business loan.

I understand Senator Reid is going to call up this bill and try to get it passed. I surely hope nobody objects to it. It is a Landrieu- Lott bill, with Senator Vitter as well. Senator Reid is going to call it up in a few minutes, and I hope nobody objects to it. But if they do object, I can promise you I am going to spend every day on the floor until this bill is passed, sometime before we go home--not this week but before we go home for the next break.

I do not think this is unreasonable. We are going to ask for everybody's support. Senator Lott will be happy to explain, when he has an opportunity, about the 31,000 families in Mississippi. But I am going to leave this here, and Senator Reid is going to come down and ask it be passed. I hope we can get it done today. If not, we will ask for it tomorrow. If not, we will continue to ask for it until we get it.

We are asking for fairness, not charity, and for justice for the people in the gulf coast.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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.