John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate briefly turned to H.R. 5384, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2007. This bill appropriates about $98 billion in spending, an amount that is approximately $4.9 billion over the administration's budget request, and $4.7 billion more than the House-passed bill. Although we were unable to complete work on H.R. 5384, I want to explain my objections to the passage of this bill in its current form. I believe that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low- income families under the food stamp program, and that we should ensure that our farmers stay out of the red, and to this end, many of the programs under the Agriculture Department are worthwhile and I support their funding. I know that many of my colleagues have spoken before the Senate about the economic struggles of America's farmers. But as Congress looks ahead toward legislating a new farm bill in the near future, next year in fact, we once again conform to the practice of diverting taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest pork projects which have not been authorized or requested by the Administration. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill and accompanying report: $3.5 million for fruit fly control in Texas, which was not in the administration's budget request. $400,000 for codling moth research in Kerneysville, WVA, which was not in the administration's budget request. $200,000 for research into the genetic enhancement of barley in Aberdeen, ID, which was not in the administration's budget request. $300,000 for grass research in Burns, OR which was not in the administration's budget request. $750,000 to the Denali Commission to improve solid waste disposal sites in Alaska, which was not in the administration's budget request. $200,000 for the Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory to study gaseous emissions from agriculture operations, which was not in the administration's budget request. $100,000 to study crop pollination by bees, Logan, UT, which was not in the administration's budget request. $600,000 for the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI, which was not in the administration's budget request. $250,000 for shellfish and salmon research, Franklin, ME, which was not in the administration's budget request. $250,000 for the Great Lakes Aquaculture Center, Coshocton, OH, which was not in the administration's budget request. $158,000 for cranberry research, Massachusetts. $1.4 million for potato research (State not listed). $453,000 for seafood safety research, Massachusetts; $4.1 million for shrimp aquiculture research in AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, and TX. $780,000 for milk safety research at Pennsylvania State University, PA, which was not in the administration's budget request. $170,000 for blackbird management in the State of Kansas, which was not in the administration's budget request. It is worth noting what we are already doing to support our Nation's agriculture producers. Last year, Federal farm subsidies grew to more than $23 billion despite near-record farm revenue which reached $76 billion. While some of these farm programs make good fiscal sense, other have become alarmingly wasteful and counterproductive. For example, The Washington Post recently exposed a USDA program, known as ``direct and counter-cyclical payments,'' that in 2005 paid out $1.3 billion to farmers irrespective of high or low market prices or whether they grew any crops at all. This program was intended to be a temporary subsidy that would prop up farmers during poor market conditions, but the special interests and the farm lobby convinced Congress to keep this unneeded program, which has become perhaps the most abused farm subsidy in existence. The Washington Post also discovered that in 2002 and 2003, $635 million in drought assistance went to ranchers and dairy farmers whose livestock experienced mild or no drought at all. Thanks to strong lobbying by cattle growers, the Congress modified the payment requirements under the Livestock Compensation Program for 2002-2003, so that ranchers weren't required to prove they suffered any actual losses. So long as a the disaster was declared, the Government simply mailed checks to ranchers dependent only on the number of cattle they owned. In an offshoot of the USDA's drought relief efforts, the Federal Government paid $34 million to compensate catfish farmers for feed they purchased during the 2002 drought year, even though feed prices were at a 10-year low. Much like the cattle program, catfish farmers were not required to prove they suffered any losses. All they had to do was tell the USDA how much feed they bought that year. Who is at fault for this egregious waste? The farmer? The Department of Agriculture? In reality, both are the victims of bad policy. Unfortunately, the biggest victim is the taxpayer, and the blame rests with us, the Congress. Our current farm policy is riddled with waste. Yet we compound matters by furthering the out-of-control earmarking of pork. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record copies of The Washington Post articles I cited: Farm Program Pays $.13 Billion to People Who Don't Farm (July 2, 2006), No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid (July 18, 2006), and When Feed Was Cheap, Catfish Farmers Got Help Buying It (July 18, 2006). It is difficult to overlook the $4.5 billion disaster assistance package that appropriators have attached to this bill. None of this funding under this agricultural title is included in the administration's request, and in fact, was strongly opposed by the administration when similar provision were added to the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. My colleagues may recall that the emergency supplemental faced a veto threat because of the billions of dollars in unrequested agriculture handouts appropriators were seeking. Fortunately these agriculture subsidies were removed in conference, and the bill was finally enacted enabling crucial funding to reach our troops overseas. Let's take a look at some of the provisions in this latest Agriculture disaster package: $1 billion in crop disaster assistance to compensate farmers for damage that occurred in 2005 due to weather. This also specifically applies to the Mormon cricket infestation in Nevada, and flooding in California, Hawaii and Vermont. $13 million to help ewe lamb farmers who have suffered populations losses. $6 million to owners of flooded crop and grazing land in North Dakota. $6 million to assist a sugarcane transportation cooperative in Hawaii. $100 million for grants to each State to promote specialty crop production. $1.7 billion in assistance to dairy farmers who suffered losses in 2005. This appropriations measure is not expected to receive any further action during this session of Congress. Instead of debating and passing our annual spending bills, our constitutional obligation, we are resorting to passing continuing resolutions to maintain our government functions well into fiscal year 2007. This failure is partially because of our habit of earmarking. When members frantically look for appropriation bills as vehicles for pet projects and unrequested earmarks, the appropriation process becomes a game of ``you vote for my pork, I'll vote for yours.'' This is the sad state of our appropriations process, when we would rather postpone funding for critical programs for our farmers, soldiers, veterans, seniors, and nearly everything until next year if it means our pork isn't included this round. Again I want to make it clear that I support doing all that we can for the American farmer. Agriculture production is part of the backbone of our great country. However, we do more bad than good by raiding the national treasury, and, in some cases other Agriculture programs, to pay for pet projects that in many cases benefitl1l certain constituency which is not representative of the larger needs of the farming community.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006. This legislation would reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sex crimes. Twenty-two years ago, President Ronald Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, known as NCMEC. At a White House ceremony, he called on the center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation, but our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world. In recent years, technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography. I say child pornography, but that label does not describe accurately what is at issue. As emphasized by a recent Department of Justice report, ``child pornography'' does not come close to describing these images, which are nothing short of recorded images of child sexual abuse. These images are, quite literally, digital evidence of violent sexual crimes perpetrated against the most vulnerable among us. Experts are also finding that the images of child sexual exploitation produced and distributed today involve younger and younger children. As emphasized by NCMEC, 83 percent of offenders surveyed in a recent study were caught with images of children younger than 12 years old. Thirty- nine percent had images of children younger than 6. Almost 20 percent had images of children younger than 3. These are not normal criminals, and I cannot fathom the extent of the physical and emotional harm they cause their victims. The violence of the images continues to increase as well. Dr. Sharon Cooper, a nationally recognized expert on this subject, stated before a September Senate Commerce Committee hearing that the images often depict ``sadistic gross sexual assault and sodomy.'' This view was underscored by Mike Brown, the sheriff of Bedford County, VA, and the director of the Blue Ridge Thunder Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, who also testified to his direct experience with increasingly violent and disturbing images of child sexual exploitation. The Federal Government has in place a system for online companies such as Internet service providers to report these images to NCMEC. The center is directed by law to relay that information to Federal and State law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been successful, but it is in need of several vital improvements. The bill would enhance the current reporting system by expanding the range of companies obligated to report child pornography to NCMEC; stating specifically what information must be reported to the center; moving the reporting obligations into the Federal criminal code; imposing higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography to NCMEC in the manner required by law; and providing greater legal certainty around the child pornography reporting requirement. As suggested by NCMEC, the reporting of child pornography should be more widespread. To that end, the bill would expand and clarify the types of online companies that would be obligated to report child pornography to the center. Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers and providers of remote computing services to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the center's CyberTipline. However, what types of companies fall into each category is sometimes unclear. To better define and expand the types of online companies obligated to report child pornography, the legislation would require a broad range of online service providers--including Web hosting companies, domain name registrars, and social networking sites--to report child pornography to NCMEC. Another weakness in the current reporting system is that the law does not say exactly what information should be reported to NCMEC. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce, and this omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. According to testimony submitted by the center to the Senate Commerce Committee, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable. The bill would cure this problem by requiring that reporting companies convey to the center a defined set of information, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the Nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require online service providers to report specific information about the individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography such as that individual's e-mail address. In addition, it would require reporting companies to NCMEC geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet. To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days, and to not knowingly destroy any other information that they possess that relates to a child pornography incident reported to NCMEC. The legislation would help ensure greater compliance with the child pornography reporting requirements under Federal law by increasing threefold the penalties for knowing failure to report child pornography to NCMEC. It would also move the reporting requirement from title 42, which relates to the public's health and welfare, to title 18, our Federal Criminal Code. This is to underscore that a breach of the reporting obligations is a violation of criminal law. In addition, the act would eliminate the legal liability of online service providers for actions taken to comply with the child pornography reporting requirements. The bottom line is that this legislation should result in more thorough reporting of child pornography to NCMEC. I expect that more and better information provided to the center will lead to a greater number of prosecutions and enhanced protection of our children. As stated by NCMEC, with improvements to the reporting system there would be more reports that are actionable by law enforcement, which will lead to more prosecutions and convictions and, more importantly, to the rescue of more children. In addition to the provisions relating to child pornography, the bill also would ensure that sex offenders will register information relevant to their online activities on sex offender registries. Specifically, it would require sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses, as well as their instant messaging and chat room handles and any other online identifiers they use. If a sex offender failed to do so, he could be prosecuted, convicted, and thrown into jail for up to 10 years. The bill would also make the use of the Internet in the commission of a crime of child exploitation an aggravating factor that would add 10 years to the offender's sentence. To help address the international nature of child pornography, the bill would permit NCMEC to share reports with foreign law enforcement agencies, subject to approval by the Department of Justice. In addition, the act would state the sense of Congress that the executive branch should make child pornography a priority when engaging in negotiations or talks with foreign countries. Finally, the act would authorize $20.3 million for our Nation's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. This increase of $5 million above that currently requested by the Administration is recommended by NCMEC, Sheriff Brown, and others who believe that the additional amount would significantly improve the efforts of these teams of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials dedicated to identifying and prosecuting those who use the Internet to prey upon our Nation's children. Mr. President, protecting our children is a top priority for Members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation. This legislation would help us achieve that goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues to debate and move this bill through the legislative process during the next Congress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006. This legislation would reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sex crimes. Twenty-two years ago, President Ronald Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, known as NCMEC. At a White House ceremony, he called on the center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation, but our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world. In recent years, technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography. I say child pornography, but that label does not describe accurately what is at issue. As emphasized by a recent Department of Justice report, ``child pornography'' does not come close to describing these images, which are nothing short of recorded images of child sexual abuse. These images are, quite literally, digital evidence of violent sexual crimes perpetrated against the most vulnerable among us. Experts are also finding that the images of child sexual exploitation produced and distributed today involve younger and younger children. As emphasized by NCMEC, 83 percent of offenders surveyed in a recent study were caught with images of children younger than 12 years old. Thirty- nine percent had images of children younger than 6. Almost 20 percent had images of children younger than 3. These are not normal criminals, and I cannot fathom the extent of the physical and emotional harm they cause their victims. The violence of the images continues to increase as well. Dr. Sharon Cooper, a nationally recognized expert on this subject, stated before a September Senate Commerce Committee hearing that the images often depict ``sadistic gross sexual assault and sodomy.'' This view was underscored by Mike Brown, the sheriff of Bedford County, VA, and the director of the Blue Ridge Thunder Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, who also testified to his direct experience with increasingly violent and disturbing images of child sexual exploitation. The Federal Government has in place a system for online companies such as Internet service providers to report these images to NCMEC. The center is directed by law to relay that information to Federal and State law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been successful, but it is in need of several vital improvements. The bill would enhance the current reporting system by expanding the range of companies obligated to report child pornography to NCMEC; stating specifically what information must be reported to the center; moving the reporting obligations into the Federal criminal code; imposing higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography to NCMEC in the manner required by law; and providing greater legal certainty around the child pornography reporting requirement. As suggested by NCMEC, the reporting of child pornography should be more widespread. To that end, the bill would expand and clarify the types of online companies that would be obligated to report child pornography to the center. Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers and providers of remote computing services to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the center's CyberTipline. However, what types of companies fall into each category is sometimes unclear. To better define and expand the types of online companies obligated to report child pornography, the legislation would require a broad range of online service providers--including Web hosting companies, domain name registrars, and social networking sites--to report child pornography to NCMEC. Another weakness in the current reporting system is that the law does not say exactly what information should be reported to NCMEC. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce, and this omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. According to testimony submitted by the center to the Senate Commerce Committee, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable. The bill would cure this problem by requiring that reporting companies convey to the center a defined set of information, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the Nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require online service providers to report specific information about the individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography such as that individual's e-mail address. In addition, it would require reporting companies to NCMEC geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet. To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days, and to not knowingly destroy any other information that they possess that relates to a child pornography incident reported to NCMEC. The legislation would help ensure greater compliance with the child pornography reporting requirements under Federal law by increasing threefold the penalties for knowing failure to report child pornography to NCMEC. It would also move the reporting requirement from title 42, which relates to the public's health and welfare, to title 18, our Federal Criminal Code. This is to underscore that a breach of the reporting obligations is a violation of criminal law. In addition, the act would eliminate the legal liability of online service providers for actions taken to comply with the child pornography reporting requirements. The bottom line is that this legislation should result in more thorough reporting of child pornography to NCMEC. I expect that more and better information provided to the center will lead to a greater number of prosecutions and enhanced protection of our children. As stated by NCMEC, with improvements to the reporting system there would be more reports that are actionable by law enforcement, which will lead to more prosecutions and convictions and, more importantly, to the rescue of more children. In addition to the provisions relating to child pornography, the bill also would ensure that sex offenders will register information relevant to their online activities on sex offender registries. Specifically, it would require sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses, as well as their instant messaging and chat room handles and any other online identifiers they use. If a sex offender failed to do so, he could be prosecuted, convicted, and thrown into jail for up to 10 years. The bill would also make the use of the Internet in the commission of a crime of child exploitation an aggravating factor that would add 10 years to the offender's sentence. To help address the international nature of child pornography, the bill would permit NCMEC to share reports with foreign law enforcement agencies, subject to approval by the Department of Justice. In addition, the act would state the sense of Congress that the executive branch should make child pornography a priority when engaging in negotiations or talks with foreign countries. Finally, the act would authorize $20.3 million for our Nation's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. This increase of $5 million above that currently requested by the Administration is recommended by NCMEC, Sheriff Brown, and others who believe that the additional amount would significantly improve the efforts of these teams of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials dedicated to identifying and prosecuting those who use the Internet to prey upon our Nation's children. Mr. President, protecting our children is a top priority for Members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation. This legislation would help us achieve that goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues to debate and move this bill through the legislative process during the next Congress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate concerning the legislation before us, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. This bill is particularly important in this time of ongoing war, structural changes in the force, and an aging veteran population. The committee has worked to produce a bill that, while imperfect, addresses many of the issues that challenge our armed services and veterans, and I thank them for their work. America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in pursuit of a common goal--to defeat terrorism. Americans have and will continue to make sacrifices for this war. Our service men and women in particular are truly on the front lines in this war, separated from their families, risking their lives, and working extraordinarily long hours under the most difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious but necessary task their country has set for them. It is important that we understand the context of this year's military construction legislation. Three processes are playing out simultaneously that require reasoned and appropriate congressional action on this bill. First, America's struggle for peace in Iraq continues. Second, our largest service, the Army, is undertaking significant structural changes and redeploying thousands of troops. Third, the recent round of base realignment and closure that streamlined the defense infrastructure is now being implemented. These three issues have defined the requirements of the legislation before us. The committee has recognized the challenges and outlined military construction spending that, in large part, meets them. I am pleased to note that the Appropriations Committee has met the spending level requested by the administration for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is particularly important in light of the growing numbers of young veterans who look to the VA for care. To date more than 184,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have sought care through the VA. Of that number, 30,000 have been found to exhibit symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress or PTSD, and I applaud the committee's support for PTSD programs and funding. This legislation also provides $32.7 billion for the Veterans Health Administration for fiscal year 2007, nearly equivalent to the President's request. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for her willingness to work with the Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC, to ensure this bill generally funds MILCON projects consistent with the authorizing committee's views. The chairman has always made a considerable effort to work with the authorizers to mitigate differences in the defense funding and authorizing bills. In particular, I appreciate the chairman's efforts to remove an unrequested and unauthorized MILCON project for Lackland Air Force Base after I brought my concerns to her attention. That project was not requested by the administration, nor is it listed in the Air Force's Unfunded Priority List, UPL. It was added only after the Air Force Chief of Staff sought the funding outside the regular process, without the concurrence of DOD or OMB and without any notification to or feedback from the authorizing committees. When the authoring committees finally learned about this project, we had already completed committee markups and passed Defense authorization bills in both chambers. The authorizing committees refused to add an out-of-scope provision into the final conference report to authorize this Air Force earmark, and as such, the chairman has since agreed to remove it from the pending bill in a manager's amendment on the Senate floor. I wanted to spend time on the Senate floor to highlight this Air Force MILCON earmark because it demonstrates how authorizers and appropriators can and should work together. While ideally the provision would never have been included in the bill since it wasn't requested, the chairman was more than willing to listen to my concerns as an authorizer, and she acted most appropriately by agreeing to remove the earmark. Again, I thank Senator Hutchison for her steadfast leadership and accommodation of the authorization committees' wishes. Unfortunately, the bill before us is not entirely free of earmarks. I am concerned that, while this bill is some $434 million below the administration's request, it nonetheless recommends almost $90 million in unrequested spending that is directed at unauthorized projects. While I recognize that many of the earmarks added to this legislation may sound worthwhile, they do not belong in the bill or its report. Needless to say, it is distressing that in this time of fiscal constraints, lawmakers continue to earmark military funds while underfunding the President's overall request. Let me mention a few examples of money earmarked in the committee report for specific projects that were not requested by the Department of Defense: $1.5 million for a general instruction building in Fort Lewis, WA; $1.5 million for officer's quarters in Ravenna, OH; $1.5 million for a dining facility at Camp Roberts in San Miguel, CA; $3.4 million for an Aviation Readiness Center at Helena Regional Airport, MT; $1.4 million for an engine shop in Fort Worth, TX; $900,000 for an information technology complex at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH; and $2.0 million for a regional training institute in West Virginia. Almost all the earmarked money will go to the States represented by members of the committee. These examples are only part of the nearly $60 million in unrequested earmarks that siphon funds away from important programs needed for enhancing our warfighting capability. This means that the armed services have come to us with urgent needs, and we have responded by giving them less than what they asked for while requiring that they spend it to suit our parochial needs rather than military necessity. The problems facing our active and retired veterans, whether in the form of force structure or modernization or enhancing quality of life benefits, are properly addressed in a deliberative budget process. However, we should think twice before diverting money away from military necessities to fund home State projects. The American taxpayer expects more of us, as do our brave service men and women who are fighting this war on global terrorism on our behalf.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has agreed to pass S. 3501, a bill to amend the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act to establish an acquisition fund for the water rights and habitat acquisition program, with an amendment that I have also offered. This bill amends the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act, enacted in 2000, which ratified a negotiated settlement of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe's water entitlement to flow from the Santa Clara River in UT. S. 3501 was introduced to address a deficiency in the original statutory language of the Shivwits Water Rights Settlement Act. Section 10 of that Act authorized a water rights and habitat acquisition program. Congress appropriated $3 million that was authorized by Section 10. When the Department of the Interior attempted to implement the law, the Treasury Department advised that the language in Section 10 was insufficient for this purpose. The Treasury Department and Department of the Interior developed technical correction language to address this deficiency in the original statutory language. S. 3501 facilitates this correction in the Shivwits Water Rights Settlement Act. However, subsequent to approval of this measure by the Indian Affairs Committee, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the language developed by Treasury and Interior, as reflected in S. 3501, could be interpreted to authorize an additional $3 million to the Acquisition Fund and thereby increase direct spending. Therefore, I have offered an amendment with the bill in an effort to avoid any ambiguity in S. 3501 concerning prior appropriations for the Acquisition Fund. The amendment strikes the potentially ambiguous language in the bill, and inserts new language, to the affect, that funds transferred to the Acquisition Fund are funds made available but not expended. The technical amendment therefore avoids the possibility of any redundant appropriations, keeping S. 3501 budget neutral, as was originally intended, and fully implements Section 10 of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Settlement Act of 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. I would be glad to.

Mr. McCAIN. I do agree.

Mr. McCAIN. I am of the same view.

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.

Mr. McCAIN. I agree entirely with Senator Warner's comments.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.