Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I want to address a growing misperception concerning the European Union's ability to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Treaty. There are many climate change skeptics who claim that the EU will not be able to meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Treaty. In turn, they argue that the U.S. should not participate in any ``cap and trade'' system for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the Kyoto Treaty, the EU has committed to greenhouse gas reductions target of 8 percent below their 1990 emission levels and covers the years 2008 through 2012. This target is shared by the 15 EU member states, EU-15, that existed at the time of the EU ratification of the protocol in May 2001. An additional 10 countries joined the EU in May 2004, eight of which have individual targets under Kyoto that range from 6 to 8 percent below the 1990 levels. Two of them, Malta and Cyprus, are developing countries and, therefore, do not have any emission targets under the treaty.

In December 2005, the EU, as required by the Kyoto Treaty, reported on the progress made toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report indicated that EU policies and actions by member states to date have made annual carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 5.5 percent in the year 2003 across all 25 of the EU member states, EU-25.

The report makes the following assessments:

For the EU-15:

Existing measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

that are projected to be 1.6 percent below the year 1990

levels in 2010. Savings from additional domestic policies and

measures being planned by the EU-15 would result in total

emission reductions of 6.8 percent.

EU-15 member states forecast that they will be able to

achieve lower emissions of 9.3 percent below the year 1990

levels through the use of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms in

the year 2010. They include such activities as emissions

trading, forest sequestration, and participating in

International projects that result in greenhouse gas

reductions through the Joint Implementation and Clean

Development Mechanism programs.

For the EU-25:

The total of all member states' projections of greenhouse

gas emissions will be 5 percent below base year levels in

2010 as a result of measures already implemented.

The implementation of additional measures is projected to

reduce the EU-25 greenhouse gas emissions to 9.3 percent

below 1990 levels by 2010 and, with the use of Kyoto

flexibility mechanisms, to 11.3 percent below the year 1990

levels.

The December 2005 report concludes that the EU-15 states can meet their target of 8 percent below the 1990 levels if the additional domestic measures and the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms that are planned are implemented.

According to the February 14, 2006 statement of the acting head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Richard Kinley, 34 industrialized countries under the Kyoto Treaty were ``on their way to lower their emissions levels by at least 3.5% below the 1990 levels during the first commitment period.'' ``With the help of additional measures and the use of Kyoto market-based mechanisms, they will as a group be able reach their agreed Kyoto reduction targets.''

In June, the European Environment Agency issued the Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2004 and Inventory Report 2006. The report indicates that the EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions for 2004 increased by 0.3 percent--11.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents--over 2003. However, compared to the base year, emissions in 2004 were 0.9 percent lower. Assuming a linear target path from 1990 to 2010, total EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions were 4.7 index points above this target path in 2004. It should be noted that this linear target path is not intended as an approximation of past and future emission trends. It does provide a measure of how close the EU-15 emissions are in 2004 to a linear path of emissions from 1990 to the Kyoto target period of 2008-2012, assuming that only domestic measures will be used. Therefore, it is not a measure of future compliance of the EU-15 with its greenhouse gas emission targets in 2008-2012, but aims at evaluating overall EU-15 greenhouse emissions in 2004 alone.

The EU is fully committed to the Kyoto Treaty. It has adopted a series of policies and measures, such as the EU's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, to meet its target in a cost-effective manner. The most recent projections show that these measures, together with the EU's participation in the global carbon market, will allow the EU to meet its target.

To ensure its compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, the EU has adopted a series of measures under the European Climate Change Programme, ECCP. Most of these measures have recently entered into force and will start to show their full effect over the next few years. These include:

The EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources; the promotion of cogeneration, CHP; increasing the energy performance of buildings; the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport; the reduction of land- filling of biodegradable waste

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record documents from the European Commission and the European Environmental Agency's reports which summarize the EU's efforts to address climate change. Let me highlight a few of the important elements from these reports for my colleagues.

Mr. President, attachment I gives a full overview of all recently adopted measures and their projected effect. ECCP policies and other actions by Member States to date, in combination with restructuring of European industry, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, have contributed to an absolute reduction of annual carbon dioxide emissions of some 305 million tonnes, 4.8 percent, across the EU-25 in 2004.

Attachment II provides an overview of the performance of individual Member States. In 2004, the EU-15, which shares the EU's Kyoto target of an 8 percent reduction, had reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 0.9 percent compared to 1990 levels even though they recorded economic growth of 32 percent from 1990 to 2004. The average EU-15 member state's emissions over the most recent 5-year period are currently 2 percent below 1990 level.

Attachment III provides an overview of the planned use by individual Member States of the Kyoto mechanisms. The EU will make use of the cost-effective reduction options offered by its participation in the global carbon market, based on the Kyoto's flexible mechanisms, to meet its target.

In summary Mr. President, the EU has made good progress and its ultimate success will depend upon the speed and thoroughness of the implementation by Member States of legislative and domestic measures. Total projections for the EU-15 Member States show that the Kyoto targets can be met if Member States implement additional planned domestic measures and use the flexible mechanisms.

Despite this meaningful progress, the EU realizes that much more has to be done. Its climate change policy does not stop in 2012, the end of the Kyoto Treaty. The European Commission has also adopted a Communication outlining key elements for a strategy for further action post 2012. They include: the need for broader participation by countries and sectors; the development of low-carbon technologies; the continued and expanded use of market-based instruments; and the need to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. A follow-up Communication with proposals for concrete steps at European and international levels is planned for the end of 2006.

These policies, and others like them, provide the necessary strong, long-term signals to industry, EU Member State governments, and the wider international community that the EU is committed to tackling climate change and expects all of its institutions, businesses, and citizens to do their part.

Many here in the US will try to use another country's failure or inaction as an excuse for not doing anything. But it is just that, an excuse. The harsh reality is that we all need to be doing more--and that means the United States too. Just as we cannot allow the EU challenges to serve as the basis for our inaction, I certainly hope that the EU would not allow our lack of action to hinder their efforts to address this significant problem.

Mr. President, amendment No. 4838 would strike language from the bill that states that certain projects in the committee report ``shall be considered to be authorized by law.''

Committee reports that accompany Senate bills and joint explanatory statements that accompany conference reports are not law but, rather, advisory documents. While some like to think otherwise, the Federal agencies are under no legal requirement to follow verbatim the many directives that are included in each and every committee report. And I note that also applies to the hundreds of earmarks that are included in committee reports and joint explanatory statements each year. Unless provisions are included in enacted legislation, they do not have the force of law. And this is not just my view.

Let me read from the April 1998 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Scalia in United States, petitioner v. Estate of Francis J. Romani et al.:

The Constitution sets forth the only manner in which the

Members of Congress have the power to impose their will upon

the country: by a bill that passes both Houses and is either

signed by the President or repassed by a supermajority after

his veto. Art. I, Sec. 7. Everything else the Members of

Congress do is either prelude or internal organization.

And just this past June, in Zedner v. United States, Scalia wrote:

I believe that the only language that constitutes ``a Law''

within the meaning of the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause

of Article I Sec. 7, and hence the only language adopted in a

fashion that entitles it to our attention, is the text of the

enacted statute.

It may seem that there is no harm in using committee

reports and other such sources when they are merely in accord

with the plain meaning of the Act. But this sort of

intellectual piling-on has addictive consequences. To begin

with, it accustoms us to believing that what is said by a

single person in a floor debate or by a committee report

represents the view of Congress as a whole--so that we

sometimes even will say (when referring to a floor statement

and committee report) that ``Congress has expressed'' thus-

and-so. . . . There is no basis either in law or in reality

for this naive belief Moreover, if legislative history is

relevant when it confirms the plain meaning of the statutory

text, it should also be relevant when it contradicts the

plain meaning, thus rendering what is plain ambiguous.

I fully understand a committee's interest in having an agency consider the guidance it provides in its report language. But on occasion, that interest can get carried away. I remember the controversy that occurred a few years ago when a report included language expressing extreme displeasure over the fact that an agency had not followed to the letter certain prior year's

report language. The subsequent report, which accompanied the fiscal year 2004 CJS appropriations bill, stated the following:

As in past years, the Committee expects NOAA and the

Department to adhere to the direction given in this section

of the Committee report, particularly language regarding

consultation with Congress, and to observe the reprogramming

procedures detailed in section 605 in the general provisions

of the accompanying bill. Unlike past years, however, the

Committee intends to enforce congressional direction

ruthlessly.

The reason I am referencing that report is to demonstrate the extent to which committees can go in imposing report directives. I am not trying to suggest the DOD appropriations report accompanying the pending bill includes comparable threats, but I am concerned about a line in the bill language that I believe should be eliminated because it would have the effect of authorizing projects that are merely listed in the report, thus giving provisions in the report the force of law.

Section 8042 of the bill states:

The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other

provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic

Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made

available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and

Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement

other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided

in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the

Senate accompanying this Act, and the projects specified in

such guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law.

Let me repeat the last phrase: ``and the projects specified in such guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law.''

Mr. President, the projects referred to are not included in the legislative language, and we should not be suggesting that it is acceptable to authorize provisions by reference. In this particular case, it would result in the authorization of about 30 projects. But imagine what is next. I can envision the conference report of this or another bill to include a line stating that all the projects in its report ``shall be considered to be authorized by law.''

The language that allows certain projects to be ``considered authorized by law'' is a dangerous precedent, and I believe it should be eliminated.

I appreciate that the bill managers have agreed to accept this amendment, and I trust that they will work to ensure that the final conference agreement is free of language that would allow provisions in the joint explanatory statement to have the force of law.

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a ``wild and scenic river.'' A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation.

Fossil Creek it is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring-fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of the State's largest eclectic utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its presettlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, Federal land managers, and State, tribal, and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six threatened and endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found eligible for ``wild and scenic'' designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private property owners.

Mr. President, Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through ``wild and scenic'' designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for passage of H.R. 5683, legislation passed by the House last week to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in Diego, CA. I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, Senator Sessions. He and I both have introduced legislation similar to H.R. 5683 and I am pleased that Senator Graham also has joined us in advocating a legislative solution to this important matter.

Since 1913, a series of crosses have stood on top of Mount Soledad, property owned by the city of San Diego. In April of 1954, the site was designated to commemorate the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces who served in World War II, as well as the Korean war.

In 1989, one individual filed suit against the city claiming that the display of the cross by the city was unconstitutional and, therefore, violated his civil rights. In 1991, a Federal judge issued an injunction prohibiting the permanent display of the cross on city property. Since that time, the city has repeatedly tried to divest itself of the property through sale or donation. But the plaintiff continued to mount legal challenges to every attempted property transfer. The legal wrangling over this memorial continues today.

The Mount Soledad Memorial is a remarkably popular landmark. In fact, I had the pleasure of visiting the Memorial during the Fourth of July recess and can personally attest to the profound impression it can leave on its visitors.

It is also of great importance to the local community. On two different occasions, the voters of San Diego have overwhelming passed ballot measures designed to transfer the property to entities which could maintain the cross. Given the many years of legal disputes regarding this memorial, I believe it is past time that this issue be resolved.

The bill that we are seeking to pass would bring the Mount Soledad cross under the control of the Federal Government, and specifically, the Department of Defense and would allow for the just compensation for the property in question. It also would address the required maintenance for the memorial and the surrounding property through a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Defense and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The minimal financial commitment required in this legislation will ensure the endurance of this memorial which serves as a reminder of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who made enormous sacrifices when our country called upon them.

I understand the bill has cleared on our side, and that we are awaiting for the other side to allow its approval. I can only hope that all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and ensure the preservation of an important tribute to our men and women of the Armed Forces.

Madam President, I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Feinstein for their leadership once again in renewing the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to cosponsor and support this resolution.

I again thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from California for their leadership and their advocacy. I thank Senator McConnell for his very strong and inspirational remarks that he completed.

As we renew these sanctions, the situation inside Burma continues to worsen still. The military junta in that country controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. And that courageous woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, has spent yet another year in captivity.

Aung San Suu Kyi's resolve in the face of tyranny inspires me and, I believe, every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold suffering at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work. We must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less.

And, while we see encouraging signs that the world is no longer content to sit on the sidelines, not everyone has gotten the message. Nine years after Burma joined ASEAN, the Southeast Asian nations remain too passive in the face of Burma's outrages. The European Union has recently announced that it will waive a travel ban on Burma's top leaders so that the Burmese foreign minister can attend the Asia-Europe meeting in Finland this September. It is hard to see what new actions the Burmese junta must commit in order to induce the world to treat the junta like the pariah it wishes to be.

At least there should be no mistaking where the United States stands when it comes to repression in Burma. The U.S. Congress has been in the forefront of efforts to isolate that country, and we stepped up these measures significantly in 2003 with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country. Today's renewal of the import restrictions--sanctions that are supplied by supported by the National League for Democracy--is just one of those steps. I believe that these restrictions must remain in place until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities.

But the import ban must not be the only step. The U.S. has pushed for a resolution at the United Nations Security Council, and this step should garner wide support. The Europeans and ASEAN too should take up the Burma issue and put it on their front burners. Every responsible member of the international community must realize that the desire of people to be free is universal, and it does not stop at the gates of Rangoon. The people of Burma desire freedom and democracy, they have expressed this desire, and they shall one day have it. The question is not ``if'' but ``when.'' We shall help them get there, and we shall never forget their brave struggle.

Again, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from California for their leadership on this very important issue.

There are many issues that are before America's attention today and that dominate our television and our newspapers. But this struggle for freedom on the part of the Burmese people has been there before and, unfortunately, will be after. We must be steadfast in our advocacy until they attain the freedom that they deserve under the leadership of this magnificent, Nobel Prize-winning hero for men and women throughout the world.

I yield the floor.

I agree with my friend from Kentucky. Let me respond by referencing, again, this struggle carried out by this magnificent woman. She has endured 17 years of house arrest. When her husband was in England, he was dying of cancer. She has two sons, by the way. He was dying of cancer, and she wanted, of course, to go to be with her husband in his last hours. The

junta said: Yes, you can go, but you can never come back.

Among the incredible sacrifices she has made, she was not even allowed to be with her husband as he died.

One time she was surrounded by these thugs who killed some of her supporters. She was in a car for a week--inside of her car for a week, surrounded by these unspeakable, brutal thugs who were the goons of this regime.

The things she has undergone. Yet, incredibly, whenever she is with these thugs from this junta, she treats them with the utmost courtesy. She serves them tea. She treats them as only a woman of her caliber can treat her mortal enemies.

Her story needs to be told and retold throughout the world, thousands and thousands of times. As a person who is a hero worshiper, an admirer, I believe that heroes have an important place in our Nation and the world. When I see her, she ranks in the first ranks of heroes in the world. It seems to me, with all due respect to the other nations of the world--our European friends, our ASEAN friends, and others--that we should be far more energetic in her advocacy and advocacy of freedom for her people.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, today the Senate will pass S. 3549, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2006. While I have reservations over the legislation as currently drafted, I have agreed to allow the bill to proceed to conference, given the assurances by the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, that he will work to address the concerns that I have raised.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--known as CFIUS--was established 30 years ago to placate concerns in Congress over investments by Middle Eastern countries in American assets. Three decades later, it is once again concern over the Middle East that is driving Congress to overhaul the CFIUS process. This time, the outrage has revolved around the proposed acquisition of port terminal operations in the U.S. by Dubai Ports World, a corporation owned by the government of Dubai, one of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates.

In the war on terror, the UAE has provided American and Coalition military forces unprecedented access to its ports and territory, overflight clearances, and other critical and important logistical assistance. The UAE has played host to over 700 U.S. Navy ships at its ports, including the Port of Jebel Ali--which is managed by Dubai Ports World--and to the Air Force at al Dhafra Air Base. The country also hosts the UAE Air Warfare Center, the leading fighter training center in the Middle East. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering. Moreover, Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative and the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material. But all of these details seem to have been lost in the rush to stop a corporate transaction with a key ally in the war on terror.

Mr. President, there are at least two details in S. 3549 that cannot be ignored because they will not help protect our homeland. Instead, they will only harm America's economy, the strength of which is critical to our national security.

One provision that I believe merits closer scrutiny would require CFIUS to notify several congressional committees, as well as individual members of Congress, of each and every transaction submitted to CFIUS's review. This notification would be required well before CFIUS made any determination about the national security implications, if any, of the proposed transaction.

On its face, this provision would appear to be a reasonable effort to achieve transparency and accountability in the CFIUS process. However,

if this provision were enacted, a process that is meant to be a sober analysis of the national security implications of a transaction would become a politically charged debacle. What other goal would be accomplished by providing notice to the members of Congress whose States and districts are impacted by the transaction before any determination is made by CFIUS? The politicization of the CFIUS review process would discourage transactions that might be reviewed by CFIUS for fear of financial or reputational harm. This, in turn, could reduce foreign direct investment or impose a risk premium on such investment that would be detrimental to U.S. businesses seeking investment capital.

A second provision that I believe needs further clarification would require CFIUS to investigate a proposed transaction whenever the matter involves ``any possible impairment to national security'' resulting from the acquisition of critical infrastructure or ``the possibility of an impairment to national security'' arising out of any transaction reviewed by CFIUS. Under these standards, many transactions that pose negligible or no risk to national security will nonetheless be forced into an extended 45-day investigation in addition to the initial 30-day review period. According to the Department of Treasury, these standards will lead to a significant increase in the number of investigations conducted by CFIUS. I strongly support a full and fair review of each transaction submitted to CFIUS, and I believe that a transaction that poses a risk to our national security should not be approved, but that is not what the mandatory 45-day investigation provisions would accomplish. In my view, it would be better to use CFIUS resources to investigate transactions that raise genuine national security concerns.

I appreciate the interest of Senator Shelby and others to modify the CFIUS process, and I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of their desire to protect our Nation from threats abroad. That is why I am confident that my concerns with the legislation will be addressed in conference. If they are not, then I will be forced to object to the conference report.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

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 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 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. 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. 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.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the calling of the quorum be rescinded.

I ask that the remaining time on the minority side be yielded back.