S54 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

‘‘practical effect’’ of the perimeter rule 

‘‘has been to limit entry’’ of other carriers and found that airfares at 

LaGuardia and Washington National 

are approximately 50 percent higher on 

average than fares at similar airports 

unconstrained by the perimeter rule. 

Such an anticompetitive rule should 

not remain in effect, particularly 

where its anticompetitive impact has 

long been recognized. 

For this reason, I will continue the 

struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anti-competitive 

restrictions that increase consumer 

costs and decrease convenience for no 

apparent benefit. 

By Mr. MCCAIN: 

S. 37. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, today I 

introduce the Economic Growth 

Through Innovation Act of 2009. This 

bill would make permanent the current 

research and development tax credit. 

Otherwise, this tax credit will expire 

on December 31, 2009. 

A permanent credit would provide an 

incentive to innovate, and remove uncertainty now hanging over businesses 

as they make research and development investment decisions for 2010 and 

beyond. The research and development 

tax credit was first established in 1981 

and has been extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make 

the tax credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which 

has led to fewer jobs being created in 

the United States. Tax policies have a 

powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and that is 

why I have chosen to introduce this 

bill on the first day of the 111th Congress. Additionally, both Presidentelect Obama and I were in full agreement during the campaign that making 

permanent the research and development tax credit is critical to spurring 

investment in developing technologies. 

In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader 

among nations for providing the most 

generous tax treatment of research and 

development. By 2004, the most recent 

study, the United States had fallen to 

17th, which explains why the U.S. is no 

longer considered by many to be the 

world leader in innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and development tax credit will 

ensure that businesses keep funding research and development, which may 

lead to numerous new discoveries in 

the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, 

cancer treatment or the development 

of clean energy. 

Studies have shown that on average, 

companies invest $94 in research and 

development for every $6 the Federal 

Government invests in the tax credit. 

While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax credit 

may cost many billions of dollars in 

tax revenue to the Federal government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery. 

Companies of all sizes, in a wide 

range of industries, have taken advantage of the research and development 

tax credit during its existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & 

Young, 17,700 businesses claimed $6.6 

billion research and development tax 

credits on their tax returns in 2005, the 

most recent year available. Almost a 

quarter of these businesses were small 

businesses with $1 million of assets or 

less, and almost half were businesses 

with assets of $1–$5 million, which is 

the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. 

Firms in the manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the 

majority of the credit, and the states 

with the highest number of companies 

reporting research and development activity include those States that have 

been hit the hardest by the depressed 

economy such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and California. 

Congress has endorsed the credit by 

extending it 13 times since enactment, 

and several times the credit has been 

reinstated retroactively. Yet, it has 

never been made permanent, creating a 

less certain investment atmosphere. 

With so many Republicans and Democrats in agreement that this tax credit 

must be made permanent, including 

President-elect Obama, I hope this bill 

will be given swift consideration and 

signed into law during the first few 

months of 2009 to increase our nation’s 

ability to innovate, create jobs and improve our sagging economy. 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. DORGAN): 

S. 38. A bill to establish a United 

States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, today I 

am pleased to be joined by Senator 

DORGAN in introducing the Professional 

Boxing Amendments Act of 2009. This 

legislation is virtually identical to a 

measure reported by the Commerce 

Committee during the first executive 

session of the 110th Congress, after 

being approved unanimously by the 

Senate in 2005. Simply put, this bill 

would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued 

the sport for far too many years, and 

that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation’s professional boxers. I remain committed to 

moving the Professional Boxing 

Amendments Act through the Senate 

and I trust that my colleagues will 

once again vote favorably on this important legislation. 

Since 1996, Congress has made efforts 

to improve the sport of professional 

boxing—and for very good reason. With 

rare exception, professional boxers 

come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least 

educated and most exploited athletes 

in our nation. The Professional Boxing 

Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad 

Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as 

basic protections for boxers against the 

sometimes coercive, exploitative, and 

unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed. 

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing 

Federal boxing law by improving the 

basic health and safety standards for 

professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by 

local commissions to protect boxers, 

reducing the arbitrary practices of 

sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards 

for professional boxing contracts. Most 

importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to 

oversee professional boxing and set 

basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport. 

Current law has improved to some 

extent the state of professional boxing. 

However, I remain concerned, as do 

many others, that the sport remains at 

risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent more than six 

months studying ten of the country’s 

busiest state and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that 

many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal 

boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials. 

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, 

controversies, unethical practices, and 

unnecessary deaths in the sport. These 

problems have led many in professional 

boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable 

Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act 

would create such an entity. 

Professional boxing remains the only 

major sport in the United States that 

does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory 

body to establish and enforce uniform 

rules and practices. Because a powerful 

few benefit greatly from the current 

system of patchwork compliance and 

enforcement of Federal boxing law, a 

national self-regulating organization— 

though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option. 

This bill would establish the United 

States Boxing Commission ‘‘USBC’’ or 

Commission. The Commission would be 

responsible for protecting the health, 

safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be 

responsible for ensuring uniformity, 

fairness, and integrity in professional 

boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing 

law and coordinate with other Federal 

regulatory agencies to ensure that this 

law is enforced; oversee all professional 

boxing matches in the United States; 

and work with the boxing industry and 

local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S55 

professional boxing in the United 

States. 

The USBC would also license boxers, 

promoters, managers, and sanctioning 

organizations. The Commission would 

have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing 

law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety 

of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest. 

It is important to state clearly and 

plainly for the record that the purpose 

of the USBC is not to interfere with 

the daily operations of State and tribal 

boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation 

with local commissions, and it would 

only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states 

explicitly that it would not prohibit 

any boxing commission from exercising 

any of its powers, duties, or functions 

with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law. 

Let there be no doubt, however, of 

the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing 

commission. The establishment of the 

USBC would address that need. The 

problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the 

public and—more importantly—compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing 

these problems. 

As this measure continues through 

the legislative process, I fully expect 

Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other 

spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in 

a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. KYL): 

S. 39. A bill to repeal section 10(f) of 

Public Law 93–531, commonly known as 

the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to introduce legislation that 

would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 

93–531, commonly known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze.’’ Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of 

roughly 40 years of litigation and landlock between the Navajo Nation and 

the Hopi Tribe. 

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi 

have been engrossed in a bitter dispute 

over land rights in the Black Mesa area 

just south of Kayenta, Arizona. The 

conflict extends as far back as 1882 

when the boundaries of the Hopi and 

Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian 

policy. By 1966, relations between the 

tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious 

sites in the disputed area that the federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation 

land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the 

Black Mesa area and restricted repairs 

on existing dwellings. This injunction 

became known as the ‘‘Bennett 

Freeze,’’ named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed 

the ban. 

The Bennett Freeze was intended to 

be a temporary measure to prevent one 

tribe taking advantage of another until 

the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere 

near resolution, and the construction 

freeze ultimately devastated economic 

development in northern Arizona for 

years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the 

Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven’t changed in half a 

century. While the population of the 

area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to 

live together in homes that have been 

declared unfit for human habitation by 

the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Only 3 percent of 

the families affected by the Bennett 

Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent 

have running water. Almost none have 

natural gas. 

In September 2005, the Navajo and 

Hopi peoples’ desire to live together in 

mutual respect prevailed when both 

tribes approved an intergovernmental 

agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett 

Freeze area. This landmark agreement 

also clarifies the boundaries of the 

Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes in protected. 

As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi 

Tribe, and the Department of Interior 

all support congressional legislation to 

lift the freeze. 

The bill I am introducing today 

would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The 

intergovernmental compact approved 

last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the 

U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks 

a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. 

Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an 

opportunity to put decades of conflict 

between the Navajo and Hopi behind 

us. 

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. KYL): 

S. 40. A bill to designate Fossil 

Creek, a tributary of the Verde River 

in the State of Arizona, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System; to the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to be joined by my colleague, 

Senator KYL, in reintroducing a bill to 

designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and 

Scenic River. 

Fossil Creek 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 baseflow. They claimed the channel’s water 

rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the ChildsIrving hydro-project. Over time, the 

project was acquired by Arizona Public 

Service, APS, one of the state’s largest 

electric 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 pre-settlement conditions. 

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the ChildsIrving 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 mostvaluable 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 longterm 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE