[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10499-S10501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume

[[Page S10500]]

consideration of H.R. 5631, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference Report to accompany H.R. 5631, an Act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
  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

[[Page S10501]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. If my friend from Hawaii has no further comment to make, 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, I thank the 2 people primarily 
responsible for the bill being so well put together, Sid Ashworth and 
Charlie Houy, respective assistants for Senator Inouye and me. It has 
been a good period dealing with this bill. This is the largest bill we 
have ever provided for the Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________