John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, what did we do?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have an amendment that I have been trying to get a vote on, I would say to the distinguished majority leader, and it certainly is important to the American people. It is certainly important on this bill and the function of the FDA concerning the importation of prescription drugs into this country. I believe the Senator from North Dakota has an amendment. I would agree to a time agreement of an hour to be equally divided, or half hour, and then vote on it. I think the American people ought to know whether we are going to be able to import prescription drugs into this country so we can save them billions of dollars every year, rather than taking so much of their hard-earned money, especially retirees.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very appreciative of the difficulties the majority leader faces on a bill of this nature, the challenges of amendments being nongermane, and also the difficulties he faces in managing legislation. This issue has been around for a long time, I say to my friend from Nevada. We should address it. It is important to the American people. It does have a lot to do with pharmaceuticals in this country and the availability. Again, I point out to the majority leader that there should not be a lot of debate on this. People have taken their positions. I have an e-mail that was sent to us by mistake by the lobby for PhRMA, regarding how important it is to stop this amendment and not have a vote on it. If my friend will indulge me, this is urgent. This is from, as I understand it, one of the lobbyists for PhRMA: The Senate is on the tobacco bill today. Unless we get some significant movement, the full-blown Dorgan or Vitter bill will pass as an amendment and a Cochran or Brownback safety amendment will fail. (1) We need to locate a Democratic lead cosponsor for the second degree amendment--which will be either Brownback or Cochran. Can the J&J, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and the other New Jersey companies coordinate and contact Senator Menendez's office and ask him to take the lead? (2) We are trying to get Senator Dorgan to back down-- calling the White House and Senator Reid. Our understanding is that at least Senator McCain has said he will offer regardless, so even if Dorgan withdraws, he may still go forward. We believe we have 39 `yes' votes for a safety second degree amendment and 25 members in the `undecided' column. Kennedy--who whipped this for us last time--is not here. We are scheduling a call for later this morning to follow up on our targets from yesterday's whip call. Please make sure your staff is fully engaged in this process. This is real. We only had six companies participate in the last call. My friends, that is a little insight as to how the special interests in Washington work. I would like to have a vote on this amendment, I say to my friend from Nevada, with a full appreciation of the difficulties he has in getting this legislation through--a very important piece of legislation. I thank my friend from Nevada for his indulgence and allowing me to read that e-mail.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we celebrate the unveiling in the Capitol of a statue of Ronald Reagan, one of our country's great Presidents and a personal hero to me throughout my political life. While there are many aspects of President Reagan's legacy we might reflect on today, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one of them--his dream of a world free of nuclear weapons. Speaking before the Japanese Diet on November 11, 1983, President Ronald Reagan said: The only value in possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they can't ever be used. I know I speak for people everywhere when I say our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the earth. That is my dream, too, and it is one shared by many of our most distinguished national security practitioners. In 2007, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, along with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Senator Sam Nunn, authored an article entitled ``A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,'' in which they laid out their vision of the globe free of the most dangerous weapons ever known. This is a distant and difficult goal. We must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies that depend on us. But the Cold War ended almost 20 years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals. In so doing, the United States can--and indeed must--show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American Presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind. Our highest priority must be to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will ever be used. Such weapons, while still important to deter an attack with weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies, represent the most abhorrent and indiscriminate form of warfare known to man. We do, quite literally, possess the means to destroy all mankind. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used. As the administration renews its nuclear weapons posture, it should, I believe, seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible, consistent with our security requirements and global commitments. This means a move, as rapidly as possible, to a significantly smaller force. As we take such steps, it will be crucial to continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses, and superior conventional forces capable of defending the United States and our allies. Today, we find ourselves at a nuclear crossroads. As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear envelope, the perils of a world awash in nuclear weapons is clear. Yet we should also consider the more hopeful alternative--a world in which there are far fewer such weapons than there are today and in which proliferation, instability, and nuclear terrorism are far less likely. In achieving this world, Ronald Reagan's dream will be more important than ever before. As Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz wrote with their colleagues in 2008: Progress must be facilitated by a clear statement of our ultimate goal. Indeed, this is the only way to build the kind of international trust and broad cooperation that will be required to effectively address today's threats. Without the vision of moving towards zero, we will not find the essential cooperation required to stop our downward spiral. Make no mistake, we must arrest the downward spiral. North Korea's recent nuclear test is just the latest provocative demonstration of the troubling reality the world faces today. Together with Iran's ongoing commitment to nuclear development, we face real dangers in the proliferation of the world's most terrible weapons. The United States must lead the world not only in reducing the size of existing nuclear arsenals but also in reversing the course of nuclear proliferation. This requires a tough-minded approach to both Iran and North Korea, both of which have gotten away with too much for far too long. We must also help ensure that other potential nuclear programs do not get off the ground. Last week, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft joined two colleagues in calling on the President to promote the international ban on the spread of fissile materials that can be used in the production of nuclear weapons. I agree and urge the President to do so. But we must also strengthen enforcement. We must insist that countries that receive the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation return or dismantle what they have received if, at any point, they violate or withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Leading up to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference, we should lay the groundwork for building an international consensus to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the tools to be a meaningful agent for achieving the dream of a nuclear weapon-free world. We should work with allies and partners to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and materials--including any borne on vessels traveling to and from North Korea--under the Proliferation Security Initiative. As a nation, we have a number of important decisions in the coming months, including those related to a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, the administration's planned resubmission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for ratification, and the need for a robust missile defense shield. As we move ahead with these and other decisions, let us keep in mind the dream of a nuclear-free world, enunciated so eloquently by our 40th President. As Secretary Shultz has written, this was a dream President Reagan pursued with great patience and depth of conviction. We would be wise to follow his lead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, one of January 4, 2007, and the other of January 15, 2008.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my privilege to support S. Res. 165, a resolution encouraging the recognition of 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family.'' I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, along with my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, Senator Levin, Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Graham. Our Nation is honored by the brave men and women who selflessly risk their lives for our freedom, and by their families, who accept risks, both known and unknown, in support of their country and loved ones who serve. The programs and resources our Nation provides must match the quality of the service and sacrifice of military families. That is why I and others fought so hard to include a special provision in the post- 9/11 G.I. bill to allow career service members the opportunity to share the educational benefits that they earn with their immediate family members. Many military families are distinguished by generations, who have served, from the American Revolution, to the American Civil War, World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the first gulf war and recent conflicts. The resolution before us today recognizes the contributions and resilience of all military families, and especially those who have endured multiple deployments, or the loss of a loved one who answered the call to service and paid the ultimate price in defense of our Nation. SFC Kimberly Hazelgrove was serving as an intelligence expert in the U.S. Army when she received the news on January 23, 2004, that her husband, Army CW2 Brian Hazelgrove, had died. His helicopter crashed on its return from a combat mission in northern Iraq. On that tragic day, Kimberly Hazelgrove became a survivor of an American hero. But, like so many whose spouses have died as a consequence of their service to our Nation, she is also a hero in her own right. Kimberly had to abandon her own promising military career to care for four young children. She struggled, with the help of family and friends, to start over--to transition to civilian life, to find employment in which to apply her military skills, and return to school--and with courage and determination she succeeded. Today she balances a new career with the needs of the children that she and Brian had planned to raise, and has never abandoned her selfless advocacy on behalf of survivors of the fallen. Kimberly Hazelgrove represents the essence of service and sacrifice of military families, and I salute her. Not all military families are defined only as the service member, a spouse, and children. Many of the young men and women serving our country are unmarried and identify as a family with their parents and siblings. My friend 1LT Andrew Kinard graduated from the Naval Academy in 2005 and chose to lead Marines in Iraq. Andrew deployed as a platoon leader with the Second Marine Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in September 2006. He was gravely wounded by an IED attack while leading a security patrol in Al Anbar Province. His father Harry immediately left his surgical practice so that he could buoy Andrew's spirit through dozens of surgeries that followed. His mother, Mary, remained with Andrew for 5 more months after her husband returned to his medical practice. The separation that Andrew's parents and siblings endured represents a family's selfless sacrifice, to support Andrew and his quality of life even as he faced many surgeries and grueling physical therapy. Andrew Kinard is now a retired marine and will enter Harvard Law School in the fall. The Kinard family represents the unifying, supportive force of a military family that helps a service member survive the most grievous wounds of war, and then get back to the important work of citizenship. I salute them. MAJ Brian Love is a Green Beret. His family accompanied him to assignment in Germany where, in 2004, their son Patrick was diagnosed with autism. Today Brian and his wife Naomi apply the unique problem solving skills of military special forces to the daily challenge of meeting Patrick's complex needs--a challenge compounded by the rigors of a career as a military leader, and the uncertain limitations of Federal, State and local programs. Major Love has deployed to Iraq twice since 2005. He believes that he is a better leader--that his family relationships are stronger--for having seen the world through the eyes of a child with special needs. Brian is now preparing to assume command of an Army special forces unit and faces the possibility of future deployments. His service, and that of his wife Naomi, honors each of us. Because of their service, and thousands like them, we can all view our victories differently. As an emblem of the dedicated service of military families and to their children, I salute them. Finally, Mary Scott modestly asserts that hers is a ``normal military family.'' Her father was killed in 1972 in Vietnam; her husband served for 30 years in the U.S. Army; each one of their six children serves their nation in the military today. Kate is an Army captain and lawyer and now serves in Iraq; Karoline, an Air Force captain and public affairs officer; Andy, an Army captain and lawyer who has also deployed to Iraq; 1LT Kerney Scott pilots an Army Blackhawk in Korea; 2LT Alec Scott is a newly commissioned officer in the Army Chaplain Corps, and Cadet Adam Scott, followed his family's well worn path to the U.S. Military Academy. ``It's not unusual,'' Mary says, ``for kids to go into the family business.'' All of those whom I have described and their families, live the values of military service, and enrich us all. They volunteer and advocate on behalf of causes greater than their own. They support one another during challenging times, and find that even in difficulty they are bound more closely together. I rise in support of the resolution encouraging the recognition of 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family.'' I salute all military families, and it is to their service that I dedicate my own.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Lieberman's amendment relating to Army end strength. By clarifying existing law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 and providing $400 million for personnel and O&M costs, it ensures soldiers already on Active Duty or who are about to be enlisted are able to serve. It does not create new authority for more Active-Duty soldiers, rather it corrects an erroneous legal interpretation about which end strength number should be used to calculate percentages for additional troops. I applaud Senator Lieberman's commitment to this goal. Status of Forces Agreements

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1188 is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that will restore assistance to the Republic of Georgia, thereby fulfilling the commitment the United States has made to that country. Last year, following the Russian invasion of Georgia, and the widespread destruction that took place throughout the country, the United States pledged $1 billion in aid to Georgia. The move had wide bipartisan support. Thus far approximately three-quarters of the assistance has been delivered to Tblisi. Now the administration has requested that final step in fulfilling the U.S. pledge be incorporated into the supplemental bill and requested the remaining $242.5 million in assistance for Georgia. The House measure includes this full funding. The Senate version, on the other hand, provides only $200 million, which makes it available not just for Georgia but other central Asian countries as well. The amendment I am offering would move $42.5 million in existing funds under the international affairs title of the bill to fulfill the full amount of the American pledge. I would emphasize--I wanted to heavily emphasize--that in doing so, this amendment does not increase the top line of the State Department budget by one penny, nor does it mean one penny more in taxpayer expenditure. It is consistent with the administration's budget request and with the promise that our Nation made to the Republic of Georgia following last year's strife. The Georgian Government has stated that it plans to devote the assistance to projects that will address urgent requirements identified by the World Bank's recent Joint Needs Assessment. These include resettling internally displaced persons, rebuilding vital infrastructure following last year's Russian invasion, strengthening democratic institutions and law enforcement capabilities, and enhancing border security. In fulfilling our pledge, we have the opportunity not only to enhance the stability of the democratic progress of Georgia but also to send a clear message to the region that the United States will stand by its friends. Such a signal is one of the utmost importance. It has been just 8 months since the world's attention was riveted by Russia's invasion. Following the violence, there was talk of sanctions against Moscow. The Bush administration withdrew its submission to Congress of a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, and NATO suspended meetings of the NATO-Russia Council. That outrage quickly subsided, however, and it seems that the events of last August have been all but forgotten in some quarters. A casual observer might guess that things returned to normal in this part of the world and that war in Georgia was a brief and tragic circumstance that has since been reversed. But, in fact, this is not the case. While the stories have faded from the headlines, Russia remains in violation of the terms of the ceasefire to which it agreed last year. Russian troops continue to be stationed on sovereign Georgian territory. Thousands of Russian troops remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, greatly in excess of the preconflict levels. Rather than abide by the ceasefire's requirement to engage in international talks on the future of the two provinces, Russia has recognized their independence, signed friendship agreements with them that effectively render them Russian dependencies, and have taken over their border controls. All of this suggests tangible results to Russia's desire to maintain a sphere of influence in neighboring countries, dominate their politics, and circumscribe their freedom of action in international affairs. Russian President Medvedev recently denounced NATO exercises in Georgia, describing them as ``provocative.'' Yet these ``provocative'' exercises did not involve heavy equipment or arms and focused on disaster response, search and rescue, and the like. Russia was even invited to participate in the exercises, an invitation Moscow declined. We must not revert to an era in which the countries on Russia's periphery were not permitted to make their own decisions, control their own political futures, and decide their own alliances. Whether in Kyrgyzstan, where Moscow seems to have exerted pressure for the eviction of U.S. forces from the Manas base, to Estonia, which suffered a serious cyber-attack some time ago, to Georgia and elsewhere Russia continues its attempts to reestablish a sphere of influence. Yet such moves are in direct contravention to the free and open rules-based international system that the United States and its partners have spent so many decades to uphold. So let's not forget what has happened in Georgia and the pledges we have made to support a friend. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stand by the Republic of Georgia in its continuing time of need. I want to emphasize again, the amendment does not increase the top line of the State Department budget by one penny, nor does it mean one penny more in taxpayer expenditures, consistent with the administration's budget request, and with the promise that our Nation made to the Republic of Georgia following last year's strife. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the majority leader requested that I begin the discussion on the conference report for the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. We await the presence of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I begin by thanking him for his leadership, his really nonpartisan addressing of this compelling issue. The last time I was on the floor, I talked a lot about the terrible cost overruns that were associated recently with literally every new weapon system we have acquired. When I tell some of my constituents and friends, they are staggered by the numbers--a small littoral combat ship that is supposed to cost $90 million ends up costing $400 million and has to be scrapped; airplanes costing, depending on how you look at it, half a billion dollars each. Working together on both sides of the aisle, and under the leadership of Chairman Levin, we have come up with legislation that has gone through the Congress rather rapidly. I would also like to say that the President of the United States called us, Members of the House, leaders of the Armed Services Committees, to the White House, where we pledged our support and our rapid addressing of this challenge. The only thing more important than the substance of this conference report is the demonstration of bipartisanship that went into how the underlying bills were created and guided through the legislative process. As I said, I know the chairman of the committee is going to be here shortly, and he will discuss many of the specific aspects of this bill. But it does emphasize starting major weapons systems off right by having those systems obtain reliable and independent cost estimates and subjecting them to rigorous developmental testing and systems engineering early in their acquisition cycle. It does a lot of things. As I say, Senator Levin will enumerate many of them. What we are trying to do is address a process where there is a need for a weapon system which takes years to develop. Technical changes are incorporated time after time in a desire--and a laudable one--to reach 100 percent perfection. But then the cost overruns grow and grow. The Future Combat Systems, an Army innovation to address conflicts of the future, was supposed to cost $90 billion. It is up to $120 billion. Even more, we still do not have operational vehicles. So, very appropriately, the Secretary of Defense announced that he would be eliminating much of this program to try to get the costs under control. I would like to say a word about the Secretary of Defense, who has agreed to continue to serve this country under one of the most difficult and trying positions one can have in Government. The Secretary of Defense has announced, I think very appropriately, that we would be reducing and eliminating some programs that have maybe had a good reason for a beginning but certainly have had such incredible cost overruns that they no longer are a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars. Early in the first couple of weeks of the new administration, a group of us attended a gathering. The President of the United States and I had an exchange about the Presidential helicopter. Some years ago, we decided the Presidential helicopter, which is 30 years old, needed replacement. We finally reached a point where we had not built one completely yet, and it was more than the cost of Air Force One--you cannot make that up; it is hard to believe--as one technological change after another was piled on, to the point where neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense felt it was worth the cost. The President does need a new helicopter. We need to embark on that effort. But what we just went through should be an object lesson, and we should learn from the lessons and cost overruns. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Chamber. I again thank him for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will make a few remarks about what is perhaps the most contentious issue in this supplemental funding bill, and that is the issue we have been discussing throughout the day, and that is how to handle the United States detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the last few days, we have seen a flurry of amendments relating to this issue, some Republican and others from Democrats. Indeed, it seems that this issue has overshadowed the necessary focus on the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way forward in each. I am afraid this bipartisan expression of concern and surge of legislative activity has a single cause: the decision by President Obama in one of his first acts after his inauguration to announce that he would close Guantanamo Bay 1 year after taking office, without presenting a plan for the disposition of the prisoners there. By announcing Guantanamo's closure without first conducting an in-depth review of the difficult issues posed by the Guantanamo detainees, we are left today arguing over the wisdom of shuttering the prison in the absence of any plan for what comes next. With the administration unable to propose and seek support for a comprehensive plan that encompasses all aspects of detainee policy, the Congress has been understandably reluctant to fund the closure of Guantanamo as the President requested in this supplemental. In fact, the Democratic chairmen of the Appropriations Committee in both the House and Senate have now stripped funding for closing Guantanamo from their respective supplemental funding bills. The Senate majority leader now says his party will not proceed in the absence of a comprehensive plan for Guantanamo's closure. It didn't have to be this way. During the past election, I too supported closing Guantanamo and pledged to do so. I continue to believe it is in the interest of the United States of America to close Guantanamo. But all policymakers must understand how essential it is to gain the trust of the American people on this sensitive national security issue. We cannot simply proceed without explaining to the American people what the plan is for how these prisoners will be handled in a way that is consistent with American values and protective of our national security. The American people deserve a detailed explanation of what will take place the day after Guantanamo is closed, and they must be certain their Government will execute its most fundamental duty, which is to keep America and its citizens safe. When the President announced his decision last Friday to restart military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees for war crimes, I applauded that decision. I have long believed that military commissions should be the chief venue for trying alleged war crimes violations committed by Guantanamo detainees. There is no doubt that the coordination, complexity, and massive scale of the 9/11 attacks that left over 3,000 innocent people dead constitute war crimes. There is also no doubt that al-Qaida and its supporters were then, and continue to be today, committed to the destruction of our values and our way of life and our values in a fashion that bears no resemblance to the acts of common criminals. But while I applauded the President for restarting military commissions, I also pointed out that the President's overall decisionmaking on detainee policy has left more questions than it has provided answers. The numerous unresolved questions include: where the Guantanamo inmates will be held and tried; how we will handle those who cannot be tried but are too dangerous to release; how we will deal with the prisoners held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, some of whom were captured off the Afghan battlefield. I point out to my colleagues--and most of them know, and many Americans know--that we have already had the experience of around 10 percent of those detainees who were released return to the battlefield. One of them is a high-ranking al-Qaida operative in southern Afghanistan and another in Pakistan. So this is a real threat. The lack of a comprehensive, well-thought-out plan led to a predictable political backlash to any movement on Guantanamo. Instead of unifying Americans behind a plan that keeps us safe and honors our values, the administration's course of action has unified the opposition to moving forward--and move forward we must. National security issues of this dimension require more than announcements and future promises. They require full detailed explanations of a proposed course in order to gain the support of the American people and their elected leadership in Congress. That is what will be required for success in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I know we will hear arguments during this debate that we should deny funding to close Guantanamo until we see a plan on what to do with the detainees, and we will also probably see amendments to deny detainees any sort of entry or asylum into the United States, whether it is for trial, post-trial incarceration, long-term preventive detention, or administrative detention pending deportation. We will do the best we can to deal with these issues, with the information from the administration that is available to us. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue. But most important, I again say to the President that I will work with him to forge a bipartisan solution to this very difficult problem that faces all of us. I urge again that we address all the detainee policy issues in a comprehensive fashion and lay out a plan that will keep us safe and honor our values. I strongly believe a comprehensive plan will lead to success, while a piecemeal approach, without addressing the legitimate concerns of the American public and Congress, will continue to divide us. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure was introduced last month by Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from Arizona. Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it's clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project. For more than two years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance. Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure was introduced last month by Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from Arizona. Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it's clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project. For more than two years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance. Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I briefly rise on the floor today to discuss the latest outrage in the long-suffering country of Burma. I speak of the imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of Burma's National League for Democracy, the party that won the country's 1990 elections decisively-- elections that were quickly nullified by the Burmese military. She has been imprisoned by the thuggish military junta that runs that country. Ms. Suu Kyi has spent the majority of the past two decades under house arrest. Now the Government has moved this remarkable woman to Insein Prison compound and charged her with violating the terms of her house arrest, which was illegal to start with. She faces a potential sentence of 5 years in jail. Two other NLD members face similar charges. While reports remain somewhat opaque, these charges appear to stem from the uninvited visit of a United States individual who entered Ms. Suu Kyi's home compound after swimming across a nearby lake. He then reportedly stayed on her compound for 2 days, despite requests to leave. Based on this occurrence, the regime appears now to allege that Ms. Suu Kyi has broken the law by not requesting permission in advance to have a visitor. As a penalty, then, for an uninvited person showing up on her doorstep--while she remained imprisoned inside--the Burmese regime proposes to sentence her for up to 5 years in jail. All of this represents, of course, the latest pretext dreamt up by the Burmese junta in order to prevent the legitimately elected leader of the country from interfering in its plans for dominance. The generals who run the country are planning ``elections'' to be held next year, and which they believe will legitimize their illegitimate rule. They seek ways to ensure that Ms. Suu Kyi and other NLD members are not free to participate in these elections, since it is the NLD--and not the military junta--that has the support of the Burmese people. As political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, fill Burmese jails, the international community should see this process for the sham it represents. I once had the great honor of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a woman of astonishing courage and incredible resolve. Her determination in the face of tyranny inspires me and every individual who holds democracy dear. Her resilience in the face of untold sufferings, her courage at the hands of a cruel junta, and her composure despite years of oppression inspire the world. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrests, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents: peace, freedom, and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. The world must now respond to the junta's latest outrage in a way that demonstrates the inevitability of those values she so clearly demonstrates. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work. We must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less. This means renewing the sanctions that will expire this year, and it means vigorous enforcement by our Treasury Department of the targeted financial sanctions in place against regime leaders. It means being perfectly clear that we stand on the side of freedom for the Burmese people and against those who abridge it. The message of solidarity with the Burmese people should come from all quarters, and that includes their closest neighbors, the ASEAN countries. The United States, European countries, and others have condemned her arrest and call for her immediate release. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a declaration of the Council of the European Union, and others by the Federation of International Rights, and the International Federation of Human Rights.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the country's of Southeast Asia should be at the forefront of this call. ASEAN now has a human rights charter, in which member countries have committed to protect and promote human rights. Now is the time to live up to that commitment. ASEAN could start by dispatching envoys to Rangoon in order to demand the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi. This courageous leader, and all those Burmese who have followed her lead in pressing for their own inalienable rights, should know all free people stand with you and support you. The world is watching not only your brave actions but also those of the military government whose cruelty and incompetence know no bounds. Burma's future will be one of peace and freedom, not violence and repression. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear of peace, not violence, and with the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed. The United States has a critical role to play in Burma and throughout the world as the chief voices for the rights and integrity of all persons. It is a role we suppress at the world's peril and our own. A strong public defense of the rights of oppressed people has been and must remain an enduring element in American foreign policy. Nothing can relieve us of the responsibility to stand for those whose human rights are in peril or the knowledge that we stand for something in this world greater than self-interest. Should we need inspiration to guide us, we need look no further to that astonishingly courageous leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The junta's latest actions are once again a desperate attempt by a decaying regime to stall freedom's inevitable success in Burma and across Asia. They will fail, as surely as Aung San Suu Kyi's campaign for a free Burma will one day succeed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1057, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Mr. McCAIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe there is a Senator coming over to speak, and I think that is the last speaker on this bill that I know of. So in the meantime, awaiting his arrival, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I thank the chairman and all the staff for the hard work they have done on this legislation. Many hundreds of hours have been put in, as well as hours of hearings. I thank the chairman for his leadership and the kind of nonpartisanship these important issues require for the good of the country. I do not object.