Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I agree entirely. If I could add one thing on this point: perhaps the best evidence that the current Rasul system undermines effective interrogation is that even the detainees' lawyers are bragging about their lawsuits' having that effect. Michael Ratner, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on behalf of numerous enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, boasted in a recent magazine interview about how he has made it harder for the military to do its job. He particularly emphasized that the litigation interferes with interrogation of enemy combatants. Ratner stated: The litigation is brutal for [the United States]. It's huge. We have over one hundred lawyers now from big and small firms working to represent these detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder [for the U.S. military] to do what they're doing. You can't run an interrogation . . . with attorneys. What are they going to do now that we're getting court orders to get more lawyers down there? When I read that quote, that for me was the last straw. I knew that something had to be done. On this issue, both the detainees' lawyers and the Defense Department seem to agree: involving enemy combatants in adversarial litigation in U.S. courts undermines effective interrogation of those detainees.

Mr. GRAHAM. You are absolutely correct Senator Kyl. I must admit, I'm a bit baffled by the assertion that our amendment is somehow internally inconsistent, that our provisions interfere with the McCain provisions in some way. While we must ensure that detainees are treated humanely, and that is what we addressed so well with the McCain portion of our total package, directing our departments and agencies to refrain from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment; we also don't want to give these detainees the right to abuse our courts by going after our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines based on how we have decided to treat them. In fact, while it is true that some physical abuses have occurred, we know that members of al-Qaida are trained to claim mistreatment to manipulate public opinion of the war. I would like to remind all of my colleagues of some of the most egregious cases that prompted our amendments. For instance, a detainee who threw a grenade that killed an Army medic, a medic--someone trying to render medical assistance, and who often treats our enemies on the battlefield as well as our own troops. In any event, the detainee who threw the grenade that killed an Army medic in a firefight, and who comes from a family with longstanding al- Qaida ties, filed for an injunction forbidding anyone from interrogating him or engaging in ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading'' treatment of him. Now clearly, our reaffirmation of America's policy against treating anyone in a cruel, inhuman, or degrading way tells the world that we are not like our enemy. We do not allow our departments or agencies to treat people like that. And if our people do abuse people, we prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. However, to allow a detainee access to our courts to contest every aspect of his detention, a person who has fought against the very system he now seeks to make use of, is ludicrous. And for anyone to say that somehow our provisions undermine the McCain provisions or our overall amendment is just as wrong. Senator McCain, due to his service in our Nation's military, is uniquely qualified to take the lead on these issues. The McCain provisions are about us. How we behave. How we administer justice. It is another affirmative statement that the United States of America is that ``Shining City on the Hill'' President Reagan referred to. I am very proud to have been part of Senator McCain's effort to retake the moral high ground in the war on terror. The Graham-Kyl provisions are about them, the detainees, and what rights they do and, most importantly, do not have. And I am proud of the provisions we have made for the detainee's status to be reviewed by the Federal courts on the one time direct appeal. We allow for a just process, in the form of military tribunals and boards and commissions, a process based on Supreme Court precedent, modeled on the tribunals we have used in the past and created in accordance with Geneva Convention requirements. That is the process we have established for determining the status of detainees. But I have gotten a little far a field here, let's get back to the lawsuits. Here is another of the crazy lawsuits out there: there's a suit out there by a detainee accusing military health professionals of ``gross and intentional medical malpractice'' in alleged violation of the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and other, unspecified, international agreements. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but a detainee has no business in our courts suing the individual doctors and nurses that are making sure that that detainee is in good health. Here is another one. There is one guy down there that we are trying to send home, and he's suing to keep us from sending him home. Imagine that, he is trying to stay. One high level al-Qaida detainee lawsuit complains about the base security procedures, the speed of the mail, and his medical treatment. He is asking the courts to order the marines to transfer him into the ``least onerous conditions'' at Guantanamo and allow him to keep any books and reading material sent to him. I think this one is the one that makes me the maddest. A high level al-Qaida member, who probably has the blood of 9/11 on his hands, complaining about the speed of his mail delivery. Complaining about how onerous the conditions are at Guantanamo. With the McCain provisions of our amendment, we have, in addition to the President's order and other regulations already in place, directed the Department of Defense to treat him humanely. But under our provisions, he will receive the justice he deserves. As you can see, these cases have nothing to do with cruel or inhumane treatment. They are abuses of our courts by the very people who are trying to kill Americans here and abroad. I don't know about you, Senator Kyl, but I believe that when you raise arms against the United States, you should not be surprised when you lose the privilege of our court system. As the McCain amendment provisions state very clearly, we are not going to treat people inappropriately. And, Senator Kyl, as our provisions state very clearly, we are not going to allow them to make a mockery of our courts, standing beside our own citizens at the courthouse door. We have provided a fair alternative judicial process for the detainees with our provisions. In fact, we have been more than fair. We have given them more process than our own soldiers and marines would enjoy under the Geneva Convention. This in no way undermines the McCain provisions about how we will treat them and I would challenge anyone who thinks so to come to the Senate floor and debate us on that point.

Mr. GRAHAM. And those are the only channels that have been created where the detainee himself can pursue a remedy on his own in a semi- adversarial forum. These complaints about conditions of confinement, these are for the military itself to enforce through its own procedures and systems of accountability for monitoring its soldiers. And we have no reason to believe that those systems are not adequate to investigate and remedy abuses. For all the attention to cases such as Abu Ghraib, one thing that deserves emphasis is that it was our own military that discovered, investigated, and punished those abuses. That is as it should be. These standards of treatment are important, but they need to be enforced through the military's internal systems of accountability and Congressional oversight, not through lawsuits and adversarial proceedings brought by detainees. The military's own accountability systems ultimately, I think, will be more effective in monitoring our detention centers and in remedying abuses. All that litigation would do--letting these detainees into court--is undermine intelligence gathering through interrogation.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I'd also like to say a word about the timing of this bill because we drafted this section very carefully and I want our colleagues to know exactly what they will be agreeing to. While our language does respond to the Rasul decision by effectively reversing the Supreme Court's decision in that case, we wanted to respect the courts' role in this by addressing two different considerations. First, as we stated before, we wanted the CSRT process to yield decisions which will be reviewed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And we wanted to be sensitive to the Rasul court's concerns about a process for the detainees. So, what we did was make the substantive provisions governing the CSRTs and ARBs apply to all cases, those pending on or after the enactment date. This was to ensure that every detainee was provided with the same protections and review. Second, regarding the modification of the jurisdiction of those courts currently hearing individual habeas or other actions that have been filed by the detainees, we wanted those cases to be recast as appeals of their CSRT determinations. We believe that is the best way to balance between allowing the detainees to challenge their status, and still allowing effective detention and interrogation techniques. As we all know, a court either has jurisdiction to hear a case or it doesn't. Jurisdiction doesn't attach for all time when the case is filed. This is really no different than transferring a case from one court to another. But in this case, given the change in the substantive law as well, we were required to extinguish these habeas and other actions in order to effect a transfer of jurisdiction over these cases to the DC Circuit Court and substantive legal change as well.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, that is correct. But we do still allow some types of judicial review to go forward--those cases asking for review, in accordance with section 1405, of military commissions or CSRTs. And the very last paragraph of section 1405--I believe that it is paragraph (h)(2)--adopts a compromise of sorts. It states that the bill's authorization for limited DC Circuit review of CSRTs and military commissions shall apply to pending cases. Obviously, no pending case seeks judicial review in the DC Circuit pursuant to section 1405. What this paragraph means is that, at the same time that the courts like the DC district courts kick these cases out of their courtrooms, they can also tell them where they should go next. And if, for example, a habeas action currently is in the DC Circuit, that court can simply construe that action as a request for review of the detainee's CSRT pursuant to subsection (e) of 1405, and allow that claim to go forward in that form.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if Senator Kyl would be so kind, could he explain how our amendment will affect ongoing litigation? Specifically, my understanding is that the Supreme Court granted certiorari recently in a case.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would also like my esteemed colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to address the misunderstandings that seem to have made their way into the press. For instance, when I returned from Iraq this morning, I was surprised to see the New York Times editorial page making some fundamental mistakes about what our legislation does. Mr. President, I would also request unanimous consent to have the New York Times editorial entitled Ban Torture. Period. from December 16, 2005 entered in the Record. The first sentence reads, ``It should have been unmitigated good news when President Bush finally announced yesterday that he would back Senator John McCain's proposal to ban torture and ``cruel, inhuman or degrading'' treatment at United States prison camps. Nothing should be more obvious for an American president than to support a ban on torture.'' I agree, nothing should be more obvious. And I'd like to applaud the New York Times for finally endorsing the actions President Reagan took when we signed the Convention Against Torture on April 18, 1988, and the Senate ratified the Convention on October 21, 1994. But since they appear to be laboring under some confusion, I would like to clarify how and when our antitorture statutes apply. First, torture has been illegal for quite some time. Indeed, Section 2340A of Title 18 of the United States Code specifically provides for the prosecution of people who torture overseas. And most of the techniques of torture, beatings, improper imprisonment, and threats have long been part of the criminal code of the United States. I strongly supported Senator McCain's amendment each and every time it came up. I am extremely pleased it passed. But, make no mistake, it does not make torture illegal. Torture has long been illegal. What the McCain language does is make a very clear statement that we will treat people humanely while we have them in our custody. The McCain amendment is a very clear policy statement that is in accord with the best of American tradition. But it does not ban torture. Accordingly, the Graham-Levin-Kyl provisions do not equivocate in any way regarding torture. The Times editors, regrettably, for I appreciate the place the Times holds in our public discourse, do not appear to understand what they are talking about. I would like to address one other statement the Times makes. They state, and I quote, that ``What is at stake here, and so harmful to America's reputation, is the routine mistreatment of prisoners swept up in the so-called war on terror.'' Now I take great exception to this baseless smear of our soldiers and marines. It is said off-handedly, almost as if everyone takes it for granted that the fine men and women of our armed services routinely mistreat our prisoners. Well I will tell you, I for one don't take it for granted that the fine people who are putting their lives on the line to protect our Nation routinely mistreat the prisoners in their care. I believe they follow the orders that their superiors give them, orders based on such policy statements as Senator McCain's or the Army Field Manual, and they follow them to the best of their ability. Now, are there going to be bad apples? As a former JAG prosecutor and defense counsel, I can tell you affirmatively, yes, there will be. And they will be arrested, tried, convicted, and will serve long sentences. Those few individuals who do not live up to the high standards of the vast majority of our honorable service members, will be held accountable for their actions. Our troops do not deserve such a slander, and I call on the New York Times to take back the vile assertion they have made against the people who exemplify the best our Nation has to offer.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, my friend from Arizona is correct, our language applies only to Guantanamo just because we understand that the Supreme Court only extended the jurisdiction of the courts over the detainees held at Guantanamo. And since the Rasul decision was based on the habeas statute in the U.S. Code, I am very comfortable amending that statute as a proper congressional response to the Court's decision. As I stated repeatedly to a number of my colleagues, we did not want to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to hear cases filed on behalf of detainees in Iraq because we are confident that, as the law stands now, those cases are already barred by previous Supreme Court decisions, which the Rasul decision left in place. We should always be careful when dealing with our co-equal branches. Just as we do not appreciate it when they stray into our areas of constitutional responsibility, we should always be willing to refrain from straying into theirs unnecessarily. As I read the Rasul decision, these other cases from other parts of the world are still subject to the Eisentrager opinion and will not be considered by U.S. courts. And so, our language is limited to Guantanamo. To my friends who counseled that we should extend our jurisdiction modification to those cases being filed on behalf of Iraqis held in accordance with the Geneva Convention, I would just counsel them to be patient. I cannot imagine the Court extending its jurisdiction halfway around the world to involve what is almost exclusively an executive branch function. However, should that become necessary, I am perfectly willing to modify our courts' jurisdiction again to ensure that does not happen. But again, in truth, especially after our very robust action here today, I cannot even conceive of such a decision by the Supreme Court.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to comment upon the recently passed Defense authorization bill. That bill contained a Graham-Levin- Kyl amendment which dealt with the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay. I was very pleased to join with Senators Levin and Kyl and others to offer this amendment, and I want to thank them for working so hard on this issue. In rising today, I address one particular section of our amendment, the requirement that the tribunals consider whether evidence was coerced. In drafting this section, we were compelled to recognize three basic facts. First, we were compelled to recognize the impracticality of importing domestic criminal protections into a forum constructed to administer what are essentially enemy soldiers; combatants for a very unique enemy, an enemy without uniforms, capitals, or cohesive command structures, but combatants nonetheless. Second, we were forced to address the necessity of relying on evidence without a complete picture of how it was obtained; evidence that might be obscured by the fog of war, derived from battlefield intelligence, from classified sources, or even through unknown circumstances. Lastly, we were required by our constitutional responsibilities to err on the side of protecting the American people. In instances where there is some doubt as to the evidence or the status of the detainee, the benefit of the doubt must go to the government as it seeks to discharge its first duty, providing for the common defense of our people. In our efforts to balance these interests, we initially included an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through ``undue coercion.'' We felt that the term ``undue coercion'' reflected the reality that, in the national security context, there is some level of coercive interrogation that is acceptable. We also understand that, at some point, the reliability of the information can be questioned as a result of the methods used to obtain it. I believe Guantanamo Bay serves a unique and necessary purpose in the war on terror, but we need to ensure that we are holding the right people. However, upon reconsideration, we came to believe that the term ``undue coercion,'' being a new term without legal precedent, might not be as instructive as we required. Furthermore, a number of the military judge advocates we consulted were concerned that the exclusionary rule could limit them from considering evidence tainted by only an allegation of mistreatment. Therefore, after much consultation with legal professionals, we decided to eliminate the ``undue'' qualifier. Unfortunately, striking the qualifier also eliminated the consideration of whether the information was obtained by acceptable sources and methods. Accordingly, we decided to refrain from mandating the exclusionary rule. Instead, our language requires, for the first time, the panels to consider the source of the information and the information's reliability. I am very confident our language provides for the proper consideration. Now, to be sure, our language also provides for the benefit of the doubt to go to the government. In granting this benefit, however, we recognize that we are fundamentally different from our adversaries. Though we may fail at times, we strive to be fair and just and honorable. And because our military men and women exemplify those values, we can trust them to fairly administer this process. In the end, we must remember that this is a military administrative process, and, with the proper congressional and judicial oversight provided by our amendment, we must trust our professional military officers to do their jobs. In our amendment as a whole, we sought to protect our national security while still striking the proper balance between aggressively interrogating detainees and providing a competent military administrative process for their status determination. I am confident that this new evidentiary standard serves that goal.

Mr. GRAHAM. And we are confident that McCardle still is good law?

Mr. GRAHAM. I was pleased to support this legislation and work toward its enactment from the beginning. Under section 1402, our troops now have one standard--the Army Field Manual--for their interrogations. In section 1403, we close the loophole in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said, ``those standards, as a technical, legal matter, did not apply abroad. And that is what Senator McCain, in the second section of his legislation, wanted to address--wanted to make clear that those would apply abroad. We applied them abroad as a matter of policy; he wanted to make sure they applied as a matter of law. And when this legislation is adopted, it will.'' I agree that these sections do not create a new private right of action, but that they are binding on the executive and may be applicable to actions brought under other statutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me address another issue. As we worked through this language in conference, we received a lot of comments from our colleagues who were concerned not only about the frivolous cases being filed by al-Qaida terrorists at Guantanamo, but by people detained by our forces in Iraq. I believe there are several cases that have been filed by those held in Iraq challenging their detention by American forces. Our language does not address these cases, and let me tell you why. The Rasul v. Bush decision that we have talked so much about worked two significant changes in prior POW or detainee law. Prior to Rasul, the Eisentrager line of cases had governed whether foreign combatants had access to our courts. In 1950, the Eisentrager court held that a Federal district court lacked authority to hear habeas cases for some German POWs held by U.S. forces outside the U.S. These Germans had been tried and convicted of war crimes by an American military commission headquartered in Nanking, and then put in jail in Germany. The Court stated six reasons for its decision. The German prisoners were: (1) Enemy aliens who (2) had never been or resided in the United States, (3) were captured outside U.S. territory and there held in military custody, (4) were there tried and convicted by the military (5) for offenses committed there, and (6) were imprisoned there at all times. The Eisentrager line of cases is the reason the Bush administration chose to locate the al Qaida and Taliban holding facility at Guantanamo. The Bush administration relied upon the Eisentrager line of cases so as to prevent exactly what we have seen happen since Rasul: terrorists with lawyers. Now I'm a lawyer myself, and I think we can all agree that that is a bad combination. In fact, if my colleagues will permit me a quick aside, I would remind them again of the statement by one of the lawyers for some of these terrorists, Michael Ratner. Mr. Ratner boasts about the fact that this litigation has undermined intelligence gathering in the war on terror. In an interview published in May of this year Mr. Ratner stated: The litigation is brutal for the United States. It's huge. We have over one hundred lawyer now from big and small firms working to represent these detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder for the U.S. military to do what they're doing. You can't run an interrogation with attorneys. What are they going to do now that we're getting court orders to get more lawyers down there? Now that is what we are facing. Terrorists with lawyers. I am pretty sure the American people expect more from their government than that. But getting back to what I was saying about Eisentrager. The Bush administration relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Eisentrager when they located the detainees at Guantanamo, reasoning sensibly, at least I think it was sensibly, that since the al-Qaida and Taliban members were enemy aliens who were being held by U.S. forces outside the United States after being captured on the battlefield, that they would not have access to Federal courts. But then the Supreme Court held in Rasul that the detainees could have access to our courts to challenge their detention. Would my colleague from Arizona care to comment on the Rasul decision?

Mr. GRAHAM. So once this bill is signed into law, you anticipate that the Supreme Court will determine whether to maintain their grant of certiorari?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I assume that they will do so. No sense in kicking out a detainee's current habeas action in the DC Circuit just so that he has to refile a section 1405 review request--it would be better to let the current case go forward as a 1405 review request, as appropriately amended.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to echo what Senator Sessions just said. I have tried to be involved with this detainee issue in as balanced a way as I can. I don't want my country to go down the road of adopting the tactics of our enemy. That has never been the issue. We have had some people who have done some bad things, and they have been prosecuted. But when you get editorials from major papers such as the New York Times saying our troops routinely abuse people, that is ludicrous. There have been thousands of people detained in this war. Some have been mistreated. We are prosecuting those people. We can do better, but we will do better. We are trying to get a grip on our policies so that we cannot only live up to who we are as a people but defend ourselves, too. This enemy knows no bounds. This enemy is a ruthless enemy. They train each other to allege abuse. That is part of the al-Qaida manual. They will say anything. We want a process to make sure that real allegations are dealt with honestly and that mere accusations do not require us to let these people go and not be able to defend ourselves. This editorial refers to the so-called war on terror. That is a mindset we need to reject. This is not a so-called war. I just got back from Iraq. It is a real war. Five minutes before the polls opened, they lobbed a shell over where we were staying. One marine was injured. It is a real war to him and to all the other people who have been wounded and to the families who have lost their loved ones. It is a real war to the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and their families. It is a real event. We are at war. I am insistent that my country live up to its obligations under treaties, the law of armed conflict. I am equally insistent that our law reflect we are at war. Senator Sessions is a former U.S. attorney. We are not fighting crime here, we are fighting a war or terror. The PATRIOT Act is not about prosecuting people who are involved in criminal enterprises. The PATRIOT Act is about preventing the infiltration of our country by a foreign enemy who wants to blow us up and kill Americans. During World War II, the War Powers Act was passed, and that makes this bill look like the ACLU. There were some very strong measures taken after Pearl Harbor, and they worked. The Germans and Japanese infiltrators were caught and our country, for the most part, was not infiltrated. The FBI and other organizations did a marvelous job protecting us against ruthless enemies, the Nazis and the Japanese. This enemy is just as ruthless. We don't have to pick and choose between abandoning the rule of law and civil liberties. We don't have to choose between letting people go or anything goes. That is not the choice. The PATRIOT Act is a balance. Here is what I worry the most about: As we try to straighten out past mistakes, as we try to come up with new policies, I worry that we are slowly but surely losing the idea that we are at war. That is beginning to fade, and we are approaching this problem we face called terrorism as if it were a domestic criminal event. If we do that, our enemy will have opportunities they do not deserve. Our people will suffer. So count me in and sign me up for adhering to the law of armed conflict and for maintaining the moral high ground. But I reject an effort to criminalize what I think is world war III. I yield the floor. (Mr. CHAMBLISS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for the question. I think we have come to the conclusion, after $3-a-gallon gas, oil and gas prices are also good domestic politics because we all got our heads handed to us at home. Everybody is upset. If you are working in South Carolina making $7, $8, $10-an-hour and gas is $3 a gallon, it really hits home. What we came together on is trying to find a political solution to the domestic problem. What Senator Sessions indicated is that we came together on the fact that if we are this dependent as a Nation on Mideast oil, fossil fuels, 10 or 20 years from now, we have done our Nation a disservice because our national security interest is best served when we can be independent from forces we cannot control. We should, as a Nation, a long time ago have become more energy independent. It is a national mistake, from a security perspective, to have this much dependence on fossil fuels from a region that is this volatile. It weakens our ability as a Nation to protect ourselves. In that regard, some Republicans and Democrats have come up with a proposal to be aggressive to wean us off Mideast foreign oil because it really does hurt our national security interest. We should not be this beholden to any region of the world for everyday functions in this country. A final thought about the PATRIOT Act. Those who oppose it, I respect you for standing up for the American way, civil liberties. But there has to be a balance here. When I go to the library, I don't want to be bothered. Let me tell you, if there is a reason to believe somebody is going to the library or using everyday life in America as a tool to infiltrate our country and do damage, I think we have to have a balance because they are here. The Presiding Officer knows better than I that they are here. The hijackers of 9/11 had multiple driver's licenses. They know how to game the system. They know how to get access to our technology and our science. If we don't have the common sense to have a balanced approach to get ahead of them, and if we play this game that this is crime and not a war, we are going to empower them beyond what is reasonable. If we leave as a body and let this act expire because we cannot find common ground, then I think we have done the country a great disservice, and the enemy would appreciate that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the compliment. I don't want to defame the Army. I am in the Air Force. I have been in the Air Force as an Active- Duty Reserve lawyer for 20-something years. By no means am I an international expert, but I feel as though I am going to get a master's degree in this type of law when this is all over. The bottom line is, I have a general understanding of how the law of armed conflict works versus domestic criminal law because that is what I used to do. That is what I kind of still do. I understand the difference between defensive measures. Keeping an enemy from infiltrating a country is a different need than trying to domestically control the behavior of your own citizens. Sometimes your own citizens jump sides and join the enemy. When they do that, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. So we have a different task at hand. This is not regulating U.S. domestic criminal enterprises. This is trying to stop an enemy that is hell-bent on coming back. And they are coming. They are here. Thanks to fighting them hard, we have stopped them for 4 years. But it is inevitable that we are going to hit again.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this last hour is a good example of what we have come to as a Senate and a Nation. I come to the Senate to support Senator Levin's statement and Senator Warner's statement. We have had a knockdown drag-out over the authorization bill. Everyone gave and we got a product the country can be proud of. What has happened, as Senator Levin has described, we cannot survive politically if this is allowed to stand. A lawyer in private practice could get disbarred for doing something such as this. My understanding of what has happened--and if I am wrong, I apologize, and I hope Senator Levin will correct me if I am wrong-- there was a matter added to the conference report totally unrelated to defending our Nation that has a major policy decision--which I happen to support, by the way, but not under these circumstances--that basically changes the entire political process if it is allowed to stand. None of us are safe. Our word means nothing and our signature means nothing if you can change the document after everyone agreed to a certain set of facts. This is a defining moment for the Senate and the House. If we do not fix this now, it is going to eat at us all and our country will suffer.

Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator will yield, I wish every American knew what was in the Defense authorization bill. In the Defense authorization bill are provisions to allow guard members and reservists to get health care for themselves and their families. They need it now more than ever. They are authorizing bonus programs for people who are serving worldwide now who are overtasked and underpaid. To take this bill that will authorize much-needed relief to the troops in the field, that will keep our equipment modern, will allow us to aggressively deal with the war on terror, capture the moral high ground with the McCain language, do the habeas reform package we worked on--to have that come down by inserting something after the fact is a low blow. It will eat away at the heart of this body.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Norman Scarborough of Clinton, SC, who has been named the South Carolina Professor of the Year by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE. The Professor of the Year awards are the only national awards that recognize college and university professors for excellence in undergraduate teaching and mentoring. Professor Scarborough is to be commended for this exceptional honor, and I wish to extend my personal congratulations. Professor Scarborough is currently a member of the Department of Economics and Business Administration at Presbyterian College in Clinton, where he has served since 1979. He teaches classes on business law, small business management, management information systems, and business statistics. Professor Scarborough has numerous publications having either authored or coauthored 7 books and 6 papers on everything from economic development to the Internet. His professional and scholarly affiliations include Phi Kappa Phi, the American Management Academy, the United States Association of Small Business Entrepreneurship, and the Society for the Advancement of Management. Professor Scarborough also founded the student business club at Presbyterian College. In the classroom, Professor Scarborough is known for his preparation and enthusiasm. He prides himself on encouraging his students to think critically about his lessons instead of simply memorizing them. Professor Scarborough also emphasizes the practical application of the subjects he teaches, preaching to his students about how his lessons can be used in life. Professor Scarborough has garnered the personal and professional respect of his students, colleagues, and neighbors. He is well- deserving of recognition for his efforts and work. I commend Professor Scarborough, the South Carolina Professor of the Year, for his award and wish him great success in his future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I stand here in two capacities: speaking as a Senator trying to find a compromise that would be good for the institution and as a friend of Tom Coburn. If I had any doubt about the effect this would have on the institution, I would not rise in support of my friend, because we all know why we are here. We are here to make the country stronger and the Senate better. Having Tom Coburn here as a physician I think makes the country stronger and better. It is not about him making money. All of us know Senator Coburn and what he does in Oklahoma. He is not practicing medicine to make money. He is practicing medicine to stay in touch with his constituents, to provide a vital service to rural Oklahoma, and to try to pay the bills. He is doing it for all the right reasons. You can, as Senator Lott said, have outside income. This is not about outside income. This is about trying to maintain the skills that are very much in demand in Oklahoma and a relationship that I think will be beneficial to the people he serves and the Senate as a whole. The bottom line is, it worked in the House. They had the same debate in the House. They had a compromise where Senator Coburn could practice medicine not for a profit but for the privilege of serving his constituents in two ways: as a Representative and a doctor. It worked very well. It was a win-win. It can be a win-win for the Senate. Physicians who served in the Senate in the past have been allowed to practice. Perception is important. We don't want to do anything in the Senate on our watch that would give a perception that the body is not at its highest level. And reality is important too. I think the reality of allowing Dr. Coburn to continue to practice in the Senate, such as he did in the House, is extremely beneficial to real people who need a good doctor who is competent at delivering medical care and who has a great heart for serving people. Those individuals need the Senate to understand they are affected, and whatever perception problems anybody is worried about, it did not hurt the House at all, and it is not going to hurt the Senate. The reality is there are people counting on Dr. Coburn, and it would be a shame for them to be denied medical care from a very good man. From the Senate's point of view, I think it would be good for us to have a commonsense view of what our role in society is, that we are not a body that should be totally disconnected from everyday life. If you can have a Member of the body serving in a very vital capacity that improves everyday life, then we ought to let that happen. It would be a win-win for the Senate, and it would be a win-win for the people of Oklahoma. I am here to say that Tom Coburn is not only a great Senator, he is a great doctor, and he practices medicine for all the right reasons. Any perception problem should not stand between him and the ability to deliver a vital service. We are not reduced as a body by him taking care of people in Oklahoma. I think we are enhanced. I yield the floor.