[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12898-S12907]
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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now, at 
2:15, Senator Murray of Washington State be recognized for up to 7 
minutes; that following those remarks there be 30 minutes of debate 
with respect to the Thune amendment, No. 3317, with the time equally 
divided and controlled between Senators Thune and Harkin or their 
designees, that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote, and that the vote in relation to this amendment occur upon the 
disposition of the Ensign amendment No. 3295, with 2 minutes of debate 
prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence the 
vote time be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 3214 Withdrawn

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 3214 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are few bills that we deal with in 
Washington, DC, that are more critical to the safety and well-being of 
our communities than the bill we are considering on the floor today. 
This legislation is going to help fund Federal law enforcement and 
justice programs that are absolutely essential if we are going to keep 
our neighborhoods safe, keep our justice system strong, and make sure 
our communities are healthy. At a time when our budgets are very tight 
and our needs are very great, I believe this bill invests in the right 
priorities. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their 
leadership and their very hard work to put this bill together.
  But as all of us in this Chamber know, despite their hard work and 
leadership at their subcommittee to make a sound investment in the 
health of our communities, the President has said he will veto this 
bill. According to the administration, the additional funding in this 
bill is ``irresponsible and excessive.''
  That is very hard to fathom when this administration is asking for 
over $190 billion in emergency appropriations to fight the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan for 1 year. While this President easily is spending our 
money overseas, local communities in my home State and around the 
country are going without the money they need for very critical 
programs.
  The increases this legislation calls for are a fraction of what this 
President spends on the wars in a year. The money in this bill will go 
to revitalize programs that have been overlooked by this 
administration. My home State, for example, is experiencing a dangerous 
shortage of FBI agents who do essential work to ensure that we prevent 
another terrorist attack at home and who perform critical law 
enforcement duties. That shortage is one example of how this President 
mixed up the Nation's priorities. But this bill does make a small step 
toward fixing some of those years of problems.
  In my home State, the lack of FBI agents for critical law enforcement 
needs has been a serious concern for some time, but the urgency of this 
situation was driven home recently in a series of articles by the 
Seattle Post-

[[Page S12899]]

Intelligencer. The paper's first article noted that since 9/11:

     the White House and the Justice Department have failed to 
     replace at least 2,400 agents, transferred from law 
     enforcement to counterterrorism, leaving far fewer agents on 
     the trail of identity thieves, con-artists, hate mongers and 
     other criminals.

  The article I referred to found that Washington State has a mere 2.1 
FBI agents for every 100,000 residents. That is nearly half the 
national average.
  This past week, I met with police chiefs and sheriffs from across my 
State, and they agreed this shift has had a real impact on State and 
local law enforcement. One police chief told me the FBI had virtually 
disappeared from white collar crime investigations. A sheriff told me 
the local law enforcement now investigates and prosecutes over 90 
percent of all bank robberies, even though this has traditionally been 
a FBI responsibility.
  Another police chief told me the FBI does not have the law 
enforcement resources to adequately staff antigang task forces, even as 
the gang presence and gang-related crime increases in our communities.
  All of these sheriffs and police chiefs had nothing but praise for 
the essential work that FBI agents perform in their communities. But 
even as the FBI focuses on counterterrorism, they ask that it not 
abandon law enforcement. The Seattle FBI field office has remained 
understaffed even for counterterrorism agents. That is especially 
troubling because Washington State's industry-leading companies, 
international seaports, and important military facilities make it a 
prime target for a terrorist attack. Three years from now, thousands of 
people are going to travel through my home State to attend the 2010 
Vancouver Winter Olympics. We have to be prepared for the worst. 
Currently, Washington State ranks 35th in per capita FBI agents. 
Clearly, that makes no sense.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for working with me on 
this issue; specifically an amendment that would end this disconnect 
and ensure we are placing our FBI agents where they can best protect 
our communities. It will also get the FBI to tell us how it intends to 
distribute its resources.
  That amendment is the first step toward ensuring that the FBI's 
priorities are in sync with our country's security needs and its own 
stated priorities. I commend Senator Mikulski for her recognition of 
that need. Her work to include additional funding for the FBI in this 
bill is a very good first step. The next step is to increase funding to 
hire, train, and place new FBI agents throughout the country that will 
help to ease the burden the FBI has had to bear since 9/11 changed its 
mission.
  But I think we all know more funding is needed. Unfortunately, if 
this President believes that increasing our FBI budget is irresponsible 
and excessive and plans to veto this bill, we will not be able to make 
the necessary investments today that will make our country more secure 
tomorrow.

  While Federal agents are critically important to maintaining the 
security of our country, we all know that State and local law 
enforcement are the real guardians for our communities. In this post-9/
11 world, we have asked them to place counterterrorism at the top of 
their priorities.
  But criminals have not stopped abusing children or robbing stores or 
dealing drugs. The local police have been told they need to do more 
with less, but we have reached a point today where we simply cannot ask 
them to do more without help.
  A recent FBI crime report showed that after a decade of declines, 
violent crime is now rising for the second straight year. We have to 
make sure it doesn't rise again. This bill restores funding for our 
State and local law enforcement to nearly $2.7 billion and fills a 
major gap, after the President cut its budget in half. This will also 
provide $1.4 billion for State and local law enforcement grants, 
including $550 million for COPS grants, and over $100 million for Byrne 
grants. These funds are critically important and they support antidrug 
and antigang task forces around the country.
  They fund communications equipment that helps our police and our 
emergency response teams talk to each other, something we all know is 
desperately needed in all our communities.
  They fund critical programs to deal with the spread of 
methamphetamine, and police chiefs and sheriffs have consistently told 
me these grants were absolutely essential to their ability to protect 
our communities. Unfortunately, as I said, we have heard the President 
say he is going to veto this legislation. This bill addresses critical 
priorities across our country and I urge all my colleagues to support 
the bill and send the President a message from our constituents at home 
that he is taking our country's safety and economic well-being in the 
wrong direction and that we need to change focus and give our 
communities what they need to be safe and sound and secure.
  This bill also addresses vital commercial and economic interests 
across the Nation.
  In my home State, that means helping to ensure a healthy, sustainable 
salmon population. In Washington State, healthy salmon mean a healthy 
economy. That's why I am thankful that this bill includes $90 million 
in funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. This money 
will help support our State's coordinated effort to restore salmon runs 
and preserve a way of life in the Pacific Northwest.
  When I talk with leaders in my home State about the need to restore 
our salmon populations, they call it critical.
  When I go home and discuss with law enforcement officials, experts 
and the media, about the need to increase the number of FBI agents, 
they say it is an urgent problem.
  When I talk to local police and sheriffs about the need for COPS and 
Byrne grants, they say these grants are crucial to the security and 
safety of our communities.
  Yet when I return to Washington, DC, I am told by this President that 
the money that is so desperately needed at home is ``irresponsible and 
excessive.''
  It could not be clearer that this Administration is out of step with 
the priorities of the people of State and the people of this country.
  We have presented the President a measured, responsible bill to 
bolster our security and build our economy, and I understand he has 
decided to reject it.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and send the President 
a message from our constituents at home: That he is taking our 
country's safety and economic well-being in the wrong direction, and 
that we need to change focus and give our communities what they need to 
be safe, and sound, and secure.


                           Amendment No. 3317

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 3317, offered by the Senator from 
South Dakota, Mr. Thune, equally divided and controlled by the Senator 
from South Dakota and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  Who seeks time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am hear to speak in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. The amendment he 
offered would reduce the vital legal assistance to our most vulnerable 
citizens, low-income Americans who need help with their most critical 
legal needs.
  First of all, I wish to say I am a strong supporter of the bill 
before us. The President proposed drastic cuts in funding for State and 
local law enforcement, but the bill provides a total of $2.6 billion 
for State and local law enforcement which is about $1.5 billion above 
the President's request. The President's budget also proposed to reduce 
the number of Federal law enforcement agents working to combat violent 
crime, but this bill rejects that cut, as well as lifting the hiring 
freeze on DEA agents.
  I wish to point out something else. The bill further provides $1.7 
billion for U.S. attorneys, $92 million more than last year, and it 
directly addresses Native American needs. The bill provides $35 million 
for tribal law enforcement efforts. The bill further provides $1 
million in research on violence against Native American women.
  I know Senators Mikulski and Shelby did their best to provide 
additional resources, especially given the severe budget constraints we 
face, but the answer to the problems that Native

[[Page S12900]]

Americans have with domestic violence and violent crime is not to 
deprive them and other poor citizens of our country of basic legal 
services. That is what the Thune amendment does. Senator Thune is 
putting more money into the U.S. attorneys to combat violent crime, but 
he is taking it out of Legal Services. That tradeoff is wrong and I 
encourage my colleagues to reject the Thune amendment and support the 
level of funding provided in the bill.
  Let me take a minute to explain why the increase in funding for Legal 
Services is so important. In 1996, Legal Services took a drastic cut in 
funding by the Congress. It went from $415 million to $278 million. It 
was almost cut in half. We have been trying to get the funding back up 
since that time. I point out if at that time, from 1995 to now, we had 
kept pace with inflation, Legal Services would currently be funded at 
about $566 million. This bill gets it up to $390 million, so we are not 
even back up to where we were in 1995. As I said, the Thune amendment 
cuts $20 million out of the increase provided in this bill and gives it 
to U.S. attorneys. But I also pointed out, the U.S. attorneys already 
got a $92 million increase in the bill, for $1.7 billion in total 
funding.
  Of course, it is not just Native Americans but a wide range of low-
income Americans including, in recent years, victims of Hurricane 
Katrina and even victims of 9/11, who utilize legal services. We have 
all read in recent months about the vast increase in the number of 
people losing their homes because of foreclosures and the scandal in 
the subprime lending market. Many of these people are low income, and 
they are going to need help from Legal Services because they will not 
be able to afford an attorney.
  Again, make no mistake, even under this bill as it is, Legal Services 
is not able to serve the legal needs of all low-income Americans. For 
example, 50 percent of eligible applicants requesting legal assistance 
from the Legal Services Corporation grantees are turned away because of 
lack of funding. Keep in mind that, in order to be eligible for Legal 
Services, you have to be at or below 125 percent of poverty level. That 
is an income of $25,000 a year for a family of four. That means right 
now we are turning away half of the families earning less than $25,000 
a year who need legal help. In some parts of the country, it is even 
higher. In Wisconsin, 80 percent of poor households who face legal 
problems do so without an attorney.
  In California, 66 percent; in Nebraska, 86 percent; in Utah, 87 
percent; in New Mexico, 80 percent. On and on. Those are the percentage 
of low-income people in those States who face a legal problem yet do 
not get any help.
  With so many people going unserved, every cent is crucial. The 
adoption of the Thune amendment would only result in furthering the 
justice gap in this country and in many cases hurt the very people the 
Senator from South Dakota wishes to help, Native Americans.
  The clients of Legal Services Corporation funded programs are the 
most vulnerable among us, and many of them are Native Americans. Since 
2001, 2.8 percent of all of the appropriations going to Legal Services 
has gone to meet the legal needs of disadvantaged Native Americans in 
this country. That means that under this bill about $10.4 million would 
go to Native American legal services. That includes South Dakota. In 
many of these States like South Dakota, a majority of legal services 
goes to serve Native American populations. In fact, in 2006, fully 67 
percent of the clients served by civil legal services in South Dakota 
were Native Americans--67 percent. By taking money from Legal Services, 
you are hurting the very people who need legal help, including many of 
our Native Americans.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for a 
question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator's presentation. 
I have indicated to my colleague from South Dakota that I share his 
instinct and we need better law enforcement on Indian reservations. I 
do not think there is any question about it.
  I appreciate the fact that Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby added 
back funds that had been eliminated in the President's budget. But we 
have a long way to go and we have talked about that here. The instinct 
is right to try to provide more funding so we are able to deal with 
those issues.
  I held a hearing last week. A report shows that 34 percent of Indian 
women will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That is 
unbelievable. We have serious law enforcement problems.
  But I must vote against this amendment for the following reason: I 
cannot support an amendment, even though it adds money we need, that we 
will pay for by eliminating--by reducing funding for legal services, 
precisely because, as the Senator from Iowa says, legal services are 
the access to the legal system for low-income folks. It is the only 
opportunity they have, in many cases, for them to access the legal 
system.
  That budget has been cut, and cut repeatedly. Now we are trying to 
add some back. To cut it now would be the wrong thing.
  I appreciate the Senator yielding to me. I am very interested, I know 
the Senator from Iowa is very interested, in working with Senator Thune 
and others, Senators Shelby and Mikulski. I have talked to them to try 
to find ways to add back to these accounts in the future. We must do 
that. It has been partially restored in some of these areas by Senators 
Mikulski and Shelby.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing me to weigh in. I say I 
certainly support his presentation. I support the instinct of the 
Senator from South Dakota in wanting to try to improve this area of 
funding. But we cannot do it by taking away from such important funding 
as Legal Services.
  Mr. HARKIN. I also appreciate the efforts of the Senator from South 
Dakota. Again, if you are asking whether I have any problems with where 
the Senator from South Dakota wants to provide additional funding, no, 
I do not. I have problems with where we are taking it from. That is my 
basic problem, because all of the data and all of the testimony tells 
us that Legal Services are helping the very people we are talking 
about, especially women who are victims of domestic violence.
  Because, a lot of times, Legal Services attorneys are handling family 
law matters. But before they get to the prosecutorial level, for 
example, there are things that can be worked out. Individuals have a 
lawyer--for example, domestic violence restraining orders, separation 
agreements, or child custody arrangements, those types of things, which 
are civil matters. U.S. attorneys do not handle that. That is what 
Legal Services does.
  The incidence of violence toward Native American women is tragic. As 
the Senator from South Dakota pointed out in his presentation earlier, 
he said Native American women are seven times more likely to be victims 
of domestic violence than other women. That is what the Senator from 
North Dakota also just told us.
  But, again, it is precisely these citizens whom Legal Services 
Corporation-funded programs assist. Three out of four clients of Legal 
Services are women--three out of four.
  Legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of the top 
priorities in their caseloads. Recent studies have shown that the only 
public service that reduces domestic abuse in the long term is women's 
access to legal aid, the very assistance this amendment would 
drastically curtail. So legal services does make a big difference.
  As I said, it is not just Native Americans I am talking about. Legal 
Services is still helping victims of 9/11, flood victims, Katrina 
victims. Now we have a whole new group of people accessing Legal 
Services. I am almost embarrassed to say this. There is another group 
we now see accessing Legal Services in a big way. Do you know who they 
are? Our soldiers and their families. Our soldiers and their families, 
because some of these enlistees who are privates and below do not get 
enough money. They may have problems, separations. They have been gone 
a long time. There are family problems. They do not have enough money 
to hire an attorney. Their spouses might not. So they are accessing 
Legal Services. This amendment would say: No, we are going to cut back 
on that. So, again, I think it is important for us to keep this in 
mind.

[[Page S12901]]

  I know the Senator from South Dakota had mentioned the recent 
management problems at Legal Services headquarters. Believe me, no one 
was more upset than this Senator when the reports came out a year ago, 
first with the IG investigation and then GAO report. I say that because 
I started my life after law school as a Legal Services attorney. That 
is what I did. I know that every cent in the field counts. So if they 
are wasting money up here in Washington with chauffeured limousines and 
fancy hotels and all of that kind of stuff, it makes my blood boil, 
because I know what the Legal Services attorneys in the field are 
living with, and they are pinching pennies. They are not paid a lot.
  That is why I was glad, in the education bill that passed earlier, we 
included Legal Services lawyers as those who would have their loans 
repaid if they stayed and became Legal Services attorneys.
  Again, I share with the Senator from South Dakota and others my total 
abhorrence of what was going on in the hierarchy. I will say this: The 
GAO recommended a number of things for Legal Services to do to address 
these problems that are now being implemented, in terms of the board 
structure and other important oversight protections. Why it was not 
done before, I do not know. There is no excuse for it. There is 
absolutely no excuse for it. But I can say that the board is now 
implementing the suggestions and the recommendations of the GAO. I made 
it very clear as a long-time supporter of the Legal Services 
Corporation, I made it very clear to management that they needed to act 
immediately to address the GAO recommendations. I know both Senator 
Shelby and Senator Mikulski have said the same thing to LSC. So LSC 
management knows that people here are watching. I know they are acting 
to address it. Their board of directors has publicly accepted all of 
GAO's recommendations. They have begun their implementation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Legal Services Corporation's response to GAO which outlines the 
steps they are taking to ensure better management at headquarters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Comments From the Legal Services Corporation

                                                    July 31, 2007.
     Jeanette M. Franzel,
     Director, Financial Management and Assurance, Government 
         Accountability Office,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Franzel: Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
     written comments on the Government Accountability Office 
     (GAO) draft report entitled Legal Services Corporation--
     Governance and Accountability Practices Need To Be Modernized 
     and Strengthened. This is Management's response to your draft 
     report. The Board of Directors is responding separately.
       We are pleased with your findings that LSC ``has stronger 
     federal accountability requirements than many nonprofit 
     corporations'' and that LSC Board members ``demonstrated 
     active involvement through their strong board meeting 
     attendance and participation in LSC oversight.'' We intend to 
     build on this strong base of accountability and oversight as 
     we respond to the recommendations for executive action which 
     you have made. We fully accept three of your recommendations 
     and we are committed to further action in the spirit of the 
     fourth recommendation.
       Regarding the appropriate financial reporting standard for 
     LSC, we are reviewing the Government Accounting Standards 
     Board standards, and we expect to complete our evaluation by 
     the end of October 2007.
       Regarding a Continuity of Operations Plan program, LSC has 
     adopted elements of a program, as noted in your draft report, 
     and we expect to complete our comprehensive program during 
     2008.
       Regarding a code of conduct, we have established a staff 
     task force to develop proposals for an LSC compliance 
     program, which will include a comprehensive code of conduct. 
     Our goal is to have recommendations to the Board of Directors 
     by the January 2008 Board meeting.
       Regarding a risk management program, we are committed to 
     improving the risk management program at LSC. We note that 
     LSC has managed its risks well over the past 33 years. We 
     will review and implement those additional program elements 
     that are desirable and appropriate for an organization of our 
     size.
       We recommend that several clarifications be made to your 
     draft report narrative to insure its overall accuracy. In 
     discussing the accountability of LSC for the management of 
     its federal appropriations, the draft report does not address 
     the existence of congressional oversight. LSC has both 
     authorizing and appropriations committees in the House and 
     the Senate, and LSC is subject to regular oversight from 
     these committees. LSC has been the subject of appropriations 
     and oversight hearings five times in the past three years. 
     LSC staff meet regularly with both Members and congressional 
     staff to discuss ongoing operations.
       In discussing LSC's whistleblower protections, the draft 
     report does not acknowledge that LSC has a whistleblower 
     protection statement in its Employee Handbook. This 
     protection for those who complain to the Office of Inspector 
     General (OIG) has been in place at LSC for almost 20 years.
       The draft report references potential conflicts of interest 
     with respect to LSC's Acting Special Counsels. All of the 
     relevant information relating to the Acting Special Counsels 
     was provided to the OIG. The OIG made no findings of any 
     conflict of interest with respect to the Acting Special 
     Counsels, and no report of any potential conflicts of 
     interest exists. LSC has been and remains diligent in its 
     ethical obligation to avoid any conflicts of interest. Since 
     the draft report itself makes no finding by GAO of potential 
     conflicts of interest, the placement of this reference in the 
     ``What GAO Found'' section (see Highlights page) is 
     particularly troublesome.
       Finally, while we recognize that your recommendations of 
     matters for congressional consideration are not made to LSC, 
     we feel compelled to observe that LSC's existing statutory 
     framework is appropriate and has served very well the 
     purposes which Congress intended, as described in the 
     appendices to the draft report which explain the rationale 
     for establishing LSC as a non-profit corporation. Should 
     there be a desire to apply some additional management 
     requirements to LSC, that can be accomplished without 
     modifying the nonprofit corporation framework which Congress 
     enacted. To change the framework of LSC to that of a 
     government corporation or federal agency would subject the 
     mission of providing civil legal assistance to poor people to 
     the kind of political pressure and operational controls which 
     Congress wisely sought to avoid in 1974.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the draft 
     report. This has been a helpful and constructive process for 
     us. We welcome your recommendations for executive action.
           Sincerely,
                                               Helaine M. Barnett,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Regardless of what we may think about the management of 
Legal Services, and what the board was or was not doing, asleep at the 
switch, it is important to note that this amendment would not impact 
management. Only $13 million of the $390 million appropriated in the 
bill goes for management and administration. That account has not 
received a single penny increase in the funding, thanks to Senator 
Shelby and thanks to Senator Mikulski. I know this because I worked 
with them and I championed the increase included in the bill, but to 
ensure that the money went where it was needed, to the programs in the 
field and not to management here in Washington.
  Senator Thune's amendment, in taking this money out of Legal 
Services, may talk about the management, but none of the increase we 
put in here goes to management. It all goes to the field operations. 
Those are the people who need it the most.
  Again, I echo what my friend from North Dakota said. I think the 
thrust of what Senator Thune is trying to do is laudable. Obviously we 
do have a problem with domestic violence and abuse of Native American 
women. Obviously this needs to be prosecuted. I would say before that 
step, though, we need to make sure we have legal services available to 
them, so that we cut down on the incidence of domestic abuse and 
domestic violence. For that reason I would oppose the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, amendment No. 3317 I submitted last night. 
I spoke to it at that point, but I wish to again make some comments 
with regard to the amendment and the need that exists in the Indian 
country for this additional funding.
  I appreciate the passion of my friend from Iowa for Legal Services 
Corporation and support of that organization. But I would simply say 
that once again, these appropriations bills are forcing us to make 
decisions about what our priorities need to be.
  This debate is about choosing priorities. I also say to my friend 
from Iowa that we are not talking about cutting Legal Services 
Corporation over the level they were at last year. They were at $348 
million in fiscal year 2007. My amendment would still allow a $22 
million increase over last year's level. It

[[Page S12902]]

would fund them at $370 million instead of the $390 million that is 
included in the base bill. So you are still talking about a 6.3-percent 
increase in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, so they can 
continue to do the work they need to do to fulfill their obligations to 
the American public and the American taxpayers. But what this simply 
does is say we have a very desperate need in Indian country, and this 
$20 million could go to very good use in helping us combat violent 
crime on our reservations.
  I guess the question we come down to in these debates on 
appropriations--and particularly with regard to this amendment--is: 
Should we provide more badly needed funding to fight violent crime in 
Indian country or should we put additional funds into an organization 
that has engaged, according to the GAO and the inspector general, in 
wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by providing what would be a 
substantial increase above the President's recommendation of $311 
million and, as I said before, an increase of $42 million over the $348 
million that Legal Services Corporation received in last year's 
appropriations bill?
  This bill, the underlying base bill, provides $390 million to Legal 
Services Corporation. It is a program that has not been reauthorized 
since 1980. That is a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated 
for the Legal Services Corporation in fiscal year 2007, and a 20-
percent increase over the recommendations that were made earlier this 
year in the administration's budget. That substantial increase comes at 
a time when the Legal Services Corporation has faced very serious 
questions about its management and expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
  The GAO and the Office of Inspector General within the Legal Services 
Corporation clearly lay out the management and waste that has been 
going on in the LSC. As I said, my amendment is a modest decrease in 
the amount of spending that is reflected in the underlying bill. 
Instead of a $40 million increase, the Legal Services Corporation would 
still receive a substantial increase of $20 million under my amendment.
  Again, I would say that if you look at the GAO report, it is not some 
dated thing. This is August of 2007. The GAO in their report, entitled 
``Legal Services Corporation: Governance and Accountability Practices 
Need to be Modernized and Strengthened,'' noted a dozen officers and 
employees of the Legal Services Corporation have received compensation 
in excess of the statutory compensation limitation. According to the 
GAO and outside legal counsel, they issued an opinion last May 
concluding that LSC had not complied with the statutory limitation on 
the rate of compensation. The GAO agreed with that conclusion, and went 
on to state that: Without a properly designed and implemented end 
process for overseeing compensation, LSC remains at risk of not 
complying with related laws and regulations and engaging in imprudent 
management practices.
  Now, as my friend from Iowa has noted, they are responding, as 
rightly they should, to address those things. But I think the question 
is, do you want to reward, with a 12-percent increase, a significant 
increase over fiscal year 2007, that kind of behavior?
  We have an opportunity here again to set priorities. In my view, we 
have a very serious priority that needs to be dealt with on our Indian 
reservations in this country, which has been pointed out in any number 
of different stories and articles.
  I have lots of personal examples I can offer from people who actually 
live on reservations who work in the education system. I have a letter 
from a superintendent from a reservation school who says: We have one 
school resource officer in our school system who is certified as a law 
enforcement officer. However, on this particular reservation, we have a 
total of seven BIA policemen to patrol 2.2 million acres of 
reservation. The response time by the BIA police department can be 
hours for our residents on the reservation or typically result in no 
response at all.
  If you look at the way these cases are prosecuted on the reservation, 
I have another letter from a constituent who lives out there who says:

       In some of these situations the people committing the 
     criminal activities have been caught. They have been sent to 
     jail, released and [are] back on the street committing more 
     crimes, sometimes within 24 hours of the last crime.

  This principal in his letter talked about what is becoming a very 
deep endemic problem on reservations; that is, the increased presence 
of organized gangs, violence, and drugs.
  There are lots of anecdotal examples I could share of the need for 
additional law enforcement presence. I cosponsored, along with Senator 
Dorgan, an amendment earlier on this bill that would increase the 
number of law enforcement personnel who would be on the reservations to 
address what is the issue of actually apprehending people when they 
commit crimes. What my amendment does is couples with that the other 
aspect, and that is making sure that when people are apprehended for 
committing these types of crimes, they go on to get prosecuted.
  What is amazing is, if you look at the rate of prosecution on Indian 
reservations and how it compares with prosecutions elsewhere--there was 
an article recently in the Wall Street Journal that said that based on 
Justice Department data, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred 
to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted. That compares with 56 percent for 
all other cases. It goes on to say that one of the reasons those cases 
don't get prosecuted in Indian country is because Federal prosecutors 
have long distances involved, a lack of resources, and the cost of 
hauling witnesses and defendants to Federal court. As a consequence, a 
lot of cases are not being dealt with.
  The U.S. attorney who deals with this in a very admirable way in my 
State of South Dakota suffers from a lack of resources to do the work 
that is necessary to make sure that crimes that are committed on the 
reservation are dealt with, and dealt with in an expeditious way.
  If you look at the data--this is Justice Department data from 1992 to 
2001--the average rate of violent crime among American Indians was 2\1/
2\ times the national rate. In fact, according to one report in the 
Indian Country Today newspaper, Native American women are seven times 
more likely to be the victim of domestic violence than are other women, 
and more than 60 percent of Indian women will be victims of violent 
assault during their lifetime.
  Senator Dorgan was on the Senate floor yesterday discussing this 
issue. He noted that one-third of Indian women will be raped or 
sexually assaulted during their lifetime. This is unacceptable. This 
has to stop.
  What we are simply saying with this amendment is, here is a way to 
address the issue. Again, we need more law enforcement personnel on the 
reservations, which this bill will attempt to address, as will an 
amendment that was offered earlier by Senator Dorgan. I cosponsored an 
amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, the meth hot spots legislation, 
that would allow the cops made available under that legislation to be 
used by Indian reservations. But it is important that we get at the 
issue of making sure our U.S. attorneys are in a position to be able to 
prosecute when violent crimes are committed in Indian country. These 
statistics are stunning, when you look at the number of Native American 
women who are subject to these types of violent crimes--in many cases, 
sexual assault--that go unprosecuted because of a lack of resources to 
the Justice Department so U.S. attorneys can bring those cases in 
court.
  I again come back to the basic premise of the amendment. It does 
increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the underlying 
bill does. The base bill increases it to $390 million from the $348 
million level in fiscal year 2007. The administration budget actually 
recommended $311 million. So $311 to $390 million is about a 20-percent 
increase. That was over the administration's budget. It is about 12 
percent in the base bill over the fiscal year 2007 level from $348 
million to $390 million. What my amendment does is pares back the size 
of that increase by $20 million. So it will now go from $348 million in 
fiscal year 2007 to $370 million in fiscal year 2008. That is a better 
than 6-percent increase. So we are not taking away anything from Legal 
Services Corporation or their ability to do their job. We are simply 
saying a part of that substantial increase, coming at a time when the 
Legal Services Corporation is under tremendous scrutiny

[[Page S12903]]

and criticism from the Government/Accountabiilty Office, as well as 
from their own inspector general, it makes sense, in my view, to take 
those resources, those $20 million out of that particular account, 
apply that to giving the U.S. attorneys the resources they need to 
combat violent crime on our Indian reservations.
  There isn't anything that works if you don't have a secure, safe 
environment. Public safety is the most important responsibility we 
have. Our Indian reservations today are suffering from a tremendous 
lack of enforcement of laws, a failure on the part of our Government to 
respond to providing security. I have talked with school 
superintendents and principals whose children cannot learn when they 
don't have a safe learning environment. That is what we are dealing 
with today because of a lack of law enforcement personnel and a lack of 
capability on behalf of the U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes 
committed in Indian country so that those who perpetrate those crimes 
are not released and back out on the street to commit further crimes.
  It is a straightforward amendment: $20 million out of the Legal 
Services Corporation increase, a substantial increase still over what 
they received last year, and take that $20 million and apply it to a 
very desperate need that we have on our reservations to make sure we 
are doing our best to provide public safety so our young children in 
Indian country have the ability to learn, to get educated, to conduct 
their lives, and to create an opportunity where the economy in Indian 
country can grow and prosper as well. You can't do that absent public 
safety and security.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Up to 3 minutes has been reserved. Who seeks 
recognition?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond. Again, I want to read 
from the bill so it is clear in everyone's mind that none of the money 
the Senator from South Dakota is taking out of Legal Services will come 
from administration. The bill itself says, page 81: $372 million is for 
basic field programs, $13.8 million for management and administration--
exactly what they had last year.
  Again, we are not rewarding LSC management for being bad actors, nor 
are we rewarding the board for the poor oversight they provided. We are 
keeping the management and administration account to the same level it 
was funded at last year. So the money Senator Thune is proposing to cut 
will come from field operations.
  Secondly, there is a glass half full/half empty story about the 
increase in this bill for Legal Services. Over 11 years ago, this 
Congress cut Legal Services in half. Since that time, the number of 
people in poverty has grown. We have more poor people. Yet we still are 
not even at the level we were in 1995 for Legal Services. Imagine that. 
If we had kept pace with inflation from 1995 to now, Legal Services 
would be funded at the level of about $566 million. This bill only gets 
it back to $390 million. So we are not even where we were in 1995.
  Lastly, while I understand what the Senator from South Dakota is 
saying about violent crime in Indian country and on reservations, we 
are cognizant of that, but why take the money away from the very 
services helping our Native Americans. As I said, 67 percent of Legal 
Services money spent in South Dakota goes to Native Americans. I would 
submit that a lot of that goes to help prevent the kind of domestic 
violence that results in prosecutorial action later on. Think of it 
like preventive medicine. Better to have Legal Services there, access 
for poor Indians who want to come in who may have domestic problems, 
landlord-tenant problems, child custody problems, whatever, that may 
lead to some kind of domestic violence. Better to let them have access 
to Legal Services and take care of it that way before it blows up into 
a violent situation.
  I, again, hope Senators will reject the amendment of the Senator from 
South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in response to my colleague from Iowa, this 
amendment doesn't take anything away from Legal Services Corporation. 
They received $348 million in fiscal year 2007. This base bill proposes 
to increase that by $42 million, or about 12 percent, to $390 million 
in 2008. This isn't taking away anything they currently have. In fact, 
under my amendment the Legal Services Corporation gets a 6.3-percent 
increase over fiscal year 2007. There is nothing being taken away from 
anybody. There is nothing they have today that is going to be taken 
away. They will see a 6.3-percent increase. What this does is shift 
money to what, in my view, is a higher priority, and that is the need 
we have in Indian country for making sure that we are doing a better 
job of prosecuting cases and enforcing the law. We have a serious 
problem.
  This is from the Justice Department: American Indians annually 
experience 7 sexual assaults per 1,000 residents compared with 3 per 
1,000 among African Americans and 2 per 1,000 among whites. The 
statistics are in front of us. We cannot afford to allow these 
conditions to continue to exist at a time when we have a lot of young 
people coming up on Indian reservations who need access to good 
education, need an opportunity to achieve their dreams. You just can't 
do that absent public safety. What we have today in Indian country is a 
very serious situation. For everybody who comes into my office, this is 
the issue that continues to recur that they share with me. We have to 
address it. I believe we have a responsibility to do that.
  This amendment does it in a responsible way, not by cutting anything 
for an organization from where it is today, but it simply reduces the 
increase that the Legal Services Corporation would get, from a 12-
percent increase over last year's level to a 6.3-percent increase over 
last year's level, which seems a fair way of going about this.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to do something 
about law enforcement and the crime problem that exists today on 
America's Indian reservations. In so doing, we will improve the quality 
of life for our citizens who live on America's reservations and 
hopefully provide a safer future for their children.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know the hour between 3 and 3:15 has not been 
designated for debate, but as the manager of the bill and also as a 
professionally trained social worker, I want to speak against the Thune 
amendment.
  What we want to acknowledge is the validity of the concerns to fund 
help for the Indian tribes. But let's go to the facts. Fact No. 1, the 
President's budget request eliminated dedicated funding for tribes. 
This very President, this very administration has eliminated dedicated 
funding for tribes. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, rejected 
that. It is true, we do need to help get those resources into Indian 
country. We do not doubt the validity of that. In response, we said no 
to the President eliminating dedicated funding, and yes to $83 million. 
This subcommittee will put in $83 million for tribal programs to fight 
crime, protect victims, and to help troubled tribal youth; $35 million 
for tribal law enforcement, for training, hiring, for equipment, for 
court improvement projects; $28 million for additional tribe 
assistance; $10 million for youth intervention programs; $6 million for 
domestic violence programs. We have said no to the President 
eliminating this, and yes to the $83 million. Even the way OMB counts, 
that is real money. The second thing is we should not pit one group of 
needy Americans against the needs of other Americans.

  Let's go to Legal Services. This agency was created in 1974, and it 
has been fighting for its existence ever since. But little by little 
over the years we made incremental improvements in its funding. 
However, in 1996 came a horrendous and Draconian cut. Legal Services 
endured a 50-percent cut in their funding. In 1980, the funding was 
$300 million. Remember what we are talking about now. In 2007 funds, we 
are talking about $390 million. If we had kept funding at the 1980 
levels, just

[[Page S12904]]

with inflation, Legal Services would be funded at $757 million.
  So guess what. Senator Mikulski, the Democrats take charge. We take a 
look at Legal Services and we say: We are concerned. We are concerned 
that for over 1 million people Legal Services helps, 1 million need to 
be turned away. Fifty percent of the people who come for legal services 
have to be turned away because of a lack of lawyers, paralegals, and 
other support staff.
  Let me say this: As a social worker--and, I might add, I am a dues-
paying National Association of Social Workers member. I was a foster 
care worker. I was a child abuse worker. I was an antipoverty program 
worker. I am still that kind of social worker, only now I fight it on 
the floor of the Senate rather than in the neighborhoods of Baltimore.
  As social workers, two of our best friends were our Legal Services 
lawyers and our school nurses. We could turn to them to have a team to 
help get families on the right track. We would turn to those Legal 
Services lawyers so that if a spouse was in a domestic violence 
situation, we could get the law enforcement help to them. We could get 
them through a divorce proceeding to get them on the right track, to 
give them a second chance, to get them moving.
  Often they were victims of predatory lending or other schemes and 
other scams. It was the Legal Services lawyers to whom we would turn to 
get that taken care of. Sometimes unscrupulous landlords would have 
them in lead-saturated houses. We could turn to our Legal Services 
lawyers and our public health nurses and we were able to turn lives 
around. Thank God for the Legal Services lawyers.
  Now, the Senator from South Dakota says this will not hurt anybody. 
You are not going after a corporation. We are eliminating lawyers and 
paralegals and the social support staff to help 1 million people. Darn 
right you are having an impact. You are not going after something 
called a corporation; you are going after our increases there.
  Now, we did not fund administrative costs. We did not kind of bloat 
up a bureaucracy. Our money is specifically focused on lawyers, 
paralegals, and the social support staff for a difference. So when we 
say let's take it from Legal Services to help the tribes, well, 70 
percent of the Legal Services population in South Dakota is Native 
American.
  So I would hope we are not pitting one group of needy Americans 
against another group of needy Americans. We hope you reject the Thune 
amendment, support the Mikulski-Shelby bipartisan bill that puts $83 
million in to help with tribal assistance. We are looking at how to 
deal with additional resources on the meth issues.
  Let's put Legal Services back on track. Let's help those lawyers. 
Let's help those paralegals. Let's help that social support staff work 
with people, families, and child services to turn lives around. One of 
the best ways to really help fight crime is in those early 
interventions we can do with families. So really, I ask you, with all 
the professional experience I ever had in these areas, let's stick with 
Legal Services.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence now 
commence at 3:30 p.m. today under the same conditions and limitations 
as previously ordered and that the time until then be equally divided 
between the managers or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BROWN. 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. Madam 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. 3295

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in about 15 minutes we will be voting 
on a series of amendments, and I wish to comment now on one of them, 
the Ensign amendment No. 3295.
  I want my colleagues to know I oppose the Ensign amendment No. 3295. 
What the Senator from Nevada is proposing is to reduce the NASA funding 
in this bill by $150 million and to put it into something called the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  Again, we are pitting good ideas against each other. That is why you 
have to really rely upon the chairman and ranking member, who kind of 
strike a balance with this bill.
  In the CJS bill, we did want to fund the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program. We know how important it is because it reimbursed 
the States for detaining illegal immigrants. This is a priority for 
this subcommittee, and we provided $400 million to do that. We are very 
aware that State budgets are stretched thin, that they should not bear 
the cost of paying the bill for detaining illegal immigrants. We do not 
want to create another unfunded Federal mandate there. So working with 
my colleague on the other side of the aisle, we made sure there was 
$400 million in it. Now, we acknowledge that the Senator from Nevada 
would like to increase it. We would like to increase it as well. But 
already the President is threatening a veto because we restored the 
funding for the COPS Program.
  Now, the cut to NASA is not a benign cut. It would be a devastating 
blow to NASA. It would be a major setback to the exploration programs 
and a devastating blow to the science programs. It would harm our 
effort to do very important things, one of which is a key priority for 
funding the next-generation shuttle.
  The shuttle, as we now know it, will retire in 2010. It is getting 
older, it has fewer flights that it can continue, and we need to be 
returning to space with a new vehicle. It is the No. 1 priority, on a 
bipartisan basis, for Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby, 
Bill Nelson, and Barbara Mikulski, who kind have been the space 
Senators here. Also, it is the No. 1 priority for the administration, 
and it is the No. 1 priority for the director of NASA that we need not 
delay in getting ready for that vehicle that returns us to space.
  From 2010, for another 3 to 5 years, we will have no access in space. 
We are going to rely on the kindness of allies to go back. We cannot 
lose time or ground. Our national security and our national honor 
depend upon it. Also, this would have a tremendous impact on the state 
of science, which goes to major efforts in terms of better 
understanding our planet Earth, where we do suspect intelligent life, 
and also the impact of climate changes. It is wonderful that we win the 
Nobel Prize on climate change--and we support our former colleague, 
Vice President Gore--but we have to keep winning those. Remember, the 
Nobel Prize not only went to Gore but to the scientists studying this. 
Regardless how you feel about the climate crisis, I think we need sound 
science and sensible solutions. So please, while we are looking at how 
are we going to pay the bills for the detention of illegal aliens in 
State facilities, don't penalize NASA. That would be an incredible 
setback to national security, to national honor, to national 
innovation, and a key administration priority.
  So I hope that when the Ensign amendment No. 3295 comes up for a 
vote, my colleagues will join me in tabling this amendment.
  I cannot say enough about the cooperation of Senator Shelby and his 
staff and about finding a balance in this bill, because we had so many 
competing needs, and in each one we tried to strike the balance. We had 
the will, but we didn't quite have the wallet to do what we needed to 
do. But we certainly have made significant progress and went well 
beyond downpayments in meeting our responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 
3295 offered by the Senator from Nevada.
  This amendment seeks to take $150 million from NASA and will give it 
to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program--a program that is 
already $400 million dollars over the budget request of zero.

[[Page S12905]]

  At first glance, a reduction of $150 million from NASA's $17 billion 
budget would seem minimal.
  However, let's look at the facts. After debating this bill, it is 
clear that NASA is a priority for the Senate.
  We debated and added an additional $1 billion to NASA in order to 
partially compensate for the funding shortfall NASA has endured since 
the Columbia disaster. This funding will only cover one-third of the 
$2.7 billion needed to keep NASA on track.
  To cut funding will endanger NASA missions that will inform us about 
the world we live in, and cripple our ability to be competitive in 
space.
  We are in a space race. While we are the current leader in space, 
there are many countries that want to take our place and are 
aggressively moving forward to do so.
  The administration has articulated, and Congress has endorsed, a 
vision for exploration. The return of our astronauts to the Moon is a 
Priority and we have provided the funding to accomplish that goal.
  Now this funding is in jeopardy.
  And what are we jeopardizing our future for? The State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program--a program that was not requested by the 
administration, and currently is funded in this bill at $400 million.
  We are being asked to add $150 million to a program that barely 
touches many of our States. Since 2000, five States have received 77 
percent of the $2.8 billion in funding for this program.
  Let me say that again--77 percent, or $2.2 of the $2.8 billion, for 
this program since 2000 has gone to only five States.
  This can hardly be called a national program, although I'm sure it is 
an important program.
  Yet, our Nation's space program benefits the lives of every American. 
The work that NASA does, from encouraging students into science and 
engineering careers, to innovative technology advances, improve our 
quality of life. The forward and innovative thinking at NASA helps to 
ensure our Nation has the ability to compete, and lead, in the global 
economy.
  We are committed to keeping our leadership role in space.
  In order to do so, we must make the right investments in space at the 
right times. That time is now.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Ensign amendment.
  Madam 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.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There are 2 minutes remaining under the previous order.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I reserve 30 seconds for myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to oppose this 
amendment. What we have, thanks to the two Senators who are leading 
this bill, is emergency funding for NASA to replace the funds that NASA 
had to expend as a result of the destruction of the Space Shuttle 
Columbia. These are funds that normally would be provided, as they were 
over two decades ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle 
Challenger, out of emergency funds. Instead, this time, NASA has had to 
take it out of its hide, out of its own operating funds. Therefore, all 
the plans of what NASA is doing to complete the International Space 
Station, as well as prepare for the new vehicles, Orion and Ares, in 
the stack called Constellation, in a program to take us into human 
orbit again and eventually to the Moon, as well as all the scientific 
research that is going on, it is all coming out of these funds instead 
of out of emergency funds.
  The two Senators have offered the leadership to make NASA whole. This 
little agency which is being starved of funds, they have restored these 
emergency funds. And now here comes Senator Ensign wanting to penalize 
NASA again.
  I understand my time is up, and I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3294

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate, equally divided and controlled, prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3294, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Ensign.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, on Ensign amendment No. 3294, I 
support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. We have 
arrived at a bipartisan solution. It is Ensign amendment No. 3295 that 
the Senators from Florida and Alabama and I oppose.
  So on Ensign amendment No. 3294, I urge support of this amendment and 
urge we go to a vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to Ensign 
amendment No. 3294. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(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 Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 366 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     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
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     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--9

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3294) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think it is important we hear from the 
Senator from Nevada on this next amendment, which is an important one.


                           Amendment No. 3295

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3295 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Ensign.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment that 
would take $150 million out of the NASA budget. We know NASA has been 
increased by $1 billion over last year's budget, and we also increased 
this past week $1 billion in emergency funding. It is $150 million, not 
including the billion dollars in emergency funding over the President's 
request. We seek to help something that is always underfunded, and that 
is to help especially the southwestern States and their local law 
enforcement to combat criminals who are illegal aliens. There is a huge 
problem. They do not have the resources. So we took $150 million out of

[[Page S12906]]

the NASA budget to put it toward programs to help combat not only 
illegal immigration but especially those who are here illegally and who 
are committing crimes. That is simply what this amendment does.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President and colleagues, I hope very much we 
will not adopt this amendment. We are already looking at a 5-year gap 
between 2010 when the shuttle goes out of existence and 2015 when the 
crew-returned vehicle comes online. That is a security risk for the 
United States. If we adopt this amendment, we are going to lengthen the 
time that America cannot put anyone in space. Russia can, China will 
probably be able to, India may be able to, but not America. That is a 
security risk I am not ready to take, and I hope my colleagues will 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I too oppose the Ensign amendment. We 
have met our responsibility to the State Criminal Alien Program. We 
have put $400 million in it. I believe the amendment is unnecessary.
  I oppose it, and I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 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 Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 367 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Tester
     Thune
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion 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.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on rollcall Vote No. 367 I voted yea. It was 
my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have two very brief unanimous consent 
requests.
  On rollcall 367, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote 
``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 3317

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3317, offered by the Senator from South 
Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last year the Legal Services Corporation 
was funded at $348 million. This year the administration's budget 
proposed a funding level of $311 million. The base bill under 
consideration today funds the Legal Services Corporation at $390 
million, which would be a 12-percent increase over the appropriated 
level in fiscal year 2007. What my amendment does is simply takes $20 
million out of that increase. It still increases the Legal Services 
Corporation by 6.3 percent over fiscal year 2007 but takes $20 million 
of that proposed increase for the Legal Services Corporation and 
applies it to fighting violent crime on America's Indian reservations 
by increasing funding for our U.S. attorneys so they can prosecute 
crimes committed on Indian reservations.
  Around the country, 56 percent of crimes that are brought to U.S. 
Attorney's Offices end up being prosecuted. On Indian reservations that 
number is 30 percent. People on Indian reservations should not have to 
live in fear. Public safety is something for which we have 
responsibility. It is important we do something to address that. This 
amendment will move money toward fighting crime on Indian reservations 
to make it safer for people who live there.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, 
we vigorously oppose this amendment. We too acknowledge that we should 
help people who are victims of crime on Indian reservations. But the 
administration eliminated all funds to do that.
  The bipartisan agreement puts $83 million in for tribal programs to 
fight crime, protect victims, and help troubled tribal youth. What this 
amendment does is take money out of the first meaningful increase that 
Legal Services has had. This does not take money from something called 
a corporation, it takes it out of the lawyers, the paralegals, and the 
support staff who provide legal services to the poor in this country. 
In South Dakota, 70 percent of those are Native Americans.
  Senator Harkin and I oppose this moment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(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 Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 31, as follows:

[[Page S12907]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 368 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion 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.

                          ____________________