John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. For a moment.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, what is ``a moment''? If the Senator propounds a unanimous consent for an amount of time, I would be glad to not object. I wonder what a moment is?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend again for his kind words. If I am so fortunate as to succeed him, I would obviously rely on him for his continued guidance and stewardship. Amendment No. 4242 Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The amendment is on behalf of myself, Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Senator Graham, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator Hagel, Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, Senator Coburn, Senator Conrad, and Senator Reid.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my friend from Virginia for a very brief two amendments, one which will be very brief--I do not believe he will object too strenuously--and that is to name this act after the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia. I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Since my colleagues anticipate a vote, I will be brief. We could sit down now and figure out probably most of the costs for operations in the coming year, 2 years, in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a good idea as to what kind of budgeting we are going to have to be involved in and what the necessary authorization and appropriation will be. I want to emphasize: This amendment in no way impairs the ability to enact another emergency supplemental if it is required. What we are doing now is an end run around the authorizing, appropriating, and budgeting processes, and we are lying to the American people when we say we are only going to spend so many dollars on the various functions of Government; in this case, on Defense and military expenditures. I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment would require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war on terror has been going on for nearly 5 years, since that tragic day in September 2001. Yet since that time the administration has sought to fund the war operations almost entirely through emergency supplemental appropriations measures instead of through its annual budget submissions. The most recent supplemental measure, which the Senate is expected to pass soon, is the ninth supplemental bill since September 2001. With its enactment, we will have provided over $420 billion to pay for ongoing military operations, reconstruction, and training of Iraqi security forces--defense spending that I fully support. And all of that money is designated as ``emergency'' expenditures--provided without any offsetting revenues, as if it were free money. But it is not. It is not free money. I think we can fund this war--and, indeed, win this war--while also budgeting for the war. We know the war is going to cost more than the $420 billion to date, and we know the war is not going to end as quickly as most of us would prefer. In fact, many of us see ongoing operations in Afghanistan for an extended period of time, hopefully at a low level, hopefully taken over by NATO, hopefully Americans not in a major role. But certainly as long as NATO is involved, we will continue to see American participation. But we need to continue, and we need to continue our military operations until the job is done. Withdrawing our military presence prematurely is not an option in my view, the view of many of my colleagues, nor the view of the President or his advisers. We are in it to win. Unfortunately, the administration's unwillingness to budget for the war through the regular process means that neither the White House nor the Congress is making the tough decisions about how we are going to pay for the ongoing wars. If we continue down this same path, that job will be left to future generations because the expenditures are being made regardless, and eventually their impact on our budget will have to be addressed. The longer we wait to make the tough decisions, the bigger the problem will become, and the more difficult making those tough decisions will be. Our Nation's future economic success rests in part on the decisions we make today--and the ones we put off. We are facing some dire fiscal challenges in the days ahead. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded Federal financial burden--such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments-- totals more than $46 trillion, or $156,000 per man, woman, and child in America. According to David Walker, the head of the GAO, for a family, this burden is ``like having a $750,000 mortgage--and no house.'' But instead of fixing the problem--and fixing it will not be easy--we are only succeeding in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much more expensive. And adding hundreds of billions of dollars that are more conveniently designated as ``emergency'' expenditures--so they do not have to be budgeted for along with other national priorities--is only making our fiscal problems that much greater. Somehow the concept of true emergency funding bills has gotten lost along the way. Take the most recent supplemental appropriations bill. The President requested a total of $94.5 billion to fund our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as additional funding to aid in the recovery efforts along the hurricane-affected gulf coast and other urgent needs. I believe the war funding is the largest amount yet proposed in what is now almost a routine series of supplemental requests to fund this ongoing war. A Senate-passed bill provided $108.9 billion in spending-- $14.4 billion above the level the President has indicated he is willing to sign. Despite the efforts of several of us to trim that bill of unrequested earmarks and questionable spending, the Senate did not have the will to do so prior to the bill's passage. It wasn't until conference, with the looming threat of a sustainable veto, that the bill was trimmed. But the fact remains that the funding provided for in that bill is enormous, and it would be more fiscally responsible to be dealt with in the annual authorization and appropriations bills. Of course, that supplemental is only the most recent example of why this amendment is necessary. Since 2001, the administration and Congress have routinely funded our ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. In addition, many defense-related activities that should have been financed through the normal appropriations process have been funded through these emergency supplementals. And in the process, more and more nondefense-related spending has also been creeping into these bills, greatly undermining the budget process. There are several criticisms of the supplemental appropriations process that I hope the Senate will agree are egregious enough to lend overwhelming support for the adoption of the amendment. First, unless we take action, ``emergency'' funds will continue to be employed as a way to add spending above that contained under the budget caps. It has become all too routine for the administration to omit what should be normal spending items for the budget it sends to Congress in February. Instead, the administration relies on supplementals to fund critical ``must-pass items,'' such as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more routine defense spending. Congress then approves these requests and regularly tries to augment them with nonemergency, nondefense items. Second, supplemental appropriations have diminished responsible budget decisions and proper oversight by Congress. Put aside for a moment that authorizing committees are not consulted with regard to supplemental appropriations in the same manner that occurs during the normal annual budget process. Emergency supplemental appropriations requests are not forwarded to Congress with the same level of budget justification and details that are routinely sent to Congress when the President's annual budget is forwarded in February of each year. If the authorizing and appropriations committees are not allowed to scrutinize fully the effectiveness of defense programs and are unwilling to end programs that are not effective, we will continue to have an ineffectual budget. Third, budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriations bills encourages pork-barrel spending. I think the 2- week debate on the most recent supplemental is fresh in everyone's mind, so I will not mention the many provisions that objections were raised against. But the fact is, unrequested add-ons which ultimately make it into the final supplemental appropriations conference reports are almost never the subject of a hearing in the authorization and appropriations committees. They are seldom, if ever, subjected to a recorded vote in a committee or on the floor of the House or the Senate. These items very often are not even included in legislation initially passed by the House or Senate but are instead added by a conference committee. Here is a very important aspect of this which I hope all my colleagues will pay attention to because unless we look back in history, it is hard for us to understand how egregious this process has become. For the Korean war, which lasted 3 years, there was one supplemental appropriations bill. During the 11-year Vietnam war, there were four supplemental appropriations bills. As soon as troop levels in Southeast Asia stopped climbing, the Johnson and Nixon administrations requested funding for ongoing operations in the regular Defense authorization and appropriations bills. Since 9/11, there have been nine supplemental appropriations bills, in 5 years, to fund the ongoing war on terror, including two in each of the years of 2002, 2004, and 2005. Over 90 percent of the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing operations--ongoing operations--has been funded through one to two emergency supplemental appropriations bills each year for the past 5 years. It now totals over $420 billion in emergency supplemental funding. So we pass budgets, we put caps on budgets, and then we add $80 billion, $90 billion, $100 billion--in total, over the last 5 years, $420 billion--despite the fact that during this time Congress provided over $2.2 trillion for defense-related expenditures in the regular annual defense spending bills. We are blowing the budget process. We are carving gigantic holes in the system. And we are removing the authorizing committees and, to a degree, the appropriating committees from the scrutiny and oversight that is our responsibility. It is not our privilege to oversight the spending of our taxpayers' dollars and the authorization and appropriation of it; it is our responsibility. When we look at these emergency supplementals, we find more and more items which really have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. They may be replacements for equipment that was used in Iraq, but haven't we reached the point, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where we can plan ahead in a normal budgetary process? I wish to emphasize, again, if there is a genuine emergency, I will be the first Member of the Senate to suggest and approve of a genuine emergency. This in no way--this in no way--reduces the executive branch's or the legislative branch's ability to approve emergency supplemental bills if they are genuine emergencies. Now, if someone objects to this amendment, I wonder how we were able to need only one supplemental appropriations bill during the entire Korean war or why during the entire 11-year Vietnam war there were only four. But somehow, now we have had to have nine emergency supplemental bills in 5 years, and it now totals over $420 billion in emergency supplemental funding. Now, in the interest of straight talk, if I were a member of the executive branch, I would find this a very convenient way. Isn't it a lot easier to just ask for an emergency supplemental and write out the details of it and have it passed rather than going through the normal budgeting process, which I will admit is somewhat cumbersome? But it was intended to be because of Congress's responsibilities to oversight the taxpayers' dollars. So this amendment is about fiscal responsibility. Most of us have voted in recent years to support several sense-of-the-Senate amendments stating that the war should be budgeted for in the regular process. In fact, just this past April 27, the Senate voted 94 to 0 to approve such an amendment. I have supported that proposition each time it has been offered. The amendment before us would put real meaning into the positions we have previously voted to support. Let me also be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to prevent any future emergency funding requests for war operations. It does require budgeting for the ongoing expenses we know are going to occur. If next year, after the budget is submitted in February, a totally unforeseen expenditure arises that must be urgently addressed, the administration would have the ability to submit a supplemental request. But simple cost-of-doing business expenditures-- costs that can be estimated and budgeted for--would not be allowed.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would name the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, our distinguished friend and colleague from Virginia, John Warner. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Frist, Levin, Inhofe, Kennedy, Roberts, Byrd, Sessions, Lieberman, Collins, Jack Reed, Ensign, Akaka, Talent, Bill Nelson, Chambliss, Ben Nelson, Graham, Dayton, Dole, Bayh, Cornyn, Clinton, Thune, Allard, and Allen. I am certain that there is not a Senator in this Senate who would not agree that Senator Warner, with his grace, courtliness, bipartisan attitude, and kindness to all, represents the finest traditions of the Senate. All Senators know that the defense authorization bill occupies a major place in the annual legislative calendar and takes substantial time to complete. Those Senators who do not have the privilege of serving on the Committee on Armed Services may not realize the tremendous amount of work that goes into hearings, formulation of legislative proposals, preparation for markup, and actual markup of this bill--the largest annually recurring piece of legislation in Congress. When one adds to this the oversight of the largest department in the Government, and the processing of thousands of military and civilian nominations each year, the demands on the chairman of the committee and the need for leadership are obvious. For 6 years, John Warner has provided that leadership, and done it in a manner that has gained him universal respect. John Warner is, first and foremost a Virginian--a lifetime resident of that Old Dominion that has stood at the center of American history for over two centuries and has given Nation so many of its eminent men, from Washington forward. John Warner has continued that tradition of service to country from his youth. The son of a decorated Army physician in World War I, John Warner left high school to enlist in the Navy late in World War II. He served until 1946, when he was discharged as a petty officer 3rd class. Like millions of other young Americans, he then attended college on the G.I. bill, graduating from Washington and Lee University in 1949. He then entered the University of Virginia Law School. He interrupted his education to serve in the Korean war, volunteering for active duty and accepting a commission in the Marine Corps. He served in the combat zone as a ground officer in the First Marine Air Wing, and remained in the Marine Corps Reserve for several years. Upon returning from the Korean war, he resumed his legal education, graduating from the University of Virginia Law School in 1953. Upon graduation, John Warner's outstanding qualities were recognized when he was selected to serve as the law clerk to the late Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one of the most outstanding jurists of the period. Many years later, Senator Warner would be instrumental in naming the U.S. Court House in Washington, DC, for his old mentor. After his clerkship, John Warner became an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, and later was engaged in the private practice of law. In 1969, President Nixon nominated John Warner to serve as Under Secretary of the Navy. The Senate confirmed the nomination, and he served as Under Secretary until he was confirmed and appointed as the 61st Secretary of the Navy in 1972. During his tenure as Secretary, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Incidents at Sea Executive Agreement, for which he was the principal United States negotiator and signatory. This agreement remains in effect today, and has served as a model for similar agreements governing naval vessels and aircraft around the world. After leaving the Department of the Navy in 1974, John Warner's next public service was as chairman of the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission. He oversaw the celebration of the Nation's founding, directing the Federal Government's role in a commemoration that enbraced all 50 States and over 20 foreign nations. In 1978, the voters of Virginia elected John Warner to a full term in the United States Senate. Upon beginning his service in 1979, he was elected a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Upon leaving the chairmanship next year, he will have served on the committee for 28 years, almost half of the committee's existence. Senator Warner served as chairman of the committee from 1999 to 2001, and again since 2003. He also served as ranking member from 1987 to 1993, and again from 2001 to 2003. For 14 years of American history, years that saw the end of the cold war, the first gulf war, the attacks on September 11, 2001, and the global war on terror, John Warner has served in a leadership role on the committee. No Member of this body has done more for our national security than John Warner. As sailor, Marine officer, Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, and United States Senator, he has always answered his country's call. The dignified and evenhanded way in which he has presided over the business of the committee has enabled it to continue its noble tradition of being an island of bipartisanship in an increasingly unpleasant political era. I submit that it is exceedingly appropriate that this year's defense authorization act, the last which John Warner will manage as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, be named in his honor. If my colleagues will indulge me for just another moment, I would like to relate a personal story, and that has to do with when I returned from prison in Vietnam. John Warner was then serving as Secretary of the Navy. Secretary Warner greeted us all with the greatest warmth and affection, but very importantly in my case I had requested to attend the National War College as the next tour of duty. That meant objections for several very good reasons, and yet then- Secretary Warner made sure I was allowed to attend that institution of higher learning. He and I have remained friends and comrades since the day I returned home in March of 1973, now some 33 years. It has been a privilege and an honor to hold my dear friend, John Warner, in my highest esteem and affection. This is a very small token for the esteem in which all of us hold John Warner as a great and wonderful leader of this Senate. I could go on for many hours recounting the many wonderful achievements he has made for the people of Virginia and for the people of this Nation, but I will refrain from doing so as I know many of my colleagues will want to add their voices and sponsorship of this amendment to name the Defense authorization bill for 2007 in his name. I ask the vote to be held at the appropriate time, and whether the yeas and nays are called for would be up to my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN. In response, I ask my colleague from Michigan, I don't know of others who have asked to speak on it.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to one of our Senate's finest leaders, Senator Bob Dole. Ten years ago, after representing his home State of Kansas in the House of Representatives for 8 years and in the Senate for over 27 years, Majority Leader Dole resigned from the Senate. He did so in order to engage fully all of his attentions to his Presidential campaign. The Senate lost one of our greatest leaders that day, but Bob Dole continues to be a national leader to this day. I traveled with him a great deal during his campaign, and it was a thrill for me. I was given the honor of introducing him at the 1996 Republican Convention--quite a humbling privilege for someone who considers himself far less distinguished than the man I was introducing formally to the Nation as the Republican candidate for the President. He may not have won that election, but he ran an honorable campaign and worked as hard as anyone I have ever seen on the campaign trail. Bob helped teach me the meaning of dedicating one's live to a cause greater than one's self-interest, and for this I will always be thankful. Everyone knows that Bob is a decorated veteran through his sacrifice in World War II and that he faced a very hard road to recovery upon his return--a road that many selfless men and women today are similarly facing upon their return from the war in Iran and Afghanistan. Like Bob, they, too, are American heroes and they need and deserve to be reminded of that fact as often as possible. Bob Dole's distinction among his peers could have rested with his military service. But instead, he chose to continue serving his country and was as effective as he was, in my view, largely because of his experience as a war veteran. For example, his Senate leadership was essential to the efforts of Presidents Reagan and Bush to win the Cold War. He built majority coalitions to help restore the readiness and modernization of our Armed Forces, which had been so badly neglected in the previous decade. Thanks to his vision, America is better prepared to defend herself and others from those who want to cause us harm. While Bob may no longer be daily in the public eye as he enjoys life in the private sector, he still continues to focus his energy on issues of importance to our country. He cochaired the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund with former President Clinton, helping to raise money for the families of the victims of 9/11 to pursue secondary educations. Bob also continues with his efforts on behalf of the disabled. And, of course, since leaving the Senate 10 years ago, he is also now enjoying the obligations of a Senator's spouse. Bob Dole is an American hero, and I am privileged to call him my friend.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 374, the Tribal Parity Act 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 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 480, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2005, and S. 437, the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan Referral Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting voting out the report on the Indian Lobbying Misconduct Investigation, and other pending matters. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Native American Housing Programs. 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, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act 2000 in order to bring that settlement to an orderly conclusion. That act ratified a negotiated settlement of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe's water entitlement to flow from the Santa Clara River in Utah. The Department of the Interior requested the amendment and provided technical assistance in crafting the legislation. As part of section 10, Water Rights Settlement, of the Shivwits Settlement Act a water rights and habitat acquisition program was authorized. Congress authorized $3.0 million to be appropriated to implement section 10. However, when the Department of the Interior attempted to implement the provision in section 10, which was intended to maintain the $3.0 million in an interest bearing account, the Treasury Department advised that the language in section 10 was insufficient for this purpose. The Treasury Department and Department of the Interior developed technical correction language to address this deficiency in the settlement act by amending the statutory language for the establishment of the acquisition fund and investment of the acquisition fund. The bill I am introducing today will allow the Shivwits Band water rights and habitat acquisition program authorized under section 10 of the settlement act to move forward. This legislation is supported by the Department of the Interior and will fully implement the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Settlement Act of 2000. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act 2000 in order to bring that settlement to an orderly conclusion. That act ratified a negotiated settlement of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe's water entitlement to flow from the Santa Clara River in Utah. The Department of the Interior requested the amendment and provided technical assistance in crafting the legislation. As part of section 10, Water Rights Settlement, of the Shivwits Settlement Act a water rights and habitat acquisition program was authorized. Congress authorized $3.0 million to be appropriated to implement section 10. However, when the Department of the Interior attempted to implement the provision in section 10, which was intended to maintain the $3.0 million in an interest bearing account, the Treasury Department advised that the language in section 10 was insufficient for this purpose. The Treasury Department and Department of the Interior developed technical correction language to address this deficiency in the settlement act by amending the statutory language for the establishment of the acquisition fund and investment of the acquisition fund. The bill I am introducing today will allow the Shivwits Band water rights and habitat acquisition program authorized under section 10 of the settlement act to move forward. This legislation is supported by the Department of the Interior and will fully implement the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Settlement Act of 2000. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me say from the outset that I do not support full repeal of the estate tax. I have consistently voted against repealing this tax because of the impact it would have on the deficit, as well as the possible chilling affect it could have on charitable giving in this country. Having said that, I do recognize the need for commonsense reform of the estate tax structure. However, due to our serious fiscal constraints, we must proceed very cautiously on this and all other federal tax and spending matters. In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a Federal inheritance tax. Roosevelt explained: ``The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.'' Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: ``Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgement both should be part of our system of federal taxation.'' He noted, however, that such taxation should ``be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'' I agree with President Roosevelt, and I remain opposed to full repeal of the estate tax. I have indicated, for several years now, that I am open to considering a reasonable compromise that addresses the concerns of those on both sides of this issue. What constituted a fortune ``swollen beyond all healthy limits'' in 1907 is very different from the wealth we see today. I don't think it's unreasonable to raise the amount exempted from estate taxes in order to protect America's family farms and small businesses while maintaining the tax for huge fortunes. We need to debate this issue and come to some kind of resolution. As we all know, our colleague, Senator Kyl, has worked very hard for a long time to craft an alternative to full repeal. His compromise deserves to be debated and voted on. To his credit, the majority leader has consistently indicated that, if the Senate can secure cloture on a motion to proceed to legislation dealing with the estate tax, Senator Kyl would be recognized to offer his alternative proposal as an amendment. Therefore, I am voting to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 8 so that we can debate and vote on the Kyl alternative. In 2001, I stated that I supported ``estate tax reform that will take into account the effect such reform will have on our robust charitable community. For this and other reasons, I support a $5 million cap with regard to the estate tax cut.'' My position remains unchanged today. Senator Kyl's alternative proposal would put that $5 million cap in place. It is a good compromise and is consistent with my longstanding views on this issue. I want to be clear. This vote should in no way be viewed as a vote in support of full repeal of the estate tax. It is not. It is simply a vote to allow debate and amendments on the issue--with one of those amendments being the alternative crafted by Senator Kyl. This vote is consistent with both my longstanding opposition to full repeal of the estate tax as well as my support for a reasonable compromise. Again--I continue to oppose full repeal of the estate tax, but look forward to supporting Senator Kyl's alternative proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we will vote on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. This legislation was passed by the Indian Affairs Committee on March 9, 2005. The bill is similar to a bill reported by the Committee during the 108th Congress that was not brought before the full Senate. S. 147 was developed to provide Native Hawaiians with a mechanism for self-governance and self-determination, which the bill's sponsors believe would protect from legal challenges a variety of programs and services currently in place for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To achieve this goal, the bill would establish a process that would permit Native Hawaiians to organize a sovereign entity that would have a legal relationship with the United States similar to that which exists today between the United States and federally recognized Indian tribes. I recognize that this legislation has been offered in response to many legitimate concerns expressed by the members of the Hawaii delegation and the State's Governor. The leaders of the State of Hawaii are attempting to ensure that a longstanding agreement between the Federal Government and Hawaii will not be jeopardized by litigants determined to undermine certain aspects of that agreement relating to Native Hawaiians. That does not change the fact that I have serious doubts about the wisdom of this legislation. The sponsors reached an agreement in the 108th Congress that they would be afforded an opportunity to bring the bill to the Senate floor during this Congress. To fulfill that agreement, in my capacity as the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I have worked to ensure that the legislation would be reported by the committee. I will also support the motion to proceed to the bill's consideration because of the agreement that was reached in the last Congress. I would like the record to reflect clearly, though, that I am unequivocally opposed to this bill and that I will not support its passage should cloture be invoked. Again, I do know how important this legislation is to the Senators from Hawaii and certainly to the very capable Governor of the 50th State. I am very much aware that one of the purposes of this legislation is to insulate current Native Hawaiian programs from constitutional attack in the courts, and I am sympathetic to that purpose. I commit to the Senators and the Governor that I remain willing to work with them to address the fundamental legal concerns facing their State. I also recognize the efforts made by Senator Akaka to address some of the criticisms that have been leveled at this legislation. However, I still have a number of significant concerns with this measure. Foremost among these concerns is that, if enacted, S. 147 would result in the formation of a sovereign government for Native Hawaiian people. I am sure that the sponsors have good intentions, but I cannot turn away from the fact that this bill would lead to the creation of a new nation based exclusively--not primarily, not in part, but exclusively--on race. In fact, any person with even a drop of Hawaiian blood would qualify to vote on the establishment of this new, legislatively created entity that would then negotiate with the Federal Government of the United States and the State of Hawaii on potentially unlimited topics. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights stated in its recent report recommending against passage of S. 147, this bill would ``discriminate on the basis of race'' and ``further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.'' This is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable, I am sure, to most other citizens of this Nation who agree that we must continue our struggle to become and remain one people--all equal, all Americans.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment, CHOICE, Act of 2006. This bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own cable channels to sell their channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution over the Internet. For almost 10 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as a la carte, to provide consumers with more control over the viewing options in their home and their monthly cable bill. Cable companies have resisted this and have continued to give consumers all the ``choice'' of a North Korean election ballot. There is only one option available: buy a package of channels, whether you watch all the channels or not. The alternative is to not receive cable programming at all. Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town. But not for long, I hope. Telephone companies have realized that consumers want more and are poised to provide consumers across the nation with an alternative to the local cable company. Many of these telephone companies, including AT&T, are also ready to offer consumers the ability to purchase channels a la carte. Such companies will offer two crucial benefits to consumers: more competition in the video service provider market, and more options for programming packages. Together, these two offerings will allow consumers to have greater control over the content that enters the home and the ability to manage their monthly cable bills. According to a Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, in communities where there are two cable companies competing for customers, cable rates are 15 percent less than in communities without any competition. A subsequent GAO study suggests that in some markets the presence of another cable competitor may reduce rates by an astounding 41 percent. Unfortunately, today less than 5 percent of communities have two companies competing to provide consumers cable television service. The CHOICE Act would help bring competition to the cable television market. Choice in cable television delivery is long overdue for consumers who have suffered steep rate hikes year after year. Since 1996, cable rates have increased 58 percent or nearly three times the rate of inflation. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has found that rates increased 7 percent in 2001 and 2002, and 5 percent in 2003. The FCC's most recent report found that rates again rose 5 percent in 2004, double the rate of inflation, but only 3.6 percent where the local cable company faced competition. I can only imagine the savings consumers could reap if presented with a choice of providers of cable service and a choice of channels. For this reason I call on Congress to pass the CHOICE Act. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans would like to buy cable channels individually and an AP/Ipsos poll found that a remarkable 78 percent of Americans would like to do so. According to Nielsen Media Research, households receiving more than 70 channels only watch, on average, about 17 of these. Consumers know that they could have greater control over their monthly bill if given the ability to choose their channels. This was recently confirmed by the FCC. This year the FCC found that consumers could save as much as 13 percent on their monthly cable bills if they could buy only the channels they want. Mr. President, consider the situation of a senior citizen on fixed income living in Sun City, Arizona, who watches only a few news and movie channels, but continues to pay for high priced channels such as ESPN, Fox Sports, and MTV--channels that other consumers enjoy, but channels that certain seniors may not want and possibly cannot afford. In fact, the general manager of the Sun City cable system has told my staff that he has tried to drop several expensive music video channels from the company's channel lineup to make room for channels his viewers want to receive and to decrease costs, but the owners of the music video channels have forbid him to do so without serious repercussions. So the residents of Sun City continue to subsidize the cost of these channels for viewers around the country. That is why AARP, representing 35 million senior citizens, supports the ability for viewers to buy channels on an a la carte basis. But again, cable companies don't have to listen to these 35 million viewers because there is no real threat of losing them. They have nowhere to turn. The CHOICE ACT, Mr. President, is not a mandate on cable providers. Instead it is designed to encourage choice and competition by granting significant regulatory relief to video service providers, such as telephone and cable companies, that agree to both offer cable channels on an a la carte basis to subscribers and to not prohibit any channel owned by the video service provider from being sold individually. In exchange, video service providers would receive the right to obtain a national franchise; would be permitted to pay lower fees to municipalities for the use of public rights of way; would benefit from a streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' for the calculation of such fees; and would gain a prohibition on the solicitation of institutional networks, in-kind donation, and unlimited public access channels. In addition, broadcasters that have an ownership stake in a cable channel would get the benefit of the FCC's network non-duplications rule if the broadcaster does not prohibit the channel from being sold individually. The FCC's network non-duplication rule provides exclusivity for broadcasters by not allowing another broadcaster with the same network affiliation from broadcasting in the same community. The bill would also modify Section 616(a) of the Communications Act that currently prohibits video service providers from using coercion or retaliatory tactics to prevent cable channels from making their services available to competing companies to extend this provision to distribution over the Internet. For example, if Time Warner Cable offered CNN, a cable channel it owns, on an a la carte basis to its cable subscribers and allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute CNN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Time Warner Cable would be eligible for a national franchise and other regulatory relief. If Disney, which owns ESPN, allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute ESPN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Disney's ABC broadcast stations would have the benefit of the FCC's network non- duplication rule. Mr. President, contrary to what some might want the American people to believe, the CHOICE Act does not force video service providers or broadcasters to do a single thing. It is their choice whether to act or not act. The bill provides them with such a choice even though they currently don't provide meaningful choices to their customers. This bill is incentive-based legislation that would encourage owners of cable channels to make channels available for individual purchase and would do nothing to prevent cable companies from continuing to offer a bundle of channels or tiers of channels. The cable industry regularly touts the value of its package of channels, noting that it costs less than taking a family of four to a movie or professional sporting event. However, watching cable television is not always a family event. Several channels have programming that consumers find objectionable or that parents believe is unsuitable for young children. Complaints about indecent cable programming have increased exponentially in recent years. In 2004, the FCC received 700 percent more cable indecency complaints than it received in 2003. Most of the cable programs about which indecency complaints have been filed with the FCC aired during hours when many children are watching television. Cable and satellite companies currently provide subscribers with a variety of methods of blocking the audio and video programming of any channel that they do not wish to receive. However, subscribers are still required to pay for these channels that they find objectionable. The ``v-chip'' does not effectively protect children from indecent programming carried by video programming distributors. Most of the television sets currently in use in the United States are not equipped with a v-chip; of the 280 million sets currently in United States households, approximately 161 million television sets are not equipped with a v-chip. Households that have a television set with a v-chip are also likely to have one or more sets that are not equipped with a v- chip. Again, Mr. President, I am aware that not all consumers want to block and not pay for certain channels, but shouldn't all consumers have the choice to do so? Cable programmers and broadcasters have started offering individual television programs for download on the Internet. This is the purest form of a la carte--where one can watch and pay for only specific programs they choose. In addition, many of these same broadcasters and cable programmers make their channels available for individual purchase in Hong Kong, Canada, and other countries. Why do these cable programmers treat the American cable subscriber differently than a subscriber in Hong Kong or Canada or an Internet user? It remains unclear. Lastly, Mr. President, I know that the cable programmers and broadcasters will not be the only group that may have some concerns with this bill. Many of my friends in local government are also likely to be interested in the reduced ``rights of way'' fee and streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' under this bill. Cable companies pay these fees to municipalities to use the right-of-way land under sidewalks, streets and bridges to reach customers' homes and then pass these fees on to subscribers. However, these fees often surpass the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land, and municipalities use these funds for other expenditures. Just last month at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Michael A. Guido, Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, confirmed that these fees are often used to pay for other city expenses, such as emergency vehicles. In 2004, State and local governments collected approximately $2.4 billion in these fees, slightly more than $37 per year from every household subscriber. Americans for Tax Reform believes that the ``franchise fee is just a stealth tax on our consumption of the cable television,'' as do other economists and taxpayer advocacy groups. To this end, the legislature in my home state of Arizona just recently passed a bill to reduce such fees and taxes on cable television subscribers. The Phoenix Center, a non-partisan legal and economic think tank, has found that the introduction of competition to cable companies could allow the fee to be lowered ``significantly without doing any harm to local governments.'' Based upon this research, the CHOICE Act would reduce the fee from 5 percent to 3.7 percent for eligible video service providers and allow local governments to petition the FCC for a higher fee if it is necessary to cover the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land. I believe this would provide some real cost savings to cable subscribers. I remain open to working with municipalities on this issue and look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that American consumers receive greater options for affordable and acceptable television viewing. Mr. President, I hope the introduction of the CHOICE Act furthers the debate on the issue of a la carte channel selection and I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment, CHOICE, Act of 2006. This bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own cable channels to sell their channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution over the Internet. For almost 10 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as a la carte, to provide consumers with more control over the viewing options in their home and their monthly cable bill. Cable companies have resisted this and have continued to give consumers all the ``choice'' of a North Korean election ballot. There is only one option available: buy a package of channels, whether you watch all the channels or not. The alternative is to not receive cable programming at all. Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town. But not for long, I hope. Telephone companies have realized that consumers want more and are poised to provide consumers across the nation with an alternative to the local cable company. Many of these telephone companies, including AT&T, are also ready to offer consumers the ability to purchase channels a la carte. Such companies will offer two crucial benefits to consumers: more competition in the video service provider market, and more options for programming packages. Together, these two offerings will allow consumers to have greater control over the content that enters the home and the ability to manage their monthly cable bills. According to a Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, in communities where there are two cable companies competing for customers, cable rates are 15 percent less than in communities without any competition. A subsequent GAO study suggests that in some markets the presence of another cable competitor may reduce rates by an astounding 41 percent. Unfortunately, today less than 5 percent of communities have two companies competing to provide consumers cable television service. The CHOICE Act would help bring competition to the cable television market. Choice in cable television delivery is long overdue for consumers who have suffered steep rate hikes year after year. Since 1996, cable rates have increased 58 percent or nearly three times the rate of inflation. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has found that rates increased 7 percent in 2001 and 2002, and 5 percent in 2003. The FCC's most recent report found that rates again rose 5 percent in 2004, double the rate of inflation, but only 3.6 percent where the local cable company faced competition. I can only imagine the savings consumers could reap if presented with a choice of providers of cable service and a choice of channels. For this reason I call on Congress to pass the CHOICE Act. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans would like to buy cable channels individually and an AP/Ipsos poll found that a remarkable 78 percent of Americans would like to do so. According to Nielsen Media Research, households receiving more than 70 channels only watch, on average, about 17 of these. Consumers know that they could have greater control over their monthly bill if given the ability to choose their channels. This was recently confirmed by the FCC. This year the FCC found that consumers could save as much as 13 percent on their monthly cable bills if they could buy only the channels they want. Mr. President, consider the situation of a senior citizen on fixed income living in Sun City, Arizona, who watches only a few news and movie channels, but continues to pay for high priced channels such as ESPN, Fox Sports, and MTV--channels that other consumers enjoy, but channels that certain seniors may not want and possibly cannot afford. In fact, the general manager of the Sun City cable system has told my staff that he has tried to drop several expensive music video channels from the company's channel lineup to make room for channels his viewers want to receive and to decrease costs, but the owners of the music video channels have forbid him to do so without serious repercussions. So the residents of Sun City continue to subsidize the cost of these channels for viewers around the country. That is why AARP, representing 35 million senior citizens, supports the ability for viewers to buy channels on an a la carte basis. But again, cable companies don't have to listen to these 35 million viewers because there is no real threat of losing them. They have nowhere to turn. The CHOICE ACT, Mr. President, is not a mandate on cable providers. Instead it is designed to encourage choice and competition by granting significant regulatory relief to video service providers, such as telephone and cable companies, that agree to both offer cable channels on an a la carte basis to subscribers and to not prohibit any channel owned by the video service provider from being sold individually. In exchange, video service providers would receive the right to obtain a national franchise; would be permitted to pay lower fees to municipalities for the use of public rights of way; would benefit from a streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' for the calculation of such fees; and would gain a prohibition on the solicitation of institutional networks, in-kind donation, and unlimited public access channels. In addition, broadcasters that have an ownership stake in a cable channel would get the benefit of the FCC's network non-duplications rule if the broadcaster does not prohibit the channel from being sold individually. The FCC's network non-duplication rule provides exclusivity for broadcasters by not allowing another broadcaster with the same network affiliation from broadcasting in the same community. The bill would also modify Section 616(a) of the Communications Act that currently prohibits video service providers from using coercion or retaliatory tactics to prevent cable channels from making their services available to competing companies to extend this provision to distribution over the Internet. For example, if Time Warner Cable offered CNN, a cable channel it owns, on an a la carte basis to its cable subscribers and allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute CNN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Time Warner Cable would be eligible for a national franchise and other regulatory relief. If Disney, which owns ESPN, allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute ESPN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Disney's ABC broadcast stations would have the benefit of the FCC's network non- duplication rule. Mr. President, contrary to what some might want the American people to believe, the CHOICE Act does not force video service providers or broadcasters to do a single thing. It is their choice whether to act or not act. The bill provides them with such a choice even though they currently don't provide meaningful choices to their customers. This bill is incentive-based legislation that would encourage owners of cable channels to make channels available for individual purchase and would do nothing to prevent cable companies from continuing to offer a bundle of channels or tiers of channels. The cable industry regularly touts the value of its package of channels, noting that it costs less than taking a family of four to a movie or professional sporting event. However, watching cable television is not always a family event. Several channels have programming that consumers find objectionable or that parents believe is unsuitable for young children. Complaints about indecent cable programming have increased exponentially in recent years. In 2004, the FCC received 700 percent more cable indecency complaints than it received in 2003. Most of the cable programs about which indecency complaints have been filed with the FCC aired during hours when many children are watching television. Cable and satellite companies currently provide subscribers with a variety of methods of blocking the audio and video programming of any channel that they do not wish to receive. However, subscribers are still required to pay for these channels that they find objectionable. The ``v-chip'' does not effectively protect children from indecent programming carried by video programming distributors. Most of the television sets currently in use in the United States are not equipped with a v-chip; of the 280 million sets currently in United States households, approximately 161 million television sets are not equipped with a v-chip. Households that have a television set with a v-chip are also likely to have one or more sets that are not equipped with a v- chip. Again, Mr. President, I am aware that not all consumers want to block and not pay for certain channels, but shouldn't all consumers have the choice to do so? Cable programmers and broadcasters have started offering individual television programs for download on the Internet. This is the purest form of a la carte--where one can watch and pay for only specific programs they choose. In addition, many of these same broadcasters and cable programmers make their channels available for individual purchase in Hong Kong, Canada, and other countries. Why do these cable programmers treat the American cable subscriber differently than a subscriber in Hong Kong or Canada or an Internet user? It remains unclear. Lastly, Mr. President, I know that the cable programmers and broadcasters will not be the only group that may have some concerns with this bill. Many of my friends in local government are also likely to be interested in the reduced ``rights of way'' fee and streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' under this bill. Cable companies pay these fees to municipalities to use the right-of-way land under sidewalks, streets and bridges to reach customers' homes and then pass these fees on to subscribers. However, these fees often surpass the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land, and municipalities use these funds for other expenditures. Just last month at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Michael A. Guido, Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, confirmed that these fees are often used to pay for other city expenses, such as emergency vehicles. In 2004, State and local governments collected approximately $2.4 billion in these fees, slightly more than $37 per year from every household subscriber. Americans for Tax Reform believes that the ``franchise fee is just a stealth tax on our consumption of the cable television,'' as do other economists and taxpayer advocacy groups. To this end, the legislature in my home state of Arizona just recently passed a bill to reduce such fees and taxes on cable television subscribers. The Phoenix Center, a non-partisan legal and economic think tank, has found that the introduction of competition to cable companies could allow the fee to be lowered ``significantly without doing any harm to local governments.'' Based upon this research, the CHOICE Act would reduce the fee from 5 percent to 3.7 percent for eligible video service providers and allow local governments to petition the FCC for a higher fee if it is necessary to cover the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land. I believe this would provide some real cost savings to cable subscribers. I remain open to working with municipalities on this issue and look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that American consumers receive greater options for affordable and acceptable television viewing. Mr. President, I hope the introduction of the CHOICE Act furthers the debate on the issue of a la carte channel selection and I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that the institution of marriage can serve its public purposes only when it is understood as being a union between one man and one woman. It is this understanding that offers public reinforcement to the vital and unique roles played by mothers and fathers in the raising of their children. It is this understanding that offers a foundation for principled objections to those who would pursue the imprudent agenda of dismantling an institution that has served us well, and replacing it with newer and more flexible understandings that are of questionable public value. I also believe in the institution of republican government as described in the U.S. Constitution. This, too, is an institution that has served us well, founded upon the precept that the American people speak through their elected representatives, and these representatives remain at all times answerable and accountable to the people whom they serve. Today, on the question of marriage, we are told by advocates on both sides of the debate that these two institutions, as they are currently understood, cannot be reconciled, and that one or the other must be changed. I do not agree, and thus I do not at this time support the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment. The proposed amendment would establish in our Constitution a permanent resolution of a debate that is currently and properly being resolved in different ways, in 50 different States, by the people's elected representatives. Our system of federalism is not easily separable from our commitment to republican government, because it is driven by the idea that we are best governed when those who represent us live where we live, and share the values that we share. It is this understanding that has allowed us the strength, as a Nation, to time and again preserve our unity and confront our challenges in times of crisis, no matter how great our differences on issues that are the subject of heated public debate. The continued vitality of America's commitment to federalism and republican government offers a hopeful example to strife-torn areas of our world where conflicts are tragically settled with bullets rather than ballots. The constitutional value of federalism is doubly important in the area of family law, because power to legislate in this area has traditionally been reserved to the states, and because issues of family structure affect the fabric of the broader community, creating the opportunity for approaches that reflect the values of the States that form our Nation. Most Americans believe, as do I, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. Wherever the question of same-sex marriage has been put to the test of public approval, it has been decisively rejected. Presently, 19 States protect in their constitutions traditional definitions of marriage. In 2004, amendments to State constitutions preserving the institution of marriage exclusively as the union of a man and woman were placed on the ballot in 13 States. All 13 passed by substantial margins. Thus far, seven States have a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. There is little doubt they will all prevail. Proponents of an amendment to my State's constitution, which I support, are working hard to collect the required number of signatures to secure a place on the November ballot. If we succeed, I am certain Arizonans will adopt it overwhelmingly. There can be little doubt that a sizeable majority of the American people, whatever their views on other questions involving the rights of homosexuals in our society, strongly support reserving the institution of marriage for the union of one man and one woman. That majority includes, I am confident, majorities in every State in the Union. It includes Americans of both political parties, whose voting habits and general political philosophy range from conservative to moderate to liberal. It is obvious that there is a broad consensus in this country in support of the traditional definition of marriage. And when the American people are so decided in a public debate, their elected representatives will defend that consensus. Forty-five States have either constitutional protections or statutes on the books defining marriage in traditional terms. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows each State to deny within its boundaries the status of marriage to the union of a same-sex couple that may have been recognized in another State. To date, the Defense of Marriage Act has not been successfully challenged in Federal court. The broad consensus in support of traditional marriage does not yet extend to support for the measure we are debating today, an amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I suspect that is because most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same- sex couples. Obviously, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling in 2003 effectively extended lawful marriage to same-sex couples even though it is apparent that a majority of Massachusetts residents do not support that change in the interpretation of the State's marriage laws. But there are political remedies to what, I believe, can be fairly criticized as judicial activism that ignored the will of the people and denied a State government its long established right to regulate marriage. In Massachusetts, more than 120,000 voters signed a petition to place on the ballot an amendment to the Commonwealth's constitution restoring the traditional definition of marriage. A constitutional convention to consider amending the Massachusetts constitution is scheduled to convene on July 12. The Nebraska decision is under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which has already heard oral arguments in the case, and might issue a ruling as early as this summer. Most analysts, on both sides of the debate, believe the lower court's decision will be reversed, and the exclusive protections for traditional marriage that the people of Nebraska adopted in 2000 by a vote of 70 percent will be restored to their constitution. Nebraska's attorney General has not even felt it necessary to ask for a stay of the district court's decision pending the outcome of the appeal, which would almost certainly have been granted. I assume this is because Nebraska still has a defense of marriage law on the books, and there are no same-sex marriage cases pending in Nebraska courts or same-sex marriage legislation pending in the Nebraska Legislature. I understand that the precipitous Massachusetts decision as well as the unlawful granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in a few localities outside Massachusetts, challenges to traditional marriage laws in other States, and the decision last year by the Federal district court in Nebraska that struck down an amendment to Nebraska's constitution restricting marriage to a man and a woman have added to the support for a Federal marriage amendment. While that support does not mirror the broad national consensus in support of traditional marriage, it is substantial and passionate. I understand that and I respect it, and I agree that marriage a uniquely important institution should be protected. But I do not agree that all the above circumstances have made it necessary to usurp from the States, by means of an amendment to Federal Constitution, their traditional role in regulating marriage. I'm reluctant to abandon the federalism that is part of the essence of conservative political thought in our country. And I am very wary of the unintended consequences that might follow from making an exception to our federalist principles for the sake of addressing a threat to the institution of marriage that may still, indeed, seems likely to be, defeated by means far less precedent setting than amending our Nation's Constitution. Of course, while I disagree that the current constitutional structure provides insufficient mechanisms for ensuring that the public meaning of marriage is not tampered with by activist judges, it would be disingenuous to argue that those who support the proposed amendment have no grounds for their concern. In recent decades there have been too many occasions on which the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, have forgotten their proper role, and abandoned the virtues of federalism and republican government in favor of imposing their own policy preferences in the guise constitutional interpretation. Decisions such as Roe v. Wade continue to distort the democratic process in ways large and small to this very day. It is a telling commentary on those who seek to change the longstanding public meaning of marriage that in many instances they have chosen to pursue their agenda through the courts rather than taking their case to the people. Those who wish to engage the issue in good faith should reject out-of- hand attempts to read into the Constitution a right to same-sex marriage, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and because the longstanding traditions of American society have defined legal marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Indeed, yet another reason I am reluctant to support the proposed amendment at this point in time is that I do not accept the proposition that the current Constitution could ever reasonably be read to contain a supposed ``right'' that it plainly does not contain. It is just not clear to me that threats to the institution of marriage that have arisen in recent times have become a permanent breach of State authorities' traditional role in regulating and defining marriage as the people of their States and their elected representatives see fit. My confidence that the public meaning of marriage will be decided in the context of federalism and republican government rather than by judicial fiat is strengthened by the recent confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and I hope that future appointments to that State and Federal courts give us judges who share a similar understanding of the courts' proper role in our constitutional system. However, if I am wrong, and the Nebraska decision were to be upheld on appeal; or were other challenges to State marriage laws made and upheld; or if majority sentiment and legislative remedies in affected States fail to overcome peremptory judicial intrusions into the political process of defining marriage; or if the Supreme Court were to reject the Defense of Marriage Act, then, and only then, would the problem justify Congress making the momentous decision to amend the most enduring and successful political compact in human history as the only recourse means to restore the public's right to define, according to the values and concerns of our communities, a critically important foundation of our society. Let me pose a hypothetical situation to illustrate why we should be reluctant to impose a constitutional remedy to a problem that will probably be resolved in an ordinary, State by State political process, consistent with the respect for federalism we Republicans have long claimed as one of our virtues. Those of us who consider ourselves pro- life would welcome the Supreme Court's reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision that found a constitutional right to an abortion. The result of that reversal would be to return the regulation of abortion to the States, where the values of local communities would be influential. Now, further suppose that abortion rights advocates held majorities in both houses of Congress, and rather than argue State by State for liberal abortion laws, they decided to usurp the States' authority by means of a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wouldn't we who consider ourselves federalists loudly protest such a move? Wouldn't we all line up on the floor to quote Mr. Madison from Federalist Paper 45, that: The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. Yes, we would, Mr. President, yes, we would. I believe that in the ``ordinary course of affairs,'' the American people's clear preference to retain intact the institution of marriage, defined according to the values of our communities as the union of one man and one woman, will prevail, and that attempts to ignore the people's will, either by judicial fiat or by the occasional enterprising politician will, in due course, be overcome. I might be wrong, and I respect the concerns of Americans who believe current circumstances urgently require the constitutional protection of traditionally defined marriage. But I do not believe that recent developments yet pose a threat to marriage that cannot be overcome by means short of a constitutional amendment. While I will vote in opposition to this amendment, I believe its advocates should be reassured that if in the future the public meaning of marriage is taken from the hands of the people and altered by judges who claim falsely to speak before all others for the people's constitutional ideals, then it will be the people, acting through their elected representatives in this Chamber, who will at that time have the final word. Until then, however, I will trust in the American people and the elected representatives closest to them to pass and enforce laws upholding the institution of marriage in accord with the values of their communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand I am recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise, obviously, in strong opposition to the amendment. The Senator from New Mexico just made my arguments for me. He wants us to be like other countries in the world--maybe France, maybe Germany, maybe those countries where there has been no assimilation, no ability to become part of the society and therefore they have ended up with serious situations--riots, car burnings. It is clear he wants to be like other countries in the world. He also made my argument in that he pointed out there are lots of ways for highly skilled workers, highly educated people to come in. There is virtually no restraint on them. So he is going to focus on the lower skilled workers. Those are the ones on whom we are going to put the cap. Right. The overwhelming number of people who have come to this country have started out as low-skilled workers, I remind my colleague from New Mexico, and have worked their way up the economic ladder. If you are rich and educated and highly skilled, come on in. There is no problem with you coming to the United States of America. But if you are low skilled, we are going to make sure that not only you but your children are not admitted. My parents had three children. I am glad we didn't have that kind of proposal for my family--either I or my sister or my brother may have stayed someplace else, if my parents were immigrants. This is against family. This is against everything that America stands for. I point out to my colleagues, this is just one in a series of amendments that basically would restrict people's ability to come to this country to not only work but also, over time, raise families and become part of our society. The Bingaman amendment clearly discriminates against people who are low skilled. He wants us to be like every other country in the world. I tell the Senator from New Mexico, I don't want America to be like every other country in the world. He made my argument against his own amendment. I don't want us to be like that. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.