Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act

Mr. President, this month millions of American schoolchildren are returning to classrooms to begin the new school year, making this a time of hope and possibilities. Students in my State of Wisconsin and around the country are meeting new teachers, getting reacquainted with old friends, joining clubs or athletic teams, and embarking on the next step in their educational careers. Teachers and administrators around the country are starting a new school year with fresh lesson plans and high goals for all the students in their schools. And many educators, parents, and school officials are continuing to work diligently toward the goal of closing the achievement gap that continues to exist throughout many communities across the country.

These students, teachers, and administrators will also face their sixth year under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda. NCLB, which is 2001- 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, requires that students be tested annually in reading and math, and starting this school year, in science. The law is up for reauthorization this year and it remains unknown how much change students, teachers, parents, and administrators can expect as Congress works to reauthorize the law.

I voted against No Child Left Behind in 2001 in large part because of the law's new Federal testing mandate. The comments that I heard from Wisconsinites during the 2001 debate and that I continue to hear 6 years later have been almost universally negative. While Wisconsinites support holding their schools accountable for results and closing the achievement gap, they are concerned about the Federal law's primary focus on standardized testing.

Let me make clear at the outset that this country has a long way to go toward ensuring that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, have a chance to get a good education. I remain troubled by the inequality in funding and resources provided to our Nation's schools and by the persistent segregation that schools around the country, including those in Wisconsin, continue to face. Moreover, I am deeply concerned that NCLB's testing and sanctions approach has forced some schools, particularly those in our inner cities and rural areas, to become places where students are not taught, but are drilled with workbooks and test-taking strategies, while in wealthy suburban schools, these tests do not greatly impact school curriculums rich in social studies, civics, arts, music, and other important subjects.

All levels of government--local, State, and Federal--need to act to ensure that equal educational opportunities are afforded to every student in our country.

I do not necessarily oppose the use of standardized testing in our Nation's schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our children are keeping pace and that schools, districts, and States are held accountable for closing the persistent achievement gap that continues to exist among different groups of students, including among students in Wisconsin. But the Federal one-size-fits-all testing-and- punishment approach that NCLB takes is not providing an equal education for all, eradicating the achievement gap that exists in our country or ensuring that each student reaches his or her full potential.

Rather, the reauthorized ESEA needs to recognize that States and local communities have the primary responsibility for providing a good public education to our students. The reauthorized ESEA should also encourage States and local districts to pursue innovative reform efforts including utilizing more robust accountability systems that can measure student academic growth from year to year and measure student academic growth using multiple forms of assessment, rather than just standardized tests.

Today, I am introducing the Improving Student Testing Act to overhaul the Federal testing mandate and provide States and local districts flexibility to determine the frequency and use of standardized testing in their accountability systems. My legislation is fully offset, while providing approximately $200 million in deficit reduction over the next 5 years.

Nothing in my legislation would force States to alter their accountability systems in recognition of the fact that different States are at different stages of their education reform efforts and may wish to maintain their current assessment systems. However, my legislation says that for Federal accountability purposes, States can choose to test once in grades 3 to 5, 6 to 9, and 10 to 12 rather than the current Federal requirement for annual testing in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school.

For States that choose to test in grade spans instead of annually, my

legislation encourages them to use more than high-stakes standardized tests in their accountability systems. By removing the Federal requirement to test annually, Congress can encourage States and local districts to lead innovative school reform efforts, including developing more robust assessment systems that use a range of academic assessments, such as valid and reliable performance-based assessments, formative assessments that provide meaningful and timely feedback to both students and teachers, and portfolio assessments that allow students to accumulate a broad range of student work and assess their own learning as they progress through school.

I have heard from a number of teachers and administrators who are concerned about the testing burden NCLB imposed on our Nation's educational system. The Federal mandate to test annually has strapped State and local districts' financial resources. Congress promised States specific funding levels for Title I, part A in NCLB, but Congress has failed to live up to those promised resources every year since NCLB was enacted. Despite the lack of adequate resources, our schools continue to be forced to test and to ratchet up the consequences associated with these tests.

NCLB's testing mandates have also led to a substantial demand for increased numbers of standardized tests and I have heard from some Wisconsinites concerned that the testing industry cannot keep up with this demand. There have been stories coming in from around the country documenting the burden faced by the testing industry, including incorrectly scored tests, test scores arriving much later than expected, and schools given incorrect testing booklets and supplies by the testing companies.

My legislation would help alleviate this testing burden by providing States with the option to reduce the number of grades tested for Federal accountability purposes. Eighteen States would then be able to dedicate more of their critical Title I dollars toward efforts that will help close the achievement including improving teacher quality through professional development and providing more targeted instruction to disadvantaged students in critical subject areas.

Some may say that with a Federal requirement to test in grade spans and not every year, the students in the nontested years will be ignored. I have more faith in Wisconsin's teachers and other dedicated teachers around the country than to assume that because there is no external, federally required test, teachers will not teach their kids or ensure that their students make academic progress. Effective schools contain teachers who work collaboratively within grade levels and across grades to raise the academic achievement of every student. Good teachers know that they are responsible for ensuring all their students make substantial academic progress in a given year regardless of whether those students must take a federally imposed standardized test.

My legislation also provides States with the flexibility and resources to develop high-quality assessments that can be used to give a more accurate picture of student achievement. I have heard a number of criticisms of the standardized tests used in Wisconsin and around the country--namely, that they may not measure higher-order thinking skills and that the results are returned to teachers too late in the school year, preventing teachers from receiving feedback that could help inform their instructional techniques to increase student learning. It is important that Congress listen to the feedback provided by teachers and administrators from around the country and provide States and local districts with the flexibility to develop and use other types of assessments in their accountability systems.

My bill authorizes a competitive grant program to help States and local districts develop multiple forms of high-quality assessments, including formative assessments, performance-based assessments, and portfolio assessments. These assessments can give a more accurate and detailed picture of student achievement than a single standardized test. These assessments can also be designed to provide more immediate feedback to teachers and students than the statewide standardized tests used for Federal accountability purposes. By incorporating these richer assessments, teachers can better assess student learning throughout the school year and continuously modify their instruction to ensure all students continue to learn.

These high-quality, multiple measures can be more expensive for States to develop and my bill recognizes that cost by authorizing a competitive grant program to assist States in developing these assessments. States and local districts can use these funds for a variety of purposes, including training teachers in how to use these assessments, creating the assessments, aligning the assessments with State standards, and collaborating with other States to share information about assessment creation.

My legislation makes clear that these funds are not to be used for the purchase of additional test preparation materials. I have long been concerned that NCLB could result in a generation of students who know how to take tests, but who do not have the skills necessary to become successful adults. This grant program will help innovative States develop higher quality assessments to better ensure that the students in their State are prepared for careers in the 21st century, including the ability to think critically, analyze new situations, and work collaboratively with others.

My legislation also makes clear that these multiple forms of assessment are not a loophole for States and local districts to avoid accountability. Rather, my legislation recognizes that these multiple measures can provide a more accurate and more complete picture of student achievement. My legislation makes clear that these assessments must: be aligned with States' academic and content standards, be peer reviewed by the Federal Department of Education, produce timely evidence about student learning and achievement, and provide teachers with meaningful feedback so that teachers can modify and improve their classroom instruction to address specific student needs.

Congress also needs to reform NCLB's accountability provisions during the reauthorization process, including providing credit to schools that demonstrate their students have made substantial growth from year to year. Right now, NCLB measures students' achievement based primarily on reading and math tests, and students either achieve the cut score on the NCLB tests or they do not. A number of teachers and parents in Wisconsin have expressed concerned that NCLB's current approach leads schools to focus on students who are closest to achieving the cut score on tests so as to continue to boost the number of kids passing the test each year. As a result, parents and teachers are concern that the lowest achieving students who are not yet proficient and the highest performing students who are already proficient may be ignored in the effort to meet AYP each year.

My legislation seeks to address this concern by providing flexibility for States that maintain annual testing to develop accountability models capable of tracking student growth from year to year to better ensure that every student, regardless of his or her current academic level, continues to make academic progress. States seeking to use growth models in their accountability systems would have to prove that such growth models meet a number of minimum technical requirements, including ensuring the growth model: is of sufficient technical capacity to function fairly and accurately for all students, uses valid, reliable, and accurate measures, has a statewide privacy- protected data system capable of tracking student growth, does not set performance measures based on a student's background, and is capable of tracking student progress in at least reading and math. I am pleased there is substantial agreement in Congress that growth models should be part of a reauthorized ESEA, and I will work with my colleagues to ensure that any growth models included in the ESEA can be fairly implemented and are flexible enough for States and local districts to utilize in their accountability systems.

NCLB set the ambitious goal that all children will be proficient on State reading and math tests by the year 2014. I have heard from a number of

educators and administrators in Wisconsin and around the country who are concerned that very few States will be able to meet NCLB's 2014 deadline. I understand their concern, particularly in light of the fact that Congress has failed to provide the promised financial resources to meet NCLB's mandates. Our Nation needs to have high academic expectations for all of our students, but if Congress is going to set such ambitious goals for our schools to meet, we need to provide our schools with the resources to meet those goals.

So far, the Federal Government has not lived up to the funding promises it made when Congess passed NCLB in late 2001. The appropriated levels for title I, part A have failed to match the authorized levels for title I, part A every year from 2002 to 2007, resulting in an underfunding of title I, part A by over $40 billion since 2002. It is one thing to set ambitious targets for our Nation's schools with adequate resources provided to reach those targets. It is something entirely different to hold our schools accountable for ensuring all students are proficient by 2014 and providing our schools with less resources than were promised to them when NCLB passed. My legislation includes a funding trigger that will waive the 2014 deadline unless Congress fully funds title I, part A from now until 2014. If Congress maintains the 2014 deadline and does not provide additional resources to our Nation's schools, we are only setting our schools up for further failure as we approach 2014.

My legislation also reforms the peer-review provisions of NCLB to ensure that there is more transparency and consistency in the peer- review process. States are currently required to submit their State plans for approval by the Department of Education, and I have heard a number of concerns from my State and others that States do not receive consistent or timely information from the Department of Education during peer review. States have also voiced concern about their inability to speak directly with peer reviewers during the peer-review process in order to clarify reviewers' comments made about their State plans.

My bill would amend the peer-review language to ensure that the peer- review teams contain balanced representation from State education agencies, local education agencies, and practicing educators. My legislation also includes language that requires the Secretary to provide consistency in peer-review decisions among the States and requires the Department's inspector general to conduct independent evaluations every 2 years to ensure consistency of approval and denial decisions by the Department of Education from State to State. My bill would also require the Secretary to ensure that States are given the opportunity to receive timely feedback from peer-review teams as well as directly interact with peer-review panels on issues that need clarification during the peer-review process.

Despite my concerns regarding the testing provisions of NCLB, there are other provisions of the law that I continue to support. I have consistently heard from educators and other interested parties in my State of Wisconsin in favor of NCLB's requirement to disaggregate data by specific groups of children, including students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners. Teachers have told me that these provisions have added more transparency to school data and help to ensure that schools continue to remain focused on closing the achievement gap among these various groups of students and remain attentive to the academic needs of all students. My legislation builds on the requirement to disaggregate data by also requiring States to disaggregate high school graduation rates on the State report cards required under NCLB.

Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,'' and I think his statement can be properly applied to NCLB's requirement to disaggregate and report academic data by student subgroups. Information about the achievement gaps that exist throughout our Nation's schools, whether they are gaps in academic achievement or graduation rates, can help parents, educators, local school board members, and others continue to advocate for education reform at the local level. Some States already have the ability to disaggregate graduation rates by NCLB's subgroups, and my legislation provides funding to all States to comply with this public reporting requirement.

Tracking students' achievement and disaggregating student data are fundamental components of No Child Left Behind and require States to maintain large data systems containing detailed information about students. The bill that I am introducing will also ensure that these data systems are maintained in a way that safeguards individual privacy. Use of the data by educational entities, as well as disclosures of student-level data to third parties, will be carefully limited, and individuals will have a right to know who is inspecting their information and for what purpose.

My legislation also provides additional funding for States to build additional infrastructure at the State and local level in order to improve their educational accountability systems. States and local districts will have to secure additional resources in order to implement growth models or utilize multiple forms of assessment in their accountability systems. My bill creates a competitive and flexible grant program to help ensure the Federal Government does its part in assisting States in accessing these resourses.

States have varying capacity needs and funds under this program can help States build their privacy-protected educational databases, train individuals in how to use multiple measures of student achievement in State accountability systems, and provide additional professional development opportunities for both state education agency and local education agency staff members. I have heard from a number of State and local administrators who are trying diligently to reconcile increased Federal and State mandates with less financial resources. Providing additional resources will help build State and local educational infrastructure and will help encourage States to move to accountability systems that can measure student growth and use more than standardized test scores when making decisions about students and schools.

There are a number of other issues that we need to address in the NCLB reauthorization. My bill seeks to address some of the top concerns I have heard about from constituents around the State related to testing. During the reauthorization process, we need to examine and modify NCLB sanctions structure to address implementation problems that rural and large urban districts have faced. We also need to recognize that every school and every school district is different and the rigid sanctions of NCLB may not allow States and local districts the opportunity to implement a variety of other innvative school reform efforts.

We also need to address the diverse learning needs of students with disabilities and English language learners. We need to ensure that NCLB works in concert with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and that students with disabilities are provided with proper modifications on assessments without holding lower academic expectations for these students. I have long supported full funding for IDEA and strongly support high academic expectations for students with disabilities. I was disappointed the final NCLB conference report in 2001 dropped the Senate language on full funding of the Federal share of IDEA, and I hope we can be successful during this reauthorization process in efforts to fully fund IDEA.

The number of English language learners is growing around the country, including in my State of Wisconsin. I have heard concerns from educators around Wisconsin that NCLB does not properly address the unique learning needs of English language learners. Teachers are concerned about the lack of valid and reliable assessments for English language learners and the unfairness of testing these students when they may not yet have learned English well enough to take standardized tests in English. During the reauthorization, we need to ensure that additional resources are provided to develop valid and reliable assessments for English language learners so that these students are fairly assessed while learning the English language.

There are many issues that need to be addressed during the reauthorization process, and my bill seeks to address some of the issues related to testing under NCLB. I am pleased this bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, and that it has the support of the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the School Social Work Association of America, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, the Wisconsin National Board Network of Wisconsin National Board Certified Teachers, and the Wisconsin School Administrator's Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is the key Federal law impacting our nation's schools, and I have long supported the law's commitment to improving the quality of education provided to our Nation's most disadvantaged students. I strongly support holding schools accountable for both providing equal educational opportunities to all our students and for continuing to work to close the achievement gaps that exist in our Nation's schools.

I also strongly support ensuring that classroom teachers, local school districts, and States have the primary responsibility for making decisions regarding day-to-day classroom instruction. Unfortunately, under NCLB, too much of the activity in classrooms is being dictated by the Federal one-size- fits-all testing mandates and accountability provisions. The Federal Government should leave decisions about the frequency of standardized testing up to the States and local school districts that a bear the responsibility for educating our children. While standardized testing does have a role to play in measuring and improving student achievement, one high-stakes test alone cannot accurately or responsibly measure our students or our schools.

NCLB was based on a flawed premise--that the way to hold schools accountable and close the achievement gap was for the Federal Government to pile on more tests and use the tests as the primary tool to evaluate schools. Now, 5 years into the law's implementation, we have evidence showing the need to reduce NCLB's burden on schools, by providing real support for students and teachers and by providing flexibility to Sates to use more than standardized tests to measure the achievement of students. This country has a long way to go before the opportunity for an equal education is afforded to all of America's students and Congress can take a step toward helping to ensure that opportunity by substantially reforming the mandates of NCLB. It is time to fix No Child Left Behind, and to get back to learning--not just testing--in all of our Nation's public schools.

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, today I am introducing the Close the Enron Loophole Act to help prevent price manipulation and dampen the excessive speculation that have unfairly increased the cost of energy in the U.S.

This legislation is the product of more than 4 years of work examining U.S. energy commodity markets by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. That work has shown that U.S. market prices for crude oil, natural gas, jet fuel, diesel fuel and other energy commodities are more unpredictable and variable than ever before, and too often are imposing huge cost increases on the backs of working American families and businesses. The legislation I am introducing today is essential to help ensure that our energy markets provide prices that reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand for energy instead of prices boosted by manipulation or excessive speculation. It is also essential to close an egregious loophole in the law that was championed by Enron and other large energy traders in the heyday of deregulation and that continues to haunt our energy markets and harm American consumers through inflated and distorted energy prices.

The ``Enron loophole'' is a provision that was inserted at the last- minute, without opportunity for debate, into commodity legislation that was attached to an omnibus appropriations bill and passed by Congress in late December 2000, in the waning hours of the 106 Congress. This loophole exempted from U.S. Government regulation the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders. The loophole has helped foster the explosive growth of trading on unregulated electronic energy exchanges. It has also rendered U.S. energy markets more vulnerable to price manipulation and excessive speculation with resulting price distortions. This legislation is necessary to close the Enron loophole and reduce our vulnerability to manipulation and excessive speculation by providing for regulation of the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders.

A stable and affordable supply of energy is vital to the national and economic security of the United States. We need energy to heat and cool our homes and offices, to generate electricity for lighting, manufacturing, and vital services, and to power our transportation sector--automobiles, trucks, boats, and airplanes.

Over 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal. About 50 percent is from oil and natural gas. The U.S. consumes around 20 million barrels of crude oil each day, over half of which is imported. About 90 percent of this oil is refined into products such as gasoline, home heating oil, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.

The crude oil market is the largest commodity market in the world, and hundreds of millions of barrels are traded daily in the various crude oil futures, over-the-counter, and spot markets. The world's leading exchanges for crude oil futures contracts are the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX, and the Intercontinental Exchange, known as ICE Futures in London. Futures contracts for gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel are also traded on these exchanges. Presently, regulatory authority over the U.S. crude oil market is split between British and U.S. regulators.

Natural gas heats the majority of American homes, is used to harvest crops, powers 20 percent of our electrical plants, and plays a critical role in many industries, including manufacturers of fertilizers, paints, medicines, and chemicals. It is one of the cleanest fuels we have, and we produce most of it ourselves with only 15 percent being imported, primarily from Canada. In 2005 alone, U.S. consumers and businesses spent about $200 billion on natural gas.

Only part of the natural gas futures market is regulated. Natural gas produced in the United States is traded on NYMEX and on an unregulated ICE electronic trading platform located in Georgia. The price of natural gas in both the futures market and in the spot or physical market depends on the prices on both of these U.S. exchanges.

Trading abuses plague existing energy markets. The key federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, reports that overall in recent years it has issued several hundred million dollars in fines for trading abuses in the energy markets. Several major enforcement actions are pending.

Since 2001, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been examining the vulnerability of U.S. energy markets to price manipulation and excessive speculation due to the lack of regulation of electronic energy exchanges under the so called ``Enron loophole.'' Although the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have brought a number of enforcement cases against energy traders, the CFTC's ability to prevent abuses before they occur is severely hampered by its lack of regulatory authority over key energy markets.

The Subcommittee first documented the weaknesses in the regulation of our energy markets in a 2003 staff report I initiated called, ``U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Policy Has Increased Costs to Consumers But Not Overall U.S. Energy Security.'' The report found that crude oil prices were ``affected by trading not only regulated exchanges like the NYMEX, but also on unregulated `over-the-counter', OTC, markets which have become major trading centers for energy contracts and derivatives. The lack of information on prices and large positions in these OTC markets makes it difficult in many instances, if not impossible in practice, to determine whether traders have manipulated crude oil prices.''

In June 2006, the Subcommittee issued a staff report entitled, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need To Put the Cop Back on the Beat.'' This bipartisan staff report analyzed the extent to which the increasing amount of financial speculation in energy markets had contributed to the steep rise in energy prices over the past few years. The report concluded that ``[s]peculation has contributed to rising U.S. energy prices,'' and endorsed the estimate of various analysts that the influx of speculative investments into crude oil futures accounted for approximately $20 of the then- prevailing crude oil price of approximately $70 per barrel.

The 2006 report recommended that the CFTC be provided with the same authority to regulate and monitor electronic energy exchanges, such as ICE, as it has with respect to the fully regulated futures markets, such as NYMEX, to ensure that excessive speculation in the energy markets did not adversely effect the availability and affordability of vital energy commodities through unwarranted price increases.

In June 2007, the Subcommittee released another report, ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our report found that a single hedge fund named Amaranth dominated the natural gas market during the spring and summer of 2006, and Amaranth's large-scale trading significantly distorted natural gas prices from their fundamental values based on supply and demand.

The report concluded that the current regulatory system was unable to prevent these distortions because much of Amaranth's trading took place on an unregulated electronic market. The report recommended that Congress close the ``Enron loophole'' that exempted such markets from regulation.

The Subcommittee's Report describes how Amaranth used the major unregulated electronic market, ICE, to amass huge positions in natural gas contracts, outside regulatory scrutiny, and beyond any regulatory authority. During the spring and summer of 2006, Amaranth held by far the largest positions of any trader in the natural gas market. According to traders interviewed by the Subcommittee, during this period natural gas prices for the following winter were ``clearly out of whack,'' at ``ridiculous levels,'' and unrelated to supply and demand. At the

Subcommittee's hearing in June of this year, natural gas purchasers, such as the American Public Gas Association and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, explained how these price distortions increased the cost of hedging for natural gas consumers, which ultimately led to increased costs for American industries and households. The Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia calculated that Amaranth's excesses increased the cost of their winter gas purchases by $18 million.

Finally, when Amaranth's positions on the regulated futures market, NYMEX, became so large that NYMEX directed Amaranth to reduce the size of its positions on NYMEX, Amaranth simply switched those positions to ICE, an unregulated market that is beyond the reach of the CFTC. In other words, in response to NYMEX's order, Amaranth did not reduce its size; it merely moved it from a regulated market to an unregulated market.

This regulatory system makes no sense. It is as if a cop on the beat tells a liquor store owner that he must obey the law and stop selling liquor to minors, yet the store owner is allowed to move his store across the street and sell to whomever he wants because the cop has no jurisdiction on the other side of the street and none of the same laws apply. The Amaranth case history shows it is clearly time to put the cop on the beat in all of our energy exchanges.

The Subcommittee held two days of hearings relating to issues covered in its 2007 report. Both of the major energy exchanges, NYMEX and ICE, testified that they would support a change in the law that would eliminate the current exemption from regulation for electronic energy markets, in order to reduce the potential for manipulation and excessive speculation. Consumers and users of natural gas and other energy commodities--the American Public Gas Association, the New England Fuel Institute, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America--also testified in favor of closing the Enron loophole.

The legislation I am introducing today is intended to end the exemption from regulation that electronic energy trading facilities now have. The bill includes suggestions made by the exchanges, the CFTC, and natural gas users, and I will continue to seek their input as the legislative process moves forward.

Essentially, this bill would restore the CFTC's ability to police all U.S. energy exchanges to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation from hiking energy prices. In particular, it would restore CFTC oversight of large-trader energy exchanges that were exempted from regulation in the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by means of the Enron loophole. The bill would require the CFTC to oversee these facilities in the same manner and according to the same standards that currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. Because these energy exchanges currently restrict trading to large traders, however, the bill would not require them to comply with rules applicable to retail trading or trading by brokers on behalf of smaller traders. In all other respects, however, including the rules that create position limits and accountability levels to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation, the bill would apply the same rules to energy exchanges like ICE as currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX.

The bill also would require large trades in U.S. energy commodities conducted from within the United States on a foreign board of trade to be reported to the CFTC. This provision is intended to ensure that the CFTC has a more complete view of the positions of U.S. energy traders buying or selling energy commodities for delivery in the United States. This provision could be waived by the CFTC if the CFTC reaches agreement with the foreign board of trade to obtain the same information.

Preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation in U.S. energy markets is not an easy undertaking. I welcome good-faith comments on how this bill can be improved. I want to make it clear, however, that in my opinion the Enron loophole has got to be closed. Recent cases have shown us that market abuses and failures did not stop with the fall of Enron. They are still with us. We cannot afford to let the current situation continue, allowing energy traders to use unregulated markets to avoid regulated markets. It's time to put the cop back on the beat in all U.S. energy markets. The stakes for our energy security and for competition in the market place are too high to do otherwise.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a bill summary, and a section-by-section analysis 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.