[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 150 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12702-S12728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3093, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
substitute amendment, which is at the desk, and the text of the Senate 
committee-reported bill be considered and agreed to; the bill, as 
amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment; and that no points of order be considered waived by this 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3211) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted and Proposed.''
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to present to the U.S. Senate 
the bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and our science 
agencies. I want to thank Senators Reid and McConnell for agreeing to 
bring up the CJS bill, and Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for 
the CJS Subcommittee's robust 302(b) allocation. This is a bipartisan 
bill. Senator Shelby and I worked hand-in-hand. I thank him and his 
excellent staff for their partnership.
  The CJS bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. 
Did we spend more than the President asked for? You bet we did. We are 
proud that our bill is $3.2 billion above the President's budget 
request.
  Let's talk about how we spent the money. The subcommittee had three 
priorities:
  Security--keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and 
violent crime.
  Innovation--investments in science and technology to create jobs that 
will stay in the United States.
  Accountability--fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer 
dollars, standing sentry against waste, fraud and abuse.
  The subcommittee's first priority is protecting America from 
terrorism and violent crime. The Justice Department is almost 50 
percent of the CJS bill. Funding for Justice totals almost $25 billion, 
$2.1 billion more than the President's request. The CJS bill funds our 
major Federal law enforcement agencies, and our State and local cops on 
the beat.
  CJS funds the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. The FBI is our 
domestic national security agency. It has a dual mission--disrupting 
terrorism on U.S. soil--tracking and taking down terror cells and 
dismantling dirty bombs, as well as fighting violent crime in our 
communities. The CJS bill provides $6.6 billion for the FBI, $150 
million more than the President's budget request. This includes almost 
$4 billion for FBI counterterrorism. Our bill will put 230 new 
counterterrorism agents on the beat and give agents new tools to 
collect intelligence to protect Americans here at home. At the same 
time, the President's budget cut 100 FBI agents dedicated to fighting 
violent crime. This is outrageous--because for the first time in almost 
15 years, violent crime has increased. Robberies are up 7 percent. 
Homicides are up 2 percent. Nearly every region of the country has been 
affected--from large cities to small communities. We've heard from our 
colleagues that the FBI needs more agents fighting violent crime in 
their communities. The CJS bill rejects the President's irresponsible 
cut. We provide full funding to retain 100 FBI agents that the 
President eliminated.
  The CJS bill also funds the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. The 
DEA is an international agency--in over 60 countries, with significant 
local responsibilities. It's fighting a $330 billion annual drug trade 
in over 60 countries around the world. Drugs finance over two-thirds of 
all terrorist activity, including the Taliban. The DEA is in 
Afghanistan fighting narcoterrorism, working hand-in-hand with our 
military to disrupt the poppy trade that funds terrorist networks. And 
the DEA is in our communities, fighting the scourge of illegal drugs 
like heroin and meth that destroy our neighborhoods. We were horrified 
to learn that the DEA has a hiring freeze. The DEA can't hire new 
agents. This is outrageous--so we added $50 million to DEA to lift the 
hiring freeze so DEA can hire up 200 new agents to fight drugs at home 
and abroad.
  The CJS bill funds the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, ATF, which investigates arson and stops illegal firearms 
trafficking. The ATF is working hand-in-hand with our military to 
disable the improvised explosive devices, IEDs, that are so perilous to 
our troops on the battlefield. We provide robust support for our U.S. 
Marshals Service, keeping our marshals on the beat to track down 
dangerous fugitives--including sexual predators and drug kingpins--
protect

[[Page S12703]]

Federal judges and provide security at terrorist trials here in the 
U.S. and in Afghanistan.
  The CJS bill is also the most important source of Federal funding for 
the frontline men and women of our State and local police forces, 
working tirelessly to keep our families and neighborhoods safe. Our 
cops on the beat are working harder than ever to fight rising violent 
crime. And our State and local police are often the first to identify 
suspected terrorist activities in their communities. At the same time, 
State and local budgets are under increased stress. So we were deeply 
troubled by the President's draconian cuts of almost $1.5 billion from 
grant funds for State and local police. The CJS bill rejects these 
outrageous cuts. Instead we provide a total of $2.7 billion to give our 
cops the tools they need to fight crime, gangs, drugs, domestic 
violence, and crimes against children.
  Our bill provides $660 million for Byrne formula grants. President 
Bush eliminated Byrne grants formula grants to States that pay for 
police and prosecutors, training and technology, and require a 25-
percent State match. The first President Bush named these grants for 
Edward Byrne, a New York City police officer killed in the line of 
fire. If Byrne grants were good enough for Bush 41, why aren't they 
good enough for this President Bush?
  We also provide $550 million for Community Oriented Policing 
Services, COPS, grants. President Bush only asked for $32 million to 
terminate COPS grants. COPS is a competitive grant program that pays 
for police salaries and overtime, police technology, and equipment like 
surveillance cameras and interoperable communications equipment. The 
CJS bill makes sure that our cops are not walking the thin blue line 
drawn through green eyeshades.
  The CJS bill provides over $300 million to prevent, investigate and 
prosecute despicable crimes against children. This includes: $55 
million for a new national initiative for grants to State and locals to 
locate, arrest and prosecute child sexual predators; $65 million to 
fight child abduction and exploitation and locate missing children; $9 
million for the FBI's Innocent Images project--for agents and 
technology to track the deviants who use the Internet to prey on our 
children; $8 million for the U.S. Marshals to apprehend fugitive sexual 
predators and get them off our streets and out of our neighborhoods; 
$10 million for grants to keep kids safe from violence at school.

  Our second priority for the CJS bill is investing in America's future 
competitiveness. We added $1 billion above the President's request for 
science, education and economic development to foster job creation--for 
jobs that will stay in this country and to inspire and train our future 
scientists and engineers. We based our funding levels on the best ideas 
from outside experts like the National Academy of Sciences. We took the 
politics out of science. The CJS bill implements the framework of the 
recently enacted America COMPETES Act. This bipartisan legislation 
recommended investments in science and education to improve America's 
global competitiveness.
  We provide $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation, NSF, 
$125 million above the President's budget request. NSF is important 
because it funds 20 percent of all federally supported basic research 
conducted by America's colleges and universities in many fields such as 
math and computer science. NSF is the major source of federal support. 
NSF keeps the U.S. on the leading edge of discovery in areas like 
astronomy and geology. And NSF supports our college and universities' 
efforts to educate our next generation of scientists and engineers, 
including at our historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs.
  We provide $860 million for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST. NIST is important because it sets standards that are 
critical to successful commerce, and transfers technology to American 
industry. Our recommendations provide $100 million for the Technology 
Innovation Partnership program, which will replace the Advanced 
Technology Program to foster the development of the newest 
technologies, and $110 for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 
MEP, which helps U.S. manufacturers to be more competitive.
  The bill also provides $17.5 billion for NASA, $150 million above the 
President's budget request. NASA is our No. 1 innovation agency. No 
other agency has the ability to inspire our future scientists and 
engineers like NASA does. The bill keeps our commitment to human space 
flight. It fully funds the space shuttle at $4 billion and the space 
station at $2.2 billion. And we provide $3.9 billion to Ares and Orion, 
the next generation vehicle. The space shuttle will be retired in 2010. 
We must continue to have safe, reliable space transportation.
  Later, I will offer an amendment with Senators Hutchison, Shelby and 
Landrieu to finally begin to pay the bill of returning the space 
shuttle to flight after the Columbia tragedy. To ensure that we 
continue to have the premier space agency in the world, NASA must have 
a balanced portfolio of human space flight, science and aeronautics 
research.
  In the area of Earth science, the bill includes $25 million above the 
budget request to begin to implement the recommendations of the recent 
Earth Science Decadal Survey, the top priorities of the scientific 
community, and missions we need to accomplish to help us better 
understand and predict the Earth's environment and climate.
  For aeronautics research, we provide $554 million. This is so 
critical because we must rise to the challenge of our international 
competitors. Aeronautics is an area that we would have liked to do 
more. As our bill moves to conference with the other body, we hope to 
be able to add funding for aeronautics.
  A strong patent system is critical to an innovation-friendly 
government. We provide $1.9 billion for the Patent and Trademark 
Office, PTO--this is full access to all fees. We know there have been 
concerns that the PTO's fees have been used to pay for other 
priorities. Senator Shelby and I are committed to giving PTO full 
access to the resources it needs. Our bill will allow the PTO to hire 
1,200 new patent examiners to reduce application backlogs and 
processing times. We are livid that it takes almost 3 years for the PTO 
to make a decision on a patent application. Through our oversight, we 
have required PTO to implement management reforms to reduce the backlog 
of applications, while ensuring quality.
  The CJS bill also provides $420 million for the International Trade 
Administration, ITA, to investigate unfair trade practices and enforce 
our trade laws. It includes $48 million for the United States Trade 
Representative, USTR, to negotiate trade agreements that protect our 
intellectual property.
  For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the 
bill provides $4.2 billion, $400 million above the President's budget 
request. This includes $795 million to implement the bipartisan 
recommendations of the Joint Ocean Commission. Seventy percent of the 
Earth is covered by oceans, but only 5 percent of the oceans are 
explored. Our Nation's economy depends on the oceans. Oceans contribute 
$120 billion to our economy and support over 2 million jobs. The bill 
also provides full funding for the National Weather Service, which is 
so important to saving lives and livelihoods.
  I think my colleagues would be interested in knowing that the CJS 
bill funds 85 percent of all federal climate change science. That's 
about $1.6 billion for peer-reviewed basic research at NSF, atmospheric 
weather and climate research at NOAA, and NASA Earth science missions 
studying. As we look for solutions to this crisis, the CJS bill will 
continue to give us sound science to inform our policy decisions.
  The CJS bill emphasizes oversight, accountability and fiscal 
stewardship. Let me tell my colleagues--there's a new sherriff in town. 
It's a bipartisan posse against cost overruns, ineffective management 
and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The CJS Subcommittee, through 
its oversight, has uncovered enormous cost overruns and schedule 
slippages. NOAA's satellite program was $4 billion over budget. NSF's 
research equipment was $25 million over budget. At the appropriate 
time, I will offer an amendment to prevent this mismanagement and get 
our agencies back to fiscal discipline.
  Through our oversight, we also uncovered dramatic backlogs at PTO and 
the Equal Employment Opportunity

[[Page S12704]]

Commission, EEOC. And we required effective, efficient management 
reform. The CJS bill insists on discipline and vigorous oversight. It 
requires each agency to notify the committee about cost overruns 
greater than 10 percent, bans funding for lavish banquets, and requires 
that inspectors general conduct random audits of grant funding.
  Unfortunately, the President threatened to veto the CJS bill. He 
doesn't support funding for these additional investments I have 
outlined. The CJS bill reflects bipartisan priorities to make America 
safer and smarter. I think these investments in fighting terrorism and 
violent crime, and educating our future scientists and engineers, are 
wise uses of taxpayer dollars.
  Let me be clear--we didn't overspend; the President under funded. It 
is not lavish to lift the DEA hiring freeze so we starve terrorists of 
their financing, or to give our men and women in blue the tools they 
need to keep us safe.
  The President should not veto this bill. Instead, together we should 
veto funding for the Taliban and jobs moving overseas. I believe that, 
if necessary, the Senate will stand up for our families, neighborhoods 
and communities by standing up against the President's veto. Let's veto 
jobs going overseas; let's veto the Taliban.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their 
cooperation and collegiality. This is a fair and balanced bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it. For the information of our 
colleagues, Senator Shelby and I intend to move this bill quickly. We 
encourage Members with amendments to come to the floor and offer them 
now. The bill fully complies with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation 
so any amendments will need offsets. It also fully complies with the 
recently enacted Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.
  Mr. President, in a short time, I will be joined by my colleague, the 
distinguished senior Senator from Alabama, who is my ranking member. 
He, too, will be making his opening statement. I thank Senators Reid 
and McConnell for agreeing to bring up this billand Chairman Byrd and 
Ranking Member Cochran for a rather robust 302(b) allocation to let 
this bill go forward.
  First, let me say to my colleagues in the Senate as they watch this 
debate that this bill is a bipartisan bill. The Senator from Alabama, 
Mr. Shelby, and I worked hand in hand to craft a bill that is in the 
best interest of the United States of America and not trying to score 
partisan political points. That is what we have done.
  The Commerce-Justice-Science bill promotes a strong economy, promotes 
a safer country, and also promotes U.S. competitiveness in the world.
  The CJS bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. 
Did we spend more than the President asked for? You bet we did, and we 
are proud that our bill is $3.2 billion above the President's request 
because we put the money primarily into security. We spent the money in 
this bill on security, keeping 300 million Americans safe from 
terrorism and also fighting violent crime. We also promoted innovation 
and competitiveness by investing in scientific research and technology 
and the scientific education of our people. But we were also strong 
stewards of the taxpayers' money and have promoted accountability, 
fiscal accountability, and stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. We, 
working on a bipartisan basis, stood sentry against waste, fraud and 
abuse and we have put our language also in the checkbook.

  The subcommittee's first priority is to protect the American people--
to protect the American people from terrorism, a war without borders, a 
war without a front. We also want to protect them here at home against 
violent crime, against murder, mayhem, sexual predators stalking our 
children, violence against women, looking out for our children, and 
making sure there are enough cops on the beat.
  The Justice Department is almost 50 percent of the CJS bill. Funding 
for the Justice component totals over $25 billion. But remember what we 
do: We fund the Federal law enforcement agencies--the FBI, the DEA, the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as our 
Marshals Service. Our major law enforcement count on us. But who else 
also counts on us? State and local cops on the beat. We have put the 
money into the Federal checkbook to say: As you go after the bad guys, 
we are absolutely on your side.
  Let us start with our primary responsibility as a Federal government, 
and that is funding the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is 
our premier domestic law enforcement agency. It has a dual mission. One 
is fighting violent crime in our communities, and in that it is well 
known, well established, and well respected. But after that terrible 
attack on the United States, we had to decide how we were going to have 
a domestic agency also focus on terrorism. We didn't create a new 
Federal agency to do that because we didn't want a new bureaucracy. We 
wanted a new and fresh effort against terrorism. So we gave it to the 
FBI. If you read all the British spy novels and so on, the FBI is akin 
to the MI5 in England.
  This bill provides $6.6 billion for the FBI. That is $6.6 billion for 
the FBI, which is $150 million more than the President's budget. This 
includes almost $4 billion for their counterterrorism effort. To make 
sure we are fighting terrorism effectively, our bill also puts 230 new 
counterterrorism agents out there and gives them new tools to protect 
Americans at home.
  At the same time, we want to make sure we are fighting violent crime. 
We have been very concerned about some of the budget games going on at 
Justice and OMB, where they keep moving agents around, out of their job 
of fighting crime to fight terrorism so those numbers look good; then 
they eliminate those vacancies, and there we are. We need our FBI doing 
both. Violent crime in America has increased 2 percent. Homicides are 
up 2 percent and robberies are up 7 percent. Nearly every region of the 
country has been affected, from very large cities to small communities.
  We have heard from our colleagues the FBI needs more agents and more 
help fighting violent crime in their communities. The CJS bill rejects 
the President's cut. We provide funding to retain 100 FBI agents that 
the President eliminated. Eliminating FBI agents when we are fighting 
crime and fighting terrorism? I don't think that is a good idea. I 
don't think that is a good idea at all. On a bipartisan basis, we 
rejected that foolhardy recommendation. So we will be there for the 
FBI.
  But they are not the only ones fighting terrorism and fighting crime 
in our streets. The other is the DEA. It is an international agency as 
well as an all-American agency. It is in over 60 countries. Yet, at the 
same time, has very strong border and local responsibilities. Fighting 
a $330 billion international drug trade, they need help. Drugs finance 
over two-thirds of the terrorist activities. It comes out of 
Afghanistan, from the poppy fields of Afghanistan, and they are seeing 
one of the biggest crops they have ever had. That money goes to funding 
the Taliban and funding terrorist activity.
  The DEA is, right now, in Afghanistan fighting narcoterrorism, 
working hand-in-hand with the Karzai Government, working hand-in-hand 
with our military to disrupt that poppy trade. But right now they are 
also in our streets and our neighborhoods working with our local police 
chiefs, working with our local sheriffs, working with our local FBI, 
fighting to keep the scourge of illegal drugs, ranging from heroin to 
meth, from destroying our neighborhoods.
  We were horrified during the committee hearing to learn that DEA has 
a hiring freeze. A hiring freeze on drug enforcement agents? Oh, my 
gosh. Foolhardy. Foolhardy. This is outrageous. So, again, working on a 
bipartisan basis, we added a modest $50 million to DEA to lift this 
hiring freeze so they can now hire up to 200 new agents to fight drugs 
at home, drugs in schools, and drugs overseas.
  We have also funded the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives, which does everything from investigating arson to stopping 
illegal firearms trafficking. They are also working hand-in-hand with 
our military to come up with ways to deal with these terrible 
improvised explosive devices.
  We also provide robust support for our Marshals Service, where we ask 
them to track down everyone from dangerous fugitives to sexual 
predators. They protect our Federal judges,

[[Page S12705]]

they provide security at terrorist trials, and they are doing a good 
job, so we need to support them.
  Where we have also made another significant effort, though, when it 
comes to State and local law enforcement in the CJS bill, is the most 
important source of Federal funding for that thin blue line of local 
law enforcement that is out there every day working tirelessly to keep 
our families, our schools, and our neighborhoods safe. Our cops on the 
beat are working harder than ever to fight this rising tide of violent 
crime. Our local and State police are often the first to identify 
suspected terrorist activities, but their budgets are under increased 
stress. So we were deeply troubled when the President came in with 
draconian cuts to the State and local police.

  What did the administration do? Well, first of all, in that famous 
Cops on the Beat Program that helped local law enforcement have more 
officers, they reduced the funding to a skimpy, Spartan $32 million for 
the whole country to put cops on the beat. One State alone could use 
that. At the same time, they eliminated the Byrne grants. The Byrne 
grants are those Federal funds named after Edward Byrne, a police 
officer from New York killed in the line of duty, and this program was 
to help local law enforcement have the tools, the technology they need 
to protect themselves so they can protect us. That was eliminated.
  We are spending a fortune on so many other things, such as the war in 
Iraq, and yet we eliminated the Byrne grants? Well, this committee 
stepped up to it and we have added $1.5 billion for grants for the 
State and local police. These funds will fight crime, gangs, meth, 
violence in the schools, and we think it is terrific. Our bill will 
provide $660 million for the Byrne grant formula. It will pay for the 
improved technology they need, improved training and police and 
prosecutors.
  We also added $550 million to the community policing efforts, which 
is a competitive grant program that enables them to bring more police 
into their department, paying their salaries and their overtime. We 
stand with the frontline. We stand with the thin blue line.
  We are also protecting ourselves against other threats. We do not 
want to have a declining economy or a declining ability to compete in 
the world. So our committee fostered innovation and competitiveness. So 
when we look at those things in our legislation, we added more money. 
We implemented the recently enacted bipartisan bill called the COMPETES 
Act. We added $1 billion to the science and commerce part of this bill, 
and $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation. We provided $860 
million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We 
provide close to $2 billion to the Patent and Trademark Office, to make 
sure they are fully functioning and dealing with the backlogs. We fund 
the ITA and our International Trade Representative.
  We also have two premier science agencies, one is NOAA, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We provide $4.2 billion for 
that, which is $400 million above the President's request; and $795 
million to implement the bipartisan recommendations of the Joint Ocean 
Commission. We also provided money to look into Federal climate change. 
This is not new for this committee. The NSF, NOAA, and NASA provide 85 
percent of all the Federal research looking at climate change. As we 
work on policy, as we try to find sensible solutions that are 
affordable to our country, they are going to turn to science, and in 
turning to science, we need to make sure we have funded them.
  Last, but not at all least, a very important agency--NASA. Today is 
the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. Fifty years ago, the Russians launched 
into space a 180-pound satellite that shook the cosmos. It shook the 
cosmos and it said that the Russians were the first in space. Well, we 
knew we couldn't let that lie. So President Eisenhower answered that 
call with robust efforts in science and particularly the National 
Science Foundation.
  A few years later, 3 years later, a dynamic President, named Jack 
Kennedy, put out a national goal that we were going to go to the Moon, 
we would be there first and return our astronauts safely. Well, 50 
years later, we honor that legacy by providing $17.5 billion for NASA, 
$150 million above the President's request, to keep our commitment to a 
balanced space program--the space shuttle, the space station, and the 
next-generation space vehicle.
  We make significant efforts in science and aeronautics, and I will 
talk more about that later when I will offer an amendment, along with 
my colleagues, Senators Shelby, Hutchison, Landrieu, and Nelson, on how 
to help NASA continue to meet its responsibility.
  In conclusion, let me say this committee has been strongly committed 
to reform, strongly committed to accountability and oversight and 
fiscal stewardship. Through our oversight, we uncovered cost overruns 
on the NOAA satellite programs, with $4 billion over budget; the NSF's 
research equipment program, $25 million over budget; and dramatic 
backlogs at the Patent Office and backlogs at the EEOC. We said we were 
not going to allow that.
  We also found that some of our funds were going into things such as 
lavish conferences, lobster rolls, and limousines. Well, you are going 
to have an amendment later on that is going to take that right out. 
When we give money to these agencies to do the kind of training we want 
them to do, it is not to sit around sipping chardonnay and eating 
lobster rolls and so on. So if you will pardon the expression, we told 
them ``to take a cab.'' Our bill continues to do that.

  I hope the President doesn't veto our bill. We will talk about that 
more in conclusion. Again, this bill is a bipartisan bill. I presented 
it to the Senate and now I compliment my ranking member, Senator 
Shelby, and his staff.
  Our staffs have worked together. I wish the taxpayers could see it; 
they would be proud of us. They would be proud of our working 
relationship, and that is why we produced a bill that works for 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will not replicate what Senator Mikulski 
went through. She has done a very thorough explanation of the bill. 
This is a very complex bill. It funds Commerce-Justice-Science--NASA, 
for example--and related agencies. I will touch on some things.
  I chaired this committee before and Senator Mikulski was the ranking 
Democrat on the committee. Now she chairs it and I am the ranking 
member. She probably has related on many occasions that we go back to 
our House days. We were on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the 
House of Representatives, working together then on a lot of these same 
issues but perhaps manifested in different ways.
  This bill funds a number of our Nation's most important programs and 
initiatives, and I am pleased to outline some of the highlights. I 
thank Senator Mikulski, the chair of the committee. She works well with 
us, our staffs work together, and we tried to bring forth a bill that 
reflects our strong bipartisan relationship.
  This bill was crafted with a tight allocation of $54 billion. Within 
these limitations, the subcommittee was forced to strike a difficult 
balance between the competing priorities of law enforcement, terrorism 
prevention, research, space exploration, and U.S. competitiveness 
through investing in science.
  For the Department of Justice, the committee's recommendation is 
$24.3, $2 billion over the request. The President's budget request cut 
over $1.6 billion from State and local law enforcement at a time when 
violent crime is on the rise. Chairwoman Mikulski and I worked together 
to ensure that law enforcement receives the funding and support it 
needs to begin to address the increased crime problem and help protect 
our citizens and our communities all over this country.
  The bill also provides the Department of Commerce with $7.35 
billion--$754 million over the budget request. The Commerce Department 
oversees some of our Nation's most important business development, 
economic analysis, and science and research agencies, including the 
Economic Development Administration, the National Institutes of Science 
and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA. Our bill provides $4.2 billion for NOAA, an 
increase

[[Page S12706]]

of $405 million over the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The committee 
believes it is critical to the overall health of NOAA to restore 
funding to programs that suffered over the past year under static 
funding levels.
  Also, existing competitive grant programs were given increased 
funding and new competitive grant programs were created in an effort to 
reduce earmarks. The subcommittee's bill also provides $7.5 billion for 
NASA, an increase of $150 million over the request. This funding will 
allow NASA to move forward with crew explanation and crew launch 
vehicles while also funding the ongoing activities of the space 
shuttle, the International Space Station, and other important research 
activities.
  This bill funds the National Science Foundation at $124 million above 
the request. Nearly all the additional funds go toward investments into 
the scientific education of our students, from kindergarten to 
doctorates. Combined with the funding for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, the funding provides more than the request 
for the American Competitiveness Initiative, ACI, and lays the 
groundwork to address the concerns laid out in the National Academy of 
Sciences ``Gathering Storm'' report.
  This investment helps keep the competitive edge our Nation holds in 
the world economy. By focusing on the ingenuity of our people, we will 
remain at the forefront of scientific and technical advancement for 
generations to come. In a year when discretionary dollars are scarce, 
Chairwoman Mikulski and I have worked together to find ways to ensure 
that the priorities of our Nation and our States are met. I urge all my 
colleagues to join with us in supporting this bill and expediting its 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 83-14, 
the Senate approved S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 
of 2007. The President signed the legislation on September 14, 2007. 
This ethics reform legislation will significantly improve the 
transparency and accountability of the legislative process.
  Pursuant to new rule XLIV, it is required that the chair of the 
committee of jurisdiction certify that certain information related to 
congressionally directed spending be identified and that the required 
information be available on a publicly accessible congressional website 
in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending 
bill. In addition, Members who request such items are required to 
certify in writing that neither they nor their immediate family have a 
pecuniary interest in the items they requested and the committee is 
required to make those certification letters available on the Internet.
  The information provided includes identification of the 
congressionally directed spending and the name of the Senator who 
requested such spending. This information is contained in the committee 
report numbered 110-124, dated June 29, 2007, and has been available on 
the Internet for 3 months. The Member letters concerning pecuniary 
interest are also available on the Internet.
  I am submitting for the Record the certification by the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  I want to say this bill complies with the Honest Leadership and Open 
Government Act of 2007, and Senator Byrd certifies that, under Senate 
rules, all this information is available on the congressional Web site.
  I ask unanimous consent the certification by the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Senator Byrd: I certify that the information required by 
     Senate Rule XLIV, related to congressionally directed 
     spending, has been identified in the Committee report 
     numbered 110-124, filed on June 29, 2007, and that the 
     required information has been available on a publicly 
     accessible congressional website in a searchable format at 
     least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this committee now says to our 
colleagues, if they have any amendments, this is an excellent time to 
bring them down and offer them. We know we have some amendments we are 
working now to clear, but if someone wants to talk about our bill, this 
is a very good time to come and speak on it. If they have amendments 
they wish to offer that might require a vote, this is a good time to 
offer them.
  It will be the intention of Senator Shelby and myself to try to 
finish this bill today, so this whole idea of let's hang around until 8 
o'clock at night and then come around like little vampires to offer 
amendments is not a good idea. Frankly, as we move along and as some of 
the major amendments will be addressed, if there are no amendments, we 
will move the bill. It is not a threat. It is for people who know the 
holidays are coming. We are ready.
  Colleagues, if you have amendments you think can improve this bill, 
come down and discuss them.
  Mr. President, while we are waiting for the onslaught of Members 
coming to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3215

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3215.

  The amendment follows:

(Purpose: To require reporting regarding the costs of conferences held 
                     by the Department of Justice)

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 217. (a) The Attorney General shall submit quarterly 
     reports to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice 
     regarding the costs and contracting procedures relating to 
     each conference held by the Department of Justice during 
     fiscal year 2008 for which the cost to the Government was 
     more than $20,000.
       (b) Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     include, for each conference described in that subsection 
     held during the applicable quarter--
       (1) a description of the subject of and number of 
     participants attending that conference;
       (2) a detailed statement of the costs to the Government 
     relating to that conference, including--
       (A) the cost of any food or beverages;
       (B) the cost of any audio-visual services; and
       (C) a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 
     costs relate to that conference; and
       (3) a description of the contracting procedures relating to 
     that conference, including--
       (A) whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis 
     for that conference; and
       (B) a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the 
     Department of Justice in evaluating potential contractors for 
     that conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. 
Remember earlier in my remarks I talked about our accountability and 
our stewardship? I will be offering two amendments that will deal with 
those. This is the first of them. It makes sure the Department of 
Justice is not misusing taxpayer dollars on lavish expenditures and 
conferences. Conferences are meant for training.
  Our amendment simply requires that Justice do two things: Notify the 
inspector general of any conferences exceeding $20,000 and demonstrate 
what steps are being taken to implement the inspector general's 
recommendations that actually uncovered some of these expenditures at 
lavish conferences.
  To elaborate, the Justice IG issued a report and said the 10 most 
expensive conferences had totaled over $6.9 million. Most conferences 
are well organized and the money is spent frugally--which I know is a 
big issue with the Presiding Officer. What we found was that some of 
those funds were spent on ``networking.'' They had lobster skewers. At 
one conference, each meatball cost $4. That is a lot of money for a 
meatball. Literally, we believed because we were working so hard to 
make sure that law enforcement had the tools they needed, we wanted to 
make sure the taxpayers got a good deal and that we got law enforcement 
for our money and not $4 meatballs.
  I don't know if my colleague wishes to speak on the amendment.

[[Page S12707]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. I tend to agree with Senator Mikulski. We are trying to 
check with a couple of people to clear this amendment. I hope we can 
move it soon. We are checking with somebody right now. I think it makes 
sense.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move the pending amendment be laid aside subject to 
the clearance of one of our colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3216

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3216.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require certain evaluations by the Secretary of Commerce 
  and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget before the 
 satellite acquisition program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                      Administration may proceed)

       After section 113, insert the following:

     SEC. 114. LIMITATIONS ON SATELLITE ACQUISITIONS BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

       (a) Certification.--
       (1) Requirement for certification.--Prior to the date that 
     the certification described in paragraph (2) is made, the 
     Secretary may not--
       (A) obligate funds provided by this Act or by previous 
     appropriations Acts to acquire satellites; or
       (B) receive approval of--
       (i) a major milestone; or
       (ii) a key decision point.
       (2) Content of certification.--The certification described 
     in this paragraph is a certification made by the Secretary 
     and the Director that--
       (A) the technology utilized in the satellites has been 
     demonstrated in a relevant environment;
       (B) the program has demonstrated a high likelihood of 
     accomplishing the its intended goals; and
       (C) the acquisition of satellites for use in the program 
     represents a good value--
       (i) in consideration of the per unit cost and the total 
     acquisition cost of the program and in the context of the 
     total resources available for the fiscal year in which the 
     certification is made and the future out-year budget 
     projections for the Department of Commerce; and
       (ii) in consideration of the ability of the Secretary to 
     accomplish the goals of the program using alternative 
     systems.
       (3) Submission to congress.--Not later than the 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     and the Director shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees--
       (A) the certification described in paragraph (2); or
       (B) a report on the reasons that such certification cannot 
     be made.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Science and Technology of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (3) Key decision point.--The term ``key decision point'' 
     means the initiation of procurement for a major system or 
     subsystem of a program.
       (4) Major milestone approval.--The term ``major milestone 
     approval'' means a decision to enter into development of a 
     system for a program.
       (5) Program.--The term ``program'' means the programs of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for which 
     satellites will be acquired.
       (6) Satellite.--The term ``satellite'' means the satellites 
     proposed to be acquired for the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, other than the National Polar-
     orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       (c) Independent Cost Estimates.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary may not approve the 
     development or acquisition of a program unless an independent 
     estimate of the full life-cycle cost of the program has been 
     considered by the Secretary.
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 
     governing the content and submission of the estimate required 
     by paragraph (1). The regulations shall require that each 
     such estimate--
       (A) be prepared by an office or other entity that is not 
     under the supervision of the Under Secretary of Oceans and 
     Atmosphere; and
       (B) include all costs of development, procurement, 
     construction, operations, maintenance, and management of the 
     program.
       (d) Requirement for Analysis if Unit Costs Exceed 15 
     Percent.--
       (1) Requirement.--If the percentage increase in the 
     acquisition cost of a program in which the acquisition unit 
     cost or procurement unit cost exceeds 15 percent more than 
     the baseline cost of the program, the Secretary shall 
     initiate an analysis of the program. Such analysis of 
     alternatives shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) The projected cost to complete the program if current 
     requirements are not modified.
       (B) The projected cost to complete the program based on 
     potential modifications to the requirements.
       (C) The projected cost to complete the program based on 
     design modifications, enhancements to the producibility of 
     the program, and other efficiencies.
       (D) The projected cost and capabilities of the program that 
     could be delivered within the originally authorized budget 
     for the program, including any increase or decrease in 
     capability.
       (E) The projected costs for an alternative system or 
     capability.
       (2) Submission to congress.--The analysis of alternatives 
     required under paragraph (1) with respect to a program shall 
     be--
       (A) completed not later than 6 months after the date of 
     that the Secretary determines that the cost of the program 
     exceeds 15 percent more than the baseline cost of the 
     program; and
       (B) submitted to the appropriate congressional committees 
     not later than 30 days after the date the analysis is 
     completed.
       (3) Clarification of cost escalation.--For the purposes of 
     determining whether cost of the Geostationary Operational 
     Environmental Satellite Program exceeds 15 percent more than 
     the baseline cost under paragraph (1), the baseline cost of 
     the such Program is $6,960,000,000.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It stops the cost overruns on NOAA's weather 
satellites before they get out of control.
  The NOAA satellite program is an absolutely crucial program to the 
United States of America. It gives us major weather satellites, known 
as NPOESS, polar orbiting, and one called GOES that gives us the 
geostationary information. They are crucial to our ability to forecast 
weather, measure climate change, and actually pinpoint where disasters 
could be threatening a community. It saves lives and saves livelihoods. 
Thanks to these satellites, we can often get early warnings when a 
disaster is coming, from a tornado to a hurricane.
  What has happened is the satellites have grown far beyond their 
original estimates. We are concerned that the ideas are good, but they 
are not being properly managed.
  Let me tell you about these overruns. Two years ago, NOAA's polar 
orbiting satellite grew by 25 percent. That is $4 billion, $4 billion.
  Now, because the Defense Department is a partner in the satellite 
program, the Nunn-McCurdy process was triggered. There was a stand-down 
and the processes were reassessed. Nunn-McCurdy acts like a circuit 
breaker, forcing management reforms and program changes to control 
costs.
  But with the next generation of geostationary satellites we are 
beginning to see early signs of trouble. We have been alerted that the 
costs may grow substantially. One of our satellite programs has Nunn-
McCurdy, but the one that is called GOES does not. Therefore, I am 
offering a commonsense amendment modeled after Nunn-McCurdy that all 
NOAA satellite programs follow essentially this kind of oversight.
  The amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to certify the 
satellite program; requires the Secretary to look at alternatives if 
the cost exceeds 15 percent of the original estimate; makes sure they 
notify Congress and keep us informed sooner rather than later; requires 
the Secretary of Commerce to utilize independent cost estimates.
  This will act as a circuit breaker to make sure that as these 
satellites go forward, they are coming up with not only good ideas to 
protect the Nation but good fiscal stewardship to protect the taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will bring 
strong management, better and stronger management and fiscal discipline 
to the satellite program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I think this is a very good amendment that 
Senator Mikulski has proposed. We are checking with some of our 
colleagues

[[Page S12708]]

and hope they will not object. They are on their way to the Senate 
floor now, I understand.
  I believe the amendment has merit. But I did tell them that I would 
check with them. If we can, let's set this aside temporarily until they 
get to the Senate floor and we see where we are.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with setting aside the 
amendment.
  I also want to say something. I believe I am the bastion of 
collegiality. I believe conversation avoids confrontation. That is why 
we have such a great bill. We have a fantastic bill we have arrived at 
together.
  Senator Shelby and I go back a long way, from the House of 
Representatives where we served, and we have been appropriators during 
our entire time in the Senate. But in clearing things, we are talking 
about clearing it with one Senator. That Senator must exercise a lot of 
fiscal responsibility. I am ready to move my bill along. I would like 
him or his representative to promptly come to the floor.
  If we have this new kind of arrangement where we have to clear it 
with this Senator rather than clearing it with the ranking member and 
our leadership, then I would like that Senator to come to the floor. I 
will be collegial. I will be patient up to a point.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
return to consideration of amendment No. 3216.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3216.
  The amendment (No. 3216) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week the Senate voted on an amendment 
to the Defense authorization bill that designated a portion of the 
Iranian Armed Forces as a terrorist organization. I joined 21 of my 
illustrious colleagues in voting against that amendment. It was a 
dangerous, unnecessary provocation that is escalating the 
confrontational rhetoric between the United States and Iran.
  In response to the passage of that amendment, the Iranian Parliament 
on Saturday designated the U.S. Armed Forces and the Central 
Intelligence Agency as terrorist organizations. Would someone please 
explain to me what has been achieved by this exchange of international 
verbal spitballs? It is deeply troubling to see the Senate joining the 
chest pounding and saber rattling of the Bush administration. I am no 
apologist for the Iranian regime, anymore than I was for Saddam 
Hussein, but I fear we may become entangled in another bloody quagmire.
  We have been down this path before. We have seen all too clearly 
where it leads. Four and a half years ago, Secretary of State Colin 
Powell made a speech before the United Nations Security Council 
claiming to have evidence that proved Saddam Hussein had weapons of 
mass destruction and was an imminent threat to U.S. and international 
security. Others in the administration made the rounds of Washington 
news programs to pound the drums of war, scaring the public with 
visions of mushroom clouds and mobile chemical weapons labs. The 
proponents of war compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler, warning 
ominously of the dangers of Chamberlain-like appeasement. That is a 
seductive analogy, but it is a dangerously specious one.
  Every foreign adversary is not the devil incarnate. We know now that 
Saddam Hussein was militarily a paper tiger. The intelligence that 
suggested he was an imminent threat was flat wrong. Saddam Hussein had 
no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had not attacked our 
country. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, but he was not an 
imminent threat to U.S. national security. Now we hear the same scare 
tactics and several analogies trotted out again, this time with Iran. 
Analogies can be dangerous. They risk oversimplifying complicated 
situations and can lead to erroneous conclusions. While there may be 
some superficial similarities between Hitler and Ahmadi-Nejad, it does 
not mean our only option is to start world war III.
  We are now more than 4 years into a war that was launched by false 
fears and scary hyperbole, and here we are again being led down a path 
by chest-pounding rhetoric, without a clear idea where that path is 
taking us.
  As the philosopher George Santayana once said:

       Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat 
     it.

  Are we condemned to repeat the colossal blunder that is the Iraq war 
or has the Senate learned the lessons of history?
  Every day it seems the confrontational rhetoric between the United 
States and Iran escalates. We hear shadowy claims about Iran's 
destabilizing actions in Iraq, with little direct evidence offered to 
back it up. The President telegraphs his desire to designate a large 
segment of the Iranian Army as a terrorist organization--and instead of 
counseling prudence, the Senate rushes ahead to do it for him. I hope 
we can stop this war of words before it becomes a war of bombs.
  We have seen the results when the Senate gives this administration 
the benefit of the doubt: a war that has now directly cost the American 
people $600 billion, more than 3,800 American deaths, and more than 
27,000 American casualties; a war that has stretched our military to 
the breaking point; a war that the commander of our forces in Iraq, 
just 3 weeks ago, could not say had made America safer.
  I daresay many--perhaps most--in this Chamber wish we had never gone 
into Iraq. Are we willing to sleep-walk into yet another disastrous 
military confrontation with a Middle East tyrant?
  We need to talk directly to the Government of Iran without 
preconditions or artificial restrictions and indicate that regime 
change is not our goal. Unfortunately, the President seems unwilling to 
take that step. We have held only two talks at a relatively low level, 
and those have focused solely on Iraq.
  Direct talks with North Korea about the issue we were most concerned 
with--North Korea's nuclear program--resulted in the first progress 
toward a denuclearized Korean peninsula in years. And yet with Iran we 
continue to refuse to discuss the issue we are most concerned about: 
insisting that they must first renounce their nuclear program. That is 
not negotiation; that is dictating ultimatums.
  I agree that no option should be taken off the table when considering 
how to deal with any threat posed by Iran. But if the President 
concludes, after serious diplomacy has failed, that an attack is 
necessary, he must make the case to the Congress and the American 
people. Under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the 
Congress--the elected representatives of the people--have the power to 
declare war, not the President.
  The President has stated his belief that previously enacted 
congressional authorizations to use force give him all the authority he 
requires to start a new war. I respectfully disagree. It is incumbent 
upon us--it is incumbent upon us--to reassert the powers granted to the 
people's branch in the Constitution. That is the best way to prevent 
another colossal blunder in the Middle East. It is the people of this 
country who pay the price of such Presidential misadventures. We, as 
their representatives in the Congress, must not fail in our No. 1 duty: 
to protect their interests.

[[Page S12709]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 3214

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 3214. 
This amendment would establish a commission to investigate the 
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation 
of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 to February 
1948.
  The story of the internment of U.S. citizens is a story that has been 
made well known after a fact-finding study by a commission authorized 
by Congress in 1980. However, far less known is the story of Latin 
Americans of Japanese descent.
  Toward the end of its investigation, the 1980 commission discovered 
this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government soon after December 7, 
1941. However, because information surfaced so late in its study, the 
commission was unable to fully review the facts but found them 
significant enough to include in the appendix of its published report 
to the Congress.
  It appears that soon after December 7, 1941, the Government of the 
United States called upon certain governments in Latin America and 
requested that certain Japanese be sent to the United States to be used 
for prisoner exchange programs. Approximately 2,300 civilian men, 
women, and children--who had committed no crime--were taken from their 
homes in Latin America. They were stripped of their passports, brought 
to the United States, and interned on American soil. Some were taken 
from this camp and used for civilian exchange with Axis countries. You 
can imagine the anxiety and the fear in the hearts and minds of these 
men, women, and children not knowing where they were headed for and for 
what purpose.

  Despite their personal tragedies, these Japanese Latin Americans were 
not included in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 because this program 
appears to have been executed outside of Executive Order 9066, and the 
internees were not citizens of the United States.
  Under this amendment, nine commission members--three appointed by the 
President, three appointed by the Speaker of the House, and three 
appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate--would have a year 
to report their findings to Congress.
  This amendment does not authorize any payment for restitution and 
would not affect direct spending or revenues. It was reported out of 
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Authorizing Committee 
and was approved by the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee to attach to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill.
  Today I seek your support for this amendment, which would establish a 
fact-finding commission to extend the study of the 1980 commission. I 
believe examining the extraordinary program of interning citizens from 
Latin America in the United States would give finality to, and complete 
the account of, Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of 
Japanese ancestry.
  As a footnote, when the war was over, and these internees were 
released from their camps, they were persons without a country. They 
were soon arrested for not having a permit or passport to be in the 
United States. So they were scheduled for deportation to their supposed 
home, and these Latin American countries said: Oh, no, we are not 
responsible. We are not taking them. So there they were not knowing 
where to go. This is the subject of my amendment.
  I think the United States would like to have this clarified. It is a 
blight on our record. I am certain my colleagues will go along with 
this.
  I thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Hear hear.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3214

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 3214, the Latin American internees bill, and I ask that 
it be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending business is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3214.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 3214

(Purpose: To establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of 
a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and circumstances 
    surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis 
  countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the United 
 States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) This section may be cited as the ``Commission 
     on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
     Japanese Descent Act''.
       (b) The purpose of this section is to establish a fact-
     finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission on 
     Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate 
     and determine facts and circumstances surrounding the 
     relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries of 
     Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
     through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
     United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any, 
     based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and 
     new discoveries.
       (c)(1) There is established the Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     descent (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
       (2) The Commission shall be composed of 9 members, who 
     shall be appointed not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, of whom--
       (A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, on the joint recommendation of the 
     majority leader of the House of Representatives and the 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
       (C) 3 members shall be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate, on the joint recommendation of the 
     majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (3) Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its 
     powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment was made.
       (4)(A) The President shall call the first meeting of the 
     Commission not later than the later of--
       (i) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) 30 days after the date of enactment of legislation 
     making appropriations to carry out this section.
       (B) Except as provided in subparagraph (A), the Commission 
     shall meet at the call of the Chairperson.
       (5) Five members of the Commission shall constitute a 
     quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold hearings.
       (6) The Commission shall elect a Chairperson and Vice 
     Chairperson from among its members. The Chairperson and Vice 
     Chairperson shall serve for the life of the Commission.
       (d)(1) The Commission shall--
       (A) extend the study of the Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Civilians, established by the 
     Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians 
     Act--
       (i) to investigate and determine facts and circumstances 
     surrounding the United States' relocation, internment, and 
     deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     descent from December 1941 through February 1948, and the 
     impact of those actions by the United States; and
       (ii) in investigating those facts and circumstances, to 
     review directives of the United States armed forces and the 
     Department of State requiring the relocation, detention in 
     internment camps, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin 
     Americans of Japanese descent; and
       (B) recommend appropriate remedies, if any, based on 
     preliminary findings by the original Commission and new 
     discoveries.
       (2) Not later than 1 year after the date of the first 
     meeting of the Commission pursuant to subsection (c)(4)(A), 
     the Commission shall submit a written report to Congress, 
     which shall contain findings resulting from the investigation 
     conducted under paragraph (1)(A) and recommendations 
     described in paragraph (1)(B).
       (e)(1) The Commission or, at its direction, any 
     subcommittee or member of the Commission, may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section--

[[Page S12710]]

       (A) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries, 
     sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, 
     receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the 
     Commission or such subcommittee or member considers 
     advisable; and
       (B) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or 
     member considers advisable.
       (2)(A) Subpoenas issued under paragraph (1) shall bear the 
     signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and shall be 
     served by any person or class of persons designated by the 
     Chairperson for that purpose.
       (B) In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena 
     issued under paragraph (1), the United States district court 
     for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person 
     resides, is served, or may be found may issue an order 
     requiring such person to appear at any designated place to 
     testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as a contempt of that court.
       (3) Section 1821 of title 28, United States Code, shall 
     apply to witnesses requested or subpoenaed to appear at any 
     hearing of the Commission. The per diem and mileage 
     allowances for witnesses shall be paid from funds available 
     to pay the expenses of the Commission.
       (4) The Commission may secure directly from any Federal 
     department or agency such information as the Commission 
     considers necessary to perform its duties. Upon request of 
     the Chairperson of the Commission, the head of such 
     department or agency shall furnish such information to the 
     Commission.
       (5) The Commission may use the United States mails in the 
     same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (f)(1) Each member of the Commission who is not an officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government shall be compensated at 
     a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of 
     basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each 
     day (including travel time) during which such member is 
     engaged in the performance of the duties of the Commission. 
     All members of the Commission who are officers or employees 
     of the United States shall serve without compensation in 
     addition to that received for their services as officers or 
     employees of the United States.
       (2) The members of the Commission shall be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
     authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
     their homes or regular places of business in the performance 
     of services for the Commission.
       (3)(A) The Chairperson of the Commission may, without 
     regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and 
     terminate the employment of such personnel as may be 
     necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
       (B) The Chairperson of the Commission may fix the 
     compensation of the personnel without regard to chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 
     Code, relating to classification of positions and General 
     Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the 
     personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (4) Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the 
     Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be 
     without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (5) The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary 
     and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (6) The Commission may--
       (A) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services to procure necessary financial and administrative 
     services;
       (B) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and 
     property; and
       (C) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the 
     conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, 
     and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties.
       (g) The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date 
     on which the Commission submits its report to Congress under 
     subsection (d)(2).
       (h)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this section.
       (2) Any sums appropriated under the authorization contained 
     in this subsection shall remain available, without fiscal 
     year limitation, until expended.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside for future consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are trying to clear amendments that 
have been cleared by Senator Shelby and myself. Others are looking at 
them, so we are proceeding. While those amendments are being cleared, 
one of the issues I wanted to bring to our colleagues' attention is how 
we are making America more competitive with this bill.
  Earlier in my presentation in which I gave an overview of the bill, I 
emphasized what we were doing in law enforcement, which I am so proud 
of, and of course the Presiding Officer himself as a former attorney 
general knows how important the Federal and local law enforcement 
agencies are. But this bill is called Commerce-Justice-Science.
  We focused, in our subcommittee--myself and my ranking member, 
Senator Shelby--on three issues this year: security, competitiveness, 
and accountability--the stewardship of the taxpayers' dollar. We 
focused on competitiveness because it is our subcommittee that funds 
the major science agencies that come up with the new ideas that help 
come up with the new jobs, the research that enables the private sector 
to take value and add to it to come up with the new products and very 
high-end technology. That provides jobs right in our own country and 
enables us to be competitive.
  We based a lot of our work on legislation called the America COMPETES 
Act. I know the Presiding Officer was part of that. This year, it was a 
bill that was passed by the House and the Senate to ensure our Nation's 
competitive position in the world through improvements to math and 
science, both a commitment to research and math and science education. 
It follows through on a commitment to ensure U.S. students, teachers, 
businesses, and workers are prepared to continue to lead the world in 
research and then taking that research to the private sector so it can 
come up with those products.
  In our bill, we don't do anything that picks winners and losers. We 
are not industrial policy people. What we are, though, is American 
policy people, to do this.
  This America COMPETES Act was based a lot on recommendations that 
came from the National Academy of Science report called ``Rising Above 
the Gathering Storm.'' That report was done at the request of three 
leaders: Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Alexander. 
Then I, after it was published, became part of the group to implement 
it.
  Well, this is a great day for our colleague from New Mexico. I know 
last night our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, announced 
that he is going to retire from the Senate. He is in his home State of 
New Mexico today sharing his plans for his own future with his 
constituents. But while he is talking about his own future with his 
constituents, I want to acknowledge that he worked very hard on a 
bipartisan basis to ensure the future of the Nation. He and Senator 
Bingaman and Senator Alexander, again, working together, showed that we 
can do better so that we can compete in the world and that we compete 
in the world not only to win Nobel prizes--and we will continue to do 
so--but we will also win the markets, for which we must to have a 
stronger economy.
  So ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which was promoted by those 
three excellent and wonderful colleagues, led to, with the help of 
people such as Senator Lieberman and others, the America COMPETES Act. 
It keeps research programs at the National Science Foundation, the 
National Institute of Standards, and DOE on a path for doubling the 
money for research in these key areas.
  But, in addition to research, we wanted to make sure we have the 
scientists, the engineers, and the technology experts to do so. We are 
falling behind in the number of people who choose science as a career 
or people with a science education to go into our classrooms. The 
America COMPETES

[[Page S12711]]

Act puts an emphasis on that into action. They wanted to prepare 
thousands of new teachers and provide current teachers with teaching 
skills in the area of NSF's Noyce teacher scholarship program. They 
also wanted to enhance undergraduate education for the future science 
and engineering workforce. They also wanted to authorize new 
competitive grants at the Department of Education to increase the 
number of teachers, so grant programs also help do that.
  So we passed the America COMPETES Act. But, as my colleagues know--
what is authorizing legislation? It sets the policy, sets the 
direction, and puts national goals into the Federal lawbooks, which is 
a great first step. But now, the legislation we bring before the 
Senate, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, the Mikulski-Shelby 
bipartisan bill, following on the tradition that sparked us, we are 
actually putting money in the Federal checkbook to do that.
  One of the areas, of course, where we do that is we increase funding 
for research. We are going to talk later on today about NASA, on the 
anniversary of sputnik, where that little round ball weighing 180 
pounds shook up the cosmos and even the galaxies. But little known is 
something called the National Science Foundation. This was an agency 
which was created during the Eisenhower administration and has now 
withstood the test of time. President Eisenhower responded, a warrior--
and we all saw the great miniseries of Ken Burns on the war. We are so 
proud of Senator Inouye, who was featured in it. But Eisenhower, the 
man who led us in Europe, knew that when sputnik went up, we were in a 
race for America's future and we could either respond militarily or we 
could respond in a way that would have many uses.
  Eisenhower created two things: One, the National Science Foundation, 
and two, something called the National Defense Act.
  The National Defense Act was to get our young people involved in 
science and in technology so that they could come up with those new 
ideas to make sure that we not only beat the Russians in space but that 
we beat the Russians in everything--an idea with currency today, I 
might add. And then, the National Science Foundation. His brother was 
president of Johns Hopkins University, Milton Eisenhower. Later, what 
did the National Science Foundation do? We could have put a lot of 
money into the military so we could shoot those satellites down, but we 
said we were going to develop our own and be better at it. We became 
the premier country in satellites. Satellites defend the Nation. 
Satellites also give us information on weather. Satellites give us 
information and early warnings on things such as solar flares that can 
take out our power grid. Satellites were one of the greatest inventions 
ever created. America led the way.

  Eisenhower created this, where we would fund--we, the Federal 
Government, working in a unique partnership with universities, not 
Government doing the research but the Government putting money out in 
almost intellectual venture capital to come up with new research in 
physics, chemistry, biology, and the basic sciences; and then to give 
stipends so young, smart people, such as the people who wanted to do 
the ``October surprise,'' could come out of the hollows of West 
Virginia and the streets of Baltimore, our communities, to go on to do 
this.
  What did we fund? We funded programs that then we're able to do. In 
our legislation, we have now increased our research to $6.5 billion. In 
this, we have focused on education, K through 12. We have also funded 
other important programs in research, our science programs. We help 
with minority education.
  By the way, this is one of the most important agencies that helps 
historically black colleges, to make sure they have the financial 
resources they need. An example would be the increased funding for the 
Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation. We provide $75 
million for math and science partnerships in education. We estimate 
that our program will have an impact upon over 140 math and science 
teachers. We also have a talent expansion program to begin to recruit 
them. We are bringing teachers into internships. Over at Morgan 
University and down at the Eastern Shore, we have something called the 
Chesapeake Consortium, where our young people are getting paid 
internships to work on rocket ships that go off--small rockets that go 
off from down on Wallops Island.
  If you came with me to the Eastern Shore, to Somerset County, where 
primarily the lifestyle is that of watermen and agriculture--these 
people work hard and have dirt under their fingernails and big dreams. 
One of the largest employers is our prison. This is an area the 
Senators from Virginia share, where the facility is called Wallops 
Island. Our young people at the Chesapeake Consortium are working at 
Wallops to develop these small rockets and also work with UAV research. 
If you went down there with me to that county that has one of the 
highest poverty rates, in terms of cash income, in my State, and you 
saw these young men and women with the Chesapeake Consortium shirts on, 
where they had worked at historically black colleges with our talented 
science team instead of flipping hamburgers, they had a paid 
internship, they are flipping ideas. Each and every one of them is a 
graduate and they have jobs in major technology agencies in our 
country. This is what we are doing.
  I want my colleagues to know we are increasing funding in research. 
We are investing in education. We are investing in and implementing the 
America COMPETES Act, and we are making sure we are truly rising above 
the gathering storm.
  I hope Senator Domenici will be here today. I will personally pay my 
respects to him for being the leader he is. When he returns, he will 
find we passed this bill. It is a tribute to what bipartisanship means, 
finding that sensible Senator, and we are going to build a stronger 
country because of this. I wished to bring this to our colleagues' 
attention as we clear these amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3231

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3231 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending 
amendment will be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself and Ms. 
     Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 3231.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To improve the working conditions for the United States 
                           Marshal's Service)

       On page 28 line 3 strike ``.'' And insert ``: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 shall only be used to address the 
     health safety and security issues identified in the United 
     States Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General 
     Report I-2007-008.''

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski and I have cleared this 
amendment on both sides. This will provide $10 million for upgrades to 
the DC Superior Court Moultrie Courthouse for the U.S. Marshal space. 
It is badly needed and long overdue.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur. I thank the Senator from 
Alabama for bringing this to our attention. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate on 
the amendment, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3231.
  The amendment (No. 3231) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3220

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside, and I call up amendment No. 3220 on behalf of Senator Menendez 
of New Jersey.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Menendez, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3220.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S12712]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide additional funding for juvenile mentoring 
                               programs)

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 217.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title--
       (1) the amount appropriated under the heading ``justice 
     information sharing technology'' under the heading ``General 
     Administration'' under this title is reduced by $5,000,000;
       (2) the amount appropriated under the heading ``juvenile 
     justice programs'' under the heading ``Office of Justice 
     Programs'' under this title is increased by $5,000,000; and
       (3) of the amount appropriated under the heading ``juvenile 
     justice programs'' under the heading ``Office of Justice 
     Programs'' under this title, $10,000,000 is for juvenile 
     mentoring programs.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment provides additional 
funding of $5 million for juvenile mentoring programs. The Senator from 
New Jersey has an appropriate offset. We have no objection to the 
amendment. It has been cleared on both sides. Therefore, I ask for the 
adoption of the amendment. As I said, it has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate, the 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3220.
  The amendment (No. 3220) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3227

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I continue to ask that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3227.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Dorgan, 
     for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Reed, Mr. Levin, 
     and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 3227.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide adequate funding for the Drug Courts program)

       On page 52, line 5, strike ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,415,000,000''.
       On page 53, strike lines 18 and 19 and insert the 
     following:
       (5) $40,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by section 
     1001(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act: Provided, That of the 
     unobligated balances available to the Department of Justice 
     (except for amounts made available for Drug Courts, as 
     authorized by section 1001(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 
     Act), $15,000,000 are rescinded;

  Ms. MIKULSKI. The amendment provides additional funding for a drug 
court program. The amendment has appropriate offsets. I ask for the 
adoption of the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. SHELBY. The amendment has been cleared. I concur with the 
chairwoman.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate, the 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3227.
  The amendment (No. 3227) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, while we continue to clear our 
amendments, I say to our colleagues who might have amendments, bring 
them down. I note that we have hotlined our request.
  While we continue to clear amendments, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Law of the Sea Treaty

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Mikulski, for allowing me to speak for 2 or 3 
minutes.
  Last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing 
on the Law of the Sea Treaty, and we will hold another hearing. The 
committee may be holding another hearing today. As chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans were in the 
majority, I held several hearings in March of 2004. We also had 
hearings before another committee on which I serve, which is the Senate 
Armed Services Committee.
  Proponents of the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty will tell 
you that the treaty will be a great asset to the military by allowing 
our Navy the freedom of movement to and from any point on and under the 
ocean, unencumbered by the need to send requests to foreign governments 
for permission to enter territorial waters or to pass through straits. 
While this treaty does maintain that this is true, it is subject to 
several caveats that really do concern me.
  Under the terms of our treaty, our naval warships must pass by the 
coast and not engage in any type of exercise, ground all aircraft, and 
negate the use of any defensive devices. The issue of passage not only 
applies to ships but also to aircraft, both commercial and military.
  This is interesting because when we had our hearing, one of the Under 
Secretaries, I believe his name was Turner, appeared before the 
committee. He was promoting the ratification of this treaty.
  I said: As I read this, it is not just 70 percent of the Earth's 
surface, water, but also the air above it. He said that could very well 
be. He could not respond or deny that fact.
  Another issue of concern is the effect the Law of the Sea Treaty will 
have on the President's Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI, with 
which we are all familiar. It was designed to combat the transfer of 
weapons of mass destruction. Advocates of the treaty assure us that the 
treaty in no way damages the effectiveness of PSI because countries 
that want to participate in these open ocean inspections to assure 
nuclear weapons are not being traded illegally voluntarily sign on to 
the President's PSI agreement.
  However, under the treaty, boarding a vessel is allowed under four 
circumstances: One, if there is suspicion of piracy; second, engaging 
in slave trade; third, unauthorized broadcasting--I am not sure what 
that is, Mr. President--and fourth, whether it is unwilling to show its 
nationality.
  Taken literally, as most countries will, a U.S. warship would not be 
allowed to stop a vessel with a shipment of nuclear energy materials if 
it is flying a State flag on purportedly legitimate business.
  The Law of the Sea Treaty creates--and this is, I think, the worst 
part of it--this international seabed authority. There is a mentality 
around Washington that unless you have some great big international 
body, we shouldn't have any sovereignty, and that is exactly what this 
treaty does. It has an international seabed authority which actually 
would have jurisdiction over 70 percent of the area of this globe.
  They also have taxing authority. I think a lot of us--and I have to 
admit I have been critical of the United Nations, and they are the ones 
behind this issue. If they are able to have this taxing authority, then 
those of us--and most of the Members of this Senate have done this at 
one time or another--when it gets to the point where they are not doing 
a good job with something or the U.N. has something with which we 
disagree, we send a resolution that says: If you don't stop doing this, 
then we are going to withhold some of our dues. The way they overcome 
that is with global taxation so that the U.N. would not have to be 
accountable to anyone.
  With all these problems, this is a treaty on which we should be able 
to have hearings. I would like to have a hearing, as I did in 2004, and 
have some of the same people testify because nothing has happened since 
then. I am talking about in both the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and in the Senate Armed Services Committee because this is a 
national security issue. I am putting that request in, and, hopefully, 
we will be able to do it.

[[Page S12713]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Inouye amendment be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3233

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I wish to send 
to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr. 
     Shelby, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 3233.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Office on Violence 
                             Against Women)

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 217.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title--
       (1) the amount appropriated in this title under the heading 
     ``General Administration'' is reduced by $10,000,000;
       (2) the amount appropriated in this title under the heading 
     ``violence against women prevention and prosecution 
     programs'' under the heading ``Office on Violence Against 
     Women'' is increased by $10,000,000; and
       (3) of the amount appropriated in this title under the 
     heading ``violence against women prevention and prosecution 
     programs'' under the heading ``Office on Violence Against 
     Women''--
       (A) $60,000,000 is for grants to encourage arrest policies, 
     as authorized by part U of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh et seq.);
       (B) $4,000,000 is for engaging men and youth in prevention 
     programs, as authorized by section 41305 of the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043d-4); and
       (C) $1,000,000 is for the National Resource Center on 
     Workplace Responses to assist victims of domestic violence, 
     as authorized by section 41501 of the Violence Against Women 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043f).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward 
amendment. What it does is add $10 million to the Office of Violence 
Against Women.
  October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and we wanted to be 
sure that, in our legislation, one of the things we were going to be 
clear about was that there would be enough resources for our local 
communities to really deal with the growing issue of domestic violence.
  It might come as a surprise that many local law enforcement people 
are injured in the line of duty when responding to domestic violence. 
You might say: Well, aren't they hurt when they are responding to 
robberies and burglaries? The answer is yes. But when a police officer 
responds to a domestic violence call and he walks into a home--or she--
the police officer usually does not have a weapon drawn because they 
want to de-escalate the situation. This is often happening behind 
closed doors where someone is being battered, and the perpetrator could 
very likely feel threatened and, in turn, use the officer's weapon or 
another lethal object on the police officer. So the police officers are 
in danger, the spouse or the child being battered is also in danger, 
and we want to make sure the funding is not also in jeopardy.
  I strongly support the Office of Violence Against Women that was 
established by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. My amendment 
simply increases the money, for a total of $400 million. It has an 
appropriate offset, and it will provide more funding for the training 
of police officers and prosecutors. It would also continue the funding 
for battered women shelters and at the same time have a very strong 
effort in reducing rape, and also prosecution of rape.
  The amendment is noncontroversial. We have several cosponsors, 
including my colleague, Senator Shelby, and also Mrs. Murray of 
Washington State. So I hope my colleagues would accept this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Mikulski for offering 
this amendment. I am a cosponsor of it, and many of us believe what she 
is doing is the right road to go down. I believe we should adopt this 
amendment as soon as possible.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for supporting 
this, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate on 
the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3233) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his support.
  It will not be our intention to adjourn for lunch. We are going to 
keep on working and keep on hearing our amendments, and then somewhere 
around 2 p.m. we will be offering an amendment to deal with NASA 
funding, which we think will take a considerable amount of time. With 
our colleagues' cooperation in bringing their amendments to the floor 
and the NASA amendment, we really do believe, with those who are 
working to clear these amendments, we can finish up late this 
afternoon. So we are not going to take a break for lunch; we are going 
to keep on working. To any colleagues who wish to speak on our bill or 
bring amendments to us, this is the time. With their cooperation, we 
can cooperate with all those who would like to be able to call it a day 
today and get back to their districts for the recess period.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I admire our two floor managers and their 
diligence and perseverance in moving the legislation forward. I have a 
few small items I think are of some importance, but I don't want to 
interrupt the process or the consideration of the amendments. So I will 
proceed, but if the managers find there is an amendment that needs 
addressing, I will be glad to withhold. I don't intend to take very 
long, but I would like to be able to make these comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in response to the shocking news 
reported on the front page of the New York Times that the Department of 
Justice gave legal advice authorizing the use of extreme interrogation 
techniques not only in 2002 and 2003 but also at least two more times 
in 2005. This revelation shows that the Justice Department has fallen 
even lower than we had realized and that it is up to Congress to take a 
firm stand against torture because this Executive cannot be trusted to 
do so.
  We have been here before. Before this morning, we already knew about 
an earlier opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel that authorized the 
use of torture. When this ``torture memo'' came to light, the Bybee 
memorandum, it inspired worldwide outrage and condemnation. America 
lost its moral high ground in the fight against terrorism, possibly for 
years to come. This memo and others like it violated the values we hold 
dear, undermined our intelligence gathering, and encouraged our enemies 
to respond in kind. But the opinion was not only morally wrong, it was 
also legally wrong. After the public outrage over the opinions broke, 
the Office of Legal Counsel took the extraordinary step of withdrawing 
it, and as far as we know, this is the first time an OLC opinion had 
ever been overturned within a single administration.
  Today's New York Times story tells us that this disgraceful episode 
did not end when the torture memorandum was withdrawn. At the same time 
the Justice Department was publicly claiming it had put things right, 
the Office of Legal Counsel was secretly issuing two new opinions. The 
first opinion authorized harsh interrogation techniques together, in 
combination, to create a more extreme overall effect. In other words, 
interrogators

[[Page S12714]]

could withhold food at the same time they subjected detainees to 
freezing temperatures. The second opinion declared none of the CIA's 
interrogation methods violated the ban on cruel, inhuman, and degrading 
treatment that Congress was getting ready to pass. This was at a time 
when the CIA was using waterboarding and other foreign techniques 
copied from the Soviets and other brutal regimes.

  So how did the Justice Department go from secretly authorizing brutal 
interrogation techniques in 2002 and 2003 to withdrawing some of that 
authorization in 2004 to once again secretly reauthorizing such 
techniques in 2005? The answer, we now know, is that the White House 
overruled all those pesky officials who told them what they didn't want 
to hear--who told them that torture is wrong and illegal.
  James Comey told his colleagues at the Justice Department that they 
would all be ashamed when the world eventually learned of these 
opinions. He was sidelined by the White House. Jack Goldsmith met the 
same fate. These were conservative Republicans and loyal patriots who 
were simply trying to uphold the law.
  It is clear why President Bush wanted Alberto Gonzales to run the 
Justice Department--he wanted to install his personal lawyer, not a 
guardian of the rule of law. Mr. Gonzales approved these two memos and 
everything else the President needed for legal cover.
  It would be bad enough if this administration had disgraced itself 
and this country by engaging in cruel and degrading treatment of 
detainees. It is worse still that it enlisted the Justice Department in 
an attempt to justify and cover up its activities.
  Today's revelations give new urgency to the need for congressional 
action. I am the sponsor of a bill that responds to this need--the 
Torture Prevention and Effective Interrogation Act. The bill makes one 
basic reform: to apply the standards of the Army Field Manual to all 
U.S. Government interrogations, not just the Department of Defense 
interrogations.
  When Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, we 
recognized that the Army Field Manual represents our best effort to 
develop an effective interrogation policy. The Senate voted 90 to 9 to 
apply its standards to all Department of Defense personnel. By enacting 
the Detainee Treatment Act, Congress tried to ensure that our 
Government honors its commitment to the basic rights enshrined in the 
Geneva Conventions, which protect both the values we cherish as a free 
society and the lives of our service men and women overseas.
  We now know, however, that the 2005 Act falls short of our goals. We 
left open a loophole that undermines the basic safeguards against 
torture and cruel and degrading treatment. We applied the reform to the 
Department of Defense, but not to the CIA. And as today's New York 
Times story shows, it is the CIA that we need to be most worried about.
  Last year, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress left it to the 
President to define by Executive Order the interrogation practices that 
would bind all government interrogators, including the CIA.
  The President's Executive order took maximum advantage of this 
loophole. It is vague and fails to prohibit many of the most flagrant 
interrogation practices. Combined with these new OLC opinions that have 
just come to light, this Executive order makes clear that the President 
believes these interrogation practices to be perfectly acceptable.
  The Torture Prevention and Effective Interrogation Act closes the 
loophole left open by the Detainee Treatment Act. It follows the 
warning of General Petraeus that brutal interrogation methods are both 
illegal and immoral, and that ``history shows that they also are 
frequently neither useful nor necessary.''
  This bill is an opportunity to restate our commitment to the security 
and ideals of our country. It is an opportunity to repair some of the 
damage done to our international reputation by the Abu Ghraib scandal 
and the abuses at Guantanamo. It is an opportunity to restore our 
nation's role as a beacon for human rights, fair treatment, and the 
rule of law. And it is an opportunity to protect our brave servicemen 
and women from similar tactics.
  It is a simple measure that is long overdue.
  Once again, this morning, Americans and people all over the world are 
revolted by what they have learned about this administration's refusal 
to reject cruel and degrading treatment. It will be up to the next 
Attorney General to restore the Justice Department to integrity. It is 
up to Congress to restore the rest of the government to the principles 
of law and justice that make this country great.
  Mr. President, I will make a brief comment on an item that I think 
needs addressing.


                               Chip Veto

  Yesterday the President vetoed the CHIP program. I mentioned at that 
time that it was the most intolerable, inexplicable, and 
incomprehensible veto I have seen in the Senate. I think today the 
American people are beginning to understand why.
  This is President Bush's quote, when he was Governor of Texas. This 
is from President Bush's Web site when he was Governor.

       Governor Bush and the Texas legislature worked together to 
     implement the CHIP program for more than 423,000 children. . 
     . .

  Taking credit for the CHIP program in Texas when he was Governor. 
This is what he went on to say in 2004.

       America's children must also have a healthy start in life. 
     In a new term we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll 
     millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up 
     for the Government's health insurance program. We will not 
     allow a lack of attention or information to stand between 
     these children and the health care they need.

  We read that the President only yesterday had vetoed this program 
because, as he pointed out, he believed it was a government health 
insurance program, and his allies have called it socialized medicine. I 
was here in the Senate when we passed Medicare, and that was called 
socialized medicine. Those who called it socialized medicine were 
successful the first time, and then 9 months later we were successful 
in passing that program. It was in 1964, and it was passed in 1965. The 
intervening event was a Presidential election.
  They said Medicaid was socialized medicine. They said the 
prescription drug program was a socialized program, and it was passed. 
They said the veterans health programs are socialized medicine 
programs.
  We have found the President stated that Social Security, he believes, 
ought to be privatized--and that has been resisted by Democrats and 
Republicans--and that Medicare ought to be privatized. Let's make no 
mistake about it across this country: The President has now selected 
the CHIP program for the beginning of the privatization of these health 
programs and Americans ought to be very much aware--children today, 
seniors tomorrow, veterans the next day. Let's understand that.
  Americans want practical solutions to these issues. The practical 
solution was the CHIP program. Even the CBO says if you are interested 
in ensuring uninsured children, the CHIP program is the way to go. The 
administration's own agency has stated that. Americans want the 
practical, not the ideological, which the President resorted to 
yesterday.
  Finally, Americans want investment in America and American 
priorities. The No. 1 priority for Americans is American children, 
rather than the sands in Iraq--pouring billions and billions of dollars 
into the sands of Iraq. Americans want to invest in the children. That 
is what this debate is about. That is what this discussion is about, 
Republicans and Democrats coming together for practical resolution and 
decision on this issue of the CHIP program.
  When we recess briefly now and return to our States, hopefully the 
American people are going to speak to their representatives and say: On 
this issue, do what is right for the children. Put children first. Put 
American children first and vote to override the veto.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Before the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts

[[Page S12715]]

leaves the floor, I thank him for his leadership in so many areas but 
none more important than advocating for health care and for the 
children of this country. As he has said numerous times, we are 
spending $330 million a day in Iraq and we have come together in a 
bipartisan way to say children should be receiving $19 million for 
health care; $19 million for children's health care in the United 
States for working families versus $330 million for Iraq.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his voice. There is no one 
stronger or more passionate or more effective on this issue.
  Also, before speaking further about health care, I thank our leaders 
on this very important appropriations bill in front of us, our 
Commerce-Justice-Science bill which Senator Mikulski has led so 
effectively, along with her ranking member, Senator Shelby. When we 
talk about changing the direction of the priorities of this country, 
this particular appropriations bill does that. Under the leadership of 
the chairwoman, we are investing in community policing, we are beefing 
up the FBI, we are dealing with drug enforcement, we are doing those 
things to keep our communities safe every day. I am very proud to 
support her efforts in changing the direction of this country, to 
focus, among other things, on keeping Americans safe and investing in 
science and research and opportunities for jobs for the future.


                           Health Care Reform

  I particularly come to the floor today to speak about affordable, 
accessible health care--quality health care for Americans. Access to 
affordable health care is one of the most critical issues facing 
families of America, facing businesses of America. There is not a 
meeting I go to--whether it is with seniors, with families, with those 
advocating for children, with small businesses, big businesses--the No. 
1 issue folks want to talk about is the skyrocketing cost of health 
care, health insurance premiums going up, and the difficulty in getting 
health insurance. They want us to come together, our Federal 
Government, our Congress, our President, and find a solution to 
something that is a national crisis.
  Health care should not be a commodity. It should not be just an 
issue. It is a public issue, a public service, a public health issue. 
We are all paying the price for not having addressed this sooner.
  According to a recent study by ``Families USA,'' approximately 90 
million Americans have gone without health insurance for all or part of 
the last 2 years. These numbers are even higher than we had thought. 
Certainly in my home State of Michigan, where we are seeing the middle-
class families across Michigan being squeezed on all sides--folks who 
have worked in manufacturing and continue to work in manufacturing, the 
industries that created the middle class of this country--they find 
themselves being squeezed, being asked to take less pay in order to 
continue to have health care for themselves and their families; more 
and more people falling into the category of those losing their jobs, 
therefore losing their health insurance. What is most amazing and 
important for us to understand, of the 90 million people who have not 
been able to get health insurance for all or part of the last 2 years, 
70 percent of them are working full time.
  This is a crisis and it is not acceptable in the greatest country in 
the world. To add insult to injury, we in America pay twice as much of 
our GDP for health care as any other industrialized country. We are 
paying twice as much, and 90 million people in the last 2 years were 
without health insurance for part or all of that time. This has to 
change. It is long past needing to change. This has to change soon.
  That is why I am so pleased to be joining a bipartisan group of 
Senators in making a commitment to universal health coverage. I am very 
proud to be cosponsoring the Healthy Americans Act, which has been 
championed by Ron Wyden, my friend and colleague from Oregon, and his 
partner, Senator Bennett from Utah. It is important that we tackle this 
issue in a bipartisan way so both parties, so all of us, are invested 
in making the changes we need to make the health care system work for 
everybody, for all Americans--for our businesses, for our families, 
individuals, small towns, big cities. We have to get a handle on this. 
I am so appreciative of the focus and the leadership Senator Wyden is 
providing, in bringing all of us together to do that.
  There is a sense of urgency that is needed and we are coming together 
to provide that sense of urgency, to say we hear it from those around 
the country and we are rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. This 
legislation is a good place for us to start, for us to develop a real 
solution to the health care crisis. The bill's main goal is making sure 
each American gets health insurance that is equal at least to what 
every Member of Congress gets. I would think as employees of the 
American people, the employer should be asking for nothing less.
  It creates a strong insurance regulatory system that protects 
families against discrimination based on preexisting conditions. This 
is absolutely critical. If we are talking about a universal system that 
is privately administered, then you cannot have insurance companies 
cherry picking, covering only certain people, saying if you have some 
kind of a preexisting condition, you cannot get insurance. That is not 
going to work and this bill changes that.
  It is critical that there be accountability and oversight and the 
regulation that is needed to make sure everyone can afford to get the 
insurance they need for themselves and their families. This is the goal 
all of us as Members of the Senate should be behind. I do understand 
this is a work in progress. I come to this bill with important 
improvements that I believe need to be done in order for me to 
ultimately support a final bill. As the process moves forward, it is 
important that certain critical improvements be made, such as people 
who currently have good insurance plans and want to keep them should be 
able to do so. We should not do anything to undermine employer-
sponsored health insurance for those who choose to keep it.
  Second, and this is so important, we are seeing with so many people 
in Michigan now, and others in the auto industry, any voluntary 
employee benefit association, or so-called VEBA, that results from a 
collective bargaining agreement must get the same tax treatment they do 
under current law.
  Three, I believe there should be a choice of a public plan for health 
insurance, such as Medicare, to compete with private sector plans. When 
we are talking about a choice of private plans or keeping what you 
have, we should also add to that a public choice, so people have real 
competition and real choice. That is something I am advocating for.
  I mentioned earlier that we need to make sure whatever is done 
involves the best possible consumer protections; that whatever we are 
doing in terms of private sector insurance, they should need to take 
allcomers. They should not be able to pick and choose who gets 
insurance based on preexisting conditions. There are other important 
regulatory mechanisms that need to be in place.
  Finally, it is critical that there be a real safety net for low-
income families who are now on Medicaid or similar programs. I strongly 
believe we cannot keep the status quo when it comes to health care. We 
cannot do it anymore. We cannot do it. It is affecting every part of 
our economy.
  Rapidly growing health care costs are literally costing us jobs in 
America. When we look at good-paying manufacturing jobs in this 
country, I invite you to come to Michigan and talk to people who have 
worked hard all their lives, who have built a good life for their 
family, who are now, because of health care costs, losing their jobs.
  American businesses are at a serious disadvantage in competing with 
businesses around the world that do not have to pay the same costs for 
health care. Our workers are being asked to take pay cuts in order to 
keep their coverage. Too many Americans find themselves without basic 
health insurance in the greatest country in the world. Shame on us. It 
is time to get this right.
  It is past time for every American to have access to the health care 
they need and deserve. Let me say as part of that, we have shown what 
we can do as a Senate, in a bipartisan way, when we

[[Page S12716]]

come together and we have a focus on the goal of covering children and 
working families with health insurance.
  Despite the President's veto, which is, to me, unexplainable, given 
the overwhelming need and support of American families, and even from 
business and labor, and health care providers coming together on a 
bipartisan basis here, it is mind boggling to me that the President 
would veto that bill. We have shown what we can do together.
  I am so pleased to be working with my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, as well as with Senator Wyden, certainly Senator Bennett, 
but I want to particularly say I am proud to be coming to this process 
and this legislation at the same time as my good friend, Senator Chuck 
Grassley, who has shown such courage. He and Senator Hatch are heroes 
in terms of advocating for children's health care and showing the 
courage to stand up to their President. It is not an easy thing to do. 
But to stand up and tell the truth, to debunk what has been said as 
inaccurate, it is something that truly everyone in this Chamber and 
around the country respects and admires.
  Coming to this legislation with Senator Grassley is also something 
that is important to me. I believe in addition to making sure that 10 
million children have health insurance they need, it is time to then 
take the next step--universal health care for every person in America. 
I believe health care should be a right in the United States of 
America, not a privilege.
  It is time to get this done. I am hopeful this legislation will serve 
as a starting point for Democrats and Republicans to accomplish what 
the vast majority of Americans want: to be able to afford good health 
insurance for themselves and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that Senator Bennett 
and I are thrilled to be able to welcome Senator Stabenow to this 
bipartisan coalition, the first bipartisan coalition in 13 years that 
has been designed to try to finally fix American health care and ensure 
that all of our citizens have good quality affordable coverage.
  Four Senators joined us this week. I want to say just a little bit 
about each one of them. First, Senator Stabenow has put decades into 
this cause of improving health care. Again and again, she has spoken 
for seniors, for kids, for holding down costs, for prevention. We sit 
right next to each other in the Senate Finance Committee. And to have 
Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley who have pulled out all of the 
stops once again to try to bring together a bipartisan coalition for 
our children, when I think about having Senator Stabenow and Senator 
Grassley join those of us in this coalition and to have their support 
in the Senate Finance Committee, this is an enormously important day.
  As Senator Stabenow said, she represents constituents facing one of 
the great challenges in American health care; that is, how to make the 
transition for so many of our key workers and companies in basic 
industries. When you open a business today in the State of Michigan or 
Montana or Oregon or anywhere else, you spot your foreign competition 
about 18 percentage points the day you open your doors. Those 
businesses in our States see premiums go up 10, 12, 14 percent a year. 
And they are competing in global markets against people who have State-
funded health care.
  So as Senator Stabenow has said, and as we have seen just in the last 
couple of weeks with the new UAW agreement, there is going to be change 
in the air. The question is how we shape it. And to have people such as 
Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley, who have been leaders for years 
and years in this cause, it is of enormous benefit.
  Senator Bennett and I are very appreciative. We are also glad to have 
Senators Landrieu and Coleman join us. Senator Landrieu, of course, is 
wrestling with the great challenge of how to reform health care in the 
State of Louisiana. She has looked at a number of innovative reforms 
that we support.
  Senator Coleman, coming from Minnesota, which has been a huge tech 
center that has contributed to an area that Senator Stabenow has a 
great interest in, which is health information technology--Senator 
Coleman's involvement will be very helpful as well.
  It seems to me this Congress has the chance to deliver a bipartisan 
one-two punch for health care this year. Punch No. 1 is to try to make 
sure our kids are covered. Americans are watching the back and forth 
between the Congress and the President with respect to children's 
health care.
  Clearly, it is a moral abomination that so many of our youngsters in 
America do not have health care. The American people want action. They 
cannot understand the bickerfest going on in Washington, DC, over this 
issue.
  I am very hopeful that the White House will continue to work, pick up 
on the model set out by Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, working 
with Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller, and we will resolve this 
issue quickly.
  It is clear to me that covering kids is a moral issue, but it is also 
a financial issue. If these youngsters do not get good health care, 
America plays catch-up ball for years and years in the aftermath. 
Because they cannot get the preventative services they need, they pick 
up illnesses, and we are already seeing the great problems with 
childhood obesity and chronic illnesses setting in at a very early age.
  So punch No. 1 is covering the kids, and punch No. 2, as Senator 
Stabenow suggested, is moving on to the broader reform issue of making 
sure all Americans have quality, affordable coverage. What is promising 
about this period that we have not had in the past is that both 
Republicans and Democrats have been willing to search for common 
ground.
  In our conversations, Senator Bennett, Senator Grassley, and I, and 
others, have talked about the need to cover everybody. Certainly, back 
in 1993, that was something that was a bit of a show stopper. People 
said: You cannot afford it. Today, many Republicans share the view of 
Senator Stabenow and myself that the country cannot afford not to cover 
everybody because what happens today is people who are uninsured shift 
their bills to people who are insured, and not only do they shift the 
bills, they shift the most expensive bills: those hospital emergency 
room bills and expensive treatment bills for acute illnesses.
  So I very much credit Republicans such as Senators Bennett and 
Grassley and Gregg and all of those who have joined us from the other 
side of the aisle by being willing to search for common ground around 
the proposition of getting everybody covered.
  But Democrats have also been willing to look at new approaches to 
make sure we could address this issue in a bipartisan way. Senator 
Stabenow has said the Healthy Americans Act focuses on a private 
delivery system, a private delivery system which is, of course, what we 
enjoy. When we all go home, we go home to Montana or Michigan, and 
everyone says: We would like coverage like you people have back in the 
Congress.
  Well, we have private coverage. I have a Blue Cross card in my 
pocket. A couple of Wyden twins in a few weeks are going to get their 
health care through that Blue Cross card. Nancy is at home in Oregon, 
and we are going to have those kids in a few weeks. They are going to 
be covered with private health insurance.
  So we want to make sure everyone in this country has private choices 
like Members of Congress have. As Senator Stabenow has mentioned, 
Democrats who might have said, well, we ought to be looking at a 
Government program, are willing to reach out and work with Republicans 
to say: If we can cover everybody, if we can get everybody in America 
good, quality, affordable coverage, we are willing to make sure there 
are private choices, which is something our colleagues on the 
Republican side have talked about as well. We also have responsible 
ways to pay for this program that covers all Americans.
  As the Lewin Group has indicated--and the report is on our Web site 
so folks can see it--by redirecting the

[[Page S12717]]

money in the Tax Code, which now disproportionately favors the most 
affluent and rewards inefficiency, you get substantial funds in order 
to pay for the transition to a program that covers everybody.
  Why in the world would we want to continue to say, if you are a high-
flying CEO, you can go out and get a designer smile put on our face and 
write the cost of that off your taxes, while a woman of modest means at 
the neighborhood furniture store, with no employer coverage, gets 
virtually nothing out of the Tax Code. So Senator Stabenow and Senator 
Grassley and Senator Bennett and the other co-sponsors and I are going 
to work to redirect that Tax Code money to the people in the middle-
income brackets and the lower middle-income brackets so we make better 
use of that money, which now is well over $200 billion.
  We are also going to create, in our effort, significant 
administrative savings. We are going to get some, as Senators Stabenow 
and Whitehouse and others have talked about, through better use of 
health information technology. I support that. We are also going to get 
the savings, as the Lewin Group reported in looking at our legislation, 
by making sure that after you sign up once under the Healthy Americans 
Act, you are not going to have to go through a sign-up ever again if 
you wish.

  From that point on, everything will work through the world of 
electronic transfers. And all of those folks who are low income, on 
Medicaid, who have to dive through all of these different boxes in 
order to be eligible, they will get choices like Members of Congress 
have. And once they sign up, they are done. No more dehumanizing, 
wasteful kinds of programs where you have to sign up again and again 
and again. And you waste money and take dollars that ought to go, as 
Senator Stabenow has talked about, to make sure that every poor person 
does not fall between the cracks of the American health care system.
  Our coalition is going to be talking a fair amount about this effort 
on the floor of the Senate in the days ahead. We now have nine Senators 
as part of this effort. We are going to be talking about the ways this 
proposal modernizes the health system and how we make the changes from 
what we have today to what we will have in the future.
  One other area that I would like to just touch on briefly is that I 
think under the Healthy Americans Act we can respond to something that 
Americans are talking about all over this country; that is, making the 
health care system portable. Right now, so many folks are pretty much 
locked in their jobs and just hoping that their employer is not going 
to find health coverage unaffordable in the days ahead.
  I cannot tell you how many times people in their late fifties have 
come to me and said: Ron, I just hope my employer can hang on until I 
am 65 and I will be eligible for Medicare. We ought to make coverage 
portable so that if you change your job, in Michigan or Montana or 
anywhere else, your health care coverage goes with you.
  Andy Stern, the President of the Service Employees Union, points out 
that the typical worker today changes jobs about eight times by the 
time they are 35. Let's come up with a system that ensures coverage is 
portable, and that even if you fall on hard times, even if you lose 
your job, even if your company goes down, you are in a position to take 
good, quality, affordable coverage--with choices like we have in 
Congress--with you.
  I see a number of colleagues on the Senate floor. I think I would 
just like to wrap up by expressing my appreciation to Senator Stabenow 
for coming today. She has appropriately singled out Senator Grassley as 
well. I want to thank all of the members of our coalition. Health 
reform is a top issue. Everybody remembers what happened in 1993 and 
all of the ads and the shrill rhetoric.
  It seemed every time you turned around in 1993, the decibel level 
went up and up. Now what we are seeing, as Senator Stabenow touched on, 
is a group of Senators coming together on a bipartisan basis who want 
to roll up their sleeves, take out a sharp pencil, and go to work. This 
is going to be a lot of work. If Senator Stabenow and I got 100 Members 
of the Senate to be cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act today, it 
would still be a lot of work because we are going to have to look at a 
variety of issues and walk the country through all of these choices, 
through hearings and town meetings and forums, so we can pick up on all 
of the wisdom and suggestions that are out there across this land. But 
we are making a very important start. We have received a huge boost 
this week with the four additional Senators who have joined us.
  To my friend from Michigan, for all her knowledge and passion and 
years of effort, I want her to know how much I am looking forward to 
teaming up with her on this issue in the Finance Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3215

  Ms. MIKULSKI. We are making slow but steady progress. I, therefore, 
call up amendment No. 3215. It is a Mikulski- Shelby amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending.


                Amendment No. 3230 to Amendment No. 3215

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I also call up a second-degree amendment offered by 
Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, amendment No. 3230.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3230 to amendment No. 3215.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure Department of Justice conference spending does not 
   fund excessive junkets, lavish meals, or organizations linked to 
                               terrorism)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATIONS ON FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CONFERENCES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, not more 
     than $15,000,000 of all funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice under this Act, may be available for 
     any expenses related to conferences, including for conference 
     programs, travel costs, and related expenses. No funds 
     appropriated under this Act may be used to support a 
     conference sponsored by any organization named as an 
     unindicted co-conspirator by the Government in any criminal 
     prosecution.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask that the second-degree amendment be agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3230) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Parliamentary inquiry: Did we agree to amendment 3215, 
as amended by Coburn, or did we just agree to the Coburn second degree?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We agreed to the Coburn second 
degree.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I now ask that amendment 3215, as amended by the Coburn 
amendment, be agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3215, as 
amended.
  The amendment (No. 3215), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

[[Page S12718]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on the challenge posed by 
Iran to our national security and the interests of our friends and 
allies, how the United States should best address the challenge posed 
by Iran and its leader Ahmadi-Nejad.
  This has been much in the news lately. The Iranian President visited 
New York to the United Nations general assembly last week and delivered 
a controversial address at Columbia University. During the very same 
week, the Senate approved a resolution condemning Iranian activity that 
helped destabilize Iraq and called upon the administration to take 
actions to deter future Iranian meddling in Iraq and other places. It 
is no surprise that the debate over how to handle Iran occurs very much 
in the shadow of the Iraq war.
  Five years ago, Congress voted to give the President the 
authorization to go to war against Saddam Hussein based upon Iraq's 
alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. The shocking failure to 
uncover those so-called WMD programs and the fatally flawed manner in 
which the President took our Nation to war must weigh upon all of us 
now as we debate the right course of action against Iran.
  Let me be clear from the outset: Through its refusal to halt 
prohibited nuclear activities in the face of multiple United Nations 
resolutions, its support for extremist groups across the region, and 
its harsh crackdown in recent months on human rights and civil society 
leaders, the Government of Iran has demonstrated why it should be 
isolated from the international community. The United States must take 
the lead in a concerted campaign to coerce Iran into changing course, 
drawing upon all facets of American power, in close coordination with 
friends and allies. We must always remember that while the Iranian 
Government may be hostile to our interests and values, it does not 
speak for the Iranian people. While the Iranian clerical regime, in 
power since the 1979 resolution, has remained reliably anti-American, 
the Iranian people, led by a younger generation born after the 
traumatic events of the last 1970s, are remarkably open to American 
ideals. Two-thirds of the Iranian population is below the age of 30. 
These Iranians view the United States as a potential friend, not as an 
implacable enemy.
  Few Americans remember that a candlelight vigil was spontaneously 
organized in Tehran shortly following the 9/11 attacks, attended by 
thousands of ordinary Iranians to honor the memory of those who 
perished in those terrible attacks. I can think of no other Muslim 
nation where such a public expression of sympathy and solidarity 
emerged in the grief- stricken days following September 11. So in 
articulating our response to Iran's recent provocations, we must always 
distinguish between the oppressive clerical regime and the Iranian 
people.
  The mullahs in Tehran would love nothing more than a perception that 
the United States, and the broader West, by extension, is hostile 
toward Iran itself. It would spark an instant boost in popularity for 
the regime. Accordingly, any U.S. policy to diffuse Iran's nuclear 
program and halt its support for extremist groups elsewhere must be 
undertaken in a careful fashion, emphasizing that our quarrel lies with 
the clerical regime, not the people of Iran.
  Let me first address Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian regime has 
forfeited the goodwill of the international community by engaging in a 
secret program over the past two decades to develop the key components 
of a nuclear fuel cycle--uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. 
These activities can constitute the elements of a peaceful civilian 
nuclear program, but the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to which Iran 
is a signatory requires that nations fully disclose such activities in 
an open and transparent fashion. That Iran went to such lengths to 
conceal its activities and continues today to refuse to provide a full 
accounting of the history of this program leads a reasonable observer 
to suspect that the program was intended not just for a civilian 
nuclear program but also to enable the production of fissile material 
for nuclear weapons.

  This crisis came to a head in 2003, when reports from an Iranian 
exile group prompted the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, the 
U.N. nuclear watchdog, to open an investigation. Despite initial 
efforts by an alliance of European powers to persuade Iran to come 
clean with the IAEA, Tehran continued to work on its uranium enrichment 
program, spurning offers of economic and trade benefits.
  Last year the United Nations Security Council took action, passing an 
initial resolution calling upon Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment 
activities. Iran ignored that resolution. The Security Council passed 
two successive resolutions imposing a set of limited sanctions. Yet 
again, the Iranian regime chose to ignore a clear message from the 
international community. Today the United States is in talks with other 
U.N. Security Council members on a third and potentially more far-
ranging round of sanctions. To its credit, the Bush administration has 
made very clear to Iran that the United States is willing to join a 
comprehensive dialog with Iran and the so-called EU-3 nations--meaning 
the United Kingdom, France, and Germany--once Iran verifiably suspends 
its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has refused to do so, and so it 
is on pace to operate as many as 3,000 uranium centrifuges by the end 
of the year. Under a worst-case estimate, if Iran were to eject all 
international inspectors and operate these 3,000 centrifuges around the 
clock, it could produce sufficient fissile material for one nuclear 
warhead within a year.
  An armed Iran that has a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons would be 
emboldened to intimidate its neighbors, export Islamic extremism 
throughout the region, and deter the United States and others from 
defending their core interests. A regime with leaders who have openly 
called for the destruction of the State of Israel by ``wiping it'' off 
the face of the Earth cannot be allowed to possess the means to achieve 
that goal. Furthermore, we cannot abide the risk, however small, that a 
nuclear Iran may one day decide to share its nuclear technology and 
material with a client terrorist group such as Hamas or Hezbollah.
  Iran's nuclear program also poses a genuine danger to the future of 
the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, so-called NPT, an agreement that 
has helped prevent the nightmare vision of President Kennedy of a world 
with 20 nuclear powers from coming to fruition. The NPT is based upon a 
fundamental premise. A nonnuclear weapon state is entitled to a 
civilian nuclear program in exchange for committing to verification and 
inspections to ensure it does not produce nuclear weapons. Yet Iran 
threatens to demonstrate a backdoor option for future nuclear 
aspirants. Here is what it is: build a civilian program, with a 
complete nuclear fuel cycle, in open view to acquire the basic 
knowledge to produce nuclear fissile material.

  After achieving that goal, a nation can then withdraw from the NPT 
and, utilizing the knowledge gained from its civilian program, build 
nuclear weapons. This so-called virtual nuclear weapon threatens to 
undermine the NPT and lead to a world where multiple states are poised 
on the thin line between civilian nuclear power and weapons programs. 
For that reason, the international community must demonstrate a united 
front to compel Iran away from that path through diplomatic and 
economic pressure.
  The threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon is very real. However, 
we cannot afford to panic and blindly accept worst-case scenarios, as 
we did with Iraq to such tragic ends. Iran has made great strides in 
its nuclear program over the past 3 years, but it must do much more if 
it seeks a nuclear weapon. We do not know to what extent those Iranian 
centrifuges already produced are operationally active and whether they 
have been linked together in a required ``enriched cascade.'' We do not 
know whether the Iranian regime has begun work on warhead design so any 
highly enriched uranium that may eventually be produced can be 
fabricated into an actual nuclear weapon.
  It is those uncertainties, and the recognition that any ``crash 
program'' to build a nuclear weapon will encounter inevitable 
difficulties, that explain

[[Page S12719]]

why our intelligence community has judged that Iran is not likely--not 
likely--to acquire a nuclear weapon until the early to middle part of 
the next decade. This conclusion is spelled out in the most recent 
National Intelligence Estimate.
  Based upon what the International Atomic Energy Agency has been 
reporting with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, and what our own 
intelligence community is telling us, we have time--we have time--to 
resolve this very complex, serious challenge. That does not mean we 
have the luxury to relax or postpone difficult choices, but, rather, 
that we can exercise a methodical approach that gradually escalates the 
diplomatic and economic pressure against Iran in a unified manner.
  We must present a very clear choice to the Iranian regime--it is 
this--one that will be visible to the people of Iran: End all illicit 
nuclear activities, come back into compliance with IAEA safeguards, and 
provide full transparency. That is one choice. In return, the United 
States and our European partners will be prepared to return to the 
table and discuss potential economic and trade benefits. If Iran 
chooses the path of continued defiance--the path they have been on--we 
must show that the international community is prepared to deny Iran the 
benefits of the global economy, including trade in key energy products, 
facilitation of essential financial transactions, and investment in key 
economic sectors.
  Iran's nuclear program is not the only threat that emanates from 
Tehran today. Just as critical is Iran's ongoing support for extremist 
movements across the region, ranging from Hamas in the Gaza Strip and 
Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shiite militia forces in Iraq. Unfortunately, 
Iran's leadership today has made the strategic decision to support 
these forces, promoting chaos and instability across the Middle East.
  The Iranian Government has placed itself on the side of those who are 
undermining democratically elected governments, fomenting violence and 
anarchy, and contributing to attacks against U.S. forces. So long as 
the Iranian Government continues to bankroll and supply weapons to 
terrorist groups and insurgent militias, we cannot expect any semblance 
of constructive dialog between Tehran and Washington.
  The evidence surrounding Iranian involvement in Iraq is particularly 
disturbing. Iran has interests in Iraq. We know that. The Shiite 
majority that now has power for the first time in Iraq shares vast 
cultural, religious, and political links with the Iranian people. 
However, Iran and Iraq are two different nations, and the Shiite 
population in Iraq does not and should not serve as a proxy for the 
mullahs in Tehran. When the Iranian Government provides weapons and 
financing to sectarian militias battling other Iraqis as well as U.S. 
forces in Iraq, it is only exacerbating the violence that currently 
plagues Iraq.
  The administration in Washington, supported by our military 
leadership, has alleged that the Iranian Government has directly 
supplied insurgent groups in Iraq with mortars, rocket-propelled 
grenades, and, most dangerous of all, the explosive formed penetrators 
that have served as the most lethal of roadside bombs killing American 
troops.
  The evidence the administration has provided--serial numbers on the 
weapons linking them to Iranian sources and eyewitness testimony--is 
compelling. It remains unclear to what degree this assistance has 
proceeded with the direct knowledge of Iran's senior ruling leadership. 
Regardless, the Iranian Government must be held responsible for all 
activities--all activities--emanating from its territory or carried out 
by its agents. Iran must work with the United States and the 
international community in supporting a stable Iraq and deemphasizing 
sectarian conflict there.
  The question that we, as Senators, must answer is how best to 
persuade and, if necessary, compel Iran to change its behavior both in 
terms of its nuclear program and its support for extremist groups. What 
are the tools available to us to persuade Iran that its current course 
of action will only further isolate it from the international 
community? How can we promote fissures inside the Iranian regime 
between the hard-line elements associated with President Ahmadi-Nejad 
and more pragmatic figures?
  I believe the United States should implement a strategy of 
containment to deny the Iranian regime any benefits from its nuclear 
program and support for extremist forces, while laying out potential--
potential--incentives if and when the regime changes its behavior. Let 
me be clear: Military force is always an option, but it is not an 
option that makes sense under the current circumstances.
  Instead, the United States should pursue a three-pronged strategy 
against Iran's nuclear program and its support for extremist groups.
  First, the United States should continue its campaign to 
diplomatically isolate Iran at the United Nations Security Council. The 
Security Council has condemned Iran's evasion and deceit of the IAEA 
and called on Iran, in order to restore the world's confidence in the 
ostensibly peaceful aims of its nuclear program, to halt all work--to 
halt all work--on its uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing 
activities.
  While some may view that action as insignificant, it is important to 
remember that Iran never expected Russia or China--its two primary 
benefactors--to sign onto such resolutions. Yet the State Department 
has carefully brought along Moscow and Beijing at every step so that 
the international community is speaking in a united voice to Tehran. 
Today, the Iranian regime is viewed as a pariah state at the 
international level, with sanctions imposed by the Security Council and 
key officials linked to the nuclear program prohibited from 
international travel.

  Now it is time for the United States to further isolate Iran 
diplomatically. Washington can encourage other nations to avoid contact 
with Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad, who should be shunned first and foremost for his 
noxious anti-Semitic remarks. The United States should propose, as one 
element--as one element--of the next sanctions resolution, to impose a 
complete prohibition on arms exports to Iran. To the extent we can make 
a clear linkage between Iran's defiance on its nuclear program and its 
further diplomatic isolation, more and more Iranians, including 
influential officials in the Government and military, will question the 
wisdom of proceeding with its nuclear program.
  Second, the United States should take action in concert with other 
nations to apply substantial pressure on Iran's energy sector. Although 
Iran boasts the world's second largest oil reserves, its oil production 
has been falling in recent years, as its oilfields suffer from a lack 
of investment. More importantly, as Iran's population continues to grow 
by a half a million people every year, demand for oil and other energy 
resources is beginning to outstrip domestic supply. Iran will soon be 
forced to confront a choice between diverting petroleum exports to its 
domestic needs, thus surrendering much needed foreign currency, or 
facing increasing shortages at home.
  There are concrete steps the Congress can take. S. 970, the Iran 
Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, of which I am proud to serve as a 
cosponsor, would close existing loopholes in the Iran Sanctions Act 
that currently allows subsidiaries of multinational firms to escape 
U.S. sanctions when they invest in Iran's energy sector. I agree with 
Representative Tom Lantos, who has pushed forward similar legislation 
on the House side, when he says the ultimate U.S. goal should be zero--
zero--foreign investment in Iran's energy sector until it changes 
course on its nuclear program.
  Iran exhibits a particular vulnerability when it comes to gasoline. 
It is still suffering from the after effects of the Iran-Iraq war of 
the 1980s, when much of Iran's capacity to refine gasoline was 
destroyed. In recent years, U.S. sanctions have limited the ability of 
Iran to rebuild its refining capacity through foreign investment. 
Accordingly, Iran is forced to import as much as 40 percent--40 
percent--of its annual consumption of refined gasoline, despite its 
vast oil riches.
  This imbalance between supply and demand for refined gasoline is 
exacerbated by Iran's practice of subsidizing gasoline prices for its 
citizens, which only artificially boosts demand. Today, Iran ensures 
that refined gasoline is available to Iranian citizens at the 
subsidized price of 38 cents per gallon. It is

[[Page S12720]]

no wonder, then, that Iran, early this year, was forced to take the 
draconian step of rationing gasoline, limiting the owners of private 
vehicles to no more than 26 gallons of fuel per month. This decision 
produced a backlash in the country, with more than 50 petrostations in 
Iran burned to the ground by angry mobs and plummeting support for the 
Iranian President, who largely ascended to power in 2005 on the basis 
of his promise to improve Iran's economy.
  Iran's growing shortages of refined gasoline is a golden opportunity 
for the international community as it tightens the screws on Iran's 
leadership.
  The average Iranian will question why Iran's leadership continues to 
pursue an illicit nuclear program at the cost of gasoline shortages and 
economic unrest. For that reason, I am working on legislation to expand 
the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act to crack down on all foreign 
exports of refined gasoline products to Iran until the leadership there 
changes course on its nuclear program.
  I wish to now go to the third and final pillar of a comprehensive 
U.S. strategy to coerce Iran into ending its defiance of the 
international community.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. CASEY. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How much longer does the Senator intend to talk? We 
know the Senator from Wisconsin needs to talk, and we need to clear 
some of our amendments and get ready for a NASA amendment. Of course we 
want the Senator to finish his third pillar.
  Mr. CASEY. If I could have about 3\1/2\ to 4 more minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator could contain his remarks, it would be 
useful to us.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator.
  The third pillar, just like the first two, should be to take prudent 
steps in this strategy.
  The third and final pillar of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to coerce 
Iran into ending its defiance of the international community is to lay 
the groundwork for financial sanctions that make it increasingly 
difficult for Iranian companies and banks to do business with the 
global economy. The steps taken by the Treasury Department under the 
leadership of Secretary Paulson and his deputy, Stuart Levey, are a 
good first step. Utilizing existing U.S. law, such as the Patriot Act, 
the Treasury Department has convinced a series of major financial 
institutions in Western Europe and Asia to suspend business with 
Iranian financial institutions such as Bank Saderat and Bank Sepah by 
cutting off the access of these institutions to the U.S. financial 
system. The United States can pursue these measures outside the United 
Nations Security Council, as they involve U.S. laws and regulations. As 
a result, Iranian firms are increasingly forced to finance their 
transactions in Euros, not dollars, and find that conducting routine 
financial transactions to be more difficult and costly. Once again, we 
must demonstrate to the average Iranian that they are the ones who pay 
a price for the unwise decisions of the Iranian regime--which will only 
serve to heighten domestic unrest and dissatisfaction with the regime's 
current course.
  It is for this reason I am so pleased to cosponsor the Iran Sanctions 
Enabling Act, introduced by my colleagues Senators Obama and Brownback. 
 This legislation would call upon the Treasury Department to publicly 
identify all companies that invest in a minimum level of funds in the 
Iranian economy, giving pension funds and individual investors an 
informed choice on whether to continue to direct funds to those firms 
that do business with Iran. In addition, the legislation would grant 
unfettered legal authority to State and local governments to divest 
their investment holdings of any such firms that do business in Iran. 
If the State of Pennsylvania, for example, wishes to wash its hands 
clean of any firms that directly or indirectly support Iran's pursuit 
of a nuclear program, this legislation ensures that it can do so free 
from any lawsuits.

  I wish to conclude this statement by briefly discussing what we 
should not do. If we are to convince the Iranian regime that a nuclear 
weapons program and support for extremist groups are not in their best 
interests, then we should strive to remove any plausible excuse they 
have for engaging in such behavior. That means the United States should 
de-emphasize the threat of regime change. When people associated with 
the Vice President drop hints on their desire to overthrow the Iranian 
regime and the advantages of using military force, they only reinforce 
a strong nationalist streak within Iran and serve to rally the Iranian 
people around an otherwise unpopular government.
  The Iranian people rightly aspire for democratic change. To the 
extent that the U.S. Government can support such aspirations in an 
effective manner, we should do so through quiet assistance to forces 
promoting civil society and the rule of law inside Iran. People-to-
people exchanges can help bring young Iranians to the United States and 
demonstrate the benefits of a democratic culture and a government 
informed by the consent of the people. Credible public diplomacy, 
including the transmission of accurate and unbiased news into Iran, is 
another necessary pillar. But, as Iraq has so painfully taught us, 
imposing democracy at the spear of bayonet is not a realistic option, 
especially when our military is already so overstretched.
  So the United States should talk less about regime change and talk 
more about behavior change when it comes to Iran. We should make clear 
that Washington is prepared to engage an Iran that ends its illicit 
nuclear activities and ceases support for Hamas, Hezbollah, insurgent 
forces in Iraq, and other extremist groups across the region. Laying 
out a credible choice to the Iranian regime represents our best hope 
for defusing the crisis over Iran's nuclear program and persuading Iran 
to end its support for antidemocratic groups throughout the Middle 
East.
  The tentative success achieved in North Korea gives us a model for 
which to aspire. During the President's first term, his administration 
raised the desirability of regime change in Pyongyang at every 
opportunity. Since 2005, under the leadership of Assistant Secretary 
Chris Hill, the United States has substituted patient diplomacy for 
fiery rhetoric and we may finally achieve real success in containing 
and rolling back North Korea's nuclear program.
  Iran today represents one of the greatest national security 
challenges to the United States. It is incumbent that we respond to 
this threat with hardheaded diplomacy and an appropriate set of 
financial sanctions to squeeze the Iranian economy, putting aside for 
now ill-advised talk of hasty military action. Iran's leaders must be 
presented with a fundamental choice: end your defiance of the 
international community or face growing isolation.
  I think we have an opportunity to get this policy right, but this 
will require bipartisan work. It will require cooperation in this body 
and the other body, and it will require the administration to work with 
the Congress to get this policy right. We cannot afford to get our 
Iranian policy wrong and make the same mistakes we made--this country 
made--leading up to the war in Iraq. So for that reason and all of the 
reasons I outlined in my statement, it is imperative that we do this 
carefully and thoughtfully to get this policy right, to prevent Iran 
from obtaining nuclear capability which threatens the Middle East and 
threatens the United States and threatens the entire world.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask that the pending Inouye 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3213, As Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3213, as 
modified, by Senator Domenici of New Mexico and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3213, as modified.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S12721]]

                    amendment no. 3213, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS.

       (a) Increase Positions.--In each of the fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012, the Attorney General, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, may increase by not less than 
     50 the number of positions for full-time active duty Deputy 
     United States Marshals assigned to work on immigration-
     related matters, including transporting prisoners and working 
     in Federal courthouses.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 
     to carry out subsection (a).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides of the aisle, and as an act of respect for our colleague, I ask 
for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3213), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are continuing to clear our 
amendments, and at or about 2 o'clock, we will begin our debate on the 
NASA amendment, which we expect will take roughly about 2 hours. At the 
conclusion of that, we want Senators who have amendments to have either 
brought them over for consideration, to have either worked with us to 
clear the amendments, to be either offering the amendments or 
withdrawing the amendments, so that we can meet our goal to be done in 
the early evening. We believe we can meet that goal with cooperation. 
We are in the business of clearing amendments. We hope to have several 
cleared before we begin the NASA debate, which we expect to be 
extensive.
  I note the Senator from Wisconsin wants to speak at this time. I am 
going to need about 10 or 15 minutes to actually do the work of the 
bill. I understand both of my colleagues wish to speak. I am more than 
happy to cooperate, but at about 10 of 2, we have to move to cleared 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.


                      Democratic Republic of Congo

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is no secret that Africa has not been 
high on Congress's priority list historically. This is due to a number 
of reasons including that African issues have not generated the same 
kind of public passion and constituent attention as closer-to-home 
subjects like health care or education. But this is beginning to 
change. Interest in Africa is at its highest level in recent memory--
perhaps ever.
  I am concerned, however, that because the bulk of this attention is 
focused on humanitarian tragedies and grave violence we are depicting a 
continent caught in a downward spiral, which offers little motivation 
for long-term U.S. engagement. Funding relief efforts in response to 
crises--while an important element of U.S. policy--does not address 
fundamental issues such as the development of democratic institutions 
and civil society, good governance, security and justice sector reform, 
and regional security arrangements. We must provide more focus on these 
underlying concerns--and to do so requires consistent, long-term 
engagement, collaboration, and commitment from national governments, 
regional and international organizations and, of course, bilateral 
donors like the United States.
  Sporadic engagement that is devoid of a long- term strategy is like 
sticking a band aid on a gaping wound instead of taking a trip to the 
hospital. The abundant potential that exists in so many parts of 
Africa, and which the United States and others should be more actively 
promoting, is being stalled or even undermined by our quick-fix 
approach to problem-solving on the continent. Without identifying and 
developing the possibilities for more serious engagement, we may end up 
doing more harm than good.
  At the end of our August recess I traveled to the Democratic Republic 
of Congo and Uganda, two countries that have made impressive gains 
since I was last there 7 years ago. But today I want to talk about the 
Democratic Republic of Congo primarily, because the situation is 
gravely deteriorating and urgent steps much be taken to stop it from 
devolving further and threatening the region writ large.
  Last year's historic elections in the DRC injected hopeful momentum 
into the war-torn country, thanks in large part to generous funding 
from the U.S. and others and with critical support from a strong United 
Nations peacekeeping mission--the largest in fact in the world. During 
my visit, however, I was troubled to learn of the new government's 
failure to consolidate and build upon this historic progress. A lack of 
capacity, political will, and democratic experience is reversing early 
gains and increasingly destabilizing an already fragile political 
situation. The local population is growing disenchanted with the 
government's inability to follow through on its election promises as 
decisions on key issues--including those on decentralization and the 
illegal exploitation of natural resources--are slow-rolled.
  One of the first promises President Kabila made after his election 
was to restore order in the war-ravaged provinces of his country. But 
violence in eastern DRC has only gotten worse in recent months, not 
better. More than 120,000 people--many of whom voted in favor of 
Kabila--have been forced from their homes because of increased 
fighting, with little attention or assistance from the capital.
  There is no easy solution to the rapidly unfolding conflict in the 
restive east, but it is clear that the underlying drivers for this 
continued violence must be addressed at the same time that the more 
immediate emergency needs are dealt with.
  On my trip, I visited a camp for internally displaced in eastern DRC. 
One Congolese man, living in a camp nestled in the rolling hills 
outside Goma spoke for many others when he told me: We want to restart 
our normal agricultural work and resume our lives. We want it to be 
stable enough so we can do that.
  I met with a group of displaced Congolese women who had been sexually 
abused and in many cases raped. Extreme sexual violence and rape in the 
DRC is so pervasive because it is committed by all actors and with 
little consequence. Sadly, afraid I am afraid it is not getting any 
better. Just 2 days after I left, tens of thousands more civilians were 
forced to flee their homes because of renewed fighting between the 
Congolese army and dissident General Laurent Nkunda's rebel forces, 
whose ammunition, weapons, and fighters are likely supplied by Rwanda.
  In early September, U.N. peacekeepers secured an informal, and I 
might add, already violated truce between the government and a main 
rebel leader. The U.N. Security Council has appealed for more dialogue 
between the two warring parties but this appeal needs to be 
significantly amplified and backed by incentives for peace. Neighboring 
countries--and particularly Rwanda--need to be part of this 
conversation, to ensure the current situation does not worsen while 
also effectively addressing longstanding regional tensions.
  In contrast, on a recent trip to Uganda, the U.S. Assistant Secretary 
for African Affairs signaled that the U.S. would support regional 
efforts for a more militarized policy towards all rebel groups. In fact 
Assistant Secretary Frazer said: We feel we have the basis to assist in 
efforts to mop up the LRA and to get them out of Congo, out of Garamba 
Park. And so we will not sit still and just let them live in Garamba 
Park and cultivate land and kill animals. This is not the time to start 
talking about our support for a military solution to these conflicts.
  Instead, we should seek to build upon current diplomatic 
initiatives--both in the region as well as at New York last week at the 
opening of the U.N. General Assembly.
  We should work to expand existing forums such as the Tripartite Plus 
Commission to become genuine opportunities for political solutions. The 
United States, a proud champion of building strong and independent 
institutions that create the space for lively debate and discussion, 
should be advocating for enriched dialogue and diplomacy to address the 
entrenched problems that have allowed these conflicts to fester--or 
worsen. We should not be

[[Page S12722]]

encouraging military operations if there are other legitimate avenues 
open--or if they have not yet been explored. Military action should be 
the path of last resort, period.

  The Great Lakes region is at a critical moment in its history and we 
run the risk of contributing to events that could have far-reaching and 
long-term repercussions if we do not engage responsibly. With its vast 
resources, the DRC could be an anchor of stability in an area that has 
been plagued by violence and destructive activity for decades. The 
changing nature of global threats could render sub-Saharan Africa--and 
the Great Lakes region in particular--ripe for exploitation by any 
number of rogue actors. We can stop this before it begins if we work to 
ensure stability for the long term.
  Our National Security Strategy states:

       We will work with others for an African continent that 
     lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity.

  We must help strengthen Africa's fragile states and help build 
indigenous capability secure porous border.
  I know the United States has many priorities that compete for 
attention and resources, but if done right, and as part of a 
comprehensive long-term strategy, a little can go a long way towards 
achieving these lofty goals in Africa. The United States should 
increase engagement in and expand assistance to the eastern DRC.
  We should work in concert with other allies and press all regional 
governments--and in particular Rwanda--to adopt a renewed focus on a 
political solution for peace. It must be clear that the United States 
supports peaceful conflict resolution, and that we
are not a war-mongering country that prioritizes quick military fixes 
over more protracted, but also more likely to be sustainable, political 
dialogues.
  First, we must increase our support for the DRC's security sector 
reform initiatives by working with the Congolese government to 
downsize, discipline, and further transform its military. The national 
army must no longer be allowed to commit grave human rights abuses with 
abandon as this only contributes to the rampant impunity and public 
legitimacy deficit indicative of a weak state. Justice sector reform, 
within and outside the security sector, is essential in this regard.
  Second, while Ambassador Bill Swing is doing an incredible job in the 
DRC as the Secretary General's special representative, we must augment 
diplomatic attention to the east part of the country by calling for the 
appointment of a U.N. special envoy who will work in conjunction with 
the current special envoy for northern Uganda--former Mozambique 
President Chissano. Such an initiative will jump start a regional 
process for political engagement that can help to reverse the current 
deterioration and work towards resolving longstanding grievances 
between a number of actors in the region. Time and time again on my 
recent trip I was pleased to learn of the credibility and integrity 
President Chissano has injected into the northern Uganda peace process; 
we need to see the same thing for eastern Congo.
  Third, we need to significantly augment U.S. government efforts in 
the region. The U.S. government needs to be fully engaged to bring 
about stability in eastern Congo and to establish conditions for a 
sustainable peace throughout the region. The dearth of U.S. personnel 
in the DRC means we have little choice but to outsource our diplomacy 
to others, which should not become the norm. In the face of a steadily 
increasing conflict that could ignite tensions throughout the region, 
we should be looking to robustly increase our on-the-ground presence 
before it is too late.
  It is the grim truth that our mission in Kinshasa is not equipped to 
handle the looming instability in the east and that we are limited in 
our engagement because we have no diplomatic presence in the conflict-
affected areas.
  I do not wish to insinuate that this is due to lack of interest, 
concern, or dedication from the committed embassy team we have on the 
ground in Kinshasa. On the contrary, I got to know those individuals on 
my recent visit and was very impressed with both their capacity 
and resourcefulness with the limited means available to them. It is 
because of this administration's myopic focus elsewhere that we are not 
adequately able to respond in places like the Democratic Republic of 
Congo.

  As a first step, the Secretary of State should dispatch a ``booster'' 
team to help prepare the embassy to deal with the diplomatic, 
humanitarian, and security work needed in order to exercise our 
influence and to participate in a broader international effort to 
prevent eastern DRC from deteriorating into complete chaos. At the same 
time, we need to begin looking at serious infrastructure change that 
will enable our front line diplomats to have the resources and 
flexibility they need not just in Africa, but throughout the world.
  The United States has much to offer beyond public statements to 
ensure that violence in the DRC does not escalate further and that 
those who have been displaced can look forward to returning home sooner 
rather than later.
  We in Congress need to send a strong signal that we are not going to 
turn a blind eye to the deteriorating situation in the east--or to the 
administration's inadequate response. In eastern DRC, as in other parts 
of Africa, we must take steps today to promote political solutions that 
truly address the underlying causes of conflict, or else we will be 
grappling with these vicious crises for years to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Wisconsin 
on his comments and his compelling defense for the oppressed, and 
particularly his eloquent and poignant description of what is happening 
to women there in the Congo, which should motivate us more to action.
  I am happy to report we are getting momentum here and are clearing 
our amendments. We have some right now that I wish to clear. In a few 
minutes, we will be going to the NASA amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank everybody on both sides of the aisle, and 
especially Senator Shelby and his team for being great in helping us 
with this. Many Senators are being cooperative.


                           Amendment No. 3222

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3222 by Senator 
Landrieu and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3222.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide for hiring additional conciliators for the 
 regional offices of the Community Relations Service of the Department 
                  of Justice, and for other purposes)

       On page 35, line 12, insert ``: Provided further, That of 
     the amount appropriated under this heading, $2,000,000 shall 
     be used for salaries and expenses for hiring additional 
     conciliators for the regional offices of the Community 
     Relations Service of the Department of Justice: Provided 
     further, That not less than 3 of the conciliators hired under 
     the preceding proviso shall be employed in region 6'' before 
     the period.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask 
for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3222) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3210

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3210 by Senator 
Bingaman and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3210.

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

[[Page S12723]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To conduct a study regarding investments in intangible 
                                assets)

       On page 26, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 114. INTANGIBLE ASSETS INVESTMENT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce shall enter 
     into an agreement with the Council of the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a study, which shall--
       (1) recommend steps to improve the measurement of 
     intangible assets and their incorporation in the National 
     Income and Product Accounts;
       (2) identify and estimate the size of the Federal 
     Government's investment in intangible assets;
       (3) survey other countries' efforts to measure and promote 
     investments in intangible assets; and
       (4) recommend policies to accelerate private and public 
     investment in the types of intangible assets most likely to 
     contribute to economic growth.
       (b) Completion.--The National Academy of Sciences shall 
     complete the study described in subsection (a) not later than 
     18 months after the date on which the agreement described in 
     subsection (a) was signed.
       (c) Funding.--From the funds appropriated for economic and 
     statistical analysis under this title, the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall set aside sufficient amounts to complete the 
     study described in subsection (a).


                    Amendment No. 3210, As Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 26, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 114. INTANGIBLE ASSETS INVESTMENT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce shall enter 
     into an agreement with the Council of the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a study, which shall--
       (1) recommend steps to improve the measurement of 
     intangible assets and their incorporation in the National 
     Income and Product Accounts;
       (2) identify and estimate the size of the Federal 
     Government's investment in intangible assets;
       (3) survey other countries' efforts to measure and promote 
     investments in intangible assets; and
       (4) recommend policies to accelerate private and public 
     investment in the types of intangible assets most likely to 
     contribute to economic growth.
       (b) Completion.--The National Academy of Sciences shall 
     complete the study described in subsection (a) not later than 
     18 months after the date on which the agreement described in 
     subsection (a) was signed.
       (c) Funding.--From the funds appropriated for economic and 
     statistical analysis under this title, the Secretary of 
     Commerce may set aside sufficient amounts to complete the 
     study described in subsection (a).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been 
cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3210), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3219

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the last amendment I have cleared is 
amendment No. 3219 by Senator Murray. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3219.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure FBI work force is properly allocated to meet the 
               FBI's mission requirements and priorities)

       On page 37, line 14, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That not later than 60 days after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the FBI shall submit 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of each House a report 
     that evaluates the FBI's current work force allocation and 
     assesses the right-sizing and realignment of agents, analysts 
     and support personnel currently in field offices to better 
     meet the FBI's mission requirements and priorities.''.


                    Amendment No. 3219, As Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 37, line 14, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That not later than 60 days after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the FBI shall submit 
     to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of each House a report that evaluates the FBI's 
     current work force allocation and assesses the right-sizing 
     and realignment of agents, analysts and support personnel 
     currently in field offices to better meet the FBI's mission 
     requirements and priorities.''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been 
cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3219), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, many of our colleagues have filed 
amendments. I want to soon recognize the Senator from North Dakota who, 
I know, wants to speak on a tribal issue. First, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3250

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the 
desk relating to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for herself, Mrs. 
     Hutchison, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
     Mr. Martinez, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
     Vitter, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3250.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide necessary expenses for return to flight activities 
associated with the space shuttle and to provide that funding for such 
             expenses is designated as emergency spending)

       On page 74, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

                            return to flight

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out return to flight activities associated with the 
     space shuttle and activities from which funds were 
     transferred to accommodate return to flight activities, 
     $1,000,000,000 to remain available until expended with such 
     sums as determined by the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration as available for 
     transfer to ``Exploration Capabilities'' and ``Science, 
     Aeronautics, And Exploration'' for restoration of funds 
     previously reallocated to meet return to flight activities: 
     Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is 
     designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet 
     emergency needs pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment has got a rollcall of 
cosponsors. Of course, it is cosponsored by my very able ranking 
member, Senator Shelby; Senator Hutchison of Texas, another strong 
advocate of space and one of the original architects; Senator Landrieu 
of Louisiana; Nelson and Martinez of Florida--Nelson is an astronaut--
Salazar of Colorado; Lieberman; and strong bipartisan support from 
Senators Bennett and Vitter. Senator Clinton of New York is included, 
as well as Senator Brown of Ohio.
  This amendment will increase funding for NASA. It is unique and 
historic

[[Page S12724]]

that we offer this amendment right at this minute. This is the 50th 
anniversary of Sputnik. Fifty years ago, that 180-pound piece of round 
metal went into space and changed the destiny of mankind. When Sputnik 
went up, we didn't know what the intent of the Russians was, but a 
wonderful Republican President by the name of Eisenhower knew we had to 
get into the space race. We have been in it ever since. But it has 
never been for predatory purposes or military purposes. Our NASA has 
always been to go where no man or woman has ever gone before, to be 
involved in discovery, to also come up with the science to protect our 
own planet and to further our national agenda in aeronautics.
  Joining us today, as we offer this amendment, in the gallery are the 
astronauts from the space ship Endeavor. They have spent 14 days in 
space, continuing the work to assemble the International Space Station, 
which is our lab in the sky, which will also be a gateway to go back to 
the Moon and stay there when we do, and then on to Mars; after that, 
who knows where. We welcome them today to watch this debate because, 
just as we want to keep space free of politics, we want them to see 
that here on the Senate floor we can work on a bipartisan basis to put 
the money in the Federal checkbook to do what NASA needs to do to keep 
this mission.
  What this amendment does is adds $1 billion to NASA's budget. It 
covers the cost of repairing and upgrading the safety of its space 
shuttle fleet. It comes in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Columbia 
accident in 2003. The funding was declared an emergency and they 
received full funding to return to space.
  Our amendment follows the precedent set after the 1986 Space Shuttle 
Challenger accident, when Congress made a special appropriation to get 
the shuttle flying again. So this amendment follows the precedent set 
in 1986 after the Challenger accident. A one-time amount of $3 billion 
was given to NASA to get the shuttle flying again--not only to simply 
get it flying, but to make sure our astronauts were safe when they did 
fly.
  By contrast, after the Columbia accident in 2003, NASA only received 
$100 million in special appropriations. Let me be clear, our goal is 
not to increase the NASA space budget but to restore the funding that 
was forced to get after the Columbia accident.
  This funding is necessary for three reasons: First, since 2003, when 
that terrible melancholy event occurred, it has cost NASA over $2 
billion to comply with the recommendations of Admiral Gehman to fix 
what it would take for the remaining shuttles and to fly them safely. 
Admiral Gehman was asked by the Nation to chair a commission to see 
what it would take to restore the shuttle's ability to fly again, but 
also to protect those astronauts. It had engineering solutions, 
technological solutions, and management recommendations. It was a great 
report and it was expensive, and do you know what. It was worth it. Is 
the shuttle flying safely today? You bet it is, and we are all 
thankful.
  At the same time, though, the shuttle has become more expensive to 
maintain and fly safely. The shuttle is a bit old. It has been hit by 
unforeseen events, from a hurricane to damage in space. We need the 
shuttle to maintain our commitment to the International Space Station, 
where we have treaty obligations.
  Second, another reason to support this amendment is the shuttle will 
be retired in 2010, and we are faced with the challenge of developing a 
new, reliable, safe human flight vehicle. But the costs of returning 
the shuttle to flight have forced NASA to cut funds for the next 
transportation vehicle by almost $500 million. This cut contributes to 
the gap of over 5 years between when the shuttle retires in 2010 and 
when we get a brandnew vehicle in 2015.
  This is not acceptable. We cannot let China get to the Moon before 
the United States does. We also need to make sure we keep our 
astronauts safe for the remaining time they use the shuttle. Also we 
have to keep that excellent talent down there of scientists, engineers, 
and mechanics, to keep our shuttle flying safely.
  Third, NASA has had to forage for funds in other programs to pay to 
fix the shuttles. Since 2003, science and aeronautics have been cut by 
almost $100 million.
  Science on the space station has been drastically cut. This has a 
ripple effect within the scientific community. It affects our future 
ability to understand and protect changes in our planet and in other 
issues. The National Academy of Sciences says we need more space 
science, not less.
  The consequences of not doing this amendment are clear. It 
contributes to the delay of our next space transportation vehicle. No 
one wants that. We do not want to be grounded for an extensive period 
of time. It reduces our commitment to our international treaty 
obligations on the space station.
  The goals of the amendment are clear. It maintains our commitment to 
safe, reliable, and robust human spaceflight. It keeps us on track for 
the next reliable space transportation vehicle and maintains our 
commitment to scientific discovery.
  We didn't leave NASA with an unpaid bill 20 years ago, and we 
shouldn't do it now. Twenty years ago, our colleagues, Senator Byrd and 
Senator Stevens, provided $2.7 billion out of the defense budget to buy 
a replacement space shuttle. We did not cut NASA's budget after the 
Challenger accident. We shouldn't do it after the Columbia accident.
  We recommend this amendment because it is $1 billion. It follows the 
precedent from the Challenger accident. It does not add to the base. It 
fulfills important national goals which were set by our President to 
lay the groundwork for space exploration to Mars. But if we are going 
to do that, I believe we have the national will to do that, I believe 
we need the national wallet to do that.
  So 50 years after the birth of our great Apollo Program, we need to 
make sure we keep our commitment to exploration and discovery. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment 
Senator Mikulski and I have worked on for a long time. After we lost 
the space shuttle Columbia over Texas and we were so involved in the 
cleanup of that tragic accident, all of us--Senator Shelby, Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Nelson from Florida, many of us--did try to make sure 
we had the funding that was needed, first of all, for a comprehensive 
review of what happened. We did have an incredibly good product from 
the Commission that was put together that did determine the cause. We 
did fund that at $100 million. But the added safeguards and safety 
measures that were required by that study and the Commission report 
were not funded.
  As Senator Mikulski said, we are about $2 billion to $3 billion in 
the hole. We cannot allow that to happen because here we are on the 
50th anniversary of Sputnik and it is another sputnik moment. When all 
of us in America were shocked that Russia had put up the first 
spaceflight, we were left to say: Why weren't we first?
  Today, 50 years later, we are looking at a 5-year gap from the end of 
the space shuttle before the crew-return vehicle will be on line to put 
American astronauts back in space. That is another Sputnik moment.
  Are we going to rely on Russia after 2010 to put American astronauts 
in space? I hope not. I hope America never loses its commitment to be 
the first in technology, in knowing what can be done, in exploring 
issues we haven't even thought about because we know how much that 
exploration has already done for our country.
  In fact, what has happened is exactly as Senator Mikulski just 
explained. The accounts for NASA have been drained. We have drained 
from science, we have drained from the Hubble telescope, and we have 
drained from other aeronautics research to fund the Columbia accident 
report and safeguards, and we have not moved forward for the crew-
return vehicle.
  It is estimated that if we can get this billion dollars and if we can 
fully fund the accounts that have been bled, we could chop at least 2 
years off that gap.
  We are talking about a technological and educational issue at a time 
when India and China are doing more and more exploration into space, 
and we

[[Page S12725]]

are talking about a national security issue that the United States 
would not have the capability for 5 years to put an American astronaut 
in space.
  Who can forget the beginning of the war against terror when we were 
putting missiles, guided through satellites, into windows from 2 miles 
away because we have that capability we have gained from the 
exploration in space. In addition, if we look at the science and 
innovation we must continue to pursue to make the investment in the 
space station worthwhile and to keep our commitment to our 
international partners, we have to be willing to put the amount that is 
required from America with our international partners into the space 
station. That, too, has been robbed.
  Just think, last month Senator Mikulski and I went to a signing 
between the National Institutes of Health and NASA of an agreement that 
the National Institutes of Health would be a partner in the 
international space station lab, that it would begin to do some of the 
far-reaching medical research that could only be done in the space 
station because of the microgravity conditions, and NIH signed the 
agreement. Are we going to continue to rob the accounts for scientific 
research at a time when we are on the cusp of doing the research about 
which we have been talking--research into breast cancer, research into 
osteoporosis--where we can see the cells grow because there is no 
gravity that is pulling against the growth?
  What about Dr. Samuel Ting, the Nobel laureate from MIT who testified 
before our committee? I am the ranking member--former chairman--of the 
NASA, space, and science subcommittee. He came to our committee and 
wowed all of us with the potential for scientific research on the space 
station. He is a Nobel laureate in physics. He said cosmic rays are the 
most intense in space. On the space station, we can begin to find what 
cosmic rays do in that intensity and perhaps even begin to find a new 
energy source from being able to harness those cosmic rays and create a 
form of energy which he says can only and best be done on the space 
station.
  I ask my colleagues, in a time when we are all trying to find ways to 
cut back on expenditures that are not necessary, to look at this 
amendment carefully because it is an investment in the future. It is an 
investment to make sure our technology transfers are continued. As an 
example, look at the items on Earth that have been discovered or 
enhanced by space research: international TV broadcasts, pacemakers, 
automatic insulin pumps, car phones, CAT scans, infrared thermometers, 
long-range weather forecasting which has revolutionized not only our 
agriculture industry but the ability to predict hurricanes. We have so 
many quality-of-life issues that have been enhanced or discovered 
because we were willing to do this research.
  I ask my colleagues to look at this investment. Do we want to see 
this go to the Chinese or to India or to Russia, or do we want to 
continue to make sure that America is the creator, America is the 
innovator, that it is Americans who take the discoveries and turn them 
into products that can change our lives, especially in medical science?
  I ask my colleagues to look at what we have gained in superiority in 
defense because we have invested in space. Yet, at a time when we are 
at war, when we know we have used the satellites to the most effective 
point they have ever been used for intelligence gathering, for the 
ability to do intelligence gathering without harming Americans, without 
putting Americans in a plane because we can take from the satellites 
the information so that the pilot is not in danger of being shot down 
because there is no pilot. We can gather intelligence, we can retain 
our superiority and technology and creativity, but it will take the 
investment. If we are going to pay for an emergency out of operating 
funds, we are eating our seed corn.
  Madam President, surely America and our Congress and this Senate 
understand that issue. The leadership of the appropriations and 
authorizing committees, Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, myself, and 
Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, are the four chairmen and ranking 
members of the relevant committees. All of us have asked to meet with 
the President to talk about this priority that we must continue 
exploration in space and determine how we would go forward in a 
bipartisan way to assure America's leadership in this important 
endeavor. I hope the President will support this amendment, will meet 
with us to have a joint effort to do this amendment.
  The President himself has already laid out the vision. He has said we 
are going to put people on the Moon again, we are going to establish a 
base on the Moon, and from there we are going to go to Mars. The 
President has laid out the vision, but we must have the capability to 
fulfill the mission by having the scientific research that will keep us 
in the technological lead by continuing to make sure we are looking at 
all of the energy sources we can use, by creating the medical 
capabilities that can only be done in the microgravity conditions.
  I join with so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
asking that we adopt this amendment, that we get 60 votes, if that is 
what we need, to assure that this goes forward, not as another 
appropriation but as an investment to assure that America's leadership 
continues.
  Madam President, I wrote a piece for the Hill, which is one of the 
local Capitol magazines. It goes into more detail about why this is so 
very important.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, Oct. 3, 2007]

                    Maintain U.S. Supremacy in Space

                     (By Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison)

       On Oct. 4, 1957--almost 50 years ago to the date of this 
     publication--the Soviet Union launched the world-famous 
     Sputnik satellite, setting off alarm bells throughout 
     Washington that America was falling behind in space 
     technology. But America's ingenuity was dramatically 
     mobilized by President Eisenhower, who passed The National 
     Defense Education Act, which provided massive investments in 
     science, engineering, and technology. Those investments paid 
     off when we safely landed a man on the Moon, fulfilling 
     President Kennedy promise. The research program we created 
     spawned some of the most significant technologies of modern 
     life, including personal computers and the Internet.
       Today, we are on the verge of another Sputnik moment. In 
     November, China will launch its first lunar orbiter--a major 
     milestone in its rapidly-developing space program. In fact, 
     China's progress has been so substantial they're planning on 
     landing a man on the moon by 2020. A decade or so from now, 
     the Red Flag may be flying on the lunar surface.
       In this ominous environment, you would think Washington 
     would be trying to recharge America's commitment to space 
     exploration. In fact, the opposite is happening. Right now, 
     NASA is planning to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010. Until 
     its replacement is ready--not expected until 2015--the U.S. 
     will have no way to launch humans into space.
       During this five-year time gap, we will have to rely on 
     Russia to get our own scientists and astronauts to the 
     International Space Station. As the world's leader in space 
     technology, it is simply unacceptable that we will be in this 
     position technological dependency. Our national security 
     depends on our ability to explore space without relying on 
     nations who may not always have our best interests at heart. 
     Thankfully, there is still time to prevent this frightful 
     scenario from becoming reality.
       Congress should provide NASA with the added funds it needs 
     to narrow or close the gap in our human spaceflight 
     capability, by accelerating Ares and Orion--the shuttle 
     replacement vehicles--providing increased support to 
     potential commercial vehicles, and, if necessary, keeping the 
     space shuttle flying longer than 2010. This will ensure that 
     America stays in control of its space destiny.
       Since NASA was created in 1958, the research that has gone 
     into the space program has also spurred innovations that have 
     greatly improved our lives--from car phones to heart 
     monitors, from ultrasound scanners to laser surgery. 
     Recently, NASA has been implementing my plan to use the U.S. 
     segment ofthe ISS as a ``National Laboratory,'' which means 
     that even more breakthroughs can be expected once that lab is 
     fully operational. On Sept. 12, NASA and the National 
     Institutes of Health signed the first of what should be 
     several inter-agency agreements to facilitate ISS research in 
     the future.
       We want the U.S. to be the global leader in space research 
     because the unique environment of outer space enables 
     scientists to conduct many experiments not possible on Earth. 
     For example, NASA is considering placing a sophisticated 
     particle detector on the ISS to learn more about cosmic rays. 
     This research must be carried out in space where researchers 
     can collect data without the hindrance of Earth's dense 
     atmosphere

[[Page S12726]]

     and gravity. The results could lead to breakthroughs in our 
     fundamental understanding of matter, and possibly new sources 
     of energy.
       There is a strong, symbiotic relationship between space 
     research and national security. For example, by using space-
     based navigation systems, we can guide a missile to within 
     meters of its intended target. This not only allows our 
     military to more effectively hit a target, it also saves 
     civilian lives and limits collateral damage.
       The Chinese are gaining ground in technological areas. For 
     example, China recently surpassed the U.S. as the world's 
     largest exporter of information-technology products (and the 
     U.S. has become a net importer of those products). The 
     Chinese are now turning their attention to space technology--
     and they are determined to use it as a means of strengthening 
     their military. We cannot allow other countries to acquire 
     new weapons technologies while America does not keep up.
       On the day before he was tragically assassinated, President 
     Kennedy remarked, ``This nation has tossed its cap over the 
     wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. 
     Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome.''
       As we mark the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, let's renew our 
     commitment to overcome those difficulties once again. We've 
     worked too hard, and accomplished too much, to willfully 
     forfeit our leadership in space. Let's make the necessary 
     adjustments to maintain our supremacy. Our future depends on 
     it.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Mikulski-Hutchison amendment that has bipartisan support of all of the 
four members of the relevant committees' leadership. I hope together we 
can take this step to assure America's leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I join with my colleagues, Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Nelson from Florida, in asking 
all Senators to support this amendment.
  Senator Mikulski and I have worked hard with the others to craft a 
bill that addresses the priority of our Members, but despite our 
generous allocation, the funding necessary for NASA to aggressively 
pursue the President's ``Vision for Space Exploration'' cannot be 
accommodated without this amendment.
  Since the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia breaking up during 
reentry in February of 2003, NASA has spent $2.7 billion to make the 
shuttle program as safe as possible to ensure our Nation continues to 
be the leader in space exploration. Unfortunately, as has been pointed 
out by Senator Mikulski and Senator Hutchison, the NASA budget requests 
have not adequately restored the necessary resources in their 
subsequent requests. Instead, the costs have been absorbed from within 
NASA.
  Science funding has been cut significantly, and programs not directly 
associated with the exploration vision are being deferred, delayed, or 
canceled. By slowing down the cutting-edge science carried out by NASA, 
we are mortgaging our future. The foundation for technological 
leadership and the successes of tomorrow are built on the investments 
that we make in NASA today.
  NASA's research in cutting edge technological advancements have 
driven science and innovation in this country since the dawn of the 
space age. We are shortcoming our future by not fully funding science 
innovation and space exploration. This critical knowledge will be 
needed in the years to come to make human exploration of the Moon and 
other planets a reality. These effects cannot be ignored any longer if 
we are to maintain our leadership and our presence in space.
  With the burden of correcting the dramatic Presidential budget cuts 
in critical justice programs and in NOAA, it is increasingly difficult 
for the committee to find the resources necessary to keep NASA on the 
right track. In order to balance the lack of support for NASA's science 
and aeronautics programs in the budget requests, there are few options 
left to consider.
  The adoption of this amendment, offered by Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Hutchison, will not only respond to the pressing needs brought 
about by a tragic accident, but will also send a clear signal that 
Congress is serious about ensuring that the U.S. retains its leadership 
position in space exploration. I would urge all my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment. It is sorely and direly needed now.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, Senator Nelson will be coming out to 
speak shortly, an astronaut Senator who will speak eloquently about 
this. We also hope, for those who would like to challenge our thinking, 
that they will use this as a time to come to the floor so that we can 
have an ongoing and continuous debate. We would certainly like to vote 
on this within the hour, in the interest of moving our bill forward. So 
we would ask our colleagues to come and speak.
  Before I yield the floor, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we are observing the 50th 
anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite 
that was launched by humans. In that time, 50 years ago, it shocked the 
entire world that the Soviet Union had become sufficiently 
technologically proficient that they could suddenly seize the high 
ground--a high ground that heretofore had not been achieved but that 
mankind had always longed for--to soar into the heavens.
  As a result of that significant technological achievement, the United 
States got shocked out of its lethargy, out of its willingness to just 
go along with the thinking that we were that good, but in fact we were 
falling behind. As Senator Shelby said, we suddenly became shocked at 
the fact that we were falling behind in math, in science and 
technology, and that, lo and behold, with the symbolic value of the 
Soviet Union--at that point our mortal enemy in the Cold War--having 
achieved that first.
  Finally, we got Explorer into space, the first American satellite, 
and we started to take comfort that this Yankee ingenuity of America 
would suddenly screw up its determination to achieve and that we would 
not be passed by. And then, lo and behold, as we are preparing Alan 
Shepard to go into space--not into orbital space, really, but only into 
suborbit--suddenly the Soviets surprised us again and they sent Yuri 
Gagarin into one orbit to achieve what no earthbound nation had done.
  I remember years ago, Madam President, as a Member of the House of 
Representatives--and I had already flown on the space shuttle--as I was 
sitting on the floor of the House, the then-Speaker of the House, Tip 
O'Neill, beckoned me over.
  He said: Billy, I want to tell you a story. He said: When I was a 
young Boston Congressman, I remember I was down at the White House--
President Kennedy was the President--and I had never seen the President 
so nervous. He was just pacing back and forth like a cat on a hot tin 
roof. He said: I leaned over to one of his aides, and I asked what in 
the world is wrong with the President?
  What was happening was we were getting ready to launch Alan Shepard 
on the Redstone rocket, which only had enough lift power to go into 
suborbit. Here we were, 3 weeks behind the Soviet Union, which had just 
put up Gagarin into one complete orbit. And, of course, we know what 
happened. Alan Shepard made that first suborbital flight successfully.
  We didn't even have a rocket at that point that would get us into 
orbit with that mercury capsule. We flew a second time in suborbit with 
Gus Grissom. In the meantime, the Soviets now send another cosmonaut, 
Titeuf, and he goes into several orbits, and here we are struggling to 
get up for the first time in orbit. Well, they said, we are going with 
that Atlas rocket, which was an intercontinental ballistic missile. And 
so there, among those first seven astronauts, they chose John Glenn. We 
knew

[[Page S12727]]

that we had a 20-percent chance that rocket was going to fail.
  It is hard for me even to tell this story without getting a lump in 
my throat, but John Glenn is in orbit for three orbits when there is an 
indication that his heat shield is loose, which would mean, upon 
reentry, that John Glenn and the capsule would burn up. And on that de-
orbit burn, as he is starting to plunge back into the fiery reentry of 
Earth's atmosphere, before we lost radio contact, John Glenn was heard 
humming the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic.''

  Of course, his flight was successful, and we continued on. But 
because that President said we were going to go to the Moon and return 
within the decade, and because the Nation put its mind to it and put 
the resources to it, we achieved what was almost unbelievable--sending 
12 Americans to the Moon and returning them safely, including the crew 
of Apollo 11, which was one of the greatest rescue ventures ever in all 
of mankind, with Jim Lovell and his crew, when they lost all of their 
power en route to the Moon on that crippled Apollo 13 spacecraft.
  They shut down the Apollo Program in the early 1970s, with massive 
layoffs, and it was a long time from that last flight in 1972 to the 
Moon and a follow-on 1975 flight linking a Soviet Soyuz with an 
American Apollo. And for days, in the midst of the Cold War, two mortal 
enemies, two cosmonauts and three Americans, were docked together in 
space, lived and worked and enjoyed each other and communicated to the 
world as peaceful partners. Because of the disruptions in the space 
family, it was not until 1981 that we got back into space, with humans, 
in the space shuttle.
  Now, there is a lesson in what I have just discussed about our 
history in space that would teach us not to repeat that now. What is 
that lesson? First of all, one of the great lessons of that era is the 
fact that we got excited about science and technology and mathematics 
and engineering and space flight. We produced a generation of 
exceptionally talented and educated young people who were told to go to 
their limit. As a result, we had, in a space program that had to have 
limited volume, light in weight, and highly reliable systems, a 
technological revolution of micro-miniaturization that had come 
directly out of the space flight. This watch is a direct spinoff of the 
space program. So many of the modern medical miracles and medical 
techniques are a direct spinoff of the American space program.
  In fact, one example in our daily lives is the communications we take 
for granted. We can go anywhere on Earth and know precisely where we 
are by the global positioning system, GPS, which is now in our cars, 
and we can have a hand-held unit and go out on a boat, and if we get 
lost or stranded, with no motor in the ocean, the Coast Guard knows 
exactly where to come because we have a GPS to tell us exactly where we 
are. So, too, spinoff after spinoff: enhancement of our Nation's 
economy; the educated workforce. About that workforce, need I remind 
you now that China is graduating five times the number of engineers 
that the United States is and India is graduating three times the 
number of engineers?

  I want to return to that era, where we can get young people excited 
again about science and technology, and there is nothing like the space 
program that will rivet and ignite those little imaginations.
  Right now we are at a critical point because NASA has been starved of 
funds. That is part of the reason why Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby have brought this amendment to the floor. It is not like the 
loss of Challenger over two decades ago, when emergency funds funded 
the recovery to flight, the investigation, the designing of new 
systems, the repair of old systems that got us into safe flight again--
not this time. NASA had to pay for this out of its operating 
expenditures, to the point of $2.8 billion. It was already a tight 
budget to begin with, not helped by the inability of us last year in 
the Congress to meet agreements, and we had to operate under an 
appropriation called a continuing resolution, that left us at last 
year's funding levels--not the increase.
  As a result, what we have is that NASA is desperately short of funds, 
to the point that when it shuts down the space shuttle in October of 
2010, with the paucity of funds, the next vehicle, called the 
Constellation System, with a capsule called Orion and a rocket called 
Aires, will not be able to fly with humans until after a 5-year gap.
  That is not good for our educational system. It is not good for our 
technological prowess and achievements.
  The amendment of Senator Mikulski will help correct it; not with the 
$2.8 billion NASA lost but only a third of that, that we are asking 
that this Senate will appropriate out of emergency funds.
  There is not a young person in America who does not get excited about 
space flight. There is not an old person in America whose heart does 
not quicken when they think of the daring adventures and the 
exploration. There is not a scholar or academic who does not appreciate 
what manned and unmanned space flight has done by putting up the 
Hubbell Space Telescope, which has opened up the vistas into the 
beginnings of the universe and understanding where we came from and how 
all of it came about and what is the order in the universe. Yet we only 
know 4 percent of all that we can know about the universe. We still 
have 96 percent, still to learn.
  That is what our space program can do for us. It can ignite the 
imaginations and the desire to achieve in those young people. It can 
quicken the hearts of all Americans. It can lead to great new 
technological achievements that will spin out and affect our daily 
lives. It will open the new areas of knowledge about what we are as a 
people who populate a planet called Planet Earth in a solar system that 
revolves about one star that we call Sun, in a galaxy that is ours in a 
universe that is so large our human minds cannot even contemplate it.
  These are the worlds we want to explore. It is our nature, it is our 
character as Americans that we are, by that nature and that character, 
explorers and adventurers. At the beginning of this country, we had a 
frontier and it was westward. The great leaders of our country at the 
founding of the country said: Go and explore. Today those frontiers are 
different. Those frontiers are upward and those frontiers are inward. 
The great leaders of today ought to be saying: Go forth and explore.
  I am hoping the great leaders in this body called the Senate will 
support Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby in approving this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Mikulski amendment and to echo the comments of my good friend and 
colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. The Senator and I both have had 
the great privilege, not only of representing the great State of 
Florida but also both of us grew up within a short car ride from where 
all this excitement was happening, as we were young people growing up. 
Cape Canaveral, the excitement of flights to space, the heroics of our 
early astronauts and then later the flights to the Moon and the touch 
of the tragic that, from time to time, have been a part of any 
dangerous endeavor, have been a part of our daily lives. Of course, my 
senior Senator from Florida took it a step further. He himself donned 
the suit and went into space on the space shuttle on what was, I know, 
a life-changing event for him.
  I know the excitement with which he speaks of the space program is 
not something I can speak about firsthand as he does, because he has 
been a part of it, but I can certainly speak to it as a person who has 
seen the benefits of it to our communities, through research, through 
improvements to so many things that have been derivative from our space 
program.
  As we go to the Kennedy Space Center these days and we talk to these 
great scientists, these great engineers, these people who are so 
enthusiastic, who are so competent in what they do, they speak with 
great commitment to completing the space shuttle flights that are 
pending. They speak with great commitment about our space lab and the 
great advancements in science and technology that are taking place in 
the space lab--now a new component in biomedical research that will 
hopefully be opening the doors to the cure

[[Page S12728]]

of many illnesses. All of these things have been a part of our space 
flight, of our tradition, and our history.

  The 5-year gap Senator Nelson spoke of, where we will have no manned 
space flight, is something I do not think most Americans understand. As 
it is right now, because of shorting the space program year after year, 
what we have is a situation in which there will be a 5-year gap from 
the last space shuttle flight until the next vehicle is ready for 
manned flight.
  I think, as the American people would know about this, it would raise 
concerns for them in the area of science and technology, of 
advancement, of exploration, which has been such a part of our country 
where we have led the world without a doubt.
  But there is something else about it which troubles me greatly and 
which I think the American people also ought to be made aware of, which 
is the fact that in order for an American to fly into space for those 5 
years, we would be completely and totally at the mercy of Russia. We 
have had a very good and cooperative relationship. The Americans and 
Russians and, frankly, many other citizens of other countries, have 
been a part of the space shuttle and more particularly of the space 
lab. We have modules there--obviously the space shuttle arm from 
Canada, modules that have come from Japan and from Italy and many other 
countries. Each of those countries with great pride has had one of 
their crew members go on the space shuttle and go to the space lab. Our 
cooperation with the Russians has been fantastic, even back to the days 
of the Soviet Union.
  But in an ever-changing world, should not we wonder if it is safe for 
America to totally be reliant upon an increasingly undemocratic Russia 
for our space flights? I do not necessarily want to create enemies 
where none exist. But it does concern me to see these Russian bombers 
coming into areas where they know very well are our waters, our 
airspace, and repeatedly now over the last month or so coming into what 
is U.S. airspace and challenging us to intercept them. Why are they 
doing that? What is the purpose behind that? What could happen over the 
next 3 years as we conclude the space shuttle, and then the next 5 
where we are without the ability to put a man in space, if our 
relationship with Russia is not as strong as it is today in 8 years, 5 
years, 6 years? It certainly isn't as positive and strong as it was 3 
years ago.
  It behooves us, for the sake of our independence, our sovereignty, 
our ability to be in control and the destiny of this magnificent 
laboratory up in space, that we could accelerate the time where this 
gap was going to exist. It is going to be there no matter what we do, 
but we can shorten it. I believe if we shorten it by a couple of years, 
that would be in our best interests.
  When we look at the totality of our expenditures, when we look at the 
cost-benefit ratio of what we get from our space program, how it 
inspires our young people at a time when we are falling behind in 
competition with the world in science and technology, when we know the 
world is moving faster than we are as it relates to the education of 
our young people and science and technology, what could be better than 
a vibrant space program to continue to imbue our young people with the 
desire to explore, the desire to invent, the desire for all he things 
that the space program has been to our country?
  Our technological edge was never finer honed than when we had a 
vibrant and strong space program in the late 1950s and on into the 
1960s. That was our finest and best time when it comes to science and 
technology.
  We have, in many ways, been living off that for the last 25 years. 
Now we can have the dawning of a new age of space exploration into 
areas that have so far eluded us completely--well beyond the moon. This 
can all happen. This is a small downpayment into a very important part 
of America's future. It is certainly a very strong and important issue 
as we look also at very practical issues like our workforce.
  The workforce at Kennedy Space Center is a well-trained workforce. It 
is a workforce that has, over the years, developed and over the years 
improved its skills. If we were to tell these people over the next 5 
years there is no work for you, they will go into other pursuits. These 
are sharp, talented people. It is not like they are going to be unable 
to get a job, but it is going to be our loss when those people are not 
engaged in the continuation of the U.S. space flights.
  NASA is a good investment for America. We are not talking about 
breaking the bank. We are talking about a very small investment for 
what I believe would be a great return. I am very pleased to join with 
my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, who is my expert when it 
comes to these issues. We both have great affection for the Cape. He 
grew up a very few miles south of it. I grew up a very few miles to the 
west of it. This is our backyard. We know it, we love it, and we know 
what it has meant to our country. We know the future of it can be very 
bright and we certainly do support this effort to improve funding for 
NASA.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the proponents of this amendment have 
had a very thorough discussion of why we support this amendment. We 
have spoken for about an hour. We certainly want to be sure that those 
who might have pause or flashing yellow lights about it bring their 
concerns to the floor so we can engage in a discussion, maybe even a 
debate, so we could move this debate forward and dispose of the 
amendment no later than 4:00 and earlier if possible.
  I want to give everyone warning, if there is nobody here, we will 
move the amendment.

                          ____________________