[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 130 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8037-S8047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Mrs. 
        Clinton, and Mr. Biden):
  S. 3425. A bill to make effective the proposed rule of the Food and 
Drug Administration relating to sunscreen drug products, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Jack Reed, 
John Kerry, Tom Carper, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Joe Biden to 
introduce the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN 
Act. I thank them for their support of this legislation and have 
enjoyed working with them on the issue of sunscreen labeling. This is 
an issue I have been working on for more than a decade. I also want to 
thank the many outside organizations who support this legislation 
including the American Cancer Society, the Melanoma Research 
Foundation, and many others as well as the leading U.S. manufacturers 
of sunscreen, Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic.
  As we head into yet another steamy, sweltering summer locally in 
Washington, DC, and as Americans throughout the country hit the 
outdoors to enjoy a relaxing time at beaches, backyard barbeques and 
parks, we cannot forget how important it is to protect our skin from 
the sun's damaging rays.
  However, I am profoundly disappointed to report that yet another 
summer is passing us by without adequate sunscreen labeling to protect 
consumers from harmful ultraviolet radiation, including UVA and UVB. 
Americans are being left in the lurch by the inaction of the Food and 
Drug Administration, which has failed to issue comprehensive and 
consistent standards for measuring and labeling sunscreen products for 
their protective value and for guarding against false claims on 
sunscreen products.
  Americans may be surprised to learn that the Sun Protection Factor, 
SPF, number on the sunscreen they buy at their local convenience store 
or supermarket measures only the level of UVB protection provided by 
the sunscreen. It does not include a measure of the level of UVA 
protection. UVB has long been associated with sunburn while UVA has 
been recognized as a deeper penetrating radiation that contributes to 
skin cancer. While many products claim to offer UVA protection, that 
claim is not backed by enforceable, FDA-recommended standards by which 
those claims can be substantiated.
  The FDA's standards for sunscreen testing and labeling lag 30 years 
behind our knowledge of the dangers of sun exposure. Research tells us 
that individual risk of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, 
is associated with the intensity of sunlight that a person receives 
over a lifetime. In 2008, it is estimated there will be more than 1 
million new cases of skin cancers and 62,480 new cases of melanoma, the 
deadliest form of skin cancer. Tragically, there will be as many as 
8,420 deaths from melanoma this year.

  Many sunscreen products carry claims that they protect against 
cancer-causing UVA rays, but without FDA action to set standards for 
testing and labeling, these claims can't be validated. Indeed, an 
analysis released earlier this summer found that many sunscreen 
products have misleading labels that make unsubstantiated claims.
  Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and I, along with many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have repeatedly urged the FDA--
for over a decade now--to follow through with its

[[Page S8038]]

development of standards. We have written letters to the FDA dating 
back more than ten years, we have made phone calls, we have asked 
questions at hearings, and we even directed the FDA to issue final 
labeling for UVA and UVB in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  The American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Dermatology, and 
numerous other organizations speak of the value of using sunscreen to 
protect our skin from damaging UVA and UVB rays as an important step in 
preventing skin cancer. For years, we have heard their repeated cries 
for industry-wide standards that will help Americans protect themselves 
from a preventable cause of cancer. And still there is no final action 
by the FDA.
  The public deserves better. If you take one look at the startling 
numbers of Americans who will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year 
and who will likely die from this disease, it is clear that the public 
must know that what they read on the label of a sunscreen product 
represents a scientifically valid claim of protection from both UVA and 
UVB radiation.
  Almost a year ago, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would set 
standards for testing and labeling sunscreen that includes UVA and UVB. 
I applaud this progress. It was a long time in coming. But I must 
reiterate that until the proposed rule is finalized, consumers and 
manufacturers lack an enforceable, consistent and comprehensive 
standard for testing and labeling of sunscreen products.
  That is why I am introducing the SUNscreen Labeling Protection Act of 
2008, or the SUN Act. This simple, straightforward bill gives the FDA 
180 days from the date of enactment to finalize the proposed rule for 
comprehensive labeling, including formulation, testing and labeling 
requirements for both UVA and UVB, after which point the proposed rule 
would become effective.
  I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this issue. The public 
continues to be misled by false claims that cannot be effectively 
challenged because there are no enforceable FDA standards for measuring 
and labeling UVA protection.
  If the FDA would finalize its proposed rule including UVA and UVB 
protection, this legislation would not be necessary. But, a year and an 
entire summer season has nearly passed since the rule was proposed, as 
have decades of inaction prior to the proposed rule even being issued. 
All the while, consumers have gone without the information and 
protection they need which is what makes this legislation so critical.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critically important bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Cancer Action Network,

                                                    July 30, 2008.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: On behalf of the volunteers and 
     supporters of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action 
     NetworksSM (ACS CAN), the partner advocacy organization of 
     the American Cancer Society, we want to express our thanks 
     for your leadership in introducing the Sunscreen Labeling 
     Protection Act of 2008 (SUN Act). The SUN Act will direct the 
     Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue final regulations 
     related to labeling for sunscreen products.
       Skin cancer is the most common of all cancer types with 
     more than one million skin cancer diagnoses each year in the 
     United States. Because exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation 
     from the sun is the most important known risk fact for skin 
     cancers, we believe this long-awaited proposal from the FDA 
     will better inform consumers on the value and limits of 
     sunscreen use.
       We have provided extensive comments on the FDA proposed 
     rules to ensure that the new regulations will require the 
     most accurate and user-friendly presentation of sun 
     protection possible on sunscreen products. The majority of 
     skin cancers are caused primarily by UVB rays, and we know 
     that UV exposure from the sun increases the risk of skin 
     cancer, premature skin aging and other skin damage. 
     Therefore, it is important to decrease UV exposure by wearing 
     protective clothing, seeking shade whenever possible, and 
     using a sunscreen with a high enough SPF Value to protect 
     against some level of both UVB and UVA rays. ACS CAN believes 
     that by raising the highest labeled sun protection factor 
     (SPF) Value from 30 to 50 and including a UVA protection 
     measure, consumers will be able to better select their 
     protection level.
       ACS CAN views cancer prevention as the most important 
     attribute of sunscreens, and there is now convincing evidence 
     that consistent use of appropriate sunscreens will result in 
     the prevention of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin and may 
     lower melanoma risk. Hence it is our strong conviction that 
     all sunscreen packages must note the importance of applying 
     sunscreen before going into the sun and reapplying as needed. 
     We hope the new FDA regulations will help to achieve this by 
     requiring a principle display panel on packages that is 
     simple and easy for consumers to read, so they have clear 
     directions on sun safety to make the most appropriate choice 
     about protection levels.
       Again, ACS CAN is encouraged that the SUN Act may finally 
     lead to implementation of new regulations related to 
     sunscreen labeling, and we look forward to working with 
     Congress and the FDA to provide consumers with the most 
     accurate and forthright information regarding sun protection 
     and sunscreen use. If we can ever be of assistance or provide 
     information, please contact Kelly Green Kahn, Associate 
     Director, Federal Relations.
           Sincerely,
     Daniel E. Smith,
       President,
     Dick Woodruff,
       Senior Director, Federal Relations.
                                  ____



                                  Citizens for Sun Protection,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2008.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd, On behalf of the Citizens for Sun 
     Protection, an organization of parents, cancer survivors, 
     healthcare professionals, business advocates and community 
     leaders, joined together to advocate for stronger standards 
     for sunscreen protection, I am writing you to express our 
     strong support for the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 
     2008 (SUN Act). This legislation would provide for the 
     enactment within 180 days of the sunscreen standards rule 
     that was first proposed by the Food and Drug Administration 
     (FDA) in August 2007, and has yet been acted upon. We applaud 
     your leadership in advancing federal sunscreen standards to 
     protect Americans against cancer-causing UVB and UVA rays.
       The delay in upgrading U.S. sunscreen standards, which has 
     dragged on for now close to 20 years, can no longer be 
     tolerated. Several other countries, including the European 
     Union, already have strong sunscreen standards that provide 
     protection from both UVA and UVB rays for their citizens. 
     Your legislation will assure that the FDA issues final 
     standards for UVA and UVB protection within 180 days of 
     enactment and thus provide Americans with vitally important 
     protection against skin cancer, premature aging, and skin 
     damage.
       A comprehensive FDA rule would require that sunscreen 
     manufacturers properly label products so consumers will know 
     the level of protection provided in the sunscreen they use 
     for themselves and their families. Today, the average 
     American using sunscreens that are commercially available in 
     this country mistakenly believes that the product is 
     providing equal protection for both UVB and UVA exposure. In 
     reality Sun Protection Factor designations only apply only to 
     UVB rays, those that primarily cause sunburn, and do not 
     protect against UVA rays which cause skin cancer and other 
     skin damage.
       Compelling facts drive the need for change: According to 
     the American Cancer Society one million new cases of skin 
     cancer will be diagnosed in the United States this year and 
     over 10,000 Americans will die from the disease. Every year 
     the FDA proposal is delayed leaves our citizens at increased 
     risk. It is critical to the health and welfare of the U.S. 
     public to have access to strong, protective sunscreens they 
     can trust. On behalf of the Citizens for Sun Protection, I 
     wish to once again affirm our strong support for the SUN Act. 
     We applaud your efforts to establish strong standards and an 
     accurate labeling system for UVA and UVB protection in the 
     United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert F. Hurley,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  Environmental Working Group,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2008.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Children and Families, Committee on 
         Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the summer sun is upon us, we are 
     again reminded of the need to ensure that sunscreens protect 
     consumers from the damaging rays of both ultraviolet A (UVA) 
     and ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation. The Food and Drug 
     Administration first proposed to set safety standards in 
     1978, yet failed to act. That is why EWG supports the 
     Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, The SUN Act, which 
     would require FDA to finalize sunscreen safety standards 
     within 6 months, ending 30 years of delay.
       The need for these standards is clear. A recent EWG study 
     found that 85 percent of sunscreens that we tested do not 
     offer enough protection from UV rays, are made with 
     potentially harmful ingredients, or have not been tested for 
     safety. Many products on the market present obvious safety 
     and effectiveness concerns, including one of every seven that 
     does not protect from UVA radiation. Overall we identified 
     143 products that offer

[[Page S8039]]

     very good sun protection with ingredients that present 
     minimal health risks to users. Many sunscreens: lack UVA 
     protection; break down in the sun; make questionable product 
     claims, i.e. ``waterproof''; contain nano-scale materials 
     that raise questions; and absorb into the blood.
       These problems are aggravated by the fact that FDA has not 
     finalized comprehensive sunscreen safety standards, called 
     the ``Sunscreen Monograph,'' they began drafting 30 years 
     ago. It took FDA 29 years to propose a Sunscreen Monograph. 
     It has been nearly a year and it has yet to finalize the 
     Monograph. EWG hopes it will do so quickly, but after 30 
     years of delay, we must ensure consumers get the protections 
     they believe they are getting.
       We commend you for your continued leadership in this area 
     and the introduction of The SUN Act. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure its quick passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Richard Wiles
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
        Sanders)):
  S. 3431. A bill to establish expanded learning time initiatives, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators 
Kennedy and Sanders, to introduce the Time for Innovation Matters in 
Education, or TIME Act, of 2008. This bill would improve and expand 
students' instructional time, while ensuring rigorous standards, as a 
means to help close the academic achievement gap that exists for so 
many of our disadvantaged students.
  The fundamental principle underlying this bill is that the amount of 
instructional time provided by the vast majority of school calendars is 
simply inadequate for today's students and teachers. Teachers need more 
time to plan and deliver instruction, and students need more time for 
21st century learning.
  The demands on 21st century learners reflect the rapid increase in 
technological advances that we have all experienced in the last 30 or 
40 years. Twenty first century learning demands an increase in the 
rigor of mathematics and science education, and the acquisition of 
subject area knowledge in areas that simply did not exist years ago, 
such as computer literacy. These increased demands should not be met at 
the expense of ignoring other subjects such as social studies, art, and 
physical education. Yet, these other areas are often ignored to allow 
for time for some of the major academic subjects. That is the 
consequence of failing to match the gradual increase in educational 
demands with a corresponding increase in instructional time.
  Instead, here we are in the 21st century, continuing to adhere to a 
school calendar that was established over 100 years ago, and which was 
designed to accommodate a predominantly agricultural society. In nearly 
every State, the school calendar is based on approximately 180 or fewer 
instructional days, or on approximately 1000 instructional hours, per 
school year. This means that American students are spending fewer than 
20 percent of their waking hours in school.
  In the recent National Research Council report entitled, How People 
Learn, the authors comment on the importance of being realistic about 
the amount of time it takes to learn complex subject matter. Simply 
put, they note that ``significant learning takes major investments of 
time.'' The TIME Act is an initial investment that will provide 
teachers and students with the expanded opportunities they need to 
achieve high quality instruction and learning. We know that time needs 
are significant if our students are to achieve a 21st century 
education.
  Although all students are likely to benefit from expanded learning 
time, we must prioritize these opportunities for students who are most 
at risk for poor academic achievement. International reports like the 
PISA study demonstrate that although American students, as a group, 
have poor academic achievement relative to students in other 
industrialized nations, this disparity is most pronounced for students 
that are overrepresented among our Nation's poor. In fact, the 2006 
PISA report shows that achievement scores for White, non-Hispanic 
students meet or exceed average scores reported across participating 
nations, whereas the average scores for Black or Hispanic students are 
well below that average.
  Likewise, although research has demonstrated that all students are at 
risk for losing educational gains during the extended summer breaks 
that are currently the norm for most schools, children from low income 
households experience significantly greater achievement losses during 
summer breaks because they lack opportunities to attend the quality 
summer programs available to their less disadvantaged peers. Each year, 
this disparity contributes to the growing achievement gap. Researchers 
have shown us that these out-of-school experiences account for most of 
the achievement difference observed by 9th grade, which in turn 
influences when and whether students will graduate from high school and 
attend postsecondary school. Investing in more time during the school 
year can help to diminish these achievement gaps, improve graduation 
rates, and make a lasting difference in these students' lives.
  But effective expanded learning opportunities require more than just 
more time. The time must be well spent. Students must be appropriately 
engaged in their learning, and teachers must have the training and 
support to use the longer school time effectively. Researchers have 
identified that expanded learning time benefits teachers, by providing 
more opportunities for cooperative planning and more time to 
individualize instruction. Involved students and teachers are critical 
to successful expanded learning time programs, and both benefit from 
effective programming.
  States have begun to explore expanded learning programs, and have 
demonstrated their effectiveness. In Massachusetts, 10 schools 
converted their calendars to expand the mandatory number of school days 
and the number of hours within a school day. Outcomes include not only 
increased student achievement, but greater school satisfaction among 
parents, teachers, and students. In my own State of New Mexico, 
expanded learning initiatives have been pursued, in the form of longer 
school days or additional school days throughout the year. Early 
reports demonstrate increased achievement in math and reading, beyond 
grade-level expectations. Unfortunately, the funds available for these 
initiatives are limited to voluntary participation. We must make these 
programs become a regular part of the school day for all students and 
teachers, particularly those who are greatest risk for academic 
failure.
  Most districts and State educational agencies do not have the 
capacity or infrastructure to guide, support, and fund expanded 
learning day programs, but good models for turning around low-
performing schools do exist. Federal support can be used to build 
States' and schools' capacity based on evidence from such models.
  Towards this goal, the TIME Act will: provide incentives for States 
and local educational agencies to develop plans for research-based, 
sustainable, and replicable expanded learning programs, for high-
priority schools, with a focus on increasing rigorous and varied 
instructional opportunities for students and teachers; allow local 
educational agencies to determine appropriate objectives of their 
extended learning programs, such as increasing math and science scores 
for all students, enhance art or physical education, or increase 
academic English proficiency for English language learners; encourage 
States to take a leadership role and deliver technical assistance to 
schools that implement such programs; encourage schools to form 
partnerships with organizations that have successful track records in 
supporting or delivering effective expanded learning programs; and 
promote research on expanded learning program implementation, through 
local, State, and national data collection efforts. The results of 
these evaluations can inform best practices for future delivery of 
expanded learning models to additional schools.

  I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership on this 
legislation, and for his ongoing commitment to enhancing educational 
opportunities for all Americans; particularly our most disadvantaged 
youths. Moreover, Senator Kennedy's State of Massachusetts is a leader 
in school-wide expanded learning initiatives. Massachusetts has 
demonstrated that expanded

[[Page S8040]]

learning enhances students' success, and it has done so in formerly 
struggling schools in some of the State's poorest school districts.
  The TIME Act expands upon these models of success by promoting 
similar initiatives across the country. I hope that this legislation 
will be incorporated into reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Like my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Sanders, I believe that all 
students deserve the time needed for a quality education. I also 
believe that all schools should expand well beyond their current 
limited calendar, especially if America is to maintain and increase its 
competitive edge in the global economy. We must invest in a systematic 
approach to improving schools so that every child graduates prepared 
for success. The TIME Act is an initial investment toward this goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Casey, Mr. Voinovich, 
        and Mr. Webb):
  S. 3433. A bill to ensure that any agreement with Iraq containing a 
security commitment or arrangement is concluded as a treaty or is 
approved by Congress; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Today I join a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing 
the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008. This bill, consistent with the 
Constitution of the United States, prohibits the Bush administration 
from entering into a binding security agreement with Iraq without the 
approval of Congress. It would also prohibit the obligation of any 
funds to implement such an agreement.
  I regret that I am compelled to introduce this legislation. If the 
President had embarked on these negotiations in a more responsible 
manner--by being clear about the objective, by ensuring that the 
agreements would not tie the hands of the next administration, by 
actively consulting with Congress as a partner in the process--this 
bill would be unnecessary. But the Administration has done none of 
these things, and so my colleagues and I want to ensure that Congress, 
and thus the American people, is brought into the process.
  Let me take a step back and summarize how we got to this point. From 
October 2003 until the present day, the American military presence in 
Iraq has been authorized under international law through a series of UN 
Security Council Resolutions. Last November, President Bush and Prime 
Minister Maliki signed a ``Declaration of Principles,'' which set out a 
framework for our countries to negotiate, by yesterday--July 31, 2008--
agreements governing cooperation in the political, economic and 
security spheres. The Declaration indicated that the two countries 
would not seek to renew the United Nations mandate for American troops 
in Iraq past December 31, 2008. Among other things, the Declaration 
contemplates ``providing security assurances and commitments to the 
Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq'' and 
supporting Iraq ``in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,'' 
including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ``all other outlaw groups 
regardless of affiliation.'' In other words, all the folks fighting in 
Iraq and killing each other.
  The Declaration may result in two pacts. One would be a ``Strategic 
Framework Agreement'' that will ``set the broad parameters of the 
overall bilateral relationship in every field,'' according to the U.S. 
Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. This might be better titled ``What 
the United States will do for Iraq,'' because it consists mostly of a 
series of promises that flow in one direction--promises by the United 
States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the 
political compromises necessary to build a stable country.
  The second agreement is a ``Status of Forces Agreement'' or SOFA, 
governing the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry 
into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi 
law. The administration claims that this agreement is mostly 
``routine'' because we have SOFAs with over 90 countries around the 
globe. But conditions our soldiers face in Iraq are far from 
``routine,'' despite recent improvements in security. Moreover, this 
SOFA would be much broader than the typical SOFA, from what we know. It 
would provide us with access to bases from which our military would 
operate, provisions that are usually in a separate facilities or 
``basing'' agreement. This SOFA would also deal with contractor 
immunity, would permit U.S. forces to engage in combat operations in 
Iraq, and would provide authority for detaining insurgents. This is not 
a typical SOFA.
  One of these agreements will reportedly contain a ``security 
arrangement''--a pledge by the United States to consult on next steps 
if Iraq is threatened. The Administration suggests that such an 
agreement is unremarkable, and that it does not bind the United States. 
But at a time when we have over 100,000 troops on the ground, an 
expansive program to train and equip Iraqi forces, and multiple U.S. 
military facilities, the pledge is, in reality, little different from a 
binding security commitment. Certainly, the government of Iraq and its 
people will perceive that we are signing up to defend Iraq against 
external threats.
  Yesterday's deadline has apparently not been met. The New York Times 
reports, however, that the Bush administration and Iraqi government are 
close to an agreement. But Congress still remains largely in the dark.
  We have not seen draft language. We do not definitively know which 
portions of the agreement will be binding, and which will not be. We 
are not in a position to evaluate whether the agreement will create 
obligations--either legal or political--that will constrain the next 
administration, whether Democratic or Republican. The President cannot 
make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must 
grant approval. The legislation we introduce today requires that 
Congress be made part of the process.
  I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without 
the informed consent of the American people. More than 5 years ago, 
President Bush went to war in Iraq without gaining that consent--by 
overstating the intelligence and understating the difficulty, cost and 
duration of the mission.
  In the final months of his term, President Bush is once again acting 
without the informed consent of the American people, putting us on a 
course to commit the Nation to a new phase of a long war in Iraq, and 
thereby bind his successors to his vision of U.S. policy in Iraq. By 
these agreements, the President will make it harder for his successor 
to change course.
  Let me be clear. I support the concept of a Status of Forces 
Agreement with Iraq. But not at the cost of limiting our operational 
latitude or making security commitments--legal or political--that are 
not approved by Congress.
  Administration officials have indicated that the Iraqi government is 
resisting the inclusion of key provisions that U.S. forces need in 
order to operate in Iraq. Given the difficulty of securing Iraq's 
consent to the broad authorities that the United States now has by 
virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I believe the best 
option for the United States at this juncture is to seek an extension 
of the current United Nations Security Counsel resolution for Iraq.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3433

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Iraq Security Agreement Act 
     of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On November 26, 2007, President George W. Bush and 
     Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki signed the Declaration 
     of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and 
     Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States 
     of America (in this Act referred to as the ``Declaration of 
     Principles''), with the goal of concluding a final agreement 
     or agreements between the United States and Iraq by July 31, 
     2008, ``with respect to the political, cultural, economic, 
     and security spheres.''
       (2) The Declaration of Principles contemplates the United 
     States ``providing security assurances and commitments to the 
     Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression.''

[[Page S8041]]

       (3) In 1992, pursuant to section 1457 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (50 U.S.C. 
     404c), the executive branch submitted a report to Congress on 
     then-existing security commitments and arrangements.
       (4) The report described in paragraph (3) defined a 
     ``security commitment'' as an ``obligation, binding under 
     international law, of the United States to act in the common 
     defense in the event of an armed attack on that country.'' 
     The report noted that all current security commitments of the 
     United States are ``embodied in treaties which receive the 
     advice and consent of the Senate.''
       (5) The report defined a ``security arrangement'' as a 
     ``pledge by the United States to take some action in the 
     event of a threat to that country's security. Security 
     arrangements typically oblige the United States to consult 
     with a country in the event of a threat to its security. They 
     may appear in legally-binding agreements, such as treaties or 
     executive agreements, or in political documents, such as 
     policy declarations by the President, Secretary of State or 
     Secretary of Defense.''
       (6) The United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has 
     stated that the agreements to be concluded as anticipated by 
     the Declaration of Principles will ``deal with the status of 
     U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq past 2008'' and ``set the 
     broad parameters of the overall bilateral relationship in 
     every field''.
       (7) On November 26, 2007, Assistant to the President and 
     Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, 
     Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, stated, ``We don't 
     anticipate now that these negotiations [under the Declaration 
     of Principles] will lead to . . . formal inputs from 
     Congress.''

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) any agreement that sets forth the ``broad parameters of 
     the overall bilateral relationship [as between the United 
     States and the Republic of Iraq] in every field,'' 
     particularly one that includes a security commitment or 
     arrangement provided to the Republic of Iraq by the United 
     States, would result in serious military, political, and 
     economic obligations for the United States, and thus, 
     consistent with past practice, should involve a joint 
     decision by the executive and legislative branches; and
       (2) a short-term extension of the mandate of the Multi-
     National Force in Iraq (currently provided by United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 1790 (2007)), would, in concert 
     with Iraqi law, provide United States forces with the 
     authorities, privileges, and immunities necessary for those 
     forces to carry out their mission in Iraq.

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT ON SECURITY AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Reports Required.--Not later than 180 days after date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and every February 1 
     thereafter, the President shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report (in both classified and 
     unclassified form) on United States security commitments to, 
     and arrangements with, other countries.
       (b) Content.--Each report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) The text, and a description, of each security 
     commitment to, or arrangement with, one or more other 
     countries, whether based upon--
       (A) a formal document (including a mutual defense treaty, a 
     status of forces agreement, a pre-positioning arrangement or 
     agreement, an access agreement, or a non-binding declaration 
     or letter); or
       (B) an expressed policy, whether expressed orally or in 
     writing.
       (2) An assessment of the need to continue, modify, or 
     discontinue each of those commitments and arrangements in 
     view of the changing international security situation.

     SEC. 5. CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense 
     shall consult with the appropriate congressional committees 
     about the negotiations pursuant to the Declaration of 
     Principles. After the initial consultation, the Secretary of 
     State and the Secretary of Defense shall keep such committees 
     fully and currently informed regarding the status of the 
     negotiations. Prior to finalizing any agreement that includes 
     a security commitment or security arrangement with Iraq, the 
     Secretary of State should provide the text of the agreement 
     to the appropriate congressional committees.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Prohibition on Entry Into Force of Certain 
     Agreements.--No agreement containing a security commitment 
     to, or security arrangement with, the Republic of Iraq, may 
     enter into force except pursuant to Article II, section 2, 
     clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (relating 
     to the making of treaties) or unless authorized by a law 
     enacted on or after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     pursuant to Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the 
     Constitution (relating to the enactment of laws).
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds may be obligated 
     or expended to implement an agreement containing a security 
     commitment to, or security arrangement with, the Republic of 
     Iraq, unless it enters into force pursuant to Article II, 
     section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States 
     or is authorized by a law enacted on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act pursuant to Article I, section 7, 
     clause 2 of the Constitution.
       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order for either 
     House of Congress to consider any bill, resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides budget 
     authority for the implementation of an agreement entered into 
     in contravention of subsection (a).

     SEC. 7. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
       (3) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (4) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3434. A bill to combat organized crime involving the illegal 
acquisition of retail goods for the purpose of selling those illegally 
obtained goods through physical and online retail marketplaces; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that I am 
introducing today, the it Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008.
  This bill addresses a persistent and growing problem that costs 
retailers billions of dollars and poses serious health and safety risks 
for consumers. Organized retail crime involves the coordinated theft of 
large numbers of items from retail stores with the intent to resell 
those items. Typically, crime organizations hire teams of professional 
shoplifters to steal over-the-counter drugs, health and beauty aids, 
designer clothing, razor blades, baby formula, electronic devices and 
other items from retail stores. Using sophisticated means for evading 
anti-theft measures, and often the assistance of employees at stores, 
the thieves target 10-15 stores per day. They steal thousands of 
dollars worth of items from each store and deliver the items to a 
processing and storage location. There, teams of workers sort the 
items, remove anti-theft tracking devices, and remove labels that 
identify the items with a particular store. In some instances, they 
change the expiration date, replace the label with that of a more 
expensive product, or dilute the product and repackage the modified 
contents in seemingly-authentic packaging. The items are then stored in 
a warehouse, often under poor conditions that result in the 
deterioration of the contents.
  Organized retail crime rings typically sell their stolen merchandise 
in different markets, including flea markets, swap-meets, and online 
auction sites. Online sales are of particular concern, since the 
internet reaches a worldwide market and allows sellers to operate 
anonymously and maximize return. A growing number of multi-million 
dollar organized retail crime cases involve internet sales. For 
example, in Florida recently law enforcement agents arrested 20 people 
in a $100 million case involving the sale of stolen health and beauty 
aids on an online auction site and at flea markets.
  Organized retail crime has a variety of harmful effects. Retailers 
and the FBI estimate that it costs retailers billions of dollars in 
revenues and costs states hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax 
revenues. With respect to certain products, such as baby formula and 
diabetic test strips, improper storage and handling by thieves creates 
a serious public safety risk when the products are resold. The proceeds 
of organized retail crime are often used to finance other forms of 
criminal behavior, including gang activity and drug trafficking.
  The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act would address this problem 
in several ways. First, it would toughen the criminal code's treatment 
of organized retail crime by refining certain offenses to capture 
conduct that is currently being committed by individuals engaged in 
organized retail crime, and by requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
to consider relevant sentencing guideline enhancements.
  Second, the bill would require physical retail marketplaces, such as 
flea markets, and online retail marketplaces, such as auction websites, 
to review the account of a seller and file a suspicious activity report 
with the Justice Department when presented with documentary evidence 
showing that the seller is selling items that were illegally obtained. 
If the physical or online retail marketplace is presented

[[Page S8042]]

with clear and convincing evidence that the seller is engaged in such 
illegal activity, it must terminate the activities of the seller. This 
requirement will lead to greater cooperation between retail 
marketplaces, retailers and law enforcement, and will result in an 
increased number of organized retail crime prosecutions.
  Third, the bill would require high-volume sellers on online auction 
sites (meaning sellers that have obtained at least $10,000 in annual 
gross revenues on the site) to display a physical address, post office 
box, or private mail box registered with a commercial mail receiving 
agency. This requirement will help online buyers get in touch with 
sellers, and assist law enforcement agents who wish to identify people 
who may be selling stolen goods online. It is analogous to a provision 
in the federal CAN-SPAM Act, which also requires persons who send mass 
emails to disclose their physical addresses.
  This legislation has broad support in the retail industry in my home 
state of Illinois and nationwide. It is supported by the Illinois 
Retail Merchants Association, the National Retail Federation, the 
Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Food Marketing Institute, the 
National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the Coalition to Stop 
Organized Retail Crime, whose members include such retail giants as 
Home Depot, Target, Wal-Mart, Safeway, Walgreens, and Macy's.
  In summary, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act addresses a 
serious problem that hurts businesses that are struggling to survive in 
a weak economy, and that harms consumers who unknowingly purchase 
stolen items that have been subjected to tampering. It heightens the 
penalties for organized retail crime, shuts down criminals who are 
selling stolen goods, and places valuable information about illegal 
activity into the hands of law enforcement. This bill is a big step 
forward in the fight against a nationwide problem, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3434

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Combating Organized Retail 
     Crime Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Organized retail crime involves the coordinated 
     acquisition of large volumes of retail merchandise by theft, 
     embezzlement, fraud, false pretenses, or other illegal means 
     from commercial entities engaged in interstate commerce, for 
     the purpose of selling or distributing such illegally 
     obtained items in the stream of commerce. Organized retail 
     crime is a growing problem nationwide that costs American 
     companies and consumers billions of dollars annually and that 
     has a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce.
       (2) The illegal acquisition and black-market sale of 
     merchandise by persons engaged in organized retail crime 
     result in an estimated annual loss of hundreds of millions of 
     dollars in sales and income tax revenues to State and local 
     governments.
       (3) The illegal acquisition, unsafe tampering and storage, 
     and unregulated redistribution of consumer products such as 
     baby formula, over-the-counter drugs, and other items by 
     persons engaged in organized retail crime pose a health and 
     safety hazard to consumers nationwide.
       (4) Investigations into organized retail crime have 
     revealed that the illegal income resulting from such crime 
     often benefits persons and organizations engaged in other 
     forms of criminal activity, such as drug trafficking and gang 
     activity.
       (5) Items obtained through organized retail crime are 
     resold in a variety of different marketplaces, including flea 
     markets, swap meets, open-air markets, and Internet auction 
     websites. Increasingly, persons engaged in organized retail 
     crime use Internet auction websites to resell illegally 
     obtained items. The Internet offers such sellers a worldwide 
     market and a degree of anonymity that physical marketplace 
     settings do not offer.

     SEC. 3. OFFENSES RELATED TO ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME.

       (a) Transportation of Stolen Goods.--The first undesignated 
     paragraph of section 2314 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``more,'' the following: ``or, 
     during any 12-month period, of an aggregate value of $5,000 
     or more during that period,''.
       (b) Sale or Receipt of Stolen Goods.--The first 
     undesignated paragraph of section 2315 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``$5,000 or 
     more,'' the following: ``or, during any 12-month period, of 
     an aggregate value of $5,000 or more during that period,''.
       (c) Fraud in Connection With Access Devices.--Section 
     1029(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``Universal Product Code label,'' after ``code,''.
       (d) Review and Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines 
     for Offenses Related to Organized Retail Crime.--
       (1) Review and amendment.--
       (A) In general.--The United States Sentencing Commission, 
     pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, 
     United States Code, and in accordance with this subsection, 
     shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines (including its policy statements) 
     applicable to persons convicted of offenses involving 
     organized retail crime, which is the coordinated acquisition 
     of large volumes of retail merchandise by theft, 
     embezzlement, fraud, false pretenses, or other illegal means 
     from commercial entities engaged in interstate commerce for 
     the purpose of selling or distributing such illegally 
     obtained items in the stream of commerce.
       (B) Offenses.--Offenses referred to in subparagraph (A) may 
     include offenses contained in--
       (i) sections 1029, 2314, and 2315 of title 18, United 
     States Code; or
       (ii) any other relevant provision of the United States 
     Code.
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (A) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines 
     (including its policy statements) reflect--
       (i) the serious nature and magnitude of organized retail 
     crime; and
       (ii) the need to deter, prevent, and punish offenses 
     involving organized retail crime;
       (B) consider the extent to which the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines (including its policy statements) adequately 
     address offenses involving organized retail crime to 
     sufficiently deter and punish such offenses;
       (C) maintain reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and sentencing guidelines;
       (D) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating 
     circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally 
     applicable sentencing ranges; and
       (E) consider whether to provide a sentencing enhancement 
     for those convicted of conduct involving organized retail 
     crime, where such conduct involves--
       (i) a threat to public health and safety, including 
     alteration of an expiration date or of product ingredients;
       (ii) theft, conversion, alteration, or removal of a product 
     label;
       (iii) a second or subsequent offense; or
       (iv) the use of advanced technology to acquire retail 
     merchandise by means of theft, embezzlement, fraud, false 
     pretenses, or other illegal means.

     SEC. 4. SALES OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED ITEMS IN PHYSICAL OR 
                   ONLINE RETAIL MARKETPLACES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 113 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2323. ONLINE RETAIL MARKETPLACES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) High volume seller.--The term `high volume seller' 
     means a user of an online retail marketplace who, in any 
     continuous 12-month period during the previous 24 months, has 
     entered into--
       ``(A) multiple discrete sales or transactions resulting in 
     the accumulation of an aggregate total of $20,000 or more in 
     gross revenues; or
       ``(B) 200 or more discrete sales or transactions resulting 
     in the accumulation of an aggregate total of $10,000 or more 
     in gross revenues.
       ``(2) Internet site.--The term `Internet site' means a 
     location on the Internet that is accessible at a specific 
     Internet domain name or address under the Internet Protocol 
     (or any successor protocol), or that is identified by a 
     uniform resource locator.
       ``(3) Online retail marketplace.--The term `online retail 
     marketplace' means an Internet site where users other than 
     the operator of the Internet site can enter into transactions 
     with each other for the sale or distribution of goods or 
     services, and in which--
       ``(A) such goods or services are promoted through inclusion 
     in search results displayed within the Internet site;
       ``(B) the operator of the Internet site--
       ``(i) has the contractual right to supervise the activities 
     of users with respect to such goods or services; or
       ``(ii) has a financial interest in the sale of such goods 
     or services; and
       ``(C) in any continuous 12-month period during the previous 
     24 months, users other than the operator of the Internet site 
     collectively have entered into--
       ``(i) multiple discrete transactions for the sale of goods 
     or services aggregating a total of $500,000 or more in gross 
     revenues; or
       ``(ii) 1,000 or more discrete transactions for the sale of 
     goods or services aggregating a total of $250,000 or more in 
     gross revenues.
       ``(4) Operator of an online retail marketplace.--The term 
     `operator of an online retail marketplace' means a person or 
     entity that--
       ``(A) operates or controls an online retail marketplace; 
     and

[[Page S8043]]

       ``(B) makes the online retail marketplace available for 
     users to enter into transactions with each other on that 
     marketplace for the sale or distribution of goods or 
     services.
       ``(5) Operator of a physical retail marketplace.--The term 
     `operator of a physical retail marketplace' means a person or 
     entity that rents or otherwise makes available a physical 
     retail marketplace to transient vendors to conduct business 
     for the sale of goods, or services related to such goods.
       ``(6) Physical retail marketplace.--The term `physical 
     retail marketplace' may include a flea market, indoor or 
     outdoor swap meet, open air market, or other similar 
     environment, and means a venue or event in which physical 
     space is made available not more than 4 days per week by an 
     operator of a physical retail marketplace as a temporary 
     place of business for transient vendors to conduct business 
     for the sale of goods, or services related to such goods; and
       ``(A) in which in any continuous 12-month period during the 
     preceding 24 months, there have been 10 or more days on which 
     5 or more transient vendors have conducted business at the 
     venue or event; and
       ``(B) does not mean and shall not apply to an event which 
     is organized and conducted for the exclusive benefit of any 
     community chest, fund, foundation, association, or 
     corporation organized and operated for religious, 
     educational, or charitable purposes, provided that no part of 
     any admission fee or parking fee charged vendors or 
     prospective purchasers, and no part of the gross receipts or 
     net earnings from the sale or exchange of goods or services, 
     whether in the form of a percentage of the receipts or 
     earnings, salary, or otherwise, inures to the benefit of any 
     private shareholder or person participating in the 
     organization or conduct of the event.
       ``(7) Structuring.--The term `structuring' means to 
     knowingly conduct, or attempt to conduct, alone, or in 
     conjunction with or on behalf of 1 or more other persons, 1 
     or more transactions in currency, in any amount, in any 
     manner, with the purpose of evading categorization as a 
     physical retail marketplace, an online retail marketplace, or 
     a high volume seller.
       ``(8) Temporary place of business.--The term `temporary 
     place of business' means any physical space made open to the 
     public, including but not limited to a building, part of a 
     building, tent or vacant lot, which is temporarily occupied 
     by 1 or more persons or entities for the purpose of making 
     sales of goods, or services related to those goods, to the 
     public. A place of business is not temporary with respect to 
     a person or entity if that person or entity conducts business 
     at the place and stores unsold goods there when it is not 
     open for business.
       ``(9) Transient vendor.--The term `transient vendor' means 
     any person or entity that, in the usual course of business, 
     transports inventory, stocks of goods, or similar tangible 
     personal property to a temporary place of business for the 
     purpose of entering into transactions for the sale of such 
     property.
       ``(10) User.--The term `user' means a person or entity that 
     accesses an online retail marketplace for the purpose of 
     entering into transactions for the sale or distribution of 
     goods or services.
       ``(11) Valid physical postal address.--The term `valid 
     physical postal address' means--
       ``(A) a current street address, including the city, State, 
     and Zip code;
       ``(B) a Post Office box that has been registered with the 
     United States Postal Service; or
       ``(C) a private mailbox that has been registered with a 
     commercial mail receiving agency that is established pursuant 
     to United States Postal Service regulations.
       ``(b) Safeguards Against Sales of Illegally-Obtained 
     Items.--
       ``(1) Duties of operators of physical retail marketplaces 
     and online retail marketplaces to conduct account reviews and 
     file suspicious activity reports.--In the event that an 
     operator of a physical or online retail marketplace is 
     presented with documentary evidence showing that a transient 
     vendor of the physical retail marketplace, a user of the 
     online retail marketplace, or a director, officer, employee, 
     or agent of such transient vendor or user, has used or is 
     using the retail marketplace to sell or distribute items that 
     were stolen, embezzled, or obtained by fraud, false pretenses 
     or other illegal means, or has engaged in or is engaging in 
     structuring, the operator shall--
       ``(A) not later than 15 days after receiving such 
     evidence--
       ``(i) file a suspicious activity report with the Attorney 
     General of the United States; and
       ``(ii) not later than 5 days after filing the report, 
     notify any person or entity that presented the documentary 
     evidence that the operator filed the report; and
       ``(B)(i) initiate a review of the account of such transient 
     vendor or user for evidence of illegal activity; and
       ``(ii) as soon as possible, but not later than 45 days 
     after receiving such evidence--
       ``(I) complete this review; and
       ``(II) submit the results of such account review to the 
     Attorney General.
       ``(2) Duties of operators of physical retail marketplaces 
     and online retail marketplaces to terminate sales activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an operator of a physical retail 
     marketplace or an online retail marketplace reasonably 
     determines that, based on the documentary evidence presented 
     to it or the account review conducted by it under paragraph 
     (1), there is clear and convincing evidence that a transient 
     vendor of the physical retail marketplace, a user of the 
     online retail marketplace, or a director, officer, employee 
     or agent of such transient vendor or user, has used or is 
     using the retail marketplace to sell or distribute items that 
     were stolen, embezzled, or obtained by fraud, false 
     pretenses, or other illegal means, or has engaged in or is 
     engaging in structuring, the operator shall, not sooner than 
     21 days and not later than 45 days after submitting the 
     results of the account review to the Attorney General 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), either--
       ``(i) terminate the ability of the transient vendor to 
     conduct business at the physical retail marketplace or 
     terminate the ability of the user to conduct transactions on 
     the online retail marketplace, and notify the Attorney 
     General of such action; or
       ``(ii)(I) request that the transient vendor or user present 
     documentary evidence that the operator reasonably determines 
     to be clear and convincing showing that the transient vendor 
     or user has not used the retail marketplace to sell or 
     distribute items that were stolen, embezzled, or obtained by 
     fraud, false pretenses, or other illegal means, or has not 
     engaged in or is not engaging in structuring; and
       ``(II)(aa) if the transient vendor or user fails to present 
     such information within 45 days of such request, terminate 
     the ability of the transient vendor to conduct business at 
     the physical retail marketplace or terminate the ability of 
     the user to conduct transactions on the online retail 
     marketplace, and notify the Attorney General of such action; 
     or
       ``(bb) if the transient vendor or user presents such 
     information within 45 days, then the operator shall report 
     such information to the Attorney General and notify the 
     transient vendor or user that the operator will not terminate 
     the activities of the transient vendor or user.
       ``(B) Attorney general authorization.--The Attorney General 
     or a designee may, with respect to the timing of the 
     operator's actions pursuant to this paragraph, authorize the 
     operator in writing to take such action prior to 21 days 
     after submitting the results of the account review to the 
     Attorney General or direct the operator in writing and for 
     good cause to delay such action to a date later than 45 days 
     after submitting the results of the account review.
       ``(3) Documentary evidence.--The documentary evidence 
     referenced in paragraphs (1) or (2)--
       ``(A) shall refer to 1 or more specific items, individuals, 
     entities or transactions allegedly involved in theft, 
     embezzlement, fraud, false pretenses, or other illegal 
     activity; and
       ``(B) shall be--
       ``(i) video recordings;
       ``(ii) audio recordings;
       ``(iii) sworn affidavits;
       ``(iv) financial, accounting, business, or sales records;
       ``(v) records or transcripts of phone conversations;
       ``(vi) documents that have been filed in a Federal or State 
     court proceeding; or
       ``(vii) signed reports to or from a law enforcement agency.
       ``(4) Retention of records.--
       ``(A) Retail marketplaces.--Each operator of a physical 
     retail marketplace and each operator of an online retail 
     marketplace shall maintain--
       ``(i) a record of all documentary evidence presented to it 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for 3 years from the date the 
     operator received the evidence;
       ``(ii) a record of the results of all account reviews 
     conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), and any supporting 
     documentation, for 3 years from the date of the review; and
       ``(iii) a copy of any suspicious activity report filed with 
     the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection, and the 
     original supporting documentation concerning any report that 
     it files, for 3 years from the date of the filing.
       ``(B) Online retail marketplace.--Each operator of an 
     online retail marketplace shall maintain, for 3 years after 
     the date a user becomes a high volume seller, the name, 
     telephone number, e-mail address, valid physical postal 
     address, and any other identification information that the 
     operator receives about the high volume seller.
       ``(5) Confidentiality of reports.--No operator of a 
     physical retail marketplace or online retail marketplace, and 
     no director, officer, employee or agent of such operator, may 
     notify any individual or entity that is the subject of a 
     suspicious activity report filed pursuant to paragraph (1), 
     or of an account review performed pursuant to paragraph (1), 
     of the fact that the operator filed such a report or 
     performed such an account review, or of any information 
     contained in the report or account review.
       ``(6) High volume sellers.--
       ``(A) Valid postal address.--An operator of an online 
     retail marketplace shall require each high volume seller to 
     display a valid physical postal address whenever other 
     information about the items or services being sold by the 
     high volume seller is displayed on the online retail 
     marketplace. Such valid physical postal address must be 
     displayed in a format clearly visible to the average 
     consumer.

[[Page S8044]]

       ``(B) Failure to provide.--In the event that a high volume 
     seller has failed to display a valid physical postal address 
     as required in this paragraph, the operator of the online 
     retail marketplace shall--
       ``(i) within 15 days notify the user of its duty to display 
     a valid physical postal address; and
       ``(ii) if 45 days after providing this initial notification 
     the user still has not displayed a valid physical postal 
     address, shall--

       ``(I) terminate the ability of the user to conduct 
     transactions on marketplace; and
       ``(II) file within 15 days a suspicious activity report 
     with the Attorney General of the United States.

       ``(7) Contents of suspicious activity reports.--A 
     suspicious activity report submitted by an operator to the 
     Attorney General pursuant to paragraph (1) or (6) shall 
     contain the following information:
       ``(A) The name, address, telephone number, and e-mail 
     address of the individual or entity that is the subject of 
     the report, to the extent known.
       ``(B) Any other information that is in the possession of 
     the operator filing the report regarding the identification 
     of the individual or entity that is the subject of the 
     report.
       ``(C) A copy of the documentary evidence and other 
     information that led to the filing of the report pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) or (6).
       ``(D) A detailed description of the results of the account 
     review conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(E) Such other information as the Attorney General may by 
     regulation prescribe.
       ``(c) Voluntary Reports.--Nothing in this section prevents 
     an operator of a physical retail marketplace or online retail 
     marketplace from voluntarily reporting to a Federal, State, 
     or local government agency any suspicious activity that such 
     operator believes is relevant to the possible violation of 
     any law or regulation, provided that the operator also 
     complies with the requirements of this section.
       ``(d) Structuring.--No individual or entity shall engage in 
     structuring as defined in this section.
       ``(e) Enforcement by Attorney General.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any individual or entity who knowingly 
     commits a violation of, or knowingly fails to comply with the 
     requirements specified in, paragraph (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), 
     or (7) of subsection (b), or subsection (d), shall be liable 
     to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not 
     more than $10,000 per violation.
       ``(2) False statements.--
       ``(A) Intent to influence an operator.--Any person who 
     knowingly makes any material false or fictitious statement or 
     representation with the intent to influence an operator of a 
     physical retail marketplace or an operator of an online 
     retail marketplace to file a suspicious activity report under 
     subsection (b) shall be liable to the United States 
     Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 per 
     violation.
       ``(B) Suspicious activity report.--Any person who knowingly 
     and willfully makes any material false or fictitious 
     statement or representation in any suspicious activity report 
     required under subsection (b) may, upon conviction thereof, 
     be subject to liability under section 1001.
       ``(f) Enforcement by States.--
       ``(1) Civil action.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by any person or entity who has committed 
     or is committing a violation of this section, the attorney 
     general, official, or agency of the State, as parens patriae, 
     may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the 
     State in a district court of the United States of appropriate 
     jurisdiction--
       ``(A) to enjoin further violation of this section by the 
     defendant;
       ``(B) to obtain damages on behalf of the residents of the 
     State in an amount equal to the actual monetary loss suffered 
     by such residents; or
       ``(C) to impose civil penalties in the amounts specified in 
     subsection (e).
       ``(2) Written notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State shall serve prior written 
     notice of any civil action under paragraph (1) upon the 
     Attorney General of the United States, including a copy of 
     its complaint, except that if it is not feasible for the 
     State to provide such prior notice, the State shall serve 
     such notice immediately upon instituting such action.
       ``(B) Attorney general action.--Upon receiving a notice 
     respecting a civil action under subparagraph (A), the 
     Attorney General of the United States shall have the right--
       ``(i) to intervene in such action;
       ``(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       ``(iii) to file petitions for appeal.
       ``(3) State powers preserved.--For purposes of bringing any 
     civil action under this subsection, nothing in this chapter 
     shall prevent an attorney general of a State from exercising 
     the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of 
     such State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths 
     or affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or 
     the production of documentary and other evidence.
       ``(4) Pending federal action.--Whenever a civil action has 
     been instituted by the Attorney General of the United States 
     for violation of any rule prescribed under subsection (e), no 
     State may, during the pendency of such action instituted by 
     the Attorney General of the United States, institute a civil 
     action under this subsection against any defendant named in 
     the complaint in such action for any violation alleged in 
     such complaint.
       ``(5) Jurisdiction.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any civil action brought under this 
     subsection in a district court of the United States may be 
     brought in the district in which the defendant is found, is 
     an inhabitant, or transacts business or wherever venue is 
     proper under section 1391 of title 28.
       ``(B) Process.--Process in an action under this subsection 
     may be served in any district in which the defendant is an 
     inhabitant or in which the defendant may be found.
       ``(g) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be interpreted to authorize a private right of action 
     for a violation of any provision of this section, or a 
     private right of action under any other provision of Federal 
     or State law to enforce a violation of this section.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 113 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item for section 2322 the following:

``2323. Online retail marketplaces.''.

     SEC. 5. NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.

       No provision of this Act, including any amendment made by 
     this Act, shall be construed as indicating an intent on the 
     part of Congress to occupy the field in which that provision 
     or amendment operates, including criminal penalties, to the 
     exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter that 
     would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless 
     there is a positive conflict between that provision or 
     amendment and that State law so that the 2 cannot 
     consistently stand together.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act take effect 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        Mr. Hagel, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 3437. A bill to limit the use of certain interrogation techniques, 
to require notification of the International Committee of the Red Cross 
of detainees, to prohibit interrogation by contractors, and for other 
purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senators Rockefeller, 
Whitehouse, Hagel, Feingold and I introduce legislation to end coercive 
interrogations and secret detentions by the Central Intelligence 
Agency.
  These practices have brought shame to our Nation, have harmed our 
ability to fight the war on terror, and, I believe, violate U.S. law 
and international treaty obligations.
  It is time to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time 
to end the outsourcing of coercive interrogations to the lowest bidder. 
It is time to return to the norms and values that have driven the 
United States to greatness for decades, but have been tarnished in the 
past 7 years.
  It is now public knowledge that the Bush administration, in the Vice 
President's words, turned to ``the dark side.'' The ``gloves came 
off.'' In the name of counterterrorism, the CIA resorted to 
waterboarding--an interrogation technique invented in the Spanish 
Inquisition to force false confessions and punish enemies.
  In a mistaken effort to gain better intelligence, the CIA used this 
same technique that the Justice Department has prosecuted and the State 
Department has decried overseas. The administration used warped logic 
and faulty reasoning to say waterboarding technique was not torture. It 
is.
  Waterboarding is the only technique to be publicly confirmed by this 
administration. There are others that have not been acknowledged but 
are still authorized for use. This has to end.
  But we will never turn this sad page in our Nation's history until 
all coercive techniques are banned, and are replaced with a single, 
clear, uniform standard across the United States Government.
  That standard is the one set out in the Army Field Manual. Its 
techniques work for the military and for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. If the CIA would abide by its terms, it would work for 
the CIA as well.
  The first provision in this legislation requires the Intelligence 
Community to follow the Army Field Manual. That is already the law for 
the Department of Defense.
  It is supported by 43 retired generals and admirals and by a 
bipartisan group of former Secretaries of State and Defense, 
Ambassadors, and national security advisors.

[[Page S8045]]

  Majorities in both houses of Congress passed this provision earlier 
this year, sending a clear message that we do not support coercive 
interrogations. Regrettably, the President's veto stopped it from 
becoming law.
  The second provision in this legislation requires that access to any 
detainee being held by the intelligence community be provided to 
members of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
  Access by the ICRC is a hallmark of international law and is required 
by the Geneva Conventions. We believe that granting access to the ICRC 
is the best way to ensure that the same right will be afforded to U.S. 
forces if they are ever captured overseas.
  But ICRC access has been denied at CIA black sites in the war on 
terror. This has, in part, opened the door to the abuses in detainee 
treatment. Independent access prevents abuses like we witnessed at Abu 
Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It is time that the same protection is in 
place for the CIA as well, in the well-established rules that the 
military has used for years.
  Finally, this legislation contains a ban on contractor interrogators 
at the CIA. As General Hayden has testified, the CIA uses outside 
contractors to conduct these interrogations.
  We should not be using coercive interrogation techniques at all. But 
I firmly believe that outsourcing these interrogations to private 
companies is a way to diminish accountability and to avoid getting the 
Agency's hands dirty. I also believe that the use of contractors leads 
to more brutal interrogations than if they were done by Government 
employees.
  We remain a nation at war, and credible, actionable intelligence 
remains a cornerstone of our war effort. But that is not what the CIA 
detention and interrogation program has provided.
  Every single experienced interrogator tells us that coercive 
techniques will get someone to say what the interrogator wants to hear. 
But that doesn't make it true.
  In fact, coercive interrogations and the threat of torture produced 
the information that Saddam Hussein was providing al Qaeda with WMD 
training. That wasn't true, but it helped lead us to war in Iraq.
  Military and FBI interrogators also tell us that when they build a 
rapport with a detainee, they get more information, and more valuable 
information, than when it is coerced.
  Beyond that, our Nation has paid an enormous price because of these 
interrogations. They cast shadow and doubt over our ideals and our 
system of justice. Our enemies have used our practices to recruit more 
extremists. Our key global partnerships, crucial to winning the war on 
terror, have been strained.
  Look at two of our closest allies in the world. The British 
Parliament no longer trusts U.S. assurances that we will not torture 
detainees. The Canadian Government recently added the United States to 
its list of nations that conduct torture.
  This is not the country that we want to be. Torture and 
disappearances do not befit the nation that I know.
  It is time to restore America's integrity.
  It will take time to resume our place as the world's beacon of 
liberty and justice. This bill will put us on that path and start the 
process. I urge its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3437

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring America's 
     Integrity Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Instrumentality.--The term ``instrumentality'', with 
     respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a 
     contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the 
     intelligence community.
       (2) Intelligence community.--The term ``intelligence 
     community'' has the meaning given that term in section 3(4) 
     of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.

       No individual in the custody or under the effective control 
     of personnel of an element of the intelligence community or 
     instrumentality of an element of the intelligence community, 
     regardless of nationality or physical location of such 
     individual or personnel, shall be subject to any treatment or 
     technique of interrogation not authorized by the United 
     States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector 
     Operations.

     SEC. 4. NOTIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE 
                   RED CROSS.

       (a) Requirement.--The head of an element of the 
     intelligence community or an instrumentality of such element 
     who detains or has custody or effective control of an 
     individual shall notify the International Committee of the 
     Red Cross of the detention of the individual and provide 
     access to such individual in a manner consistent with the 
     practices of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       (1) to create or otherwise imply the authority to detain; 
     or
       (2) to limit or otherwise affect any other rights or 
     obligations which may arise under the Geneva Conventions, 
     other international agreements, or other laws, or to state 
     all of the situations under which notification to and access 
     for the International Committee of the Red Cross is required 
     or allowed.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON INTERROGATIONS BY CONTRACTORS.

       The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may not 
     permit a contractor or subcontractor to the Central 
     Intelligence Agency to carry out an interrogation of an 
     individual. Any interrogation carried out on behalf of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency shall be conducted by an employee 
     of such Agency.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3438. A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the establishment of 
National Marine Monuments unless certain requirements are met; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I introduce this bill today to prevent 
misuse of the Antiquities. Act of 1906 to create very large marine 
monuments. The Antiquities Act was intended to protect landmarks, not 
create the largest protected areas in the United States unilaterally 
without congressional assent.
  The Bush administration acted covertly to convey protected status to 
139,000 square miles of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In so doing, 
the administration short-circuited the extensive Marine Sanctuaries 
process that was already underway and notified the delegation only 
after the press conference. Now they have turned their attention to the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  We learned that the President, with mixed support from his top 
advisors, is considering using his authorities under the Antiquities 
Act to unilaterally and permanently declare ``marine monuments'' in 
various locations of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Some of these 
areas are in my backyard--in the Gulf of Mexico--but other areas of the 
Atlantic and Pacific are also under consideration.
  I certainly understand the need to conserve and appropriately manage 
our most sensitive and vulnerable marine areas, which can serve as 
nurseries for fish stocks and provide critical habitat for other 
important species. That is why I support the processes Congress 
established in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. But any 
declarations of new or additional protected status to marine areas 
should continue to follow the scientific and public processes outlined 
in the Sanctuaries Act. This is a good process that allows all affected 
parties--from the environmental community to recreational fishermen to 
the oil and gas industries--to have a say.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3447. A bill to reprogram $15,000,000 in savings in the Jackson 
Barracks military construction to the Department of the Interior for 
the Historic Preservation Fund of the National Park Service for the 
purpose of restoring Jackson Barracks to its pre-Hurricane Katrina 
status as a national historic treasure; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I introduce this bill today to restore 
historic Jackson Barracks in New Orleans to its pre-Hurricane Katrina 
status as a national historic treasure. Jackson Barracks represents the 
rich military history of New Orleans, and indeed our great State. 
However, the rebuilding of the structures on this significant garrison 
has been hindered by bureaucratic roadblocks and gaps in funding. This 
bill directly addresses those challenges.
  As you know, Hurricane Katrina brought torrential floods and driving

[[Page S8046]]

winds to New Orleans and the surrounding region. The devastation from 
the storm touched every structure at Jackson Barracks. The original 
Jackson Barracks consists of 14 Antebellum Garrison Structures built 
between 1834 and 1835. These historic buildings were not spared and 
suffered tremendous damage.
  There is a pressing need to complete the restoration and renovation 
of the barracks. Jackson Barracks requires additional renovations and 
restorations that are not within the scope of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency hurricane restoration funding. With the agreement of 
the Chief, National Guard Bureau and the Secretary of the Interior, 
this bill would reprogram the savings from several military 
construction projects elsewhere on Jackson Barracks to assist in the 
completion of historic preservation at the post.
  I ask the support of my colleagues in enabling the National Park 
Service to aid in the restoration of Jackson Barracks through the 
Historic Preservation Fund. I am not asking for additional dollars, but 
rather that the money that was saved on previous projects be 
recommitted and used for this vital need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3448. A bill to reauthorize the Cane River National Heritage Area 
Commission and expand the boundaries of the Cane River National 
Heritage Area in the State of Louisiana; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission and modify 
the boundaries of the heritage area. In 1994, Congress recognized this 
area as one of the nation's cultural and historic treasures. In the 
1700s, Creole culture flowered across the stunning landscapes of the 
Cane River, and the Creole culture continues to enliven the region to 
this day. In terms of beauty, it is not only the landscape but the 
Creole architecture from that time period that charms visitors. Today, 
the 35 mile region includes the Cane River Creole National Historical 
Park, seven national historic landmarks, three state historic sites, 
and 24 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
  Anchored by the city of Natchitoches, which traces its history to a 
French colonial settlement established in 1714 near the Natchitoches 
Indian village on the Red River, the region's colonial forts, Creole 
plantations, churches, cemeteries, archeological sites, historic 
transportation routes, and commercial centers provide a unique view 
into Louisiana's past.
  I am proud to represent the people of Louisiana by asking the 110th 
Congress to reauthorize this National Heritage Area and reaffirm the 
importance of the Cane River Creole culture as a nationally significant 
element of American heritage.
  This should not be a difficult task. Congress has once before agreed 
to establish a Cane River Creole National Historical Park to serve as 
the focus of interpretive and educational programs on the history of 
the Cane River area and to assist in the preservation of certain 
historic sites along the river. Now, I ask this Congress to do it again 
by reauthorizing the Cane River National Heritage Area.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3448

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cane River National Heritage 
     Area Reauthorization Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. CANE RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Boundaries.--Section 401 of the Cane River Creole 
     National Historical Park and National Heritage Area Act (16 
     U.S.C. 410ccc-21) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) fostering compatible economic development;
       ``(5) enhancing the quality of life for local residents; 
     and''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraphs (1) through 
     (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) the area generally depicted on the map entitled 
     `Revised Boundary of Cane National Heritage Area Louisiana', 
     numbered 494/80021, and dated May 2008;
       ``(2) the Fort Jesup State Historic Site; and
       ``(3) as satellite site, any properties connected with the 
     prehistory, history, or cultures of the Cane River region 
     that may be the subject of cooperative agreements with the 
     Cane River National Heritage Area Commission or any successor 
     to the Commission.''.
       (b) Cane River National Heritage Area Commission.--Section 
     402 of the Cane River Creole National Historical Park and 
     National Heritage Area Act (16 U.S.C. 410ccc-22) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``19'' and inserting ``23'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``the Natchitoches 
     Parish Tourist Commission and other'' before ``local'';
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``Concern Citizens of 
     Cloutierville'' and inserting ``Village of Cloutierville'';
       (D) in paragraph (13), by striking ``are landowners in and 
     residents of'' and inserting ``own land within the heritage 
     area'';
       (E) in paragraph (16)--
       (i) by striking ``one member'' and inserting ``2 members''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (F) by redesignating paragraph (17) as paragraph (19); and
       (G) by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
       ``(17) 2 members, 1 of whom represents African American 
     culture and 1 of whom represents Cane River Creole culture, 
     after consideration of recommendations submitted by the 
     Governor of Louisiana;
       ``(18) 1 member with knowledge of tourism, after 
     consideration of recommendations by the Secretary of the 
     Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism; 
     and''.
       (2) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ``, such as a non-
     profit corporation,'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``for research, historic 
     preservation, and education purposes'' and inserting ``to 
     further the purposes of title III and this title'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``the preparation of 
     studies that identify, preserve, and plan for the management 
     of the heritage area'' and inserting ``carrying out projects 
     or programs that further the purposes of title III and this 
     title''; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) develop, or assist others in developing, projects or 
     programs to further the purposes of title III and this 
     title;''; and
       (4) in the third sentence of subsection (g), by inserting 
     ``, except that if any of the organizations specified in 
     subsection (b) ceases to exist, the vacancy shall be filled 
     with an at-large member'' after ``made''.
       (c) Preparation of the Plan.--Section 403 of the Cane River 
     Creole National Historical Park and National Heritage Area 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 410ccc-23) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Amendments.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amendment to the management plan that 
     substantially alters the purposes of the heritage area shall 
     be reviewed by the Secretary and approved or disapproved in 
     the same manner as the management plan.
       ``(2) Implementation.--The local coordinating entity shall 
     not use Federal funds made available under this title to 
     implement an amendment to the management plan until the 
     Secretary approves the amendment.''.
       (d) Termination of Heritage Area Commission.--Section 404 
     of the Cane River Creole National Historical Park and 
     National Heritage Area Act (16 U.S.C. 410ccc-24) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the day occurring 10 
     years after the first official meeting of the Commission'' 
     and inserting ``August 5, 2025''; and
       (2) in the third sentence of subsection (c), by striking 
     ``, including the potential for a nonprofit corporation,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3449. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower 
Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the 
National Park System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act. 
This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish 
along the Lower Mississippi River Area as a unit of the National Park 
System. To be eligible for favorable consideration as a unit of the 
National Park System, an area must possess nationally significant 
natural, cultural or recreational resources. The Lower Mississippi 
River area in Plaquemines Parish meets and exceeds these criteria.

[[Page S8047]]

  I am proud to come to the floor today to introduce this bill. Anyone 
who has visited Plaquemines Parish knows that it is one of the Nation's 
unique treasures. The natural beauty there at the mouth of the 
Mississippi is impossible to describe, but impossible not to love. The 
area is rich in history, and it is a preserve for one of the nation's 
most unique cultural melanges.
  That mix began after the Native Americans in the region began to 
intermingle with the Spanish explorers who traveled along the banks of 
the river in the 1500s. In 1682, Rene-Robert Cavelier de LaSalle 
claimed all the land drained by the Mississippi for France area. In 
1699, the area became the site of the first fortification on the Lower 
Mississippi River, known as Fort Mississippi. Since then, it has been 
the home to 10 different fortifications, including Fort St. Philip and 
Fort Jackson.
  Fort St. Philip, originally built in 1749, proved to be instrumental 
during the Battle of New Orleans by blocking the British Navy from 
going up river. Fort Jackson was built at the request of General Andrew 
Jackson and partially constructed by famous local Civil War General 
P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of the famous Civil War 
battle know as the ``Battle of Forts'' which is also referred to as the 
``night the war was lost.''
  As this glimpse of the region's military history shows, the Lower 
Plaquemines region is of national cultural and historical significance.
  There are also many other important and unique attributes to this 
area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and levee 
system in the U.S. It is also home to the ancient Head of Passes site, 
Plaquemines Bend, geological features and two national wildlife 
refuges.
  Finally, the area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many 
different cultures have made this area home including Creoles, 
Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These 
cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for 
transportation of our Nation's energy which is being produced by these 
same people out in the Gulf of Mexico off our shores. They have also 
created a fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.
  I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent 
addition to the National Park Service. I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in supporting this bill which simply allows the National Park 
Service to study the suitability and feasibility of bringing this area 
into the system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
quickly enact this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3449

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lower Mississippi River 
     National Historic Site Study Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Lower Mississippi area located south of New 
     Orleans, Louisiana, which is known as ``Plaquemines Parish'', 
     has great historical significance;
       (2) from the earliest Spanish explorers traveling along the 
     banks of the Lower Mississippi River in the 1500's, to Robert 
     de LaSalle claiming all of the land drained by the Lower 
     Mississippi River in 1682, to the petroleum, fisheries, and 
     transportation industries of today, the area is one of the 
     most unique areas in the continental United States;
       (3) while, in 1699, the area became the site of the first 
     fortification on the Lower Mississippi River, known as ``Fort 
     Mississippi'', it has since been home to 10 different 
     fortifications, more than a dozen light houses, and several 
     wildlife refuges, quarantine stations, and pilot stations;
       (4) of particular interest to the area are--
       (A) Fort St. Philip, originally built in 1749, at which, 
     during the Battle of New Orleans, the British navy was 
     blocked from going up river and a victory for the Colonial 
     Army was ensured; and
       (B) Fort Jackson, built across from Fort St. Philip at the 
     request of General Andrew Jackson and partially constructed 
     by famous local Civil War General P.G.T. Beauregard, which 
     was the site of the famous Civil War battle known as the 
     ``Battle of the Forts'', which is also referred to as the 
     ``night the war was lost'';
       (5) the area is--
       (A) at the end of the longest continuous river road and 
     levee system in the United States; and
       (B) a part of the River Road highway system;
       (6) lower Plaquemines Parish is split down the middle by 
     the Mississippi River, surrounded on 3 sides by the Gulf of 
     Mexico, and crossed by numerous bayous, canals, and ditches;
       (7) Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip are located on--
       (A) an ancient Head of Passes site; and
       (B) 1 of the most historic areas on the Lower Mississippi 
     River known as ``Plaquemines Bend'';
       (8) the modern Head of Passes is only 21 miles south of 
     Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip where the Mississippi River 
     splits into a bird foot delta to travel the last 20 miles to 
     the Gulf of Mexico;
       (9) there are numerous geological features that are unique 
     to a large river mouth or delta that could make a national 
     park in the area a particularly intriguing attraction;
       (10) the coastal erosion, subsidence, river hydraulics, 
     delta features, fresh, salt, and brackish water marshes, and 
     other unique features of the area could be an effective 
     classroom for the public on the challenges of protecting our 
     river and coastal zones;
       (11) the area includes the beginning of the Mississippi 
     River flyway, which is--
       (A) 1 of the most pristine eco-sites in the United States; 
     and
       (B) the site of 2 national wildlife refuges and 1 state 
     wildlife refuge;
       (12) the area is culturally diverse in history, population, 
     industry, and politics;
       (13) many well-known characters lived or performed deeds of 
     great notoriety in the area;
       (14) in the area, Creoles, Europeans, Indians, Yugoslav, 
     African-Americans, and Vietnamese all worked together to 
     weave an interesting history of survival and success in a 
     very treacherous environment;
       (15) the area has tremendous tourism potential, 
     particularly for historical tourism and eco-tourism, because 
     of the location, pristine ecosystems, and past indifference 
     of the local government to promote tourism in the area; and
       (16) since Hurricane Katrina, the local government in the 
     area has--
       (A) passed a resolution strongly supporting a national park 
     study; and
       (B) shown an interest in developing tourism in the area.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Study area.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Study Area'' means the Lower 
     Mississippi River area in the State of Louisiana.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``Study Area'' includes Fort St. 
     Philip and Fort Jackson, the Head of Passes, and any related 
     and supporting historical, natural, cultural, and 
     recreational resources located in Plaquemines Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' mean the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 4. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the State of Louisiana and interested groups and 
     organizations, shall complete a special resource study that--
       (1) evaluates--
       (A) the national significance of the Study Area; and
       (B) the suitability and feasibility of designating the 
     Study Area as a unit of the National Park System, to be known 
     as the ``Lower Mississippi River National Park'';
       (2) includes cost estimates for the acquisition, 
     development, operation, and maintenance of the Study Area; 
     and
       (3) identifies alternatives for management, administration, 
     and protection of the Study Area.
       (b) Criteria.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of 
     areas for potential inclusion in the National Park System 
     under section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       On completion of the study under section 4, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate a report that describes--
       (1) the findings and conclusions of the study; and
       (2) any recommendations of the Secretary.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.




                          ____________________