[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3019-S3023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4) to make the United States more secure by
implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11
Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to
improve homeland security, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 275, in the nature of a substitute.
Landrieu amendment No. 321 (to amendment No. 275), to
require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include levees
in the list of critical infrastructure sectors.
Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 336 (to amendment No. 275),
to prohibit the use of the peer review process in determining
the allocation of funds among metropolitan areas applying for
grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
Coburn amendment No. 325 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure
the fiscal integrity of grants awarded by the Department of
Homeland Security.
Coburn amendment No. 294 (to amendment No. 275), to provide
that the provisions of the act shall cease to have any force
or effect on and after December 31, 2012, to ensure
congressional review and oversight of the act.
Kyl modified amendment No. 357 (to amendment No. 275), to
amend the data-mining technology reporting requirement to
avoid revealing existing patents, trade secrets, and
confidential business processes, and to adopt a narrower
definition of data-mining in order to exclude routine
computer searches.
Biden amendment No. 383 (to amendment No. 275), to require
the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop regulations
regarding the transportation of high-hazard materials.
Schumer modified amendment No. 367 (to amendment No. 275),
to require the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration to establish and implement a program to
provide additional safety measures for vehicles that carry
high-hazardous materials.
Stevens amendment No. 299 (to amendment No. 275), to
authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to
initiate migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network
capable of receiving and responding to all citizen-activated
emergency communications.
Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 337 (to amendment No. 275),
to provide for the use of funds in any grant under the
Homeland Security Grant Program for personnel costs.
Bond/Rockefeller amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 275),
to provide the sense of the Senate that the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate should submit a
report on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with
respect to intelligence reform and congressional intelligence
oversight reform.
Amendments Nos. 294 and 325
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
[[Page S3020]]
time until 11:45 a.m. shall be for debate on Coburn amendments Nos. 294
and 325, and the time shall be equally divided between Senators Coburn
and Lieberman or their designees.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of our time to
Senator Brown of Ohio. He has a statement to make as in morning
business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut.
(The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and
yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of the time on our
side to the Senator from Delaware.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is
recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
We heard, a few minutes earlier, from Senator Grassley of Iowa, the
ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. He talked at some length
about the tax gap, which some suggest may be costing our Treasury
roughly $300 billion this year, last year, and next year as well. These
are moneys which are believed to be owed but not being collected by the
IRS. When we talk about reducing our Nation's budget deficit--something
we all know we need to do--among the ways to do it is to close the tax
gap.
Another way to do it is to address what are called improper payments.
Senator Coburn and I lead a subcommittee in Governmental Affairs and
Homeland Security called the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee.
We have been exploring the issue of improper payments. We have had for
a number of years an improper payments law that says Federal agencies
have to not continue making improper payments.
We found out about 2 years ago roughly $50 billion in improper
payments were made by Federal agencies--mostly overpayments, some
underpayments. Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the iceberg. It
turns out improper payments made for the last year have been down to
about $41 billion, but it does not include the Department of Defense,
it does not include improper payments made by Homeland Security, and it
does not include improper payments that crop up in some other parts of
our Federal Government.
Senator Coburn and I have been holding hearings. Last year, it was
under his leadership as chairman. We held one under my leadership as
chairman earlier this month on improper payments. We are going to
focus, early this year, particularly on some of the big agencies--
Homeland Security, which still does not comply with the law; the
Department of Defense, which still does not comply with the law--to
provide a strong impetus for them to begin complying with the law or at
least to get on the right track.
Senator Coburn has an amendment he has offered, one that is opposed
by the National Governors Association and by a number of other groups.
What he would attempt to do--and what I think his purpose is; his goal
is meritorious--is to compel the Department of Homeland Security to
comply with the Improper Payments Act. He does so in a way that holds
at risk State and local governments and their ability to receive
homeland security grants, really three out of I think the four major
grant programs that are handled by Homeland Security that we are
discussing today with this bill.
The reason why the National Governors Association and I think other
State and local governmental entities are opposing the amendment is
because they could be held at risk of not receiving the grants for a
lot of fire departments and other first responders and other State and
local agencies, through no fault of their own but because the
Department of Homeland Security is not complying with the Improper
Payments Act.
Senator Coburn was prepared to offer a second-degree amendment, one I
think he and his staff worked on with OMB that I think was a far better
approach to getting the attention of Homeland Security to comply with
the Improper Payments Act. He is not going to be able to offer the
second-degree amendment. As a result, we have no choice but to debate
and vote on his initial amendment, which we took up in committee. I
asked him not to offer it in committee during the markup. He did not,
and today his only choice is to offer that same amendment.
Unfortunately, I cannot support it.
He is onto a good idea. The idea is we need to put not just Homeland
Security but the Department of Defense--and a bunch of other Federal
agencies that are not complying with this law--we need to put them
under the gun and say: You have to start complying--and to provide
pressure, incentives, sticks, carrots to get them in compliance with
the law.
I think we will be holding our second hearing later this month on
further looking at the Improper Payments Act. We are going to be
bringing before us the Department of Homeland Security to find out what
is their problem, why are they unable to comply with the law. Do we
need to make changes in the law or do they just need to get on the
ball? It may be a combination of the two.
To that end, I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator
Coburn. I must reluctantly oppose the amendment--not the amendment he
wanted to offer. The amendment he wanted to offer, he is not going to
have a chance to offer. But the amendment he is offering, I have to
oppose.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me
when I have 5 minutes remaining of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is a curious thing that when we have
hearings in the Senate, we find out problems and then offer real
solutions that have teeth--as Senator Carper just said, to put them
under the gun. Nobody wants to put them under the gun.
This amendment on improper payments gives the Department of Homeland
Security 18 months to comply before any State will see any harm from
this. The fact is, the States are not without some responsibility
because some of the improper payments go to some grants that go in the
State.
The American people need to ask: Is the Congress really serious about
controlling spending? They are not. This amendment is not going to
pass. All we are saying is: Here is a law they were supposed to be in
compliance with in 2004. It says: If you are not going to be in
compliance with it--they have not, they have not, they have not--we are
saying, to be accountable, you have to be transparent, you have to have
results. The results are complying with the Improper Payments Act.
We also think there ought to be competition for some of the grants.
There is not in this bill. There ought to be a priority set. There
ought to be responsiveness. There ought to be spending discipline.
As this amendment goes down--and it will--the Senators are going to
reject the very idea of having accountability, the very thing they talk
about with earmarks. The reason they cannot give up earmarks is because
they cannot let the administration and the agencies manage the money.
But here is a tool to force Homeland Security to manage its money, to
hold them accountable and say in 18 months from now, if you have not
done the work every other agency of this Government is supposed to have
done, then we are going to hold you accountable by cutting off the
money. That is tough love. It is putting them under the gun. That is
exactly what we need to do.
Do you know what will happen if my amendment is accepted and it comes
through? Homeland Security will report its improper payments. But if we
do not, I want you to think about what happens when you reject this
amendment. What is the consequence for every other agency of the
Federal Government to now not comply with the Improper Payments Act?
There is no cost in not complying with the Improper Payments Act.
[[Page S3021]]
According to the GAO, the following portions of Homeland Security do
not meet anywhere close the Improper Payments Act. That is the Customs
and Border Protection, that is the Office of Grants and Training. They
have not done a thing to be in compliance with this money.
Now, we can look the other way and we can say we are not going to
enforce the law, but the next thing I am going to do, as a Senator--if
we are not going to enforce the improper payments law, then let's get
rid of it. The American people deserve to have the law enforced. It is
a good law. It helps us hold the agencies accountable, the very thing
that the $26 to $27 billion worth of earmarks says we cannot do.
Now we have an opportunity to do it, and we are going to vote against
it. Why? Because we may put something at risk. Well, quality and
results depend on us putting this at risk, to force this agency, FEMA,
to come into compliance with a law that is on the books with which they
have refused to comply.
Senator Carper mentioned the $40 billion of improper payments. That
only represents 40 percent of the Federal Government. There is at least
$100 billion of our money--the taxpayers' money--which is being paid
out which should not be paid out, and probably $20 billion of it is in
the Pentagon. We know the Department of Health and Human Services has
not complied with the Improper Payments Act on Medicaid, and that is
estimated somewhere between $20 billion and $30 billion. So we know of
at least $100 billion.
I want you to think for a minute when you vote against this amendment
what you tell every other agency in the Federal Government: There is no
consequence whatsoever to not meeting the Improper Payments Act of
2002. There will be no consequence even though we are going to say you
have not done it. Here is a way to do it, to force Homeland Security to
be accountable and to recognize they have an obligation under the law
to report and look at the risk factors.
Now, what does the Improper Payments Act ask agencies to do?
Everything we would want done with our own money:
Perform a risk assessment. Is there a risk for improper payments?
Homeland Security hasn't even done that.
Develop a statistically valid estimate of improper payments. In other
words, go look at it and do a study to see is there potential that
money is going out the door that should not go out the door.
Develop a corrective action plan.
Report the results of these activities to us, the Congress, the
people's representatives.
By voting against this amendment, you are telling Homeland Security
they don't have to comply, that there is no teeth; it will never be
done. Why would the Governors Association oppose this? Because they are
the monied interest groups that are going to get the money. In fact,
some of the problems with the money is the responsibility of the
Governors. If I were a Governor, I would not want you checking on my
money. It is natural for them to oppose it. But it is normal for us to
protect the taxpayers by saying that every agency ought to apply and
respond to the law under improper payments. It is simple. We should ask
that Homeland Security follow the law.
When you vote against this amendment, what you are telling Homeland
Security, the Defense Department, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and all of the other departments is that they don't have to
comply because now we are going to be toothless and say there are no
consequences whatsoever.
Some will say this puts these grants at risk. There are no grants at
risk. There is $4.8 billion sitting in the queue right now that won't
be spent for 18 months. This bill authorizes another $3.2 billion to
follow after that.
If they cannot comply in 18 months, we need to stop and take a
timeout and ask: Why can't you tell us where you are spending money
that you should not be spending? Why can't you comply with the very
simple things this act asks? Why can't they do a risk assessment in 18
months, develop a statistically valid estimate of where the problems
are? They cannot do that in 18 months, develop a corrective action
plan? They cannot do that in 18 months? They cannot report to us in 18
months?
To oppose this amendment says we don't care about improper payments.
It is going to be like a lot of other laws on the books: we don't have
standing; I, as a Senator, don't have any standing to sue the Federal
Government to make it comply. The reason we won't have standing is
because we don't have the courage to do what is right for the American
taxpayers.
The last election had a lot to do with spending. This is going to be
a vote to say whether we really meant what we said when we said we were
going to start taking better care of the American taxpayers' dollars;
that we were going to make the Government more accountable, more
transparent and efficient. We are going to see a vote against this
amendment, and the American people are going to get shortchanged once
again because we don't have the courage to go up against the monied
interests that get the grants and say we ought to at least have
transparency.
There is another tool coming back called the Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2006, and the American taxpayers are going to
know whether improper payments are made. We are not going to do our
job.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my good friend from Oklahoma that would sunset the
provisions of this bill after 5 years.
In general, I think this is a very good bill. But I have serious
reservations about the method by which this bill allocates State
homeland security grants.
Last week, I came to the floor to offer an amendment to make this
funding allocation more based on risk. My amendment was an attempt to
meet the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that ``[h]omeland security
assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and
vulnerabilities [and] federal homeland security assistance should not
remain a program for general revenue sharing.''
That is why my amendment sought to send the most dollars to those
areas at the greatest risk of an attack. As compared to the funding
formula in the underlying bill, my amendment would have better
protected our borders, our ports, our railroads, our subways, our
chemical plants, our nuclear power plants, our food supply, and our
firefighters, police officers and EMTs.
Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated, as was a similar amendment
offered by Senators Feinstein and Cornyn. I think this was an
unfortunate mistake by the Senate, and I am hopeful that this mistake
will be corrected in conference.
If the funding formula is not fixed, however, I believe it is
perfectly appropriate for us to reexamine this issue 5 years from now
to ensure that the allocation of homeland security funding provides the
necessary resources to communities most at risk.
For this reason, I will support the amendment offered by my colleague
from Oklahoma.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time we have on our
side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5 minutes 4 seconds.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield 2 minutes of that time to the Senator from
Maine.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine is
recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the frustration
expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma. Our committee, last year, had
extensive hearings looking at waste, fraud, and abuse in the spending
of funds in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We documented over a billion
dollars of waste or fraudulent spending. So the Senator has put his
finger on a very important problem.
I am very concerned about the practical impact of the Senator's
amendment. The Senator, at one point, had a second-degree amendment,
which he has decided not to offer, which addressed part of my concern.
The Senator has said this morning that the Department would have 18
months to comply with the provisions of the Improper Payments Act. But,
in fact, the
[[Page S3022]]
plain language of his amendment says the Secretary shall not award any
grants or distribute any grant funds under any grant program under this
act until the certification, risk assessment, and estimates that his
amendment calls for have been completed. The result of that, because
our legislation includes some grant money for interoperability under
the Commerce Committee provisions in the bill, for this year, is that
it halts those funding programs, those grant programs. The result is to
penalize first responders, State and local governments, for the faults
that are largely from the Department of Homeland Security. I don't
think that is fair. That is why the National Governors Association and
the National Emergency Managers Association strongly oppose this
amendment.
In addition, the Department has expressed great concern about this
amendment. In fact, the Department's Office of General Counsel has
written to me that they ``strongly oppose the amendment prohibiting the
Secretary from awarding any grant, or distributing any grant funds,
until the Secretary has submitted the certifications and other analyses
in response to Senator Coburn's amendment.'' So it is not just the
Governors and the emergency managers. It is also the Department of
Homeland Security that strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly on what I
believe is the first of two amendments offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma, amendment No. 294, the sunset of the entire text of the
underlying bill, S. 4.
This would sunset all of the provisions of this legislation in 5
years. Obviously, the terrorism threat in the legislation that we have
passed since 9/11, particularly in the Homeland Security Act of 2002
and the 9/11 legislation of 2004, will not go away in 5 years. Many
parts of this bill amend existing underlying provisions that do not
sunset. Thus, if we pass the Coburn amendment No. 294, we would be
amending provisions for homeland security grants, information sharing,
interoperability. Then in 5 years these homeland security programs
would revert back to earlier rules and realities, which we have found
in this bill to be inadequate. I think that would be a disruptive and,
in many ways, a bizarre result.
If this called for reauthorization, as other legislation does, not
immediate sunset, I would say it would be more reasonable to consider.
But that is why I oppose Coburn amendment No. 294.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes.
Mr. COBURN. For the opposition?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Forty-six seconds.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, let me address Senator Lieberman for a
minute. The very thing he says he doesn't want to do now, we did
exactly on the PATRIOT Act. Why would I want to sunset that? The
American people would like to see every piece of legislation that we do
that has to do with authorization and spending sunsetted. There are
good reasons for that. We don't know what the terrorism situation will
be in 5 years. We don't know all of the aspects of what we are dealing
with. What we know is that 4 years from now, if this is sunsetted, we
will be working on a new bill that is based on the realities of the
world at that time.
Instead, what the opposition to this sunset amendment says is what we
are doing now we know, without a doubt, is exactly what we need to do
in 5 years from now in every area. I would put it to you that none of
us knows exactly what we need to do 5 years from now. A sunset won't
cause this to lapse. It will cause the Congress to act in year 4 to
reauthorize the bill when it expires.
I have 5 minutes left. Let me talk about this. We should get reports
on what we have done. We should report and react in a very commonsense
way to what this bill has done over the next 4 or 5 years. We should
review that. We should then reform what we are doing now so that it has
better application and wiser use of resources, and then we should
reauthorize.
To oppose sunsetting this speaks of an arrogance that is unbelievable
of this body. We cannot know what we need to do 5 years from now in
terms of homeland security. We don't know. It is an ever-changing
situation. To imply that this will lapse--everybody here knows that is
not the fact. We are not about to let it lapse. We are going to do what
is necessary for our country.
This amendment tells us that we ought to relook at it because we
don't have that kind of wisdom. If we think we do, we should not be
here because that means we are going to be making a lot of mistakes. So
I will go back to that. Let me go back.
Why would Homeland Security oppose the Improper Payments Act, as read
by Senator Collins? Because they have not complied. They have no
intention of ever complying. The one thing that the 9/11 Commission
said that this Congress has not done is to have one committee
responsible for oversight of Homeland Security. Senator Carper and I
spent a lot of time last year, as did Senator Lieberman and Senator
Collins in full committee, and we in our subcommittee, on Oversight of
Homeland Security. We found a billion dollars wasted in Katrina. We
found tons of improper payments in Homeland Security. We found that, in
fact, there is no accountability. There is no accountability in the
Department of Homeland Security.
The American public deserves to have the two amendments I have
offered today. They deserve to force them to do what the law says on
improper payments, and they deserve for us to make a reevaluation 4
years from now on what ought to be different. We ought to reassess what
we are doing and reevaluate how we do it, and we ought to say we need
to apply more resources to that problem. The American people deserve to
know they are getting value for their money. Right now, they are not
getting that in homeland security and in multiple areas because we
cannot even find out.
So here we are crying that we cannot have earmarks because the
agencies are going to run what they want to run. We have an opportunity
to not let them run, and we are going to run against it. It is
counterintuitive to me that we would be on both sides of this issue.
The fact is, the Federal Government is unaccountable in many ways,
and the American people know that. On these two amendments, the
American people are going to ask: How did they vote? And they are going
to say, once again: What are they thinking? They are protecting the
interests they have there now and putting at risk the interests of the
next generation--because we don't do something simple like sunset a
bill or make an agency comply with improper payments.
What would happen if there was a 1-month delay in grants? Nothing.
But what would happen if we got the improper payment data from Homeland
Security? Plenty. Then we could act on it and hold them accountable in
the appropriations bills. Then we can do our jobs and do something
about it.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our friend is making some points I
agree with, as does Senator Collins and most Members. Our problem is
that in each of the two amendments, the instrument he has chosen is
very blunt. I wish we had more time to work on these. If they don't
survive the two votes today, I look forward to going back in committee
to work on these generally.
Why do I say they are blunt? The National Governors Association
explained why they thought the improper payments would lead to the
termination of homeland security grant funding to the States. There are
some estimates by the administration that it would threaten Medicare
payments. Doing something about this is good, but why have the ultimate
punishment be on the beneficiaries?
The same is true of the sunset provision. Incidentally, the money
authorizations in this bill are sunsetted. It is different from the
PATRIOT Act, where the provisions with the sunset were very
controversial. In this bill, I don't think there is any controversy
about the underlying proposals.
I still respectfully oppose these two amendments, and I hope that if
they don't succeed, my colleague and I can work in the committee to
bring forth a
[[Page S3023]]
version of both that we can both support.
Mr. COBURN. I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma has 1
minute 17 seconds.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I hope the American people will look at
these commonsense amendments and look at how their Senators vote. The
one way to get things done is to put somebody in a bind. The fact is,
this is the law. It is already the law, and we are saying we are going
to put some teeth behind the law and make you do it.
I raise one final point. If my colleagues vote against this, what
they are saying to every other agency is: There is no consequence to
not reporting and doing what you are supposed to do under the Improper
Payments Act of 2002. That is the signal we will be sending.
The American people want the signal the other way. With $100 billion
of their tax money paid out the door, that is improper, most of it
overpayments, and we are saying we are letting one of the biggest
agencies of the Federal Government off the hook.
If my colleagues want to vote for that, that is fine, but I hope we
are held accountable for that vote in the next election cycle when we
claim we want the Government to be efficient, we claim we want it
smaller, we claim we want to get good value for the American taxpayer
value. These votes surely will not show that, if my colleagues vote
against these two amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). All time has expired.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 294 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 294
offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, and I ask the vote be taken by
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Allard
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Leahy
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Obama
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Johnson
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 325
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
2-minute debate equally divided on the Coburn amendment No. 325.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a real simple amendment. The
improper payments law was passed in 2002. By 2004, all Government
agencies were supposed to come under it. The Homeland Security
Department has never filed, under the six major agencies, an improper
payments report.
People will say: Well, this will cut off funding. No. 1, it would not
cut off any funding for 18 months. No. 2, if you vote against this, you
are sending a signal to every other agency that they do not have to
comply with the improper payments law.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I intend to move to table this Coburn
amendment, and, obviously, I look forward to working with the Senator
in our committee.
Basically, the funding on this bill is subjected to the improper
payments law. As a letter from the National Governors Association makes
clear, the Coburn amendment would effectively, and I quote, ``stop all
State homeland security grant expenditures.''
That is unfair, unnecessary, and that is why I will move to table.
Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time on both sides, and I
move to table the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma and
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 motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--31
Allard
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Martinez
McCaskill
Nelson (FL)
Sessions
Smith
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Webb
NOT VOTING--3
Johnson
McCain
Murkowski
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we had hoped at this point to offer
another consent request to the Senate about several amendments we
thought were cleared on both sides. Unfortunately, there is objection
on that so we will have to wait.
Pursuant to the consent agreement we passed last week, we are going
to final passage on this bill today. When we come back after the party
lunches at 2:15, we will begin to dispose of the pending germane
amendments in whatever way we can at that time. Then this afternoon we
will go to final passage. There definitely will be additional votes
this afternoon on this important legislation.
I ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.
____________________