January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S55 

professional boxing in the United 

States. 

The USBC would also license boxers, 

promoters, managers, and sanctioning 

organizations. The Commission would 

have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing 

law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety 

of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest. 

It is important to state clearly and 

plainly for the record that the purpose 

of the USBC is not to interfere with 

the daily operations of State and tribal 

boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation 

with local commissions, and it would 

only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states 

explicitly that it would not prohibit 

any boxing commission from exercising 

any of its powers, duties, or functions 

with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law. 

Let there be no doubt, however, of 

the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing 

commission. The establishment of the 

USBC would address that need. The 

problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the 

public and—more importantly—compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing 

these problems. 

As this measure continues through 

the legislative process, I fully expect 

Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other 

spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in 

a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. KYL): 

S. 39. A bill to repeal section 10(f) of 

Public Law 93–531, commonly known as 

the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to introduce legislation that 

would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 

93–531, commonly known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze.’’ Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of 

roughly 40 years of litigation and landlock between the Navajo Nation and 

the Hopi Tribe. 

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi 

have been engrossed in a bitter dispute 

over land rights in the Black Mesa area 

just south of Kayenta, Arizona. The 

conflict extends as far back as 1882 

when the boundaries of the Hopi and 

Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian 

policy. By 1966, relations between the 

tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious 

sites in the disputed area that the federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation 

land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the 

Black Mesa area and restricted repairs 

on existing dwellings. This injunction 

became known as the ‘‘Bennett 

Freeze,’’ named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed 

the ban. 

The Bennett Freeze was intended to 

be a temporary measure to prevent one 

tribe taking advantage of another until 

the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere 

near resolution, and the construction 

freeze ultimately devastated economic 

development in northern Arizona for 

years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the 

Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven’t changed in half a 

century. While the population of the 

area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to 

live together in homes that have been 

declared unfit for human habitation by 

the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Only 3 percent of 

the families affected by the Bennett 

Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent 

have running water. Almost none have 

natural gas. 

In September 2005, the Navajo and 

Hopi peoples’ desire to live together in 

mutual respect prevailed when both 

tribes approved an intergovernmental 

agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett 

Freeze area. This landmark agreement 

also clarifies the boundaries of the 

Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes in protected. 

As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi 

Tribe, and the Department of Interior 

all support congressional legislation to 

lift the freeze. 

The bill I am introducing today 

would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The 

intergovernmental compact approved 

last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the 

U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks 

a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. 

Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an 

opportunity to put decades of conflict 

between the Navajo and Hopi behind 

us. 

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. KYL): 

S. 40. A bill to designate Fossil 

Creek, a tributary of the Verde River 

in the State of Arizona, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System; to the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to be joined by my colleague, 

Senator KYL, in reintroducing a bill to 

designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and 

Scenic River. 

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. 

With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological 

features, and deep iridescent blue pools 

and waterfalls, this tributary to the 

Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower 

Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 

miles through east central Arizona. It 

is home to a wide variety of wildlife, 

some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it 

to migrate between the range lowlands 

and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau 

highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a 

variety of aquatic species and is one of 

the few perennial streams in Arizona 

with multiple native fish. 

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s 

when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks 

and vegetation coated with calcium 

carbonate deposits from the creek’s 

water. In the early 1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric 

power generation in the creek’s constant and abundant spring fed baseflow. They claimed the channel’s water 

rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the ChildsIrving hydro-project. Over time, the 

project was acquired by Arizona Public 

Service, APS, one of the state’s largest 

electric utility providers serving more 

than a million Arizonans. Because 

Childs-Irving produced less then half of 

1 percent of the total power generated 

by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam 

and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions. 

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the ChildsIrving power generating facilities and 

restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, 

APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will 

soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a mostvaluable opportunity to reintroduce at 

least six threatened and endangered 

native fish species as well as rebuild 

the native populations presently living 

in the creek. 

There is a growing need to provide 

additional protection and adequate 

staffing and management at Fossil 

Creek. Recreational visitation to the 

riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service’s 

own admission, they aren’t able to 

manage current levels of visitation or 

the pressures of increased use. While 

responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the longterm success of the ongoing restoration 

efforts. Designation under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure 

the appropriate level of protection and 

resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. 

Already, Fossil Creek has been found 

eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands 

potentially affected by a designation 

are owned and managed by the Forest 

Service and will not affect private 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S56 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

property owners. I fully expect that as 

this measure continues through the 

legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided 

to it and every other spending measure 

as we work to restore fiscal discipline 

to Washington in a bipartisan manner. 

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona 

treasure, and would benefit greatly 

from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation. 

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and 

Mr. CORNYN): 

S. 49. A bill to help Federal prosecutors and investigators combat public 

corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I am 

pleased to join with Senator CORNYN

once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act 

of 2009, a bill that will strengthen and 

clarify key aspects of Federal criminal 

law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack 

public corruption nationwide. 

The start of a new Congress presents 

a unique opportunity to restore the 

faith of the American people in their 

government. That is why I sought to 

offer an early version of this bill as my 

first amendment two years ago when 

that new Congress began. Regrettably, 

a Republican objection to it prevented 

its adoption at that time. 

As we have seen in recent months, 

public corruption can erode the trust 

the American people have in those who 

are given the privilege of public service. Too often, though, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt 

conduct can go unchecked. 

Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping 

away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the kinds of public 

corruption that have resulted in convictions of members of both the Senate 

and the House, and many others, requires us to give prosecutors the tools 

and resources they need to investigate 

and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. This bill will do exactly 

that. 

The bill Senator CORNYN and I introduce today will provide investigators 

and prosecutors more time and, even 

more crucially, more resources to pursue public corruption cases. It also 

amends several key statutes to broaden 

their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from 

evading or defeating prosecution based 

on existing legal ambiguities. 

The bill provides significant and 

much-needed additional funding for 

public corruption enforcement. Since 

September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, FBI, resources have been 

shifted away from the pursuit of white 

collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has said that public corruption is among the FBI’s top investigative priorities, but a September 

2005 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General found that, from 

2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. More recently, a study 

by the research group Transactional 

Records Access Clearinghouse found 

that the prosecution of all kinds of 

white collar crimes is down 27 percent 

since 2000, and official corruption cases 

have dropped in the same period by 14 

percent. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2007 that the investigation of 

an elected Federal official stalled for 

six months because the investigating 

U.S. Attorney’s Office could not afford 

to replace the prosecutor who had previously handled the case. We must reverse this trend and make sure that 

law enforcement has the tools and the 

resources it needs to confront these serious and corrosive crimes. 

Efforts to combat terrorism and public corruption are not mutually exclusive. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle contraband 

into our country, or a corrupt consular 

officer who illegally supplies U.S. 

entry visas to would-be terrorists can 

cause grave harm to our national security. 

The bill also extends the statute of 

limitations from 5 to 6 years for the 

most serious public corruption offenses. Public corruption cases are 

among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate. Bank 

fraud, arson and passport fraud, among 

other offenses, all have 10-year statutes 

of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy. This modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step 

to help our corruption investigators 

and prosecutors do their jobs. 

This bill goes further by amending 

several key statutes to broaden their 

application in corruption and fraud 

contexts and to eliminate legal ambiguities that can hinder prosecution of 

serious corruption. The bill includes a 

fix to the gratuities statute that 

makes clear that public officials may 

not accept anything of value, other 

than what is permitted by existing 

rules and regulations, given to them 

because of their official position. This 

important provision contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only 

corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it 

puts teeth behind the ethical reforms 

the Senate adopted under the leadership of Senator Obama. 

The bill also appropriately clarifies 

the definition of what it means for a 

public official to perform an ‘‘official 

act’’ for the purposes of the bribery 

statute and closes several other gaps in 

current law. The bill adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for 

the Federal wiretap and racketeering 

statutes, lowers the transactional 

amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federallyfunded State programs, and expands 

the venue for perjury and obstruction 

of justice prosecutions. 

Finally, the bill raises the statutory 

maximum penalties for several laws 

dealing with official misconduct, including theft of Government property 

and bribery. These increases reflect the 

serious and corrosive nature of these 

crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other 

similar statutes. 

If we are serious about addressing the 

kinds of egregious misconduct that we 

have witnessed over the past several 

years in high-profile public corruption 

cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and 

prosecutors the tools and resources 

they need to enforce our laws. Passing 

ethics and lobbying reform in the last 

Congress was a step in the right direction. Now we should finish the job by 

strengthening the criminal law to enable federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the 

public trust to justice. I am disappointed that Republican objections 

prevented the full Senate from passing 

this critical bill early in the last Congress. I hope that this year all Senators will support this bipartisan bill 

and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption. 

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. 49 

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 ‘‘Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

FOR SERIOUS PUBLIC CORRUPTION 

OFFENSES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 213 of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘§ 3299A. Corruption offenses 

‘‘Unless an indictment is returned or the 

information is filed against a person within 

6 years after the commission of the offense, 

a person may not be prosecuted, tried, or 

punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy 

or an attempt to violate the offense in— 

‘‘(1) section 201 or 666; 

‘‘(2) section 1341 or 1343, when charged in 

conjunction with section 1346 and where the 

offense involves a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services of a public official; 

‘‘(3) section 1951, if the offense involves extortion under color of official right; 

‘‘(4) section 1952, to the extent that the unlawful activity involves bribery; or 

‘‘(5) section 1962, to the extent that the 

racketeering activity involves bribery 

chargeable under State law, involves a violation of section 201 or 666, section 1341 or 1343, 

when charged in conjunction with section 

1346 and where the offense involves a scheme 

or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services of a public official, or section 1951, if the offense involves 

extortion under color of official right.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections at the beginning of chapter 213 of 

title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘3299A. Corruption offenses.’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE