John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the Inhofe-Bond amendment. I would like to make it very clear that the Inhofe-Bond amendment is not an independent review amendment. In fact, it is business as usual. We have an expansion of a system that has never worked before and will continue to fail in the future because we are putting the fox in charge of the hen house. We are putting the Corps of Engineers in charge of reviewing their own work. To begin with, I hesitate to call it an independent peer review amendment, considering that the amendment directs the Chief of Engineers to select the panels, guaranteeing that the panels will not be independent. The amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all. The Corps gets to select the reviewers. There are no criteria at all for ensuring independence of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps has control over whether, how, and who will review the projects. Their version, according to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, would be prepared by the Corps, controlled by the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and reported by the Corps, locking out input from other relevant water resources agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. Putting the structure of the review aside, let's look more closely at what requirements would need to be met in order to trigger a review of a Corps project. According to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, it gives the Corps complete discretion to avoid review of most projects. Review is mandatory only for projects costing more than $100 million. Inhofe-Bond lets the Corps ignore Governor and agency requests for review. Inhofe- Bond prohibits review of the Corps' project proposal. Reviews could only examine scientific, engineering or technical bases of the decision or recommendation but not the recommendations resulting from that data. The environment review accompanying a feasibility study would not be subject to review. The Inhofe-Bond amendment prohibits reassessment of key models and data. This permanent moratorium guarantees that the Corps will continue to use models that are widely recognized as inaccurate and flawed. Mr. President, I think events of New Orleans cry out for independent review and outside scrutiny. It is alarming what we have found out, after some of the hubbub concerning Katrina has died down. After Katrina, the Corps of Engineers said that all of its failed flood walls had been overtopped by a hurricane too powerful for the Category 3 protection authorized by Congress, while [the President's] critics said the administration budget cuts had hamstrung the Corps. Both were wrong. Katrina was no stronger than Category 2 when it hit New Orleans, and many corps [flood walls] collapsed even though they were not overtopped. [President] Bush's proposed budget cuts were largely ignored, and were mostly irrelevant to the city's flood protection. New Orleans was betrayed by the Corps and its friends in Congress. The Corps helped set the stage for the disaster decades ago by imprisoning the Mississippi River behind giant levees. Those levees helped protect St. Louis, Memphis and even New Orleans from river flooding, but they reduced the amount of silt the river carries to its delta, curtailing the land- building process that creates marshes and swamps along the Louisiana coast. Those wetlands serve as hurricane speed bumps--in Katrina, levees with natural buffers had much higher survival rates--but they have been vanishing at a rate of 24 square miles per year. Mr. President, the record of the Corps of Engineers cries out for independent review and scrutiny and a prioritization of projects. I quote from the Washington Post editorial of Wednesday, June 7, 2006: Last week the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted responsibility for much of the destruction of New Orleans. It was not true, as the Corps initially had claimed, that its defenses failed because Congress had authorized only Category 3 protection, with the result that Hurricane Katrina overtopped the city's floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no stronger than a Category 2 storm by the time it came ashore, and many of the floodwalls let water in because they collapsed, not because they weren't high enough. As the Corps' own inquiry found, the agency committed numerous mistakes of design. Its network of pumps, walls and levees was ``a system in name only.'' It failed to take into account the gradual sinking of the local soil; it closed its ears when people pointed out these problems. The result was a national tragedy. I hope my colleagues will do everything in their power to make sure we never see a repeat of this. There are admitted failures in the process, and I respect the effort of my colleagues from Oklahoma and Missouri to make some changes. But our argument is it is not enough. It is not enough. Virtually every environmental organization in America supports this amendment. Virtually every outside organization supports this amendment. The administration supports this amendment. I hope that we would make sure that we can tell our constituents and the people who live in areas that may be buffeted by hurricanes or other natural disasters, particularly as we enter another what is predicted to be a heavy hurricane season, that at least in future projects, we have installed a proper system of scrutiny and oversight-- not only so their tax dollars aren't wasted but, far more important, that they don't experience an unnecessary disaster. I urge we adopt the amendment of Senator Feingold and myself and reject the Inhofe-Bond amendment. I will yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feingold, Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords in sponsoring the amendment. This amendment has been described already by my friend from Wisconsin. I will point out again that it establishes a truly independent system for conducting peer review of certain Army Corps projects. As my colleagues know, the Corps comes under intense scrutiny by Government watchdog agencies and taxpayer groups, including the Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences. Investigation after investigation into the Corps' project review practices has revealed serious problems with the quality, objectivity, and credibility of the Corps when reporting on the economic and environmental feasibility of proposed water projects. One GAO report concluded in 2006 that the Corps' planning studies ``were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' The same GAO report cited several examples of the Corps' failure to properly analyze projects. These include the Sacramento flood protection project. According to the GAO, the Corps didn't fully analyze likely cost increases for the Sacramento flood protection project or report cost overruns to Congress in a timely manner. The GAO found that the estimated cost of the project originally totaled about $114 million but increased to about $500 million by 2002. By the time the Corps reported those cost increases to Congress in 2002, it had already spent or planned to spend more than double its original estimated cost. The Delaware deepening project: The GAO found that the Corps substantially overstated the projected economic benefits of the Delaware River channel-deepening project. Whereas the Corps estimated the benefits to be $40.1 million per year in 1998, the GAO projected only $13.3 million per year. The GAO urged the Corps to reanalyze the project, which later revealed it could be built for $56 million less than the Corps estimated. The list goes on and on of these projects that have been understated in cost, not properly justified. There is not a proper prioritization. Regarding the Corps' analysis of the Oregon Inlet jetty project, according to the GAO, the Corps' analysis of the Oregon Inlet jetty project, issued in 2001, failed to ``consider alternatives to the proposed project, used outdated data to estimate benefits to fishing trawlers, and did not account for the effects on smaller fishing vessels.'' In 2005, the Corps adopted guidelines for conducting external reviews of projects. It sounds like a good idea. The current guidelines give the Corps virtually complete discretion to decide what projects should be reviewed from outside the Corps. The so-called peer reviewers themselves are selected by the Corps and in some circumstances can even be Corps employees. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Corps officials have identified approximately 25 engineering studies as eligible for outside peer review since the peer review guidelines were enacted over a year ago, but the Corps has not been able to point to any study where an external review was actually carried out. Clearly, the system needs to be fixed. According to this amendment, Corps studies would be subject to peer review if the project cost more than $40 million, the Governor of an affected State requests a review, a Federal agency with statutory authority to review a project finds that it will have significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. This kind of issue hits home pretty much when we have a situation such as the catastrophe in New Orleans. According to a March 25, 2006, article in the Washington Post: An organization of civil engineers yesterday questioned the soundness of large portions of New Orleans' levee system, warning that the city's federally designed flood walls were not built to standards stringent enough to protect a large city. The group faulted the agency responsible for the levees, the Army Corps of Engineers, for adapting safety standards that were ``too close to the margin'' to protect human life. It also called for an urgent reexamination of the entire levee system, saying there are no assurances that the miles of concrete ``I-walls'' in New Orleans will hold up against even a moderate hurricane. We have just experienced an incredible disaster and, apparently, the Corps of Engineers is not taking the proper measures to repair it. Corps officials said they had already taken steps to address problems identified in the letter, starting with an effort to replace miles of I-walls with sturdier structures. But agency officials insisted the Corps was not solely to blame for weaknesses in the system. ``We have done the best things we could have done. We live here,'' spokeswoman Susan J. Jackson said. . . . The American Society of Civil Engineers panel is one of three independent teams investigating the failure of the New Orleans levees, and until now it has been the most cautious in its public criticisms. The other investigating teams quickly endorsed its findings. ``We agree that every single foot of the I-walls is suspect,'' said Ivor van Heerden, leader of a Louisiana- appointed team of engineers. ``When asked, we have constantly urged anyone returning to New Orleans to exercise caution . . . We are talking about a pretty serious situation here. On May 14, 2006, an article entitled ``A Flood of Bad Projects,'' was written by Mr. Michael Grunwald who is a Washington Post staff writer. He goes on to say: In 2000, when I was writing a 50,000-word Washington Post series about dysfunction at the Army Corps of Engineers, I highlighted a $65 million flood control project in Missouri as Exhibit A. Corps documents showed that the project would drain more acres of wetlands than all U.S. developers do in a typical year, but wouldn't stop flooding in the town it was meant to protect. FEMA'S director called it ``a crazy idea''; the Fish and Wildlife Service's regional director called it ``absolutely ridiculous.'' Six years later, the project hasn't changed--except for its cost, which has soared to $112 million. Remember, Mr. President, originally, it was $65 million. Larry Prather, chief of legislative management for the Corps, privately described it in a 2002 e-mail as an ``economic dud with huge environmental consequences.'' Another Corps official called it ``a bad project. Period.'' But the Corps still wants to build it. ``Who can take this seriously?'' Prather asked in his e- mail. That's a good thing question to ask about the entire civil works program of the Corps. It goes on to say: Somehow, America has concluded that the scandal of Katrina was the government's response to the disaster, not the government's contribution to the disaster. The Corps has eluded the public's outrage--even though a useless Corps shipping canal intensified Katrina's surge,-- Remember that, we have come to the shipping canal intensified Katrina's surge-- even though poorly designed Corps floodwalls collapsed just a few feet from an unnecessary $750 million Corps navigation project, even though the Corps had promoted development in dangerously low-lying New Orleans floodplains and had helped destroy the vast marshes that [surround it.] There have been many studies and views of what happened in New Orleans. We all know that canal intensified the damage. We all know that the levees were not well built. Some of them, according to other news reports, had already been turned over to the local authorities. What we are asking for is rather modest. I am going to be astonished at the response of my dear friends from Missouri and Oklahoma about this because basically all this says is that there would be a peer review if a project costs more than $40 million, and if the Governor of an affected State--which seems to be a fairly good Republican principle to me--requests a review that it should be allowed, and a Federal agency with statutory authority to review a project finds that it will have a significant adverse impact or the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. The timing of the review is flexible, but the duration is strictly limited in order to not delay the process. Reviewers will be able to consider all the data, facts, and models used. Finally, the amendment establishes an independent safety assurance review for flood control projects where the public safety could be at risk should the project fail. By the way, that was recommended in the Senate Homeland Security Committee's report on Hurricane Katrina. I would think that the Members of this body, knowing the intense criticism that the Corps of Engineers has come under for years and these dramatic cost overruns time after time--I later may submit for the Record the very long list of cost overruns that have been incurred due to bad estimates to start with--that we would want to have greater oversight, that we would want to have a peer review system that would only apply to projects over $40 million each and if a Governor of a State requests it. If I were in the Corps of Engineers, maybe I would like to continue to do business as usual, but I think we showed in New Orleans that we are not talking about just cost overruns. We are not just talking about featherbedding in bureaucracies. We are talking about the lives of our citizens and catastrophes that could take place. I hope my colleagues will understand that this amendment is meant to try to improve the image of the Corps of Engineers, to give greater confidence to the taxpayers of America that their tax dollars are being wisely spent, and that we will do everything we can to prevent the kind of construction and failing that took place in New Orleans which caused so much damage, including the construction of a canal that aggravated dramatically the disaster that took place. I might add, it was also the Corps of Engineers' projects which depleted the wetlands which have been the natural barrier to hurricanes for hundreds of years, which are disappearing as we speak. As we speak, the wetlands south of Louisiana are being eroded on a daily basis. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his involvement in this issue. I hope my colleagues will understand, considering the rather significant shortfalls and shortcomings we have found involved in the Corps of Engineers, that we would want to support an effort for greater accountability and greater transparency and more involvement by local government. I also remind my colleagues that there are many projects which are on the boards, in planning stages. We will be discussing that when I propose my amendment for a process of prioritization for these projects. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak first.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I may ask the distinguished chairman, have we entered into a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. The Heritage Foundation memo says: Absent any formal mechanism to rate Corps projects and establish priorities for investments that benefit ordinary Americans, not just lobbyists and special interests, the Corps will continue on the same ineffective course that contributed to last year's disaster in New Orleans. And with the Corps already working under a 35-year backlog of projects totaling $58 billion, these management deficiencies will persist for decades. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle who almost always pay close attention to the Heritage Foundation and their findings will pay attention to this one as well. I again thank my friend from Oklahoma for his courtesy in consideration of this amendment. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just like to quote from the first paragraph of the Statement of Administration Policy: The Administration has strong concerns with the significant overall cost of S. 728. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill as reported by the Committee would authorize nearly $12 billion in discretionary spending, and a preliminary Administration review indicates that the cost of the manager's amendment would be greater. The Administration believes the bill should establish priorities-- I repeat: ``The Administration believes the bill should establish priorities''-- among these activities and limit new authorizations to those projects that represent the highest priorities for Federal funding within the three main Corps mission areas: commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The first paragraph of the administration's Statement of Administration Policy emphasizes their belief that this legislation should establish priorities amongst these activities. That is what this amendment is about. It is exactly that. The amendment is designed to help Congress make clear and educated decisions on which Army Corps projects should be funded based on our Nation's priorities. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Lieberman, and Feinstein in offering this important amendment to the Water Resources Development Act. Last August, this Nation witnessed a devastating national disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Almost a year later, the gulf coast region is still trying to rebuild and there is a long road ahead. We learned many lessons from this tragedy, and, as our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we must ensure that those resources are being used in the most effective and efficient manner as possible. It is time the Congress takes a hard look at how our scarce Army Corps dollars are being spent overall and whether they are actually going to the most necessary projects. Our current system for funding Corps projects is not working. Currently, projects are submitted by Members of Congress for funding without having a clear picture of how that project affects the overall infrastructure of our Nation's waterways or where it fits within our national waterways priorities. Too often, it is a Member's seniority and party position that dictates which projects are funded and which ones will join the $58 billion backlog. Mr. President, I repeat, we have a $58 billion backlog of projects. And the bill before us is going to add another $12 billion in projects to the backlog. Do you know how much funding the Corps receives annually? Two billion dollars. So if you have $70 billion, and we are annually allocating $2 billion, that is 35 years. It is 35 years before any project that is on this list is funded. Clearly, without a prioritization, that opens itself up to no way that we would have a way of determining which project is most important and which is not. There is no way to know which projects warrant these limited resources because the Corps refuses to give Congress its views on which projects are necessary. In fact, even when Congress specifically requests a list of the Corps' top priorities, it is unable to provide it. Remarkable. Remarkable. Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not address this problem. To help my colleagues fully understand the extent of this problem, let me quote Representative Hobson, chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, from his statement on the House floor on May 24, 2006: Last fall, we asked the Corps to provide Congress with a ``top 10'' list of the flood control and navigation infrastructure needs in the country. The Corps was surprisingly unable or not allowed to respond to this simple request, and that tells me the Corps has lost sight of its national mission and has no clear vision for projects it ought to be doing in the future . . . . frankly, what is still lacking is a long-term vision of what the Nation's water resources infrastructure should look like in the future. ``More of the same'' is not a thoughtful answer, nor is it a responsible answer in times of constrained budgets. This amendment is designed to address this problem and shed light on the funding process. It allows both Congress and the American people to have a clear understanding of where our limited resources should be spent. The amendment will tap a multiagency committee created in the underlying bill. It will direct that committee to review Corps projects that are currently under construction or have been authorized during the last 10 years. These projects would be evaluated by several commonsense, transparent criteria. They would also be divided and judged within their own project category, such as navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration. Each project category would be broken into broad, roughly equal-sized tiers, with the highest tiers including the highest priority projects, and on down the ladder. This advisory report would then be sent to Congress and be made available to the public. Some have said this amendment relinquishes congressional authority to the executive branch. That is a false allegation. The prioritization report is an effort to inform Congress, but it does not dictate spending decisions--just as the Department of Defense sends our authorizing committee, the Armed Services Committee, their priorities. Without knowing their priorities, how in the world can we know how to spend the dollars? To more fully understand the need for a prioritization system, let's consider funding for Louisiana in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The administration's budget request included 41 line items or projects solely for Louisiana that totaled $268 million. That works out to $6.5 million per project, on average. The House Energy and Water appropriations bill included 39 line items or projects totaling $254 million--again, in the neighborhood of $6.5 million per project. The Senate bill included 71 line items or projects, to the tune of $375 million--averaging out to $5.3 million per project. So while even more money was proposed for Louisiana under the Senate version, individual projects would receive less money, and, inevitably, this would result in delays in completing larger projects. So this really does come down, once again, to real-world consequences of earmarking. Communities actually lose under this earmarking practice. Can we really afford long, drawn-out delays on flood control projects that people's lives depend on simply because too many Members are fighting for a small pool of money with no real direction? We need some kind of direction, clear understanding and guidance for funding Corps projects. While more money may ultimately be going to a State, if it is being parsed via earmarking in an appropriations bill, we will not be able to make significant progress on any project. Ultimately, without guidance, Congress is able to cram as many projects as possible into appropriations bills while contending that each project is as important as the next. Drawing out completion on all of these projects puts people's lives in danger and is unacceptable. Some may believe that under this amendment smaller projects will lose out. However, the size of the project has no impact on the prioritization system. In fact, this objective system will help find the hidden gems in the Corps project list and highlight their strengths to Congress. It is time we end this process of blind spending, throwing money at projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for us to take a post-Katrina look at the world and decide whether we will learn from our experiences over the last year or whether we are content to continue business as usual. Shouldn't we be doing all we can to reform the Corps and ensure that most urgent projects are being funded and constructed or are we more content with needless earmarks--too often at the expense of projects that are of most need? As stated in a letter signed by the heads of the Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, in support of our amendment: Enough is enough . . . we need a systematic method for ensuring the most vital projects move to the front of the line so limited taxpayer funds are spent more prudently. The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the congressional system for funding projects, are broken. But they can be fixed. The reforms in this amendment are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. And let me be clear: A vote against this amendment is a vote against Government transparency and accountability. This amendment is a step toward a more informed public and a more informed Congress. We owe the American public accountability in how their tax dollars are spent. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build and improve upon the Corps reforms we have explained before. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator Feingold and I have shared for years, but never before has there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward. I also thank Senators Inhofe and Bond for working with us throughout this process and helping us to incorporate many commonsense changes into the larger bill. While I still have concerns with the underlying bill, and particularly the number of projects that would be authorized, I hope that by adopting this amendment we can move this bill in a direction that will truly benefit the Nation. I want to share with my colleagues not only the administration's support for this important prioritization amendment, it also has been endorsed by many outside groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund. And it has been positively commented on by the Heritage Foundation. The vote on this amendment will be key voted by the Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the League of Conservation Voters. We are also considering side by side the Inhofe-Bond amendment. As I have mentioned before, their version would be prepared by the Corps, controlled by the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and reported by the Corps, locking out input from other relevant water resources agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. That amendment, unlike my amendment, only looks at likely construction projects, forces the Corps to review every single project in its $58 billion backlog, soon to be $70 billion with the passing of this bill. It would also create a vague need to fund a relative rating system that does not require any final analysis or ranking. This would lead to an argument over semantics rather than quality of a project. Members would come to the floor to argue that the criteria that their project scored well in is the most important criteria, whereas another Member would be arguing for another criteria because their project scored well in that area. This system would only lead to further confusion over the worth of individual projects and distract Congress from the job at hand. Further, this system would use criteria clearly devised to skew ratings toward particular types of Corps projects. How would an environmental restoration project ever score well on a criteria designed to weigh a project's ability to lessen our dependence on foreign oil? How would a flood and storm damage reduction project do being judged by this criteria that is in the amendment, pollution reduction benefits associated with using water as a method of transportation of goods? Additionally, the Inhofe-Bond amendment would require the rating report to be delivered only to the authorizing committee, thus sending the signal that this information is not intended to help set funding priorities and not intended to be transparent for the public. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I point out again the problem we have here: $70 billion, $2 billion spent every year. That makes for $70 billion worth of authorized projects, $2 billion can be spent each year. That makes for some pretty ferocious competition. I think it is very important that we put some kind of prioritization into this kind of process; otherwise, it will be very hard for us to understand what is being done. But more importantly, it is certainly not clear that the projects that need the priority will receive them. I ask unanimous consent that a memo published by the Heritage Foundation on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friends from Oklahoma and Missouri for their courtesy in the way we have been addressing these two amendments. Mr. President, I begin by asking unanimous consent that the Statement of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio be recognized for however much time he may take in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr President, today I am introducing legislation to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, CA. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Graham. 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 he 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--revealing that his true objection is not to the city's display of the cross, but to the cross itself. The legal wrangling over this memorial continues today. The Mount Soledad Memorial is a remarkably popular landmark. On two different occasions, the voters of San Diego passed, by votes of 76 percent, ballot measures designed to transfer the property to entities that could maintain it. I do not believe that the Mount Soledad cross violates the Constitution. Consequently, I do not believe there is just cause for removing it from its position as the centerpiece of the Soledad Veterans Memorial. Therefore, given the many years of legal disputes regarding this issue, I believe it is past time it is resolved. The bill I am introducing would bring the Mount Soledad cross under the control of the Federal Government, and specifically the Department of Defense. The process set forth in the bill is consistent with analysis provided by the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs in a recent letter to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. In that letter, the OLA stated, ``we would . . . point out that Congress could enact the necessary authority [to acquire the Mount Soledad Memorial] through an immediate legislative taking. . .'' This bill 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 encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will ensure the preservation of an important tribute to our men and women of the Armed Forces.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr President, today I am introducing legislation to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, CA. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Graham. 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 he 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--revealing that his true objection is not to the city's display of the cross, but to the cross itself. The legal wrangling over this memorial continues today. The Mount Soledad Memorial is a remarkably popular landmark. On two different occasions, the voters of San Diego passed, by votes of 76 percent, ballot measures designed to transfer the property to entities that could maintain it. I do not believe that the Mount Soledad cross violates the Constitution. Consequently, I do not believe there is just cause for removing it from its position as the centerpiece of the Soledad Veterans Memorial. Therefore, given the many years of legal disputes regarding this issue, I believe it is past time it is resolved. The bill I am introducing would bring the Mount Soledad cross under the control of the Federal Government, and specifically the Department of Defense. The process set forth in the bill is consistent with analysis provided by the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs in a recent letter to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. In that letter, the OLA stated, ``we would . . . point out that Congress could enact the necessary authority [to acquire the Mount Soledad Memorial] through an immediate legislative taking. . .'' This bill 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 encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will ensure the preservation of an important tribute to our men and women of the Armed Forces.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from Iowa very briefly. I voted with the majority. I think we ought to give the President of the United States credit for a firmly based, knowledgeable position on this issue. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I think the debate generally that we had was good for America, but I respect the President's right to carry out his responsibilities as he sees fit. An exercise of a veto is within the President's authority. I disagree with the President on this issue, but I respect his views and I respect his right to act as he feels is in the Nation's interest.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote in support of all three bills under consideration today, which together provide a framework for addressing the issue of stem cell research. This research holds the potential to unlock cures that could defeat deadly diseases and relieve tremendous human suffering. At the same time, one type of stem cell research, involving embryonic stem cells, has also raised serious ethical and moral concerns, both inside and outside the medical community. I believe the framework provided by the three bills before us today offers a way forward. S. 2754 offers increased Federal funding and support for adult stem cell research and other types of stem cell research that do not involve the use of human embryos. Scientists believe this research holds tremendous potential, and I share their hope. Countless numbers are affected by the many diseases that this type of research may offer future cures. In promoting stem cell research, one of the lines that must not be crossed is the intentional creation of human embryos for purposes of research rather than reproduction. A second bill before us, S. 3504, draws a line that says we in the United States will not abandon our values in pursuit of scientific progress. This bill bans the practice of what has been referred to as ``fetal farming.'' It makes it a Federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo that was created for research purposes. This bill also makes it a Federal crime to attempt to use or obtain cells from a human fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal. These provisions close important gaps in our existing laws, and I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this bill. It is important that we act now to address these issues because research involving embryonic stem cells is also proceeding outside the United States. Unfortunately, the intense focus on ethical and moral concerns that has driven the debate in America, as reflected in the President's Commission on Bioethics, is not always present in private industry and the scientific community in other parts of the world. I am concerned about the path that some of this unregulated research leads us down. Of particular concern is the potential for experimentation into human cloning. Our involvement through this legislation is another protection against sanctioning such practice within our own borders. I am concerned that ongoing research elsewhere may result in the routine acceptance of deeply troubling practices, in particular the intentional creation of human embryos for purposes of research rather than reproduction. However, it doesn't have to be this way. The United States offers a climate for scientific and medical research because of the quality of our educational institutions, the strength of our economy, and the scope of our comprehensive legal and regulatory system for protection of intellectual property rights. The final bill before us, H.R. 810, will allow us to attract scientists to perform highly regulated embryonic stem cell research that will otherwise take place in an unregulated environment somewhere else. This bill authorizes Federal support for embryonic stem cell research but limits that support to scientists who use embryos originally created for reproductive purposes, and now frozen or slated for destruction by in vitro fertilization clinics. H.R. 810 requires that prior to even considering whether to donate unused embryos for research, the patient who is the source of the embryos must be consulted, and a determination must be made that these embryos would otherwise be discarded and would never be implanted in the patient or another woman. This provision ensures that patients with excess embryos will first consider the possibility of embryo adoption, and only if this option is rejected will the patient then be consulted concerning the possibility of embryo donation. A patient donating embryos that would otherwise remain frozen or be destroyed must give written informed consent, and H.R. 810 makes it illegal for anyone to offer any sort of financial or other inducement in exchange for this consent. All of these carefully drawn rules contained in H.R. 810 do not exist in the status quo, and this sort of embryonic stem cell research remains largely unregulated in the private sector and in many parts of the scientific community overseas. Federal oversight that will come with approving this bill will allow us to ensure that this research does not expand into ethically objectionable ground in balancing the promise on the foreseeable horizon of stem cell research with the protection of human life. It should be clearly noted that this type of research will proceed with or without Federal approval, so I believe that it is best carried out under strict Federal guidelines and oversight. It is my hope that by offering limited Federal support in the context of the framework provided by the three bills before us today, we can realize the benefits of stem cell research while also drawing clear lines that reflect our refusal to sacrifice our ethical and moral values for the sake of scientific progress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra, which will launch the celebration of its diamond jubilee for the 2007/2008 season on December 30, 2006. The Phoenix Symphony Orchestra is embarking on its 60th year of having a profound cultural and educational effect in the State of Arizona. Founded in 1947, the Phoenix Symphony proudly serves Phoenix and the surrounding metropolitan area, the State of Arizona, and the southwestern United States. What began as an occasional group of musicians performing a handful of concerts each year--in a city of fewer than 100,000 people--today serves more than 300,000 people annually, with 275 concerts and presentations throughout the greater Phoenix area and beyond. Under the artistic leadership of Michael Christie as the Virginia G. Piper Music Director and administrative leadership of President Maryellen H. Gleason, the orchestra is overseen by the nonprofit Phoenix Symphony Association under Board Chairman Gerald W. Murphy. The 76-member Phoenix Symphony presents an annual season from September through the beginning of June, featuring full-length classical and pops concerts at Symphony Hall in downtown Phoenix, in Scottsdale, in Prescott, in several Native American communities and throughout central Arizona. The symphony performs for more than 50,000 students and children, representing over 260 different schools, helping to introduce music to new generations through a variety of education and youth-engagement programs including programs at the Salt River Pima Indian Nation, Chicanos por la Causa, and Phoenix Elementary School District No. 1. Again, I congratulate the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra for its remarkable achievements and contributions to Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to consider the Nomination of Steven C. Preston to be the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, on Thursday, June 29, 2006.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Tentative agenda I. Nominations: Neil M. Gorsuch to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit; Jerome A. Holmes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit; Gustavo Antonio Gelpi to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Daniel Porter Jordan III to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; R. Alexander Acosta to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Martin J. Jackley to be U.S. Attorney for the District of South Dakota; Brett L. Tolman to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah. II. Bills: S. 2453--National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 [Specter]; S. 2455--Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine, Graham]; S. 2468--A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]; S. 3001--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]; S. 2831-- Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar, Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]; H.R. 1036--Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act [Smith--TX]; S. 155--Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]; S. 2703--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein, Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]; S. 1845--Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]; S. 2679-- Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act [Talent, DeWine, Cornyn]. III. Matters: Subpoenas Relating to OPR Investigation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 9:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Russia.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Small Business Pension Plans: How Can We Increase Worker Coverage?''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2006, immediately following the first rollcall vote of the day's session, to vote on the nomination of Mr. James S. Simpson, of New York, to be Federal Transit Administrator, Department of Transportation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 11 a.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Two-way trade between the U.S. and Oman stands at nearly $1 billion, and it is projected to grow under the terms of this new agreement. Upon enactment, 100 percent of industrial and commercial products and 87 percent of agricultural products will be duty free. The agreement, which covers textiles, telecommunications, intellectual property rights, investment, and other sectors, will promote economic growth and prosperity in both countries. American producers, consumers, and investors will benefit from the FTA. Not only is this free-trade agreement good for the economic prosperity of Americans, it will promote growth and employment in Oman. Given Oman's long strategic ties to the United States and the efforts of Sultan Qaboos to reform the economy and the political process, this agreement is an important sign of our support. Since 1833, when the United States signed a treaty of friendship with Oman, our ties to that country have been close. The U.S. used Oman's Masirah Island air base during the attempt to rescue U.S. Embassy hostages in Iran during the Carter administration. Oman hosted thousands of U.S. personnel during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our governments have cooperated in the nonsecurity aspects of the war on terror, and Oman has made important strides toward greater democratization. The Sultan has made women's rights an important part of his reform plans. While work remains, the liberalization project in Oman remains on a positive trajectory. In recognition of this deep cooperation, and to further enhance our economic and security ties, this free-trade agreement should win quick approval by the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it