Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007. The funding provided in this legislation is crucial for the ongoing war on terror. It is imperative that critical resources continue to be provided for the brave men and women who have answered their Nation's call. It is our duty to support those who defend our freedom and for that reason I will vote in favor of this legislation. However, while I will support passage, I note with concern the billions of dollars in wasteful earmarks that have again found their way into both the conference report and the joint explanatory statement.

Of equal importance to the legislation we are considering today is the National Defense Authorization Act for 2007. I am encouraged by last night's report that an agreement has been reached between Chairman Warner and Chairman Hunter. With bipartisan cooperation, I am confident that the conference report will be filed soon and its final passage can be achieved before we leave this week. It is a matter of national security and imperative in fulfilling our duty to defend the Nation.

An important provision contained in the Senate-passed Defense Authorization Act would require regular budgeting for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is necessary because even though we have been fighting the war on terror for nearly 5 years, we continue to fund it through emergency supplemental spending bills that have become the rule, rather than the exception as would be expected for unanticipated expenditures. Fortunately, the provision to require budgeting for the war was adopted by a vote of 98 to 0, and I am very hopeful that this important budgetary requirement will remain intact in the conference report. The next budget submission will be expected to include funding to conduct the ongoing conflict for the next year.

The appropriations conference report before us today appropriates over $447 billion dollars for the Department of Defense. While this is considerable funding, it is more than $4 billion below what the President requested. Not only does this legislation provide less than the President's request, but many of the President's programs have been stripped out and replaced with earmarks for favored projects. These are serious times that require serious people to make serious decisions-- tough decisions that may go against the special interests. I need not remind my colleagues that we are at war. Supporting the President's budget and the troops it sustains should be our primary focus, not parochial interests.

The issues we face as a Nation require all of us to make sacrifices. The service members who defend our Nation interests around the globe are making great sacrifices. The families who wait for them back home are making sacrifices. Because we ask these heroes to forfeit so much, we in the Congress should also be ready to make sacrifices. By doing so, a message can be sent that our Nation's security and the welfare of our service members are higher priorities than earmarks inserted to gain favor from special interests or the opportunity to send out a press release touting the bacon we are bringing home.

The practice of earmarking has reached epic proportions, and the harm it has caused in some cases has been clearly exposed. In the last 2 years alone we have had ample evidence of the corrupting influence of these earmarks on the Congress. It is clear that they detract from the trust and confidence the American taxpayer has placed in their elected officials. How high will we let the Federal deficit climb before we take our fiscal responsibilities seriously? What is it going to take for us to finally say, enough is enough? We should pass a Defense Appropriations Bill which mirrors the authorization bill and fulfills the requirements of our military as requested by the President.

The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. The money that is being diverted to unauthorized projects should instead be used to address the needs of our services. It is the service chiefs who are in the best position to advise Congress of their priorities. Unauthorized earmarks drain our precious resources and adversely affect our national security.

Here is a sampling of nondefense related earmarks in the conference report or the joint explanatory statement we are considering: $12.8 million for Alaska Land Mobile Radio; $4 million for the Northern Line Extension of the Alaska Railroad; $1.4 million for the South Carolina Center for Excellence in Educational Technology; $10 million for the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Marine Facility Project; and $3.2 million for the Lewis Center for Educational Research, which houses a school and science center, but no known military application.

One of the more egregious add-ons in the legislation currently on the floor is the addition of over $2 billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes that were not requested by the administration. The Air Force is not asking for these additional C-17s and the Quadrennial Defense Review clearly states a need for a total of only 180 aircraft. Why are 10 additional aircraft now part of a bridge fund that is designed to provide necessary resources for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Another reason I find this add-on particularly objectionable is that going into conference, the House had approved only three additional C- 17s and the Senate had approved only two. At a minimum, seven additional C-17 aircraft were added by the conferees, and that was outside of the matter they were tasked to resolve. I simply find this to be outrageous. The practice of adding unrequested, unauthorized, and unneeded projects onto wartime spending bills must be put to an end. Other unrequested earmarks include $117 million for T-AGS oceanographic survey ships; $60 million for weapons industrial facilities equipment; $10 million for Earthmoving Scrapers; $12.7 million for aircraft weapons range support equipment; $10.6 million for ``Other Aircraft'' in the Air Force procurement category; $22.5 million for human factors engineering technology; $1.3 million for the RAND Arroyo Center; $14.9 million for industrial preparedness; and $44.5 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System.

This list goes on and on. In fact, there are hundreds of such add-ons that total over $5 billion. I am not arguing that some of these earmarks could be used for good causes. But I do protest the process by which Congress ignores priorities of the armed services so that they can deliver Federal tax dollars for local programs, some of which have nothing to do with the defense of our Nation.

I am also concerned about our restrictive trade policies and the potentially negative impact they have on our readiness and interoperability with our allies. Every year, so-called ``Buy America'' restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers billions. I oppose these types of protectionist policies and economically they just don't make sense. Free trade improves relations between nations and promotes economic growth. ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and risks existing business from our longest standing trade partners and allies.

This conference report includes language to prohibit the procurement of foreign carbon or steel armor plate, ball and roller bearings, ship cranes and propellers. These ``Buy America'' restrictions may cost the taxpayers more than purchasing the same items on the international market, and by imposing them, we risk denying our warfighters the best available technology. Though I oppose these protectionist provisions, I appreciate that the conferees have provided for appropriate waivers based on case-by-case certifications. But these are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters, and should be addressed during the defense authorization process. Let's leave the authorizing of acquisition policy to the authorizers and debate these types of issues on authorization bills.

Mr. President, the appropriations measure before us is critical to our

fight against terror. Ideally, I would not need to criticize this legislation, but we owe it to the American taxpayers to inform them of how their money is being spent.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss the bill pending before us, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Over the past year, many Senators, as well as President Bush, have dedicated themselves to addressing the problems of our broken immigration system. In April, the Senate overwhelmingly passed, in a bipartisan fashion, a comprehensive immigration reform package designed to secure our borders as well as address the economic need for workers in our Nation. In passing this legislation, the Senate rejected the argument for an ``enforcement first'' strategy that focuses on border security only, an ineffective and ill-advised approach. Congress cannot take a piecemeal approach to a national security crisis. I believe the only way to truly secure our border and protect our Nation is through the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform. As long as there is a need for workers in the United States and people are willing to cross the desert to make a better life for their families, our border will never be secure.

The Secure Fence bill authorizes 700 miles of fencing along our southern border. To many in Congress, this sounds like a ``quick fix'' to our border security problems. However, in a briefing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last spring, Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff clearly stated that only 370 miles of fencing along the southern border is necessary. I find it interesting that this bill would mandate 700 miles of fencing in light of the Secretary's statement. In fact, it is my understanding that the Secretary feels that the additional 330 miles of fencing is not only unnecessary but also imprudent because it will force DHS to reduce funding other border security initiatives.

Because of the clear wishes of the Secretary and the concerns of border communities over the disruption the construction will cause to commerce along the border, a group of Senators, including myself, had hoped to offer and vote on an amendment that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security, the true expert on securing our border, to decide where fencing was necessary along the border and where money was better spent on other types of border security measures. It would have asked for local community input on the placement and construction of

this wall. My understanding is that this amendment had been circulated in both Chambers and no objections had been raised by the leadership in the House or the Senate or the committees of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, because of the objections of a single Senator, we are now unable to offer and vote on this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment.

Another amendment that we had planned to offer, dealing with the definition of ``operational control'' of our border, met the same fate. This amendment would have given a reasonable and achievable meaning to the term ``operation control'' as it relates to the Secretary's duties in this bill. However, again, the same Senator raised an objection to the clarification of this definition. I believe that this bill, and more importantly, our Nation's security, will be worse off for this objection to making commonsense improvements to this bill.

I have struggled and debated over how I should vote on this bill. I truly believe that we must have comprehensive immigration reform and will continue to dedicate myself to achieving a thorough response to our Nation's struggles with illegal immigration. However, since I am forced to choose between nothing and a fraction of the border security that our country needs, I must support providing some form of border security. As a Senator from a border State, I recognize that we are facing a crisis in our border region and infrastructure improvements to our border security are desperately needed.

If Congress thinks that it can continue this piecemeal approach to border security and achieve any real results for our national security, it is sadly mistaken. Mr. President, I hope that we can return in either a lameduck session or in the 110th Congress to not only correct the problems in the bill before us but also make a serious effort at comprehensively reforming our Nation's immigration system.

Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill has strong bipartisan support as illustrated by its vote of 65 to 34 that occurred in July. Unfortunately, due to political maneuvers by its opponents, the enactment of this critical legislation is being blocked.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered during the 109th Congress. Why is this legislation so important? Because despite the fact that 23 States require a minor to receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these important laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance of adults who are not their parents, are being transported across State lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We must end this circumvention of State laws and, more importantly, the consequences such actions have on life.

S. 403 would make it a Federal offense to help a minor cross lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, unless it is needed to save the life of the minor. Its enactment is critical, and we cannot allow its opponents to continue to stall needlessly its progress.

Earlier this month, I joined with 40 of my colleagues in urging the majority leader to take action to enable this legislation to continue through the legislative process. The leader has now taken such action. On Wednesday, a cloture motion was filed to break the opponents logjam, and I applaud and support this action. We must do all that we can to move this critical legislation to the President's desk.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member for their outstanding leadership in bringing the Defense authorization bill to closure and thank them for their untiring work concerning this most important legislation. By enacting this legislation, Congress will take a major step forward in ensuring that the defense of our Nation remains the number one priority. That is why I will vote for passage of the conference report on H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

I would like to take a moment to recognize our distinguished chairman, a man I have known for 33 years, my friend and mentor, the senior Senator from Virginia. No Member of this body has done more for our national security than John Warner. As a sailor, Marine officer, Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, and U.S. Senator, he has always answered his country's call. The dignified and evenhanded way in which he has presided over the business of the Committee these past 6 years has enabled it to continue its noble tradition of being an island of bipartisanship in an increasingly unpleasant political era. I am proud that we have named this year's defense authorization act, the last which John Warner will manage as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, in his honor, and I thank my friend for all he has done for our Nation.

This legislation authorizes the funding of $462.8 billion in budget authority for defense programs in fiscal year 2007, which is a 3.6 percent increase or $21 billion above the amount authorized by Congress last year. I am pleased to see that this measure meets the President's requested funding level and that the conferees focused much of their efforts on addressing requirements for the ongoing war on terror as expressed by the service chiefs in their unfunded priority lists.

While I am pleased we are able to act on this legislation prior to adjourning for the elections, I am compelled to point out that once again, the Defense Appropriations Act has been decided prior to final action on the Defense Authorization Act. The Defense Authorization Act is intended to provide a framework for the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. A continuing trend, however, is an expansion of the role of the Appropriations Committee, which now engages in significant policy decision making. It is my hope that next year we will succeed in passing the authorization measure prior to the appropriations measure.

An important legislative provision contained in the conference report is an amendment which I sponsored on the Senate bill that would require the regular budgeting for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the years, the administration and the Congress have become addicted to paying for these operations through ``emergency'' supplemental appropriation bills. In addition, many defense-related activities that should have been financed through the normal appropriations process have been funded through these emergency supplementals. Additionally, nondefense-related spending has also found its way into these bills further undermining the budget process. This method of funding has unfortunately become the rule rather than the exception, but with this provision it will no longer be allowed. The next budget submission will be expected to include funding required to conduct ongoing operations through the following year.

It should now be obvious that the current rate of growth in the cost of defense programs is reaching unsustainable levels. Over the intermediate term, this will pose a threat to not only our economic stability but also our national security. For this reason, next year I will propose an aggressive and comprehensive defense acquisition reform agenda. I have called for, and hope to obtain, the assistance of both the Department of Defense as well as the defense industry in this regard.

The need for such an agenda is clear. Over the last few years, the defense acquisition process has shown itself to be broken. This has been shown not only by the Air Force's proposed lease of Boeing 767 tanker aircraft, but also in the Department's procurement strategies for the C-130J, Future Combat Systems, Joint Primary Aircraft Training System, Joint Cargo Aircraft, Joint Strike Fighter, and F-22A Raptor.

Incidentally, I remain concerned about the approach the Air Force is currently taking to recapitalize its tanker fleet. But I will address this issue at another time.

As with past authorization bills, I have included in this year's bill several acquisition reform-related provisions. These provisions include measures that address abuses in the use of cost-type contract billing, financial conflicts of interest involving lead systems integrators, the improper payments of award and incentive fees, and excessive pass- through charges. These provisions also subject the multi-year purchase of F-22 aircraft to greater congressional oversight. There is every expectation that this legislation will be subject to

further legislative efforts in the future. I am hopeful that these measures will be further supplemented by even more comprehensive reforms next year.

The American taxpayer has a right to expect the government to properly manage the allocation of resources, especially at a time when those resources are so critical. While this legislation addresses a great many of the needs of our military, there is still money that is being diverted to unrequested projects. Unauthorized earmarks drain our precious resources and adversely affect our national security.

One of the more egregious add-ons in the legislation currently on the floor is the addition of over $2 billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes that were not requested by the administration. This contradicts the Quadrennial Defense Review and is not in keeping with the President's request. So why are these additional aircraft now part of a bridge fund designed to provide necessary resources for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Another reason I find this add-on particularly objectionable is that, going into conference, the House had approved only three additional C-17s and the Senate had approved only two. What we are presented in this legislation is seven more C-17s added by the conferees. This is completely outside the scope of the matter the conferees were tasked to resolve. The practice of adding unrequested, unauthorized, and unnecessary projects onto wartime spending bills must end.

Each and every day the men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms we cherish and it is imperative we provide them with the proper resources. It is our obligation to provide quality of life benefits for our servicemembers and their families. I am confident that enactment of this legislation will accomplish that goal. For example, this conference report authorizes a 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. Also included in the report is a provision that prohibits predatory practices by creditors who loan to military personnel. This legislation is a testament to our commitment to the brave men and women of our military who have answered their Nation's call.

The ongoing war on terror has required us to become increasingly reliant on the men and women of our Reserve forces and National Guard. Approximately 40 percent of the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are National Guard and Reserve forces. These soldiers and sailors leave behind friends, families, and careers to go willingly into harm's way for their Nation's cause. We in the Congress owe it to these patriots to ensure we look after their needs. Included in the conference report is the authorization to expand the eligibility for TRICARE to all members of the Selected Reserve. This provision is critical for providing our Reserve forces with the proper care they have earned.

Upon returning home from tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, soldiers and Marines are experiencing less and less downtime before their next deployment. This is not good for morale nor is it good for retention and eventually it will become a readiness issue as recruiting is affected. Fortunately, this legislation authorizes significant increases in recruiting and retention bonuses, as well as substantial increases in educational funds for recruitment purposes. Also provided is authorization for maintaining the Army active-duty end strength of 512,400, the Army National Guard end strength of 350,000, and an increase in Marine Corps end strength to a total of 180,000. This authorized force structure is critical to ensure proper readiness levels so that our military can meet its operational requirements.

As in years past, I am disappointed that the annual ``Buy America'' battle has once again made its way into this legislation. It seems as if every year we fight the same fight in conference. What it really comes down to is what I have stated countless times before: we need to provide American servicemen and women with the best equipment at the best price to the American taxpayer. By following this simple philosophy, we will protect both the men and women in uniform, as well as our domestic defense industry.

The international considerations of Buy America provisions are immense. Isolationist, go-it-alone approaches have serious consequences on our relationship with our allies. Our country is threatened when we ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus of $31 billion in defense and aerospace equipment. We don't need protectionist measures that detract from international cooperation in order to insulate our defense or aerospace industries. Critical international programs, such as the joint strike fighter and missile defense, could be placed in jeopardy when our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship. If we enact laws that isolate our domestic defense industry, allies could potentially retaliate and hinder our ability to sell U.S. equipment which would in turn adversely affect our interoperability with NATO and other allies.

Although there are examples of why this bill is far from perfect, I am putting my reservations aside to support the final passage of this conference report. The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 is legislation that further strengthens our Nation's military and gives the Department of Defense the tools it needs to defend our Nation's interests both at home and abroad.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

First, I say to my good friend from Michigan that this legislation clearly defines grave breaches of Common Article 3, which are criminalized and ultimately punishable by death. It is critical for the American public to understand that we are criminalizing breaches of Common Article 3 that rise to the level of a felony. Such acts-- including cruel or inhuman treatment, torture, rape, and murder, among others--will clearly be considered war crimes.

Where the President may exercise his authority to interpret treaty obligations is in the area of ``nongrave'' breaches of the Geneva Conventions--those breaches that do not rise to the level of a war crime. In interpreting the conventions in this manner, the President is bounded by the conventions themselves. Nothing in this bill gives the President the authority to modify the conventions or our obligations under those treaties. That understanding is at the core of this legislation.

I agree entirely with Senator Warner's comments.

That is correct.

The changes to the War Crimes Act are actually a responsible modification in order to better comply with America's obligations under the Geneva Conventions to provide effective penal sanction for grave breaches of Common Article 3. It is important to note, as has the Senator from Michigan, that in this section ``cruel or inhuman treatment'' is defined for purposes of the War Crimes Act only. It does not infringe, supplant, or in any way alter the definition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited in the DTA and defined therein with reference to the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Nor do the changes to the War Crimes Act alter U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

I concur wholeheartedly with the Senator from Virginia. As the Senator form Virginia is aware, there is a provision in the bill before the Senate that defines ``cruel and inhuman treatment'' under the War Crimes Act. I would note first that this definition is limited to criminal offenses under the War Crimes Act and is distinct from the broader prohibition contained in the Detainee Treatment Act. That act defined the term ``cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' with reference to the reservation the United States took to the Convention Against Torture.

In the war crimes section of this bill, cruel and inhuman treatment is defined as an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering. It further makes clear that such mental suffering need not be prolonged to be prohibited. The mental suffering need only be more than transitory. It is important to note that the ``nontransitory'' requirement applies to the harm, not to the act producing the harm. Thus if a U.S. soldier is, for example, subjected to some terrible technique that lasts for a brief time but that causes serious and nontransitory mental harm, a criminal act has occurred.

I am of the same view.

I do agree.

I would be glad to.

Mr. President, I thank both my friends of many years, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, for the collegiality, the bipartisanship, and the effort that we all make under their leadership on the Armed Services Committee for the betterment of the men and women who serve our country and our Nation's defense. I am honored to serve under both.

For the record, I believe I just calculated, I say to my dear friend from Virginia, it has been 33 years since I came home from Vietnam and found that our distinguished Secretary of the Navy was very concerned about the welfare of those who had the lack of talent that we were able to get shot down. So I thank my friend from Virginia especially, and I thank my friend from Michigan. I believe our committee conducts itself in a fashion

which has been handed down to us from other great Members of the Senate, such as Richard Russell and others.

Mr. President, before I move on to other issues, I have heard some criticism on the Senate floor today about the way in which the bill treats admissibility of coerced testimony.

A New York Times editorial today said that in this legislation ``coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses'' in their own inimitable style.

This is thoroughly incorrect, and I would like to correct not only the impression but the facts.

This bill excludes any evidence obtained through illegal interrogation techniques, including those prohibited by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. The goal is to bolster the Detainee Treatment Act by ensuring that the fruits of any illegal treatment will be per se inadmissible in the military commissions.

For evidence obtained before passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, we adopted the approach recommended by the military JAGs. In order to admit such evidence, the judge--we leave it to the judge--must find that: it passes the legal reliability test--and, as applied in practice, the greater the degree of coercion, the more likely the statement will not be admitted; the evidence possesses sufficient probative value; and that the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three different letters from three different JAGs--Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the JAG of the Air Force says:

. . . through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or

unlawful inducement. Each situation is obviously fact

determinative and the military judge decides whether the

statement is voluntary considering the totality of the

circumstances. I trust the judgment of experienced military

judges. Military commissions should not be permitted to

consider evidence that is found to be unlawfully coerced and

thus involuntary.

And the other two Judge Advocate Generals say the same thing, that the provisions of this bill are exactly in line with their opinions. Frankly, that had a great deal of weight in our adopting them.

Almost exactly 3 months ago, the Supreme Court decided the groundbreaking case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In that case, a majority of the Court ruled that the military procedures used to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay fell short of the standards of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

The Court also determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to al-Qaida because our conflict with that terrorist organization is ``not of an international character.'' Some of my colleagues may disagree with the Court's decision, but once issued it became the law of the land.

Unfortunately, the Hamdan decision left in its wake a void and uncertainty that Congress needed to address--and address quickly--in order to continue fighting the war on terrorism. I believe this act allows us to do that in a way that protects our soldiers and other personnel fighting on the front lines and respects core American principles of justice. I would like to thank Senators Graham and Warner and many others for their unceasing work on this bill.

I would like to take a few moments to describe some of the key elements of the legislation.

As is by now well known, Senators Warner, Graham, and I, and others, have resisted any redefinition or modification of our Nation's obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. We did so because we care deeply about legal protections for American fighting men and women and about America's moral standing in the world. More than 50 retired military generals and flag officers expressed grave concern about redefining our Geneva obligations, including five former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from GEN Colin Powell, GEN Jack Vessey, and GEN Hugh Shelton, and a letter from the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak.

These men express one common view: that modifying the Geneva Conventions would be a terrible mistake and would put our personnel at greater risk in this war and the next. If America is seen to be doing anything other than upholding the letter and spirit of the conventions, it will be harder, not easier, to defeat our enemies. I am pleased that this legislation before the Senate does not amend, redefine, or modify the Geneva Conventions in any way. The conventions are preserved intact.

The bill does provide needed clarity for our personnel about what activities constitute war crimes. For the first time, there will be a list of nine specific activities that constitute criminal violations of Common Article 3, punishable by imprisonment or even death. There has been much public discussion about specific interrogation methods that may be prohibited. But it is unreasonable to suggest that any legislation could provide an explicit and all-inclusive list of what specific activities are illegal and which are permitted. Still, I am confident that the categories included in this section will criminalize certain interrogation techniques, like waterboarding and other techniques that cause serious pain or suffering that need not be prolonged--I emphasize ``that need not be prolonged.''

Some critics of this legislation have asserted that it gives amnesty to U.S. personnel who may have committed war crimes since the enactment of the War Crimes Act. Nothing--nothing--could be further from the truth. As currently written, the War Crimes Act makes criminal any and all behavior that constitutes a violation of Common Article 3-- specifically, any act that constitutes an ``outrage upon personal dignity.'' Observers have commented that, though such outrages are difficult to define precisely, we all know them when we see them. However, neither I nor any other responsible Member of this body should want to prosecute and potentially sentence to death any individual for violating such a vague standard.

The specificity that the bill provides to the War Crimes Act--and its retroactive effect--will actually make prosecuting war criminals a realistic goal. None of my colleagues should object to that goal.

It is also important to note that the acts that we propose to enumerate in the War Crimes Act are not the only activities prohibited under this legislation. The categories enumerated in the War Crimes Act list only those violations of Common Article 3 that are so grave as to constitute felonies potentially punishable by death. The legislation states explicitly that there are other, nongrave breaches of Common Article 3.

This legislation also requires the President to publish his interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, including what violations constitute nongrave breaches, in the Federal Register--in the Federal Register--for every American to see. These interpretations will have the same force as any other administrative regulation promulgated by the executive branch and, thus, may be trumped--may be trumped--by law passed by Congress.

Simply put, this legislation ensures that we respect our obligations under Geneva, recognizes the President's constitutional authority to interpret treaties, and brings accountability and transparency to the process of interpretation by ensuring that the Executive's interpretation is made public--the Executive's interpretation is made public. The legislation would also guarantee that Congress and the judicial branch will retain their traditional roles of oversight and review with respect to the President's interpretation of nongrave breaches of Common Article 3.

In short, whereas last year only one law--the torture statute--was deemed to apply to the treatment of all enemy detainees, now there is a set of overlapping and comprehensive legal standards that are in force: the Detainee Treatment Act, with its prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as defined by the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and the War Crimes Act. This legislation will allow--my colleagues, have no doubt--this legislation will allow the CIA to continue interrogating prisoners within the boundaries established in the bill.

Let me state this flatly: It was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA's interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.

I, like many of my colleagues, find troubling the reports that our intelligence personnel feel compelled to purchase liability insurance because of the lack of legal clarity that exists in the wake of the Hamdan decision. This legislation provides an affirmative defense for any Government personnel prosecuted under the War Crimes Act for actions they reasonably believed to be legal at the time. That is a longstanding precedent. In addition, it would eliminate any private right of action against our personnel based on a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The intent of this provision is to protect officers, employees, members of the Armed Forces, and other agents of the United States from suits for money damages or any other lawsuits that could harm the financial well-being of our personnel who were engaged in lawful--I emphasize ``lawful''--activities.

It is important to note, however, that the fact that the Geneva Conventions lack a private right of action--and the fact that this legislation does not create such a right--has absolutely no bearing on whether the Conventions are binding on the executive branch. Even if the Geneva Conventions do not enable detainees to sue our personnel for money damages, the President and his subordinates are nevertheless bound to comply with Geneva. That is clear to me and to all who have negotiated this legislation in good faith.

This point is critical, because our personnel deserve not only the legal protections written into this legislation, but also the undiluted protections offered since 1949 by the Geneva Conventions. Should the United States be seen as amending, modifying, or redefining the Geneva Conventions, it would open the door for our adversaries to do the same, now and in the future. The United States should champion the Geneva Conventions, not look for ways to get around them, lest we invite others to do the same. America has more personnel deployed, in more places, than any other country in the world, and this unparalleled exposure only serves to further demonstrate the critical importance of our fulfilling the letter and the spirit of our international obligations. To do any differently would put our fighting men and women directly at risk. We owe it to our fighting men and women to uphold the Geneva Conventions, just as we have done for 57 years.

For these reasons, this bill makes clear that the United States will fulfill all of its obligations under those Conventions. We expect the CIA to conduct interrogations in a manner that is fully consistent not only with the Detainee Treatment Act and the War Crimes Act, but with all of our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, I note that there has been opposition to this legislation from some quarters, including the New York Times editorial page. Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal here on the floor, I simply say that I have been reading the Congressional Record trying to find the bill that page so vociferously denounced. The hyperbolic attack is aimed not at any bill this body is today debating, nor even at the administration's original position. I can only presume that some would prefer that Congress simply ignore the Hamdan decision and pass no legislation at all. That, I suggest to my colleagues, would be a travesty.

This is a very long, difficult task. This is critical for the future security of this Nation, and we have done the very best we can. I believe we have come up with a good product. I believe good-faith negotiations have taken place. I hope we will pass this legislation very soon. I think you will find that people will be brought to justice and we can move forward with trials with treating people under the Geneva Conventions and restoring America's prestige in the world.

I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, due to the passing of a close friend, I was not present for the vote on amendment No. 5086, offered by Mr. Levin. With whis statement, I would like to inform the Senate that, had I been present, I would have voted against this amendment, which sought to strike the pending legislation on military commissions and insert the text of the bill reported out of the Armed Services Committee.

Senators Warner, Graham and I wrote and supported the bill that was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Over the past 2 weeks, however, we have been involved in negotiations with the White House and the House of Representatives and reached a compromise.

The compromise legislation, which I support, does not redefine the Geneva Conventions in any way. It amends the War Crimes Act--which currently says only that a violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime--by enumerating nine categories of offenses that constitute ``grave breaches of Common Article 3'' and thus are war crimes, punishable by imprisonment or death.

The bill authorizes the President to interpret the Geneva Conventions--a power he has already under the Constitution--as to what constitute nongrave breaches. These interpretations must be published in the Federal Register, and they will have same force as other administrative regulations, and thus may be trumped by law passed by Congress.

I am pleased with the agreement that we have reached with the administration and I support this legislation in the form pending on the floor. For this reason, if I had been present, I would have cast my vote against amendment No. 5086.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the World War II POW Pay Equity Act of 2006. This legislation would ensure that former World War II Prisoners of War, or their surviving spouses, receive the appropriate back pay for their honorable service, adjusted for inflation.

Due to a technicality, Navy and Marine Corps POWs during World War II were denied promotions while they were interned. The Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act included provisions to correct this injustice. Unfortunately, this legislation did not specify an adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes of our ``greatest generation'' were paid in 1942 dollars which roughly equated to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly compensate them for their dedicated service.

When our great Nation called upon these brave individuals, they answered the call. Now they need our help to fix a technicality that has denied them the full amount of the back-pay they are due, pay that was earned in the harshest of environments. Many of these WWII veterans suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving WWII POWs is now less than 1,000, and there are approximately 400 surviving spouses. We cannot abandon those who were truly responsible for defending the liberties we hold so dear. It would be shameful for Congress and our Nation not to compensate fairly these veterans, as this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment as POWs.

The impact of this legislation goes well beyond those who have so bravely gone before us in defense of our Nation. This is a readiness issue as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of the manner in which our Nation honors its veterans. President George Washington reminded all of his fellow Americans of the keen relationship between our Nation's veterans and those on active duty when he said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' That statement holds just as true today as it did over 200 years ago.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the World War II POW Pay Equity Act of 2006. This legislation would ensure that former World War II Prisoners of War, or their surviving spouses, receive the appropriate back pay for their honorable service, adjusted for inflation.

Due to a technicality, Navy and Marine Corps POWs during World War II were denied promotions while they were interned. The Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act included provisions to correct this injustice. Unfortunately, this legislation did not specify an adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes of our ``greatest generation'' were paid in 1942 dollars which roughly equated to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly compensate them for their dedicated service.

When our great Nation called upon these brave individuals, they answered the call. Now they need our help to fix a technicality that has denied them the full amount of the back-pay they are due, pay that was earned in the harshest of environments. Many of these WWII veterans suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving WWII POWs is now less than 1,000, and there are approximately 400 surviving spouses. We cannot abandon those who were truly responsible for defending the liberties we hold so dear. It would be shameful for Congress and our Nation not to compensate fairly these veterans, as this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment as POWs.

The impact of this legislation goes well beyond those who have so bravely gone before us in defense of our Nation. This is a readiness issue as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of the manner in which our Nation honors its veterans. President George Washington reminded all of his fellow Americans of the keen relationship between our Nation's veterans and those on active duty when he said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' That statement holds just as true today as it did over 200 years ago.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 20, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Tribal Self Governance: Obstacles and Impediments to Expansion of Self Governance.

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

subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

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

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate adopted amendment No. 4951, which I offered to the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, to require all recipients of grants from the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--to report to the Department on the expenditures made from these Federal funds.

I offered this amendment in response to recent testimony by the U.S. Government Accountability Office--GAO--which found it difficult to track expenditures made from the $11 billion in Federal grants awarded to States and localities to improve emergency preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities. Specifically, William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director of the GAO's Center for Homeland Security and Justice, stated that, ``What is remarkable about the whole area of emergency preparedness and homeland security is how little we know about how states and localities (1) finance their efforts in this area, (2) have used their federal funds, and (3) are assessing the effectiveness in which they spend those funds.''

Currently, the Department requires States and localities applying for grants to submit an ``Investment Justification'' outlining implementation plans and detailing how the Federal funds are expected to be used to meet homeland security goals, objectives, and capabilities. Additionally, the Department requires States and localities that receive funds to file a Categorical Assistance Progress Report twice a year on how the Federal assistance allocations were used to meet homeland security goals and objectives. However, grant recipients are not required to disclose specific homeland security expenditures.

Early in the formation of DHS, grant recipients were required to report expenditures for homeland security equipment, plans, training, or exercises. This amendment will simply reinstate the requirement. With such a process in place, I hope DHS and the GAO will be able to report to Congress, and the American taxpayers, on the effectiveness of the grant programs and the use of Federal funds.

I am pleased my colleagues joined me in supporting this amendment to promote greater accountability and transparency in the use of taxpayers' money.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has agreed to pass S. 2464, the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006, with an amendment that I have also offered. S. 2464 amends the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, which ratified a negotiated settlement of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's water entitlement to flow from the Verde River. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl as an original cosponsor of this bill and the amendment.

The 1990 Settlement Act provided, among other things, for the Secretary of the Interior to provide the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation a no-interest loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation Project Act for construction of facilities for the conveyance and delivery of water to the Fort McDowell reservation. However, during environmental review conducted prior to construction of the irrigation system, 227 of the acres to be irrigated were discovered to contain significant cultural sites. With the agreement of the tribe, the Secretary withdrew those acres from development, but replacement lands have proven difficult and expensive to mitigate and implementation of the Act has been left uncompleted.

The current values of the no-interest loan outstanding and the current cost of the Department of the Interior's obligation to mitigate replacement acreage are nearly identical, thus the tribe and the Department have agreed to resolve this issue by mutually releasing their remaining obligations under the reclamation provisions of the 1990 Settlement Act. S. 2464 would implement this mutually agreed upon resolution.

After approval of this measure by the Indian Affairs Committee, a potential ambiguity in the bill was identified, possibly calling into question the finality of the 1990 Settlement Act. The amendment offered strikes the potentially ambiguous language and inserts new language to clarify that the agreement of the Yavapai Nation and the Department of the Interior contained in S. 2464 achieves a full and final implementation to the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Carl J. Artman to be Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. to be followed immediately by a business meeting to approve the nomination of Carl J. Artman.

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

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

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

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

Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the committee for the outstanding work that she and the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, have done in bringing forth this very important legislation. I believe the work that is done by these two Members of the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, in order to better secure the safety of our citizens, is laudable and important. I congratulate them on this legislation that we are considering today.

This amendment would ensure that in addition to our efforts to improve port security, we also address another critical transportation mode--rail transportation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators DeWine, Snowe, and Biden.

Again, I want to say I am pleased the Senate has chosen to take up the Port Security Act of 2006 to protect our Nation's ports and waterways. I just listened carefully to the statement by the distinguished chairwoman of the committee, outlining both the threat and the way that this legislation will address these very important aspects of our Nation's security at our ports.

I would also like to point out that the bill implements several recommendations from the 9/11 Commission's final report, including allocating security grants based on risk and comprehensive cargo screening. Additionally, the bill would establish an office within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate all cargo security policy, develop a strategy for deployment of radiation detection capabilities in all ports, and establish a process to facilitate the movement of secure cargo from international ports to our ports without interrupting the international supply chain and delaying goods to consumers in the United States.

Securing our ports is a crucial part of our efforts to protect Americans at home. The amendment I am offering today would complement the underlying legislation by providing essential funding and additional tools to strengthen our Nation's rail system.

Two years ago the Senate passed by unanimous consent the Rail Security Act of 2004, legislation that was almost identical to the amendment I am offering today. Unfortunately, that bill died in the House of Representatives. Last year I reintroduced the legislation shortly after the London bombings of July 7 and language that is similar to the provisions of the Rail Security Act is in a title of the Transportation Security Bill that was reported by the Commerce Committee in February. I sincerely hope that we will once again pass this important legislation. Rail security must be made a top priority of this Congress.

Look at the recent threats of attacks. We were all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of lives caused by the 2004 terrorist attacks in Madrid, the 2005 London attacks, and the terrorist attacks on commuter trains in Mumbai this summer. Those incidents are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in our global war on terror and what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life. On many occasions we have said we cannot play just defense in this war; that, instead, we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible and prudent to protect Americans at home.

The numerous attacks on rail systems abroad demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation.

There is little doubt that we have increased dramatically our security capabilities over the past 5 years. However, there is just as little doubt that we have much more to do. Since the attacks of 9/11, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security. In fact, I would be very curious if the distinguished chairman of the committee knows the relative amounts of money that we have spent on rail security as compared with airport security. I think you will find it is minuscule.

Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist threats. This lack of funding exists despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has identified as potential terrorist targets the freight and passenger rail networks which are critical to the Nation's transportation system and national defense.

The 9/11 Commission, too, in its report on the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks called for improved security in all modes of transportation, noting that `` . . . terrorists may turn their attention to other modes.''

This amendment would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Pennsylvania station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday.

I want to repeat that fact. Penn Station in New York City is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday. Look at the amount of money we have spent to try to protect that vulnerable target as opposed to literally every major airport in America. This funding is all the more urgent given this summer's arrest by the FBI of eight suspects tied to al-Qaida who were plotting attacks on train tunnels connecting New York and New Jersey.

The legislation would also establish a grant program authorized at $350 million to help increase security by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with security responsibility for passenger stations not owned by Amtrak. Further, DHS would be required to complete a vulnerability assessment of the rail network to terrorist attack and make recommendations to Congress for addressing security weaknesses. Importantly, to protect the taxpayers' interests, all Amtrak authorizations would be managed by the Department of Transportation through formal grant agreements.

We all know that we face a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find our weaknesses and move against them. We have seen the vulnerabilities of rail to terrorism in other countries and the devastating consequences of such an attack. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack.

I also note that this amendment is cosponsored by Senators DeWine, Snowe, and Biden. I thank the Senators for their cosponsorship of this critical measure.

I trust the Senate will once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in.

I would like to mention to the distinguished manager of the bill that I don't think this is probably the best away to address this issue. Obviously, the bill should have stood on its own and been addressed separately with amendments to the bill. But I think there is a compelling case that can be made that, if port security is vital and must be acted on, so must rail security. I do not diminish the importance of this legislation. But, again, I would like to point out railway stations all over America have received very little attention and very little funding. Are we going to wait until there is an attack, such as where we arrested eight subjects this summer who were planning attacks on rail connections between New York and New Jersey or are we going to get ahead of this?

I come from a State where very few of our passengers use rail. But I think it is very important to point out that in places in the Northeast this is a primary form of transportation. Just a couple of blocks from here, if you did a rough assessment, you would find at Union Station there are significant vulnerabilities.

By the way, I would like to mention that Senator Stevens has played a key role in this effort on this legislation. We have worked together. His leadership has been vital. I know his efforts have been very important, and I want to express my appreciation.

Again, I say to the distinguished managers of the bill, if changes need to be made to this legislation in conference we would certainly welcome improvements. But I hope we can include this as part of this legislation so we can begin making serious efforts to ensure rail safety in America.

My thanks to the managers and my thanks to the distinguished chairman

of the Commerce Committee for all of his efforts on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I want to discuss the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, which is one of the most important of the appropriations measures that we consider annually. This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in

our armed forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. We must support them, and, for that reason, I will vote in favor of its passage. But I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the committee report accompanying this bill.

The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $453 billion. This is more than $9 billion below the President's request and I am discouraged that it required a $13 billion amendment designated as emergency funding to get back to the President's requested funding level. Also, as is the case with so many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains hundreds of earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized--to the tune of over $4 billion. During a time of war we should be making every effort to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and then adding earmarks for favored projects.

Every day we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on behalf of our great nation to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as several other places around the globe. Our soldiers have sacrificed and their families have sacrificed. And so, we in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and sacrifice as well.

Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's accompanying report that were not requested in the President's budget and were not on any of the armed services unfunded priority lists--some of which have next to nothing to do with the Department of Defense or its mission:

$2 million for automotive research;

$2 million for Precision Polishing of Large Objects;

$3 million for improved shelf-life for Vegetables;

$2 million for Brown Tree Snakes;

$117 million for an Oceanographic Survey Ship;

$75 million for the Allegany Ballistics Lab in West Virginia;

$18.5 million for a Air Force C-17 Maintenance Training System in Hawaii;

$8 million for the Allen Army Airfield in Alaska;

$1.5 million for Fort Detrick in Maryland;

$4 million for disposable dental masks; and

$3.5 million for Hibernation Genomics.

Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy causes, such as ovarian cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include:

$115 million for Breast Cancer Research;

$80 million for Prostate Cancer Research;

$6 million for Integrated Trans- lational Prostate Disease Research;

$34 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network; and

$15 million for Ovarian Cancer Research.

Mr. President, as we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative that we get the most of each and every defense dollar. The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many, unrequested earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious resources and are not vital to our long term national security. I strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not legislatively mandated or authorized, but rather, are merely the wish lists of the committee.

Beyond the earmarks contained in the Senate report, this bill contains numerous authorizing provisions, some of which are outside of the scope of defense policy. Some of these provisions include:

Authorizing medical services at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii for civilian patients;

Authorizing the use of up to $50 million for operational ranges managed by the Air Force in Alaska; and

A provision that protects jobs in Hawaii and Alaska.

Mr. President, I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the authorizing committee.

I would also like to discuss the Buy America restrictions that cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of Buy America restrictions.

For example, the bill would prevent the purchase of ball bearings unless domestically produced. It requires that welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain be manufactured in the United States. Another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.

I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.

Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an allied country covered by a defense cooperation memorandum of understanding when only one domestic source exists. This would ensure both price and product competition.

Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to terminate support for equipment. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military. In recent years they have kept mature lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into production around the turn of the century. Finally, these exports provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports-- well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters.

Mr. President, I would prefer not to criticize this legislation. It is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where some of their money is going. And some of it is not going to projects that have anything to do with our defense.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

I say to my friend from Alabama, we have many pressing areas of the war on terror in Iraq. I think we should be engaged in discussions as to how we can better equip the men and women who are serving in Iraq. I think we could discuss the situation of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea. There are many pressing issues around the world this body could be discussing.

I would respond with one more question for my friend from Alabama. I do not want to take up too much of his time, but isn't it true that elections have consequences? The fact is, when we elect a President of the United States, one of the most important things is for him to have a team around him that he can trust and that he can rely on, and the President should be able to keep that team until such time as the President of the United States loses confidence in that team.

If we begin dictating who the team is around the President of the United States, it bodes ill for any President of the United States, whether it be a Democrat or Republican or whoever, because one of the important aspects of the Presidency is to have people around the President of the United States whom he or she can trust. Isn't that one of the most important predicates of capable government?