[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12894-S12898]
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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume 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.

  Pending:

       Inouye amendment No. 3214, 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.
       Bingaman-Smith amendment No. 3208, to amend the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that 
     territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants 
     for confronting the use of methamphetamine.
       Vitter amendment No. 3277, to prohibit funds from being 
     used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
       Thune amendment No. 3317, to provide, in a fiscally 
     responsible manner, additional funding for U.S. attorneys to 
     prosecute violent crimes in Indian country.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to bring our colleagues up to date, we 
are resuming consideration of the appropriations on Commerce, Justice, 
and Science. Working on a very collegial and bipartisan basis, our 
staffs, the Mikulski staff and the Shelby staff, have worked through 
the evening working to clear amendments. We believe we are making very 
good progress.
  Where we are now is the Senator from South Carolina will be offering 
some amendments, and we will probably be having a debate before the 
noon hour, and at that time we would like to have our colleagues visit 
with us on how they intend to deal with the amendments they have filed.
  I wish to share with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is 
intent of the Democratic leader, Senator Reid that we will finish this 
bill tonight. Senator Reid has instructed me as the manager of this 
bill to complete action, even if it means staying well into the 
evening.
  We do not have to do that because we have just a core group of 
amendments. If the Democrats would talk to me during the first vote, 
and the Republicans would talk to Senator Shelby, we can move to 
dispose of them, either to withdraw them, clear them or we ask our 
colleagues to offer them.
  I wished to thank the Senator from South Carolina for being here so 
promptly. I wish to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their work.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 3286

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3286.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3286.

  Mr. DeMINT. 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 (No. 3286) is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available under the 
 Act may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative formula-
 driven or competitive awarding process to award funds to a project in 
    response to a request from a member of Congress, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 97, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative 
     formula-driven or competitive awarding process to award funds 
     to a project in response to a request from a Member of 
     Congress (or any employee of a Member or committee of 
     Congress), unless the specific project has been disclosed in 
     accordance with the rules of the Senate or House of 
     Representatives, as applicable.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I actually have two amendments this 
morning. I will speak briefly on both of them.
  I believe both sides have agreed these are good ideas, and I believe 
one will be accepted, and the other we are going to have a vote at 12, 
as I understand it.
  But the first amendment relates to earmarking and the wasteful 
earmarks we have talked about often on the Senate floor. Much has been 
done to make earmarks more transparent, to have more earmarks 
disclosed.
  I think as we do that, we are probably getting a better focus as a 
Federal Government of how we should be spending our money. But old 
habits die very hard. It has been very difficult for a number of 
Members of the House and the Senate to give up this practice of being 
able to send money wherever they want back in their own State or 
anywhere in the country.
  As we have made it harder to do earmarks in the open, we have found 
that a number of Members of Congress or their staffs have been calling 
agencies to request that earmarks be done without Congress's approval 
at all. This type of ``phone marking'' has created a new loophole.
  This amendment we are offering would disallow any use of funds for 
that type of earmarking. If I can read the amendment it is very simple. 
Again, I believe both sides agree on it.
  It says:

       None of the funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to circumvent any statutory or administrative formula-driven 
     competitive awarding process to award funds to a project in 
     response to a request from a Member of Congress (or any 
     employee of a Member or committee of Congress), unless the 
     specific project has been disclosed in accordance with the 
     rules of the Senate or House of Representatives, as 
     applicable.

  That is all there is to this amendment, is to disallow this whole 
idea of picking up the phone and deciding where taxpayer money should 
go. I understand the other side is prepared to accept or have a voice 
vote on this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the spirit of 
reform of the Senator from South Carolina. We too support the spirit of 
reform on these matters. I support this amendment. I do believe we can 
accept it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed 
to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3286) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 3289

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the

[[Page S12895]]

pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3289.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3289.

  Mr. DeMint. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
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 prevent Federal employees from purchasing unnecessary 
first class or premium class airline tickets at taxpayers' expense, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 97, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel 
     that would not be consistent with sections 301-10.123 and 
     301-10.124 of title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this is another simple amendment designed 
to get more accountability in Federal agencies. The Government 
Accountability Office recently published a report that has been in the 
media all over the country, pointing out that millions of taxpayer 
dollars are being wasted as employees of the Federal Government are 
flying all over the world in premium business class or first class, 
when the rules of these agencies specifically say that should not be 
done.
  My amendment does not change any rules of the Federal agencies; it 
says the rules have to be complied with or the money that is in this 
bill cannot be used.
  I will read this amendment as well:

       None of the funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to purchase first class or premium airline travel that would 
     not be consistent [with the number of sections that are 
     listed] of the Code of Federal Regulations.

  Again, we are not changing any regulation. We are demanding that the 
Federal agencies comply with their own rules and save the taxpayers 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at noon 
today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint amendment 
No. 3289 and that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to 
the vote and that the time until then be equally divided between 
Senator DeMint, Senator Shelby, and myself, Senator Mikulski.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I neglected to add a cosponsor of this 
amendment. Senator McCaskill would like to be our lead cosponsor on 
this amendment. I appreciate her support as well as the chairman's.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know I rise in 
support of the DeMint amendment. I think it is a very commonsense 
amendment. I believe that when we are regulating how Government 
employees travel, I do believe they follow the rules. I do not believe 
they travel in a lavish lifestyle.
  I wish to acknowledge the fact of two things: One, our colleague from 
South Carolina has a GAO report that indicates reform is needed; reform 
and clarity are needed on what our Government employees, traveling on 
official business, can do.
  We have heard all kinds of stories about some going on business 
class, some going on first class, some where it is even short trips, 
and so on. We acknowledge, of course, as always, the validity of the 
GAO report. What I also want to say is this subcommittee, chaired by 
myself and my ranking member, Senator Shelby, is on the side of reform. 
Our three themes this year were security for our country, innovation to 
keep us competitive, and, at the same time, accountability. We have 
done a major set of reviews on things such as cost overruns in the NOAA 
satellite program. We have also taken on things where we offered an 
amendment together dealing with discipline in the funding of 
conferences. We stopped the lavish conferences, the so-called $4 
Swedish meatball amendment.
  We believe the DeMint amendment is also in that same spirit of reform 
Senator Shelby and I brought to this subcommittee and we now bring with 
our bill to the floor. We are deep down reformers. We want to make sure 
we accomplish the mission of the agencies for which we are the 
guardians of the purse. But at the same time, we want to make sure 
taxpayers are getting value for their dollar. Where there is excess, 
poor judgment, or poor management, we are going to hold agencies to the 
fire. We are going to hold agencies accountable. Therefore, when this 
vote is taken, I urge, in the spirit of reform, the spirit of 
accountability, that we join, once again, on a bipartisan basis and 
pass this amendment. We so appreciate the work of the GAO, a wonderful 
independent watchdog that Congress can turn to where it is not the 
Senator from South Carolina's opinion or the opinion of the Senator 
from Maryland about what is going on or the need for reform, but we 
work on clearheaded analysis, intellectual rigor, let the facts speak 
for themselves.
  When you look at this GAO report, the facts do point to the fact that 
we do need reform in this area. I am a supporter, but I also want to 
acknowledge, though we need reform, I want to clearly state that most 
civil servants follow the rules when they book their tickets on 
Government travel. It ensures that these employees follow current 
regulations that will limit the purchase of first-class tickets.
  In the spirit of accountability, reform, and responsibility for the 
taxpayers, again, I thank Senator Shelby for his work. We have made a 
lot of progress on the spirit of reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from South Carolina, 
Mr. DeMint, for his amendment dealing with travel and spending. If we 
can save millions of dollars by people not flying first class, and so 
forth, and abusing the system, we ought to do it. The spirit of this 
amendment is good and I hope we can all vote on that at 12 noon, when 
we have agreed to do so. I commend him for offering the amendment. It 
will be good law for us to follow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside and that I may call up a couple of 
amendments and talk for 3 or 4 minutes on them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 3294 and 3295, En Bloc

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up en bloc amendments Nos. 3294 and 
3295.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes amendments en 
     bloc numbered 3294 and 3295.

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3294

(Purpose: To increase funding for the United States Marshals Service to 
ensure full funding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act 
 of 2006 and offset the increase by reducing funding for the Advanced 
                          Technology Program)

       On page 33, line 26, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That an additional $7,845,000 shall be 
     available to carry out the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 
     Safety Act of 2006 offset by a reduction in the amount 
     available for the Advanced Technology Program under the 
     heading `Industrial Technology Services' in title I of 
     $7,845,000.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3295

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
   Program and offset the increase by reducing funding Nasa funding)

       On page 53, line 11, strike the semicolon and insert ``:  
     Provided, That an additional $150,000,000 shall be available 
     for such program offset by a reduction in the amount

[[Page S12896]]

     under the heading `National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration'  `science, aeronautics and exploration' in 
     title III of $150,000,000;''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3295 is to increase by $150 
million the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and offset it with 
a $150 million decrease in the NASA budget currently in the bill. The 
NASA budget was increased $150 million over the President's request in 
the underlying bill and then an emergency spending of an additional 
billion dollars which was, by the way, already from over a billion 
dollars more than in the bill last year. We are taking $150 million of 
that and putting it toward this program that is underfunded every year. 
It is to assist the States in prosecuting and arresting people who are 
here illegally who have committed crimes.
  This is an important piece of legislation. We don't have enough money 
for correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented 
criminal aliens, and this amount of money, especially for the border 
States of the Southwest, is very important.
  It might be drug programs people who are here illegally are running. 
I was watching a program the other day that was talking about cheese 
heroin, something that can addict our children with one dose. Kids have 
died. I think there are 30 or 40 of them who have died in Texas 
literally with one dose. Most of that is coming from our southern 
border. We need to provide local law enforcement the resources to deal 
with aliens who are coming to this country who are dealing with the 
drug program. This is an important problem that we need to add extra 
funding to. We still have a problem with illegal immigration in 
securing our borders, but without a comprehensive immigration bill, we 
at least need to add money so we can help the States prosecute and 
incarcerate people who are here illegally, undocumented criminal aliens 
who are here illegally who are wreaking havoc on communities around the 
United States. I believe this is an important amendment. It is critical 
that we help our States, counties, local parishes, tribal, and 
municipal governments battle illegal immigration and keep law-breaking 
illegal aliens off our streets.
  The second amendment is an amendment that will fully fund the Adam 
Walsh program. We all know what the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety 
Act has done. This will fund it up to the President's request. It is 
$7.8 million for the U.S. Marshals Service to fully implement the Adam 
Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. We are taking the money from the ATP 
program. I believe it is absolutely critical that we fully fund the 
Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. As a father of three children, 
the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act is critical to keeping the children 
safe. It is a small amount of money, but it will bring the program up 
to what the President has requested. It is an important program. The 
advanced technology program has been something of questionable 
efficacy. We should take some of that money and fully fund the Adam 
Walsh Child Safety Act of 2006.
  Having briefly spoken, I can speak on it more later. I know there is 
other business to attend to, but I think these are both very important 
amendments. I hope my colleagues will support them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from 
Nevada, both on process as well as content. I believe, with the 
concurrence of Senator Shelby, that there is one of the amendments we 
might be able to take, and then the other, of course, would be a vote 
in which we would move to table the amendment after lunch. But if I 
could respond to the Senator from Nevada in terms of content, where he 
wishes to increase funding for the Marshals Service for the full 
funding of the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, we acknowledge the 
validity of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada in this regard. The 
Senator and I have been involved in a group where we are trying to put 
our values into action. The Senator might recall my own background is 
that of a social worker. I was a child abuse worker. I find that there 
is nothing more despicable than a child predator. I believe it is so 
dastardly, so despicable, so repugnant that every time I think about 
the work Adam Walsh did, the work that comes out of our excellent bill 
with our funding, we know we always want to do more when our children 
are stalked in neighborhoods or playgrounds. We know they are being 
stalked on the Internet. Without going into putting even more vile 
things out there in conversation, the Senator from Nevada is well aware 
of some of the most awful things that are going on on the Internet. We 
want to acknowledge the validity of what he wants to do.
  I know the Senator from Alabama wishes to speak on it, but we believe 
we could take this amendment. I know the Senator will want to speak 
about it.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator from Maryland yield briefly?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Absolutely.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I appreciate her comments. The only reason I would object 
to a voice vote is because I have seen too many voice votes in this 
place and then things get dropped in conference. I would hope we could 
have a recorded vote. I know they take up a little more time, but I 
believe it is important to establish on the record that the Senate 
actually does support the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our majority staff who helps us organize 
the traffic of this is now going to be writing this up. Let's see how 
we can accommodate the Senator from Nevada. We will be able to ask for 
a UC before we go into the caucus. But the minority Republican staff is 
here. Senator Shelby will certainly protect the interests of the 
Senator from Nevada.
  If I may comment on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, we 
will debate that amendment later when we are heading to a vote.
  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. DURBIN. 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. 3277

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Vitter 
amendment No. 3277, which may be considered later this afternoon on 
this pending Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
  This amendment would prohibit fiscal year 2008 COPS funds from being 
used in contravention of a provision in Federal law that relates to 
information sharing about a person's immigration status.
  The Senator from Louisiana has said this amendment is targeted at 
``sanctuary cities.'' He is referring to the policies that have been 
put in place by many cities, counties, and police departments in at 
least 23 States and the District of Columbia that limit enforcement of 
immigration laws by State or local authorities.
  These cities, counties, and police departments have decided that it 
is a matter of public health and safety not to inquire about 
immigration status when people report crimes or have been the victims 
of domestic abuse or go to a clinic to obtain vaccinations for their 
children.
  These State and local confidentiality policies do not stop the 
Federal Government from enforcing immigration laws--a traditional 
function of the Federal Government, not State and local governments. 
Rather, they reflect a decision made by State and local authorities 
that they do not want to have their police departments spend their time 
and resources enforcing a traditionally Federal responsibility relative 
to immigration law. Those laws are the Federal Government's 
responsibility to enforce.
  In many cities, including several in my home State of Illinois, city 
and law enforcement officials have decided, reasonably, they want to 
focus their attention and their police resources on stopping violent 
crime.
  Yesterday, I was in a section of Chicago known as Logan Square. There 
is a wonderful organization known as Christopher House that was opening 
a family resource center, a neighborhood center in the tradition of the 
settlement houses that were started in the Chicago area by Jane Addams 
almost a century ago. This Logan Square area is an up-and-coming part 
of the city of Chicago. It is a beautiful neighborhood,

[[Page S12897]]

but it is a neighborhood that has been riddled with violence for over a 
decade. Literally, children are being gunned down in the street. I 
attended a memorial service a few weeks ago there for a young African-
American girl. She was killed on a playground while playing with her 
friends by a drive-by shooting by gang bangers. The alderman in that 
35th ward, Rey Colon, who is quite a leader in the community himself, 
attended the service with me. As we walked into the church, he pointed 
to a section on the sidewalk and said: Just a few years ago a member of 
my family was killed on that spot.
  Violence is endemic, unfortunately, in America, and we see it in 
cities, great cities such as Chicago and others. Mayor Daley is making 
an extraordinary effort to deal with this. I am joining him in that 
effort. It is hard for me to imagine the Senator from Louisiana wants 
to cut off the COPS Program funds for the city of Chicago. That is what 
he suggested.
  What will the COPS Program do for the city of Chicago? It will put 
more police on the beat. There will be more police officers out there 
in the neighborhoods to keep them safe. The COPS money can be used to 
buy bulletproof vests so when a policeman is shot, he might survive. 
The money is also being used for forensic analysis, DNA testing, trying 
to find ways that ex-offenders can be brought back in a peaceful way to 
the cities and towns from where they started. It is used for task 
forces to go after sexual predators.
  The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana would cut off these funds 
for the city of Chicago. Why? Why in the world would the Senator from 
Louisiana--a State I have bent over backwards to help since Hurricane 
Katrina--want to cut off Federal funds to the city of Chicago, funds to 
make the streets safer? Why would he want to cut off Federal funds to 
any city in America to make the streets safer?
  He wants to argue about immigration laws. Well, that is a valid 
debate. We had it for 3 weeks here in the Senate, and we will have to 
return to it because we ended up doing nothing. But in his effort today 
to bring this immigration issue out to the floor of the Senate, the 
Senator from Louisiana is threatening the Federal funds that many 
cities in my home State of Illinois are using to fight violent crime. 
Why? That makes no sense at all. Will he feel better if there are more 
killings on the street? Of course not. None of us would. I think he 
would feel better if there were more cops on the street.
  But his amendment seeks to cut off COPS funding for the city of 
Chicago and other towns in Illinois, and that is not right. I urge my 
colleagues, when they consider the Vitter amendment, to consider how 
you would respond to the mayors of these towns when they ask you: How 
in the world did you disqualify my city from receiving money for 
bulletproof vests for my policemen? How can you, Senator or 
Congressman, explain to their families why that fallen policeman's life 
was taken because no bulletproof vest could be provided from Federal 
funds?
  I do not understand the logic behind this. I would say that many of 
these cities are working hard to fight crime. They are working with 
many people. The former president of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, Joseph Estey, said in relation to a proposal similar 
to the one offered by Senator Vitter:

       Many leaders in the law enforcement community have serious 
     concerns about the chilling effect any measure of this nature 
     would have on legal and illegal aliens reporting criminal 
     activity or assisting police in criminal investigations. This 
     lack of cooperation could diminish the ability of law 
     enforcement agencies to police effectively their 
     communities and protect the public they serve.

  It is particularly troubling that the Vitter amendment seeks to link 
COPS funding to the overturning of city confidentiality policies. This 
bill, the one Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have brought before 
us, currently provides for $660 million in COPS funding. That is a 
dramatic increase over the administration's request. The money, of 
course, is for new police officers, bulletproof vests, combating 
methamphetamine, law enforcement technology enhancements, arresting and 
prosecuting child predators--the Vitter amendment would cut off Federal 
funds for efforts to arrest and prosecute child predators--and a lot of 
other important programs.
  This COPS money is focused on helping State and local law enforcement 
stop violent crime, stop crimes against children, stop sexual 
predators. Similarly, cities and police departments have put policies 
in place regarding the confidentiality of immigration status so they 
can focus on stopping violent crime, and so law enforcement officials 
can obtain information about crimes from victims and witnesses in 
communities where they might not otherwise be able to obtain it.
  The goal of reducing violent crime is not served by telling police 
departments they can either have one crime reduction tool--the COPS 
money--or another--these confidentiality policies.
  Do we want to deprive police forces in 23 States additional manpower, 
men and women on the beat, keeping schools and neighborhoods safe, and 
deny these same police men and women bulletproof vests through the COPS 
Program, because local officials have determined when it comes to the 
enforcement of Federal immigration laws, the Federal Government should 
assume that enforcement? That is what it comes down to.
  We do have a serious immigration problem in this country. I voted--
most Members, maybe all Members have voted--for some $7 billion more in 
enforcement at the border between the United States and Mexico. We have 
to stop the illegal flow into this country. I think we have put our 
money where our intentions are. That is a fact.
  Earlier this year, we considered comprehensive immigration reform 
that would also have greatly improved the enforcement of our 
immigration laws. I supported this effort. It was controversial. We did 
not have enough votes. The Senator who has brought this amendment to 
the floor, which would cut off COPS funding, opposed any effort for a 
comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, he wants to force on State 
and local governments a responsibility we have not met at the Federal 
level, and he wants to threaten them with cutting off COPS funds that 
are critically important for them. I do not think that works.
  Violent crime is a serious problem in my State and across the Nation. 
Violent crime rates have gone up the last 2 years. We need to give our 
communities the tools to address this problem.
  I hope the Vitter amendment will be defeated. Let's make sure we do 
not make the safety of people living in 23 States a political pawn in 
this debate over immigration. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Vitter 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                           Amendment No. 3289

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are nearing the hour of 12 o'clock, 
when we have agreed there will be a rollcall vote on the DeMint 
amendment.
  I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator DeMint 
from South Carolina and ask unanimous consent that I be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. The GAO, the General Accounting Office, found that over 
120 million in tax dollars were wasted by Federal agencies dealing with 
travel--first-class travel--when economy travel or something less than 
first class could do. That is unacceptable to all of us here.
  I commend my colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, for 
bringing this to the Senate's attention, and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment in a few minutes.
  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.
  All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the DeMint 
amendment No. 3289.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut

[[Page S12898]]

(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
   Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 365 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bayh
     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Murkowski
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3289) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 
p.m. today, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to 
the Ensign amendment No. 3294, and that upon the use or yielding back 
of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that 
upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume amendment No. 
3295, another Ensign amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote in relation to that amendment; that upon the use or yielding back 
of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that 
no amendments be in order to either amendment in this agreement prior 
to the vote; and that the debate time be equally divided and controlled 
between Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we also believe we will be having a vote 
at more or less the same time on the Thune amendment, as it relates to 
the Legal Services Corporation. We are waiting for final word from 
Senator Harkin on that. But when we return from the respective caucus 
lunches, we expect there to be a debate on the Thune amendment, the 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, will be speaking, and about that time we 
expect to have another UC.
  There will be votes throughout the afternoon. We urge our colleagues 
at our respective party lunches to speak to both Senator Shelby and 
myself as a way of disposing of those amendments that have been filed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes to pay tribute to a Louisianian who passed away this past week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
her poignant comments.
  Mr. President, we have another UC that has not quite ripened as yet, 
so I will suggest we recess for the party luncheons.

                          ____________________