John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has agreed to pass S. 2464, the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006, with an amendment that I have also offered. S. 2464 amends the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, which ratified a negotiated settlement of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's water entitlement to flow from the Verde River. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl as an original cosponsor of this bill and the amendment. The 1990 Settlement Act provided, among other things, for the Secretary of the Interior to provide the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation a no-interest loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation Project Act for construction of facilities for the conveyance and delivery of water to the Fort McDowell reservation. However, during environmental review conducted prior to construction of the irrigation system, 227 of the acres to be irrigated were discovered to contain significant cultural sites. With the agreement of the tribe, the Secretary withdrew those acres from development, but replacement lands have proven difficult and expensive to mitigate and implementation of the Act has been left uncompleted. The current values of the no-interest loan outstanding and the current cost of the Department of the Interior's obligation to mitigate replacement acreage are nearly identical, thus the tribe and the Department have agreed to resolve this issue by mutually releasing their remaining obligations under the reclamation provisions of the 1990 Settlement Act. S. 2464 would implement this mutually agreed upon resolution. After approval of this measure by the Indian Affairs Committee, a potential ambiguity in the bill was identified, possibly calling into question the finality of the 1990 Settlement Act. The amendment offered strikes the potentially ambiguous language and inserts new language to clarify that the agreement of the Yavapai Nation and the Department of the Interior contained in S. 2464 achieves a full and final implementation to the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Carl J. Artman to be Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. to be followed immediately by a business meeting to approve the nomination of Carl J. Artman. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the committee for the outstanding work that she and the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, have done in bringing forth this very important legislation. I believe the work that is done by these two Members of the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, in order to better secure the safety of our citizens, is laudable and important. I congratulate them on this legislation that we are considering today. This amendment would ensure that in addition to our efforts to improve port security, we also address another critical transportation mode--rail transportation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators DeWine, Snowe, and Biden. Again, I want to say I am pleased the Senate has chosen to take up the Port Security Act of 2006 to protect our Nation's ports and waterways. I just listened carefully to the statement by the distinguished chairwoman of the committee, outlining both the threat and the way that this legislation will address these very important aspects of our Nation's security at our ports. I would also like to point out that the bill implements several recommendations from the 9/11 Commission's final report, including allocating security grants based on risk and comprehensive cargo screening. Additionally, the bill would establish an office within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate all cargo security policy, develop a strategy for deployment of radiation detection capabilities in all ports, and establish a process to facilitate the movement of secure cargo from international ports to our ports without interrupting the international supply chain and delaying goods to consumers in the United States. Securing our ports is a crucial part of our efforts to protect Americans at home. The amendment I am offering today would complement the underlying legislation by providing essential funding and additional tools to strengthen our Nation's rail system. Two years ago the Senate passed by unanimous consent the Rail Security Act of 2004, legislation that was almost identical to the amendment I am offering today. Unfortunately, that bill died in the House of Representatives. Last year I reintroduced the legislation shortly after the London bombings of July 7 and language that is similar to the provisions of the Rail Security Act is in a title of the Transportation Security Bill that was reported by the Commerce Committee in February. I sincerely hope that we will once again pass this important legislation. Rail security must be made a top priority of this Congress. Look at the recent threats of attacks. We were all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of lives caused by the 2004 terrorist attacks in Madrid, the 2005 London attacks, and the terrorist attacks on commuter trains in Mumbai this summer. Those incidents are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in our global war on terror and what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life. On many occasions we have said we cannot play just defense in this war; that, instead, we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible and prudent to protect Americans at home. The numerous attacks on rail systems abroad demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation. There is little doubt that we have increased dramatically our security capabilities over the past 5 years. However, there is just as little doubt that we have much more to do. Since the attacks of 9/11, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security. In fact, I would be very curious if the distinguished chairman of the committee knows the relative amounts of money that we have spent on rail security as compared with airport security. I think you will find it is minuscule. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist threats. This lack of funding exists despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has identified as potential terrorist targets the freight and passenger rail networks which are critical to the Nation's transportation system and national defense. The 9/11 Commission, too, in its report on the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks called for improved security in all modes of transportation, noting that `` . . . terrorists may turn their attention to other modes.'' This amendment would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Pennsylvania station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday. I want to repeat that fact. Penn Station in New York City is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday. Look at the amount of money we have spent to try to protect that vulnerable target as opposed to literally every major airport in America. This funding is all the more urgent given this summer's arrest by the FBI of eight suspects tied to al-Qaida who were plotting attacks on train tunnels connecting New York and New Jersey. The legislation would also establish a grant program authorized at $350 million to help increase security by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with security responsibility for passenger stations not owned by Amtrak. Further, DHS would be required to complete a vulnerability assessment of the rail network to terrorist attack and make recommendations to Congress for addressing security weaknesses. Importantly, to protect the taxpayers' interests, all Amtrak authorizations would be managed by the Department of Transportation through formal grant agreements. We all know that we face a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find our weaknesses and move against them. We have seen the vulnerabilities of rail to terrorism in other countries and the devastating consequences of such an attack. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack. I also note that this amendment is cosponsored by Senators DeWine, Snowe, and Biden. I thank the Senators for their cosponsorship of this critical measure. I trust the Senate will once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. I would like to mention to the distinguished manager of the bill that I don't think this is probably the best away to address this issue. Obviously, the bill should have stood on its own and been addressed separately with amendments to the bill. But I think there is a compelling case that can be made that, if port security is vital and must be acted on, so must rail security. I do not diminish the importance of this legislation. But, again, I would like to point out railway stations all over America have received very little attention and very little funding. Are we going to wait until there is an attack, such as where we arrested eight subjects this summer who were planning attacks on rail connections between New York and New Jersey or are we going to get ahead of this? I come from a State where very few of our passengers use rail. But I think it is very important to point out that in places in the Northeast this is a primary form of transportation. Just a couple of blocks from here, if you did a rough assessment, you would find at Union Station there are significant vulnerabilities. By the way, I would like to mention that Senator Stevens has played a key role in this effort on this legislation. We have worked together. His leadership has been vital. I know his efforts have been very important, and I want to express my appreciation. Again, I say to the distinguished managers of the bill, if changes need to be made to this legislation in conference we would certainly welcome improvements. But I hope we can include this as part of this legislation so we can begin making serious efforts to ensure rail safety in America. My thanks to the managers and my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for all of his efforts on this legislation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 4922 and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. McCAIN. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lieberman as a cosponsor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I may just make one additional comment, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk. They add the Homeland Security Committee as recipient of the reporting requirements in the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to discuss the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, which is one of the most important of the appropriations measures that we consider annually. This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in our armed forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. We must support them, and, for that reason, I will vote in favor of its passage. But I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the committee report accompanying this bill. The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $453 billion. This is more than $9 billion below the President's request and I am discouraged that it required a $13 billion amendment designated as emergency funding to get back to the President's requested funding level. Also, as is the case with so many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains hundreds of earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized--to the tune of over $4 billion. During a time of war we should be making every effort to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and then adding earmarks for favored projects. Every day we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on behalf of our great nation to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as several other places around the globe. Our soldiers have sacrificed and their families have sacrificed. And so, we in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and sacrifice as well. Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's accompanying report that were not requested in the President's budget and were not on any of the armed services unfunded priority lists--some of which have next to nothing to do with the Department of Defense or its mission: $2 million for automotive research; $2 million for Precision Polishing of Large Objects; $3 million for improved shelf-life for Vegetables; $2 million for Brown Tree Snakes; $117 million for an Oceanographic Survey Ship; $75 million for the Allegany Ballistics Lab in West Virginia; $18.5 million for a Air Force C-17 Maintenance Training System in Hawaii; $8 million for the Allen Army Airfield in Alaska; $1.5 million for Fort Detrick in Maryland; $4 million for disposable dental masks; and $3.5 million for Hibernation Genomics. Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy causes, such as ovarian cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include: $115 million for Breast Cancer Research; $80 million for Prostate Cancer Research; $6 million for Integrated Trans- lational Prostate Disease Research; $34 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network; and $15 million for Ovarian Cancer Research. Mr. President, as we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative that we get the most of each and every defense dollar. The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many, unrequested earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious resources and are not vital to our long term national security. I strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not legislatively mandated or authorized, but rather, are merely the wish lists of the committee. Beyond the earmarks contained in the Senate report, this bill contains numerous authorizing provisions, some of which are outside of the scope of defense policy. Some of these provisions include: Authorizing medical services at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii for civilian patients; Authorizing the use of up to $50 million for operational ranges managed by the Air Force in Alaska; and A provision that protects jobs in Hawaii and Alaska. Mr. President, I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the authorizing committee. I would also like to discuss the Buy America restrictions that cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of Buy America restrictions. For example, the bill would prevent the purchase of ball bearings unless domestically produced. It requires that welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain be manufactured in the United States. Another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source. I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners. Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an allied country covered by a defense cooperation memorandum of understanding when only one domestic source exists. This would ensure both price and product competition. Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to terminate support for equipment. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military. In recent years they have kept mature lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into production around the turn of the century. Finally, these exports provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports-- well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters. Mr. President, I would prefer not to criticize this legislation. It is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where some of their money is going. And some of it is not going to projects that have anything to do with our defense.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator, who is a strong supporter of the military men and women who are serving and with whom I have had the great privilege of serving on the Armed Services Committee, if I may be a bit cynical, may I ask, Does the Senator think we would be having this discussion if we were not in an even-numbered year in September?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond to the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Alabama, we have many pressing areas of the war on terror in Iraq. I think we should be engaged in discussions as to how we can better equip the men and women who are serving in Iraq. I think we could discuss the situation of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea. There are many pressing issues around the world this body could be discussing. I would respond with one more question for my friend from Alabama. I do not want to take up too much of his time, but isn't it true that elections have consequences? The fact is, when we elect a President of the United States, one of the most important things is for him to have a team around him that he can trust and that he can rely on, and the President should be able to keep that team until such time as the President of the United States loses confidence in that team. If we begin dictating who the team is around the President of the United States, it bodes ill for any President of the United States, whether it be a Democrat or Republican or whoever, because one of the important aspects of the Presidency is to have people around the President of the United States whom he or she can trust. Isn't that one of the most important predicates of capable government?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to address a growing misperception concerning the European Union's ability to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Treaty. There are many climate change skeptics who claim that the EU will not be able to meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Treaty. In turn, they argue that the U.S. should not participate in any ``cap and trade'' system for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Kyoto Treaty, the EU has committed to greenhouse gas reductions target of 8 percent below their 1990 emission levels and covers the years 2008 through 2012. This target is shared by the 15 EU member states, EU-15, that existed at the time of the EU ratification of the protocol in May 2001. An additional 10 countries joined the EU in May 2004, eight of which have individual targets under Kyoto that range from 6 to 8 percent below the 1990 levels. Two of them, Malta and Cyprus, are developing countries and, therefore, do not have any emission targets under the treaty. In December 2005, the EU, as required by the Kyoto Treaty, reported on the progress made toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report indicated that EU policies and actions by member states to date have made annual carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 5.5 percent in the year 2003 across all 25 of the EU member states, EU-25. The report makes the following assessments: For the EU-15: Existing measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that are projected to be 1.6 percent below the year 1990 levels in 2010. Savings from additional domestic policies and measures being planned by the EU-15 would result in total emission reductions of 6.8 percent. EU-15 member states forecast that they will be able to achieve lower emissions of 9.3 percent below the year 1990 levels through the use of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms in the year 2010. They include such activities as emissions trading, forest sequestration, and participating in International projects that result in greenhouse gas reductions through the Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism programs. For the EU-25: The total of all member states' projections of greenhouse gas emissions will be 5 percent below base year levels in 2010 as a result of measures already implemented. The implementation of additional measures is projected to reduce the EU-25 greenhouse gas emissions to 9.3 percent below 1990 levels by 2010 and, with the use of Kyoto flexibility mechanisms, to 11.3 percent below the year 1990 levels. The December 2005 report concludes that the EU-15 states can meet their target of 8 percent below the 1990 levels if the additional domestic measures and the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms that are planned are implemented. According to the February 14, 2006 statement of the acting head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Richard Kinley, 34 industrialized countries under the Kyoto Treaty were ``on their way to lower their emissions levels by at least 3.5% below the 1990 levels during the first commitment period.'' ``With the help of additional measures and the use of Kyoto market-based mechanisms, they will as a group be able reach their agreed Kyoto reduction targets.'' In June, the European Environment Agency issued the Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2004 and Inventory Report 2006. The report indicates that the EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions for 2004 increased by 0.3 percent--11.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents--over 2003. However, compared to the base year, emissions in 2004 were 0.9 percent lower. Assuming a linear target path from 1990 to 2010, total EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions were 4.7 index points above this target path in 2004. It should be noted that this linear target path is not intended as an approximation of past and future emission trends. It does provide a measure of how close the EU-15 emissions are in 2004 to a linear path of emissions from 1990 to the Kyoto target period of 2008-2012, assuming that only domestic measures will be used. Therefore, it is not a measure of future compliance of the EU-15 with its greenhouse gas emission targets in 2008-2012, but aims at evaluating overall EU-15 greenhouse emissions in 2004 alone. The EU is fully committed to the Kyoto Treaty. It has adopted a series of policies and measures, such as the EU's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, to meet its target in a cost-effective manner. The most recent projections show that these measures, together with the EU's participation in the global carbon market, will allow the EU to meet its target. To ensure its compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, the EU has adopted a series of measures under the European Climate Change Programme, ECCP. Most of these measures have recently entered into force and will start to show their full effect over the next few years. These include: The EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources; the promotion of cogeneration, CHP; increasing the energy performance of buildings; the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport; the reduction of land- filling of biodegradable waste I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record documents from the European Commission and the European Environmental Agency's reports which summarize the EU's efforts to address climate change. Let me highlight a few of the important elements from these reports for my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, attachment I gives a full overview of all recently adopted measures and their projected effect. ECCP policies and other actions by Member States to date, in combination with restructuring of European industry, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, have contributed to an absolute reduction of annual carbon dioxide emissions of some 305 million tonnes, 4.8 percent, across the EU-25 in 2004. Attachment II provides an overview of the performance of individual Member States. In 2004, the EU-15, which shares the EU's Kyoto target of an 8 percent reduction, had reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 0.9 percent compared to 1990 levels even though they recorded economic growth of 32 percent from 1990 to 2004. The average EU-15 member state's emissions over the most recent 5-year period are currently 2 percent below 1990 level. Attachment III provides an overview of the planned use by individual Member States of the Kyoto mechanisms. The EU will make use of the cost-effective reduction options offered by its participation in the global carbon market, based on the Kyoto's flexible mechanisms, to meet its target. In summary Mr. President, the EU has made good progress and its ultimate success will depend upon the speed and thoroughness of the implementation by Member States of legislative and domestic measures. Total projections for the EU-15 Member States show that the Kyoto targets can be met if Member States implement additional planned domestic measures and use the flexible mechanisms. Despite this meaningful progress, the EU realizes that much more has to be done. Its climate change policy does not stop in 2012, the end of the Kyoto Treaty. The European Commission has also adopted a Communication outlining key elements for a strategy for further action post 2012. They include: the need for broader participation by countries and sectors; the development of low-carbon technologies; the continued and expanded use of market-based instruments; and the need to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. A follow-up Communication with proposals for concrete steps at European and international levels is planned for the end of 2006. These policies, and others like them, provide the necessary strong, long-term signals to industry, EU Member State governments, and the wider international community that the EU is committed to tackling climate change and expects all of its institutions, businesses, and citizens to do their part. Many here in the US will try to use another country's failure or inaction as an excuse for not doing anything. But it is just that, an excuse. The harsh reality is that we all need to be doing more--and that means the United States too. Just as we cannot allow the EU challenges to serve as the basis for our inaction, I certainly hope that the EU would not allow our lack of action to hinder their efforts to address this significant problem.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I whole-heartedly agree with my colleague from Alabama that it is essential that we all have the same understanding of the requirements for this program. In March 2006, the Air Force indicated that, among other things, tanker replacement monies in fiscal year 2007 would be ``early to need.'' Thus, by the Air Force's own estimate, there is no need for additional funds for fiscal year 2007. I do support the Department of Defense's interest in recapitalizing its fleet of aging tankers. However, we need to ensure that the Air Force is committed to full and open competition on the program. To protect taxpayers' interests and national security, the Air Force must exercise a competition that is straightforward and traditional. In particular, the Air Force should rigorously follow an acquisition process based on established legal and regulatory guidelines, specifically setting aside any factors from its procurement evaluation that may improperly eliminate competition before bids are actually submitted. Our Armed Forces need the best tanker solution possible, and that means that any source with a reliable, high quality product that can provide aerial refueling services in a timely and cost-effective fashion, should be considered.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 4838 would strike language from the bill that states that certain projects in the committee report ``shall be considered to be authorized by law.'' Committee reports that accompany Senate bills and joint explanatory statements that accompany conference reports are not law but, rather, advisory documents. While some like to think otherwise, the Federal agencies are under no legal requirement to follow verbatim the many directives that are included in each and every committee report. And I note that also applies to the hundreds of earmarks that are included in committee reports and joint explanatory statements each year. Unless provisions are included in enacted legislation, they do not have the force of law. And this is not just my view. Let me read from the April 1998 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Scalia in United States, petitioner v. Estate of Francis J. Romani et al.: The Constitution sets forth the only manner in which the Members of Congress have the power to impose their will upon the country: by a bill that passes both Houses and is either signed by the President or repassed by a supermajority after his veto. Art. I, Sec. 7. Everything else the Members of Congress do is either prelude or internal organization. And just this past June, in Zedner v. United States, Scalia wrote: I believe that the only language that constitutes ``a Law'' within the meaning of the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of Article I Sec. 7, and hence the only language adopted in a fashion that entitles it to our attention, is the text of the enacted statute. It may seem that there is no harm in using committee reports and other such sources when they are merely in accord with the plain meaning of the Act. But this sort of intellectual piling-on has addictive consequences. To begin with, it accustoms us to believing that what is said by a single person in a floor debate or by a committee report represents the view of Congress as a whole--so that we sometimes even will say (when referring to a floor statement and committee report) that ``Congress has expressed'' thus- and-so. . . . There is no basis either in law or in reality for this naive belief Moreover, if legislative history is relevant when it confirms the plain meaning of the statutory text, it should also be relevant when it contradicts the plain meaning, thus rendering what is plain ambiguous. I fully understand a committee's interest in having an agency consider the guidance it provides in its report language. But on occasion, that interest can get carried away. I remember the controversy that occurred a few years ago when a report included language expressing extreme displeasure over the fact that an agency had not followed to the letter certain prior year's report language. The subsequent report, which accompanied the fiscal year 2004 CJS appropriations bill, stated the following: As in past years, the Committee expects NOAA and the Department to adhere to the direction given in this section of the Committee report, particularly language regarding consultation with Congress, and to observe the reprogramming procedures detailed in section 605 in the general provisions of the accompanying bill. Unlike past years, however, the Committee intends to enforce congressional direction ruthlessly. The reason I am referencing that report is to demonstrate the extent to which committees can go in imposing report directives. I am not trying to suggest the DOD appropriations report accompanying the pending bill includes comparable threats, but I am concerned about a line in the bill language that I believe should be eliminated because it would have the effect of authorizing projects that are merely listed in the report, thus giving provisions in the report the force of law. Section 8042 of the bill states: The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate accompanying this Act, and the projects specified in such guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law. Let me repeat the last phrase: ``and the projects specified in such guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law.'' Mr. President, the projects referred to are not included in the legislative language, and we should not be suggesting that it is acceptable to authorize provisions by reference. In this particular case, it would result in the authorization of about 30 projects. But imagine what is next. I can envision the conference report of this or another bill to include a line stating that all the projects in its report ``shall be considered to be authorized by law.'' The language that allows certain projects to be ``considered authorized by law'' is a dangerous precedent, and I believe it should be eliminated. I appreciate that the bill managers have agreed to accept this amendment, and I trust that they will work to ensure that the final conference agreement is free of language that would allow provisions in the joint explanatory statement to have the force of law.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S. 374, the Tribal Parity Act; S. 480, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2005; S. 660, the Lumbee Recognition Act; S. 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005; and S. 1535, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2005. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a ``wild and scenic river.'' A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation. Fossil Creek it 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 base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of the State's largest eclectic 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 presettlement conditions. APS has partnered with various environmental groups, Federal land managers, and State, tribal, and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving 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 most valuable 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 long-term 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 property owners. Mr. President, Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through ``wild and scenic'' designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for passage of H.R. 5683, legislation passed by the House last week to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in Diego, CA. I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, Senator Sessions. He and I both have introduced legislation similar to H.R. 5683 and I am pleased that Senator Graham also has joined us in advocating a legislative solution to this important matter. Since 1913, a series of crosses have stood on top of Mount Soledad, property owned by the city of San Diego. In April of 1954, the site was designated to commemorate the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces who served in World War II, as well as the Korean war. In 1989, one individual filed suit against the city claiming that the display of the cross by the city was unconstitutional and, therefore, violated his civil rights. In 1991, a Federal judge issued an injunction prohibiting the permanent display of the cross on city property. Since that time, the city has repeatedly tried to divest itself of the property through sale or donation. But the plaintiff continued to mount legal challenges to every attempted property transfer. The legal wrangling over this memorial continues today. The Mount Soledad Memorial is a remarkably popular landmark. In fact, I had the pleasure of visiting the Memorial during the Fourth of July recess and can personally attest to the profound impression it can leave on its visitors. It is also of great importance to the local community. On two different occasions, the voters of San Diego have overwhelming passed ballot measures designed to transfer the property to entities which could maintain the cross. Given the many years of legal disputes regarding this memorial, I believe it is past time that this issue be resolved. The bill that we are seeking to pass would bring the Mount Soledad cross under the control of the Federal Government, and specifically, the Department of Defense and would allow for the just compensation for the property in question. It also would address the required maintenance for the memorial and the surrounding property through a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Defense and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The minimal financial commitment required in this legislation will ensure the endurance of this memorial which serves as a reminder of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who made enormous sacrifices when our country called upon them. I understand the bill has cleared on our side, and that we are awaiting for the other side to allow its approval. I can only hope that all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and ensure the preservation of an important tribute to our men and women of the Armed Forces.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass S. 3549, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2006. While I have reservations over the legislation as currently drafted, I have agreed to allow the bill to proceed to conference, given the assurances by the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, that he will work to address the concerns that I have raised. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--known as CFIUS--was established 30 years ago to placate concerns in Congress over investments by Middle Eastern countries in American assets. Three decades later, it is once again concern over the Middle East that is driving Congress to overhaul the CFIUS process. This time, the outrage has revolved around the proposed acquisition of port terminal operations in the U.S. by Dubai Ports World, a corporation owned by the government of Dubai, one of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates. In the war on terror, the UAE has provided American and Coalition military forces unprecedented access to its ports and territory, overflight clearances, and other critical and important logistical assistance. The UAE has played host to over 700 U.S. Navy ships at its ports, including the Port of Jebel Ali--which is managed by Dubai Ports World--and to the Air Force at al Dhafra Air Base. The country also hosts the UAE Air Warfare Center, the leading fighter training center in the Middle East. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering. Moreover, Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative and the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material. But all of these details seem to have been lost in the rush to stop a corporate transaction with a key ally in the war on terror. Mr. President, there are at least two details in S. 3549 that cannot be ignored because they will not help protect our homeland. Instead, they will only harm America's economy, the strength of which is critical to our national security. One provision that I believe merits closer scrutiny would require CFIUS to notify several congressional committees, as well as individual members of Congress, of each and every transaction submitted to CFIUS's review. This notification would be required well before CFIUS made any determination about the national security implications, if any, of the proposed transaction. On its face, this provision would appear to be a reasonable effort to achieve transparency and accountability in the CFIUS process. However, if this provision were enacted, a process that is meant to be a sober analysis of the national security implications of a transaction would become a politically charged debacle. What other goal would be accomplished by providing notice to the members of Congress whose States and districts are impacted by the transaction before any determination is made by CFIUS? The politicization of the CFIUS review process would discourage transactions that might be reviewed by CFIUS for fear of financial or reputational harm. This, in turn, could reduce foreign direct investment or impose a risk premium on such investment that would be detrimental to U.S. businesses seeking investment capital. A second provision that I believe needs further clarification would require CFIUS to investigate a proposed transaction whenever the matter involves ``any possible impairment to national security'' resulting from the acquisition of critical infrastructure or ``the possibility of an impairment to national security'' arising out of any transaction reviewed by CFIUS. Under these standards, many transactions that pose negligible or no risk to national security will nonetheless be forced into an extended 45-day investigation in addition to the initial 30-day review period. According to the Department of Treasury, these standards will lead to a significant increase in the number of investigations conducted by CFIUS. I strongly support a full and fair review of each transaction submitted to CFIUS, and I believe that a transaction that poses a risk to our national security should not be approved, but that is not what the mandatory 45-day investigation provisions would accomplish. In my view, it would be better to use CFIUS resources to investigate transactions that raise genuine national security concerns. I appreciate the interest of Senator Shelby and others to modify the CFIUS process, and I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of their desire to protect our Nation from threats abroad. That is why I am confident that my concerns with the legislation will be addressed in conference. If they are not, then I will be forced to object to the conference report.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my friend from Kentucky. Let me respond by referencing, again, this struggle carried out by this magnificent woman. She has endured 17 years of house arrest. When her husband was in England, he was dying of cancer. She has two sons, by the way. He was dying of cancer, and she wanted, of course, to go to be with her husband in his last hours. The junta said: Yes, you can go, but you can never come back. Among the incredible sacrifices she has made, she was not even allowed to be with her husband as he died. One time she was surrounded by these thugs who killed some of her supporters. She was in a car for a week--inside of her car for a week, surrounded by these unspeakable, brutal thugs who were the goons of this regime. The things she has undergone. Yet, incredibly, whenever she is with these thugs from this junta, she treats them with the utmost courtesy. She serves them tea. She treats them as only a woman of her caliber can treat her mortal enemies. Her story needs to be told and retold throughout the world, thousands and thousands of times. As a person who is a hero worshiper, an admirer, I believe that heroes have an important place in our Nation and the world. When I see her, she ranks in the first ranks of heroes in the world. It seems to me, with all due respect to the other nations of the world--our European friends, our ASEAN friends, and others--that we should be far more energetic in her advocacy and advocacy of freedom for her people. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Feinstein for their leadership once again in renewing the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to cosponsor and support this resolution. I again thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from California for their leadership and their advocacy. I thank Senator McConnell for his very strong and inspirational remarks that he completed. As we renew these sanctions, the situation inside Burma continues to worsen still. The military junta in that country controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. And that courageous woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, has spent yet another year in captivity. Aung San Suu Kyi's resolve in the face of tyranny inspires me and, I believe, every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold suffering 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 the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the 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. And, while we see encouraging signs that the world is no longer content to sit on the sidelines, not everyone has gotten the message. Nine years after Burma joined ASEAN, the Southeast Asian nations remain too passive in the face of Burma's outrages. The European Union has recently announced that it will waive a travel ban on Burma's top leaders so that the Burmese foreign minister can attend the Asia-Europe meeting in Finland this September. It is hard to see what new actions the Burmese junta must commit in order to induce the world to treat the junta like the pariah it wishes to be. At least there should be no mistaking where the United States stands when it comes to repression in Burma. The U.S. Congress has been in the forefront of efforts to isolate that country, and we stepped up these measures significantly in 2003 with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country. Today's renewal of the import restrictions--sanctions that are supplied by supported by the National League for Democracy--is just one of those steps. I believe that these restrictions must remain in place until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. But the import ban must not be the only step. The U.S. has pushed for a resolution at the United Nations Security Council, and this step should garner wide support. The Europeans and ASEAN too should take up the Burma issue and put it on their front burners. Every responsible member of the international community must realize that the desire of people to be free is universal, and it does not stop at the gates of Rangoon. The people of Burma desire freedom and democracy, they have expressed this desire, and they shall one day have it. The question is not ``if'' but ``when.'' We shall help them get there, and we shall never forget their brave struggle. Again, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from California for their leadership on this very important issue. There are many issues that are before America's attention today and that dominate our television and our newspapers. But this struggle for freedom on the part of the Burmese people has been there before and, unfortunately, will be after. We must be steadfast in our advocacy until they attain the freedom that they deserve under the leadership of this magnificent, Nobel Prize-winning hero for men and women throughout the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while we have a minute or two here, the Senator from Oklahoma and I have agreed--and I hope the Senator from Vermont would agree--that on the next amendment we could get it dispensed with pretty quickly. We do not intend to propose the other two amendments which we had pending. So as far as the Senator from Wisconsin and I are concerned, we would only have one additional amendment, and if it is agreeable to the managers of the bill, that would be for an hour equally divided. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.