[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 102 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7288-S7311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2892, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010 and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Byrd/Inouye) amendment No. 1373, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Vitter modified amendment No. 1375 (to amendment No. 1373) 
     to prohibit amounts made available under this Act from being 
     used to amend the final rule to hold employers accountable if 
     they hire illegal aliens.
       Grassley amendment No. 1415 (to amendment No. 1373), to 
     authorize employers to voluntarily verify the immigration 
     status of existing employees.
       Kyl/McCain amendment No. 1432 (to amendment No. 1373), to 
     strike the earmark for the City of Whitefish Emergency 
     Operations Center.
       Hatch amendment No. 1428 (to amendment No. 1373), to amend 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the religious 
     workers and Conrad-30 visa programs, to protect orphans and 
     widows with pending or approved visa petitions.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent the vote in relation to the Kyl 
amendment No. 1432 occur at 11:30 a.m., with the provisions of the 
previous order governing consideration of this amendment remaining in 
effect.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1375, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Vitter 
amendment No. 1375 now be the pending business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to voice my reservations with 
Vitter amendment No. 1375.
  The Vitter amendment would prohibit any funds in the Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill from being used to change the Bush 
administration's ``no-match'' letter regulation. This controversial 
regulation deals with the obligations of employers who receive what are 
known as no-match letters from the Social Security Administration.
  The Social Security Administration sends no-match letters to 
employers when a Social Security number or other information provided 
by an employee does not match the agency's records. This is part of the 
Social Security Administration's efforts to improve the accuracy of 
their records, but the Bush administration wanted to use no-match 
letters to get the Social Security Administration involved with 
enforcing our immigration laws. The theory was that an employee whose 
information doesn't match the Social Security Administration's database 
is probably an illegal immigrant. However, the reality is that the vast 
majority of people whose data does not match the Social Security 
Administration's information are U.S. citizens who changed their name 
when they married or whose information is wrong due to typographical or 
other clerical errors.
  The Bush administration's no-match rule would make employers liable 
if they fail to take action on a no-match notice, even though no-
matches are often caused by database errors. A small business owner 
that receives a no-match letter would be faced with the choice of 
firing the employee or following costly and burdensome requirements for 
resolving the no-match. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that the 
cost of the no-match rule would be at least $1 billion annually. This 
is not a price we can afford, especially given the current condition of 
the American economy.
  The no-match rule would also have a dramatic and harmful impact on 
millions of hard-working U.S. citizens who have done nothing wrong. 
Experts estimate that as many as 3.9 million authorized workers will be 
the subject of a no-match letter. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
estimates that as many as 165,000 legal workers will be wrongfully 
fired if the no-match rule goes forward.
  In addition to all these problems, the no-match rule would not 
actually improve the enforcement of our immigration laws. The Social 
Security Administration has repeatedly said that a no-match letter 
makes no statement about a worker's immigration status. And the Social 
Security Administration's databases do not have complete or accurate 
information about workers' immigration status. In fact, according to 
the Social Security Administration's inspector general, at least 3.3 
million records in the administration's database have incorrect 
citizenship information.
  The no-match regulation is opposed by a broad coalition of business, 
labor, civil rights, and religious groups, from the Chamber of Commerce 
to the AFL-CIO.
  The no-match rule would turn the Social Security Administration into 
an immigration enforcement agency. This would detract from its primary 
mission of administering retirement benefits for tens of millions of 
Americans.
  The no-match rule was blocked by a court order shortly after it was 
issued and two years later the rule still hasn't taken effect. The 
court found that the rule would ``result in irreparable harm to 
innocent workers and employers.''
  Yesterday, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that she plans to 
rescind the no-match rule. She believes that using the Social Security 
Administration to enforce our immigration laws is ineffective and will 
harm millions of innocent small business owners and employees.
  Instead, Secretary Napolitano plans to use electronic verification so 
that employers can determine whether their employees are legally 
authorized to work. There is work to be done to improve the current 
electronic verification system but this is a much more efficient 
approach than dragging the Social Security Administration into 
immigration enforcement.
  At the same time, Secretary Napolitano is taking a different approach 
from the previous administration when it comes to worksite enforcement. 
Secretary Napolitano has launched a new effort to crack down on 
employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
  This is the right approach and I commend Secretary Napolitano for 
seeking to rescind the no-match rule and refocus DHS on unscrupulous 
employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
  The Vitter amendment would prevent DHS from going forward with its 
plan to rescind the no-match rule. Congress should not micromanage 
DHS's efforts to enforce our immigration laws.
  For these reasons, I have serious reservations about the Vitter 
amendment and I will urge the conferees not to include it in the 
conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I understand this amendment is 
acceptable to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1375), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that 
motion on the table.

[[Page S7289]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1378 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 1378 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1378 to amendment No. 1373 .

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 strike the appropriation for the Advanced Training Center)

       On page 9, lines 15 and 16, strike ``, of which $39,700,000 
     shall be for the Advanced Training Center''.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1432

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I believe there is now 5 minutes per side 
to debate the amendment I have offered, which is cosponsored by Senator 
McCain. I would appreciate it if the Chair will advise me when I have 
consumed 2 minutes. Senator McCain will talk for about 2 minutes, and I 
wish to reserve the last minute following Senator Tester.
  The amendment is very simple. It strikes $900,000 for an earmark for 
the city of Whitefish Emergency Operations Center in Montana. The 
administration terminated funding for these types of projects in its 
2010 budget submission. This operations center has not been subject to 
a congressional hearing nor has it been authorized by Congress. It is a 
pure earmark. Not only did the administration not request funding for 
the project, it specifically zeroed out funding.
  Senator Feingold had an amendment that would have subsumed this 
project along with several others. That amendment failed. But he noted 
in regard to his amendment that while we may not all agree on the 
appropriateness of earmarks in general, I certainly hope we can agree 
certain things ought not be earmarked, including FEMA grant programs 
such as those protecting Americans from terrorist attacks. I quote 
Senator Feingold, because this is precisely the view of the 9/11 
Commission. From page 396 of that report it included this 
recommendation:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities . . . Congress should 
     not use this money as a pork barrel.

  The report goes on to state:

       In a free-for-all over money, it is understandable that 
     representatives will work to protect the interests of their 
     home states or districts, but this issue is too important for 
     politics as usual to prevail. Resources must be allocated 
     according to vulnerabilities.

  That is why in its budget submission the administration said this:

       The administration is proposing to eliminate the Emergency 
     Operations Center Grant Program in the 2010 budget because 
     the program's award allocations are not based on a risk 
     assessment. Also, other Department of Homeland Security grant 
     programs can provide funding for the same purposes more 
     effectively.

  So you have the 9/11 Commission saying these programs should be 
eliminated; you have the administration saying, in its budget 
submission, they should be eliminated from the budget submission, that 
they should not be subject to earmarks. That is why our amendment is 
being offered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his 2 
minutes.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Arizona for this amendment.
  Look, it is all about the fact that there has been no analysis, no 
assessment, no debate on the merits of using Federal funds for a 
municipal improvement project. I am sure Whitefish needs municipal 
improvement. So do cities and towns all over America. Why was Whitefish 
picked?
  By the way, it might be of interest to taxpayers, Whitefish, 
according to my information, has a population of 5,849 people. This 
earmark equals $153.87 per inhabitant.
  Cities all across America are operating out of inadequate facilities, 
including those in my own State. All we have asked for is to have these 
prioritized according to competition, assessment, and recommendations 
by agencies of government rather than inserted in the bill as an 
earmark and without any of that.
  From the previous votes, we will probably lose on this one, but I 
want to tell my friend from Montana, sooner or later the American 
people are going to reject this kind of pork-barrel earmarking, $153.87 
for every resident in Whitefish, which may be warranted--it may be 
warranted--but there is no assessment, there is no study, there is no 
rationale besides the fact that this was inserted in this bill without 
any scrutiny or authorization.
  We should reject this kind of practice. This is an egregious example 
of it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask you inform me when I have 3 
minutes left.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the two Senators from Arizona 
for the debate we have been having on this expenditure. This is not an 
egregious expenditure. The senior Senator from Arizona talked about 
5,849 people living in Whitefish. In the 2000 census figures it is up 
to 8,500 now, but that is not the issue. The issue is Whitefish is 
here. This is it up here. We have a Canadian border 60 miles north. We 
have a park to the east of it. We have millions--millions of acres of 
Forest Service land all around it, north, south and to the west.
  When we have emergencies, it is not necessarily just terrorism. They 
will tell you on the northern border, terrorism is the biggest threat. 
On the southern border, next to Arizona, it is illegal immigration. Not 
only do we have for this emergency operations center the potential--and 
let's hope it never happens--of terrorist threats coming down, whether 
it is in the park or north, along in Forest Service lands, we also have 
a very real threat again of forest fires occurring. They have happened 
with regularity.
  The current building is one-third of the size needed. It is 100 years 
old. It is in a seismic zone. The truth of the matter is, we have 
Border Patrol, Forest Service, DEA--all rely on local law enforcement 
to assist them. We have radio interoperability between Federal, State, 
and county government that this will address. The truth is, this is for 
the region.
  This money also leverages almost 9 to 1 in local grants--$8 million, 
this $900,000 leverages. So the local community is stepping up and they 
are picking up their fair share.
  We don't want unfunded mandates put on local governments because we 
have potential national terrorist problems throughout this region.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TESTER. The truth is that you can come up and look at a title and 
you can talk about it being egregious, but the truth is, millions of 
acres of forests, a national park, a border 60 miles away--we are 
talking about emergency services. The local community is supposed to 
pick up the entire tab for that? I don't think so and I don't think 
that is fair. That is why we have a $900,000 expenditure in this bill 
to help local governments meet the needs of this country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? If neither side 
yields time, time will be charged equally on both sides.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, it is appropriate for the sponsor of the 
amendment to have the final word. I wish to reserve my final minute to 
have the last response.
  Mr. TESTER. Can I ask what the sponsor of the amendment has left for 
time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The sponsor has 53 seconds and the 
Senator has 2 minutes 29 seconds.
  Mr. TESTER. We have two Senators for every State in this country. Our 
forefathers drafted that out. The reason was we don't dictate on 
population, we don't dictate on landmass, we dictate on need.

[[Page S7290]]

  The fact is, there are millions of acres of Forest Service grounds; a 
national park--one of the jewels of this country--to the east; a border 
to the north where there are real threats that we need to make secure 
and work with our neighborhoods to the north to make sure we do not 
have terrorist activity come across the border.
  The truth is, the sponsor of this amendment talked about the 
President zeroing out this program. Why doesn't the amendment zero out 
the program? It doesn't. The sponsor cherry-picked one expenditure in 
the bill and said this isn't the way we should be spending money. I 
appreciate that. We are having a debate here on that. But this is much 
needed for the security of this country and for the security of the 
region.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Montana yield?
  Mr. TESTER. Yes, I would.
  Mrs. MURRAY. My understanding is over the last decade there have been 
28 Presidential disasters which occurred in that region.
  Mr. TESTER. I believe that is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. So 28 times in the last 10 years there has been a major 
disaster that has been responded to, whether it is a fire in the park, 
on the Federal land, or a border issue or whatever, so this is not just 
about Whitefish, am I correct?
  Mr. TESTER. It is not about Whitefish at all.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is about the entire region and the ability for all 
the different agencies to respond, is that correct?
  Mr. TESTER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURRAY. That clarifies the importance for this emergency center. 
I thank the Senator.
  Mr. TESTER. The Senator is spot on right. That is exactly right. It 
is not about Whitefish at all, it is about the region, it is about the 
location, and it is critically important we get this money for this 
project. I appreciate the sponsor bringing the amendment up but, 
truthfully, this is not pork. This is something that will help the 
country being secure.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I certainly accept the argument of my 
friend from Montana that this could be put to good purpose in 
Whitefish, MT. It could be put to good use in Yuma or Nogales or 
anywhere else in the country. That is why the 9/11 Commission said, and 
I quote again:

       Homeland Security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities . . . The Congress 
     should not use this money as a pork barrel.

  All we ask is, as the administration did, that the money be allocated 
based on the risk assessment from the Department of Homeland Security, 
not on the ability of a particular Congressman or Senator to get the 
money earmarked in a bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that page 396 of the 9/11 Commission report 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and again 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as at least one small 
step we can take to demonstrate that we agree with the 9/11 Commission 
and we agree with the administration that these grants should be based 
on risk, rather than earmarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 396

       Recommendation: Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New 
     York City are certainly at the top of any such list. We 
     understand the contention that every state and city needs to 
     have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But 
     federal homeland security assistance should not remain a 
     program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement 
     state and local resources based on the risks or 
     vulnerabilities that merit additional support.
       The second question is, Can useful criteria to measure risk 
     and vulnerability be developed that assess all the many 
     variables? That assessment should consider such factors as 
     population, population density, vulnerability, and the 
     presence of critical infrastructure within each state. In 
     addition, the federal government should require each state 
     receiving federal emergency preparedness funds to provide an 
     analysis based on the same criteria to justify the 
     distribution of funds in that state.
       We recommend that a panel of security experts be convened 
     to develop written benchmarks for evaluating community needs. 
     We further recommend that federal homeland security funds be 
     allocated in accordance with those benchmarks, and that 
     states be required to abide by those benchmarks in disbursing 
     the federal funds. The benchmarks will be imperfect and 
     subjective; they will continually evolve. But hard choices 
     must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different 
     basis should then defend their view of the national interest.


                  Command, Control, and Communications

       The attacks on 9/11 demonstrated that even the most robust 
     emergency response capabilities can be overwhelmed if an 
     attack is large enough. Teamwork, collaboration, and 
     cooperation at an incident site are critical to a successful 
     response. Key decisionmakers who are represented at the 
     incident command level help to ensure an effective response, 
     the efficient use of resources, and responder safety. Regular 
     joint training at all levels is, moreover, essential to 
     ensuring close coordination during an actual incident.

  Mr. KYL. I believe we need to ask for the yeas and nays, and I do at 
this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Has all the time been used on this amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it has.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1432) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Senator McCain has an amendment that he 
will speak to in a moment. I wish to let all Senators know I appreciate 
their cooperation. We are working through a number of amendments on 
both sides that I am hoping we can get through this afternoon. Senator 
McCain will speak to his amendment now, and we are hoping to have a 
vote around 2 to settle that and several others. If Members have an 
amendment they are working on and have some last-minute language to 
work on, please get it done because we would like to finish this bill 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 1378

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of 
amendment No. 1378.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.

[[Page S7291]]

  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $39.7 million 
for an advanced training center in West Virginia, a training facility 
for U.S. Customs and border protection agents. The center features a 
range of training environments, facilities, et cetera. The 
administration requested and the committee approved $30.3 million to 
operate and equip the facility. While I have a problem with that, I do 
not intend for the amendment to affect the $30 million the 
administration requested to operate and equip the facility. This 
amendment is not about that.
  The committee earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, 
furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy at the Center.
  Let me be clear what the amendment does and does not do. It does not 
strike the requested funding for the training facility. It does strike 
an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark of nearly $40 million 
that was added to this bill at the direction of a senior Member of this 
body. I wish to make that perfectly clear. I am sure there will be 
opponents of this amendment but have no doubt: It does not affect the 
$30 million the administration requested. This is an additional $39.7 
million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy.
  It might be of interest to our colleagues that today, at 9:23 a.m., 
the CBO is reporting that the year-to-date budget deficit tops a 
trillion dollars. We are considering a provision that adds an 
additional $39.7 million in light of the Congressional Budget Office 
monthly budget review. Its key points are, the Federal budget deficit 
is $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2009. Here we 
are with a bill loaded down with earmarks worth tens of millions of 
dollars on the very day that the deficit tops $1 trillion; in fact, it 
is $1.1 trillion. That is more than $800 billion greater than the 
deficit recorded through June 2008. Outlays are 21 percent or $457 
billion higher than they were in the 9 months of 2008. Revenues have 
fallen by 18 percent, by some $346 billion. Outlays for unemployment 
benefits so far this year are more than 2.5 times what they were at 
this point last year. About half this increase is driven by a higher 
unemployment rate and half is driven by legislation expanding 
unemployment.
  The estimated deficit reflects outlays of $147 billion for the 
Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, recorded on a net present 
value basis, and spending of $83 billion in support of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. Interest payments have declined 25.5 percent as a result 
of lower short-term interest rates.
  So here we are looking at business as usual on the earmarks and 
appropriations bills. Meanwhile, the year-to-date budget deficit tops 
$1 trillion. Maybe it is approaching $2 trillion by the end of the 
year--an incredible burden to lay on future generations of Americans.
  I am sure--I am sure--this amendment will probably lose. I am sure 
proponents of the Advanced Training Center's Leadership Academy in West 
Virginia will stoutly defend it, and its essential functions will be 
graphically described by the opponents of this amendment.
  It is time we stopped. Isn't a $1.1 trillion deficit for the first 9 
months of this year enough of a signal that maybe we ought to tighten 
our belts, that maybe we ought to stop adding $39.7 million to an 
already requested $30 million to operate and equip an advanced training 
center--a training facility that is located in the State of West 
Virginia? I understand that. Our thoughts and prayers go out for the 
senior Senator from West Virginia. We hope he regains his health soon. 
We hope he continues in his very effective membership and service in 
this body.
  But the fact is, the committee--the committee--earmarked an 
additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership 
Academy at the Center. Can't we delay expanding, equipping, and 
furnishing a leadership academy? Can't we do that? Probably not. 
Probably not. Probably not.
  But as long as Americans are bearing this incredible burden--a 
burgeoning deficit we are laying on our children and our 
grandchildren--I and some others will be coming to this floor to try to 
point out it is time we got rid of things that are maybe even necessary 
but not vital to our Nation's future.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I do not think there is a Senator in 
this body who has talked more about deficits or our national debt than 
the senior Senator from Ohio.
  Senator Lieberman and I have a bill in to create a commission to deal 
with tax reform and entitlements. I have had a bill in called the SAFE 
Commission for the last 4 years: Saving America's Future Economy. There 
is no one more aware of where we are. We will have a deficit this year, 
I believe, of over $2 trillion when you take into consideration the 
amount of money we are borrowing from our governmental trust funds.
  That being said, I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my 
good friend, the Senator from Arizona. This amendment seeks to strike 
the requirement in the bill for $39.7 million for the Advanced Training 
Center.
  This Advanced Training Center is designed to serve the specialized 
needs of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It officially opened in 
August of 2005. There may be some people who object to the fact that it 
is in West Virginia, but the fact is it is in West Virginia.
  This year alone, the Center will provide advanced training to over 
3,200 U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees.
  We have already mentioned we have increased the number of these 
employees substantially to do what most people want us to do; that is, 
to protect the border and to go after those individuals who are illegal 
immigrants. There is no question about that. But I also know from my 
work on the Governmental Affairs Committee and my Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, in the Federal workforce, the 
people we hire have to be trained. You just cannot bring them on. You 
have to train them.
  So this is a critical training facility for frontline employees. In 
fact, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management 
and Budget have endorsed the expansion of this facility as well when 
they approved and sent forward to Congress their 5-year master facility 
plan.
  This is not a boondoggle. This is not a waste of money. This is 
something to support a facility that is there and needs to be expanded 
because we have decided we want to hire a lot more employees. When you 
hire employees, you have to provide them the training. And that is 
exactly what this is doing.
  Again, I wish to emphasize, if we are going to secure the border, it 
is going to cost a lot of money, including training the people we are 
going to hire.
  So we should oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his 
statement in opposition to the McCain amendment.
  I rise as well to speak on behalf of Senator Byrd who, as we all 
know, is home recovering from a serious illness. The committee bill 
does include $39.7 million for the continued expansion of the U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Advanced Training Center. The ATC, 
which opened back in 2005, provides advanced firearms and tactical 
training to CBP law enforcement personnel and personnel of other 
Federal agencies.
  The center is expanding in phases. It is consistent with this master 
plan I hold in my hand. This plan actually was transmitted to Congress 
back in 2007 and was approved then by the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Department of Homeland Security.
  This master plan accommodates advanced training consistent with the 
mission of securing our borders. CBP employees are stationed throughout 
the Nation at land and border crossings, at airports, at seaports, and 
other urban environments with a need for practical, unique, 
progressive, and flexible training.
  There is no other training of this kind, I want my colleagues to 
know, and there has never been a time that it has been needed more.

[[Page S7292]]

  Senator Byrd strongly--he wants us to know--supports the Advanced 
Training Center and its mission and is going to continue to fight hard 
for the security of this great country. Customs and Border Protection 
needs and deserves the advanced training facility to assure that the 
more than 50,000 Customs and Border Protection agents, officers, and 
other personnel have the training they require when they are sent in 
harm's way.
  This facility is expected to train over 3,200 law enforcement and 
other employees in fiscal year 2009, and that is expected to grow to 
more than 5,000 each year.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against that plan.
  I, again, would like everyone to know we are hoping Senator 
Rockefeller will be back shortly. He will speak on this amendment. We 
are hoping to set up this amendment for a vote around 2 o'clock.
  Madam President, with that, I rise to offer the Dodd-Lieberman 
amendment No. 1458, which I understand is at the desk.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.


                    Amendment No. 1428, as Modified

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is asking for the regular order 
with respect to the Senator's pending amendment?
  Mr. HATCH. With respect to a modification to amendment No. 1428. I 
send the modification to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1428), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 556. IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker 
     Program.--
       (1) Extension.--Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 
     (a)(27)(C)(ii)), as amended by section 2(a) of the Special 
     Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program Act (Public 
     Law 110-391), is amended by striking ``September 30, 2009'' 
     each place such term appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2012''.
       (2) Study and plan.--Not later than the earlier of 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act or March 30, 
     2010, the Director of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services shall submit a report to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives that includes--
       (A) the results of a study conducted under the supervision 
     of the Director to evaluate the Special Immigrant Nonminister 
     Religious Worker Program to identify the risks of fraud and 
     noncompliance by program participants; and
       (B) a detailed plan that describes the actions to be taken 
     by the Department of Homeland Security against noncompliant 
     program participants and future noncompliant program 
     participants.
       (3) Progress report.--Not later than the earlier of 90 days 
     after the submission of the report under subsection (b) or 
     June 30, 2010, the Director of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services shall submit a report to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives that describes the 
     progress made in reducing the number of noncompliant 
     participants of the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious 
     Worker Program.
       (b) Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program.--Section 
     220(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Technical 
     Corrections Act of 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 2009'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     2012''.
       (c) Relief for Surviving Spouses.--
       (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 
     201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``for at 
     least 2 years at the time of the citizen's death''.
       (2) Applicability.--
       (A) In general.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     apply to all applications and petitions relating to immediate 
     relative status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) 
     pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Transition cases.--
       (i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an alien described in clause (ii) who seeks immediate 
     relative status pursuant to the amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall file a petition under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(A)(ii)) not later than the date that is 2 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (ii) Aliens described.--An alien is described in this 
     clause if--

       (I) the alien's United States citizen spouse died before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (II) the alien and the citizen spouse were married for less 
     than 2 years at the time of the citizen spouse's death; and
       (III) the alien has not remarried.

       (d) Humanitarian Consideration for Pending Petitions and 
     Applications.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 204 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(l) Humanitarian Consideration for Pending Petitions and 
     Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--An alien described in paragraph (2) who 
     was the beneficiary or derivative beneficiary of a petition 
     (as defined in section 204, 207, or 208) filed on behalf of 
     the alien or principal beneficiary before the death of the 
     qualifying relative and who continues to reside in the United 
     States shall have such petition and any related or subsequent 
     applications for adjustment of status to that of a person 
     admitted for lawful permanent residence adjudicated as if the 
     death had not occurred, unless the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security determines, in the unreviewable discretion of the 
     Secretary, that approval would not be in the public interest.
       ``(2) Alien described.--An alien described in this 
     paragraph is an alien who, immediately prior to the death of 
     his or her qualifying relative, was--
       ``(A) an immediate relative (as described in section 
     201(b)(2)(A)(i));
       ``(B) a family-sponsored immigrant (as described in 
     subsection (a) or (d) of section 203);
       ``(C) a derivative beneficiary of an employment-based 
     immigrant under section 203(b) (as described in section 
     203(d));
       ``(D) a spouse or child of a refugee (as described in 
     section 207(c)(2)); or
       ``(E) an asylee (as described in section 208(b)(3)).''.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) may be construed to limit or waive any ground 
     of removal, basis for denial of petition or application, or 
     other criteria for adjudicating petitions or applications as 
     otherwise provided under the immigration laws of the United 
     States other than ineligibility based solely on the lack of a 
     qualifying family relationship as specifically provided by 
     such amendment.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise, I think, at a very appropriate 
time, while we are talking about the budget and deficits and numbers, 
to say that rarely has a crystal ball proved so regrettably accurate.
  Many warned, as did I, that the stimulus would amount to a mountain 
of wasted money. It produced record deficits, and thus far it has 
produced little beyond that.
  But I am not here to ask the Senate to take my word for this. You can 
read it in black and white in two reports that were released yesterday: 
a CBO report and a GAO report.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Federal 
budget deficit for the first 9 months, as Senator McCain mentioned, was 
a whopping $1.1 trillion. This is the first time in our Nation's 
history that the annual deficit has been this high.
  If that ``Guinness Book'' record-sized debt was not astonishing 
enough, we would all be floored that this debt is from only the first 
three-quarters of the year. It is mystifying to me, horrifying to the 
American taxpayers and their children who eventually will have to pay 
the bill. It represents a dangerous reality for our future. Only 4 
percent of the first stimulus funding has been spent, yet we are 
shattering national deficit records already.

  This was easily predicted. Look back a few short months to February 
when we were debating the stimulus, a bill we were told we had to do 
right away.

[[Page S7293]]

On February 4, 2009, I delivered my first speech as a Senator. I made 
some simple predictions based upon my experience as a city council 
member, a mayor, and as a Governor. Serving in those rolls, I learned a 
few things about how money is spent at the local level, especially the 
hidden costs of money from the Federal Government that seemingly comes 
with no strings attached. In that speech I warned what would happen 
with the so-called stimulus legislation. I predicted that State 
governments would use the funds to replace State dollars and shore up 
their budget problems. Well, sure enough, the Government Accountability 
Office, known as the GAO, reported this:

       States reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize State 
     budgets and to cope with fiscal distress.

  The report states that 90 percent of the money distributed has come 
in the form of increased Federal education and health care grants to 
State governments. This money has helped many State governments to 
partially offset what they are facing, which is budget shortfalls.
  I also warned that the result of replacing State funds with Federal 
funds would lead to an enormous funding cliff for State budgets when 
that temporary stimulus money ran out. The GAO report sends up a 
warning flare, because States have not addressed the situation they 
will be in when the stimulus funding runs out or how they will come up 
with the funding to cushion the fall.
  I wish I had been wrong in February--in fact, I think I said that at 
the time. I wish I had been wrong when I said that the transportation 
sector jobs estimated to be created by the major infrastructure 
projects wouldn't materialize because the funding would instead go to 
repaving. I urged my colleagues to reconsider because repaving projects 
would not lead to long-term economic growth or good jobs. So what is 
the consensus since the stimulus bill went into law? The GAO report 
states that nearly 50 percent of all transportation projects are for 
resurfacing and another 18 percent of the funds are being used to widen 
already existing roads. That adds up to nearly 70 percent on temporary 
road improvement projects.
  Even though President Obama said there is nothing he would have done 
differently, I find that hard to believe considering his earlier 
remarks that predicted a much different result. In a speech on February 
10, soon after becoming President, he said:

       We can use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity. 
     Because if we use this moment to address some things that we 
     probably should have been doing over the last 10, 15, 20 
     years, then when we emerge from the crisis, the economy is 
     going to be that much stronger.

  I doubt he had repaving projects in mind.
  As evidenced by the GAO report, the stimulus bill is not laying down 
the essential groundwork for sustained economic growth, long-term 
initiatives, or jobs. In fact, unemployment reached 9.5 percent, the 
highest rate in 26 years. This means that since the stimulus was signed 
into law, 2,964 jobs have been lost every hour of every workday. 
Clearly, the stimulus bill was sold to the American people as a quick 
fix to solve our economic woes, but it is failing.
  The Obama administration and his supporters in Congress want to 
quickly tack on to the $1 trillion stimulus a litany of big spending 
initiatives: health care reform, cap and tax, an overhaul of the 
financial system. The recklessness of proposed spending, new government 
programs, and increased deficits is sobering. What does all this 
proposed spending add up to? A huge train wreck with stacks of IOUs all 
the way to China as far as the eye can see. Yet some have the audacity 
to raise the possibility of a second stimulus. It defies logic.
  I will conclude by saying that the last thing the Federal Government 
should do, directly or indirectly, is stifle American businesses and 
hard-working families just as they are trying their best to crawl out 
from the economic yoke of debt, taxes, and a stagnant economy. Before 
we drive the Federal budget off another cliff--and take State budgets 
down with us--we need to put our foot on the brakes, slow down, and 
correct our course.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Sotomayor Nomination

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am here to talk about Judge 
Sotomayor. I am looking forward to her confirmation hearing, which 
begins next Monday. I continue to review her record, and I will not 
make my ultimate judgment until after the hearing. But I must say I am 
very impressed with Judge Sotomayor's qualifications, including her 
restrained and fact-based approach to deciding cases. I'm also 
impressed, as a former prosecutor myself, by her experience as a 
practicing attorney and as a line prosecutor. I think we are all 
impressed by her educational achievements.
  Like millions of Americans, I have been inspired by her personal 
story. Frankly, it gives me goosebumps to think of that little girl 
growing up in the projects in the Bronx and growing into the woman we 
see before us now at the top of the legal profession, with a career of 
exemplary conduct, exemplary academic achievement, exemplary judicial 
experience behind her. It is really a great story of American 
discipline and achievement.
  Unfortunately, critics of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation have 
unleashed an avalanche of innuendo meant to weaken the case for her 
confirmation. These criticisms began among the right-wing talking 
heads, but unfortunately, some of them are now voiced by my Republican 
colleagues here on the floor. Indeed, rather than waiting for the 
hearing to ask her about her record and her judicial philosophy, a 
number of my colleagues have come to the floor to attack her and her 
nomination.
  Today, I would like to briefly address two particular and--frankly, 
very surprising--attacks on Judge Sotomayor: first, the suggestion that 
her judicial philosophy is somehow outside of the mainstream; and, 
second, the suggestion that her life experience is somehow unhelpful to 
the judgment she would bring to the Supreme Court.
  First, Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. My Republican 
colleagues like to suggest that judges appointed by Republican 
Presidents are neutral ``umpires'' and that judges appointed by 
Democratic Presidents are judicial ``activists.'' But Chief Justice 
Roberts himself, who, indeed, raised the ``umpire'' metaphor at his own 
confirmation hearing, reveals the falsity of that comparison. Jeffrey 
Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, recently described a 
pronounced ideological predisposition in Chief Justice Roberts.

       In every major case since he became the Nation's 
     seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the 
     prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, 
     the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate 
     defendant over the individual plaintiff.

  Let me say that again:

       In every major case since he became the Nation's 
     seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the 
     prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, 
     the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate 
     defendant over the individual plaintiff.

  Maybe this is a pure coincidence, and maybe it is a further 
coincidence, to again quote Toobin, that this record ``has served the 
interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican 
Party.'' Maybe it is also a coincidence that in the Heller decision, 
the DC gun law case, the Roberts-led conservative block of the Court 
discovered a new constitutional right that had previously gone 
unnoticed through 220 years of the United States Supreme Court's 
history, and which just happens to appeal to the NRA and the Republican 
base. Perhaps that is all a coincidence. But I will confess to you, I 
doubt it. I think this record goes a long way towards disproving the 
metaphor of the Republican judge as neutral umpire.
  So let's put aside the notion that conservative men from the 
Federalist Society have no predispositions in legal matters but that 
anyone who differs from their views is the activist.

[[Page S7294]]

That is just rhetoric, and what it's seeking to do is to normalize the 
right-wing activism that the Republican Party has calculatedly and over 
many years moved onto our Court.
  If you want to decide whether Judge Sotomayor has an appropriate 
judicial philosophy, look at her full record. Throughout her long 
career as a Federal judge, longer than any Supreme Court nominee since 
the 19th century, Judge Sotomayor, has on every major issue, shown that 
the facts and the law drive her determination of cases. On the Second 
Circuit, Judge Sotomayor agreed with her more conservative colleagues 
far more frequently than she disagreed with them. In 434 published 
panel decisions where the panel included at least one judge appointed 
by a Republican President, she agreed with the result favored by the 
Republican appointee in 413 cases--413 out of 434. That is 95 percent 
of the time, and it is no record of extremism. Indeed, it would seem to 
put her on the conservative side of the mainstream. And consider what 
she told Chairman Leahy:

       Ultimately and completely, as a judge, you follow the law. 
     There is not one law for one race or another. There is not 
     one law for one color or another. There is not one law for 
     rich and a different one for poor. There is only one law.

  Furthermore, the idea that because the Supreme Court disagreed with 
Judge Sotomayor's Second Circuit panel decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, 
she is somehow outside the mainstream is patently absurd. First, four 
Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with the Second Circuit's 
interpretation of the law. Are Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and 
Breyer outside of the mainstream? Hardly.
  Second, Judge Sotomayor and her panel were faithfully applying the 
settled precedent of the Second Circuit when they rendered their 
decision--just what a circuit court judge of the United States is 
supposed to do. The five Justices on the Supreme Court in the Ricci 
majority, in deciding the case, invented an entirely new test for 
resolving Title VII claims that, according to legal experts reported in 
the New York Times, ``will change the landscape of civil rights law.'' 
It is hardly fair to criticize Judge Sotomayor for not applying a test 
that did not even exist when she decided the case. Nor for failing to 
venture into landscape changes of civil rights law.
  In the Ricci decision and others, Judge Sotomayor's record 
demonstrates a long career of faithfully applying the law to the facts 
of the case before her--and the careful exercise of judicial 
discretion.
  That brings me to my second point. Wise exercise of judicial 
discretion is the longstanding tradition underlying the American system 
of law. It is harsh, narrow-minded, and ahistoric to contend that a 
rich life experience and natural empathy are at odds with that judicial 
tradition.
  Any lawyer knows the importance of judicial discretion, both in our 
common law system and to the interpretation of the Constitution. As 
Justice John Paul Stevens has explained:

       the work of federal judges from the days of John Marshall 
     to the present . . . requires the exercise of judgment--a 
     faculty that inevitably calls into play notions of justice, 
     fairness, and concern about the future impact of a decision. 
     . . .

  That faculty has served the Nation well for over two centuries. 
Indeed, discretion is at the heart of the judicial role. Our legal 
system bears the imprint of the experience and wisdom of generations of 
judges. As Justice Holmes famously explained, ``[t]he life of the law 
has not been logic: it has been experience.'' Indeed, as Holmes 
continued,

       [t]he law embodies the story of a nation's development 
     through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it 
     contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of 
     mathematics.

  This discretion, of course, does not mean that judges are without 
bounds. But there exists a broad and lively discretion that falls far 
short of ``judicial activism.'' Justice Benjamin Cardozo put it this 
way:

       The judge . . . is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a 
     knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of 
     beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from 
     consecrated principles. . . .He is to exercise a 
     discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, 
     disciplined by system, and subordinated to ``the 
     primordial necessity of order in the social life.'' Wide 
     enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that 
     remains.

  Madam President, within this wide field of discretion, judges do not, 
cannot, and should not close their minds to their experience of the 
world, nor to what their experience teaches them about the effects of 
their decisions on the world.
  There has been plenty of empathy at the Supreme Court recently for 
the rich and powerful, resulting in decisions that frustrate 
congressional intent and deprive Americans of crucial statutory and 
constitutional protections. There has been plenty of empathy for right-
wing ideology and plenty of empathy for big corporations. Should we not 
also admit to the Court a nominee who has common sense, who can 
appreciate how American laws affect different citizens, and who can 
also empathize with the poor and the weak, as well as the more 
fortunate?
  If reaching correct outcomes were as simple as plugging a few factors 
and elements into a computer, we would not need nine Supreme Court 
Justices. Quite simply, a broadened range of perspectives and 
experiences will make for better judgment by our Court.
  One final thing is worth noting about the judicial branch of 
government. It is designed to be a check and balance to the elected 
branches. The Founders were keenly aware of the corruption and passing 
passions to which those elected branches are vulnerable, and they 
established the judiciary as a place where all were equal before the 
law, and where power, money, and influence were intended to hold no 
sway. The courtroom can be the only sanctuary for the little guy when 
the forces of society are arrayed against him, when proper opinion and 
elected officialdom will lend him no ear. This is a correct, a fitting, 
and an intended function of our judiciary, and the empathy President 
Obama saw in Judge Sotomayor has a constitutionally proper place in 
that structure.
  If everyone on the Court always voted for the prosecution against the 
defendant, for the corporation against the plaintiff, and for the 
government against the condemned, a vital spark of American democracy 
would be extinguished. A courtroom is supposed to be a place where the 
status quo can be disrupted, where the comfortable can be afflicted, 
and the afflicted find some comfort when no one else will listen. A 
judge of the United States is not an orderly, neutered little 
functionary of the power structure. Judge Sotomayor's broad background 
and empathy prepare her better for that proper judicial role than would 
grooming in corporate boardrooms, scrubbing by the Federalist Society, 
and fealty to party ideology.
  I am looking forward to Judge Sotomayor's hearing as an opportunity 
for her to finally reply to her right-wing detractors, to demonstrate 
her intellect and qualifications, and to explain her judicial 
philosophy. My preliminary review of her record suggests that she 
understands the importance of judicial restraint and modesty, of 
adherence to precedent, of respect for the legislative branch, and of 
the timeless values enshrined in the Constitution. And she has 
articulated a desire to be scrupulously fair by keeping sight of--not 
denying--the lessons she has learned during her extraordinary life.
  Judge Sotomayor appears, more than anything else, to be a careful and 
conscientious judge. So let us not throw care and conscience to the 
wind by hurling unjustified, unhelpful, and tired labels at her; let us 
be proud to have a Justice of the Supreme Court with the type of broad 
life experience that will inform her good and proper judgment.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            NASA Nominations

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday the Commerce 
Committee had its hearing for the NASA

[[Page S7295]]

Administrator and Deputy Administrator nominees. Charlie Bolden and 
Lori Garver respectively are the nominees for these two positions.
  I have had the privilege of knowing Charlie Bolden for the better 
part of a quarter of a century. In addition to all of the numerous 
accolades that were heaped upon him yesterday by Members of the House 
and Senate, it came to the Commerce Committee to say a word on his 
behalf. Many talked about his distinguished career as a graduate of 
Annapolis, a marine test pilot, an astronaut, then back into the 
marines--after four times flying in space on the space shuttle, twice 
as pilot and twice as commander--and then in his various positions in 
the active-duty marines, retiring at the rank of major general. Those 
accolades were extensive and they were accurate.
  I would merely add to those attributes describing him--all of which 
were very laudatory--the attribute, the characteristic, that Americans 
have come to honor, and that is that Charlie Bolden is an overcomer.
  One of the first instances of this characteristic occurred in 
Charlie's native Columbia, SC, in 1964. He could not get an appointment 
to Annapolis from his congressional delegation because they were still 
embroiled with the fact that he was an African American. The 
administration, at that time--the Johnson administration--had appointed 
a retired judge with the specific purpose of going around the country 
and finding qualified minorities so they could go into the academies. 
This gentleman found Charlie and arranged for a Congressman from 
Chicago to appoint him to Annapolis. When Charlie arrived, he was 
promptly elected president of the freshman class.
  Today, ADM Dennis Blair--now the Director of National Intelligence, 
and interestingly in the same class--alternated all 4 years at 
Annapolis being president of the class with Charlie Bolden. Therein is 
a story in and of itself where Charlie was an overcomer. But let tell 
you of another part of Charlie's life where he represented an 
overcomer.
  Charlie went back into the Marine Corps after four space shuttle 
flights, and he came back in as a full bird colonel. The Marine Corps 
wasn't keen on promoting marine astronauts to general officer, and so 
the first time that Charlie was in the zone of consideration, they 
passed him over. Charlie said, instead of retiring, I want to go back 
to Annapolis and I want to give back to the institution that gave me so 
much, including an education. He did so as the deputy superintendent, 
which is a marine slot. His superiors were so impressed by his attitude 
and his service that the next time he was up for consideration as 
general officer, they promoted him. A second instance in Charlie's 
life.
  I will mention one other instance of Charlie's being an overcomer. He 
was so well prepared and so expert at his task, that of a naval aviator 
and of a pilot astronaut, that 23\1/2\ years ago, after having the most 
delayed space flight in our country's history--that 24th flight of the 
space shuttle having been scrubbed four times in the course of a 
month--on the fifth try, the space shuttle lifted off. Charlie was the 
pilot sitting in the right seat. The commander sits in the left seat. 
The pilot, in NASA jargon, has all of the systems to monitor. As the 
shuttle had just cleared the launch tower on liftoff, on the intercom I 
could hear Charlie's voice: We have a problem. We have a helium leak.
  Had that not been a faulty sensor--which ultimately we discovered, 
but at the time none of us knew that was a faulty sensor--a real helium 
leak would have caused a serious problem to the mission. But Charlie 
was all over those switches and those systems. He got it under control 
and we went on to have an almost flawless 6-day mission in space, only 
to return to Earth and, 10 days later, Challenger launches and blows 
up.
  That was another instance of Charlie being an overcomer, being 
presented with an almost insurmountable problem which he overcame.
  So with this little aspect of the life of GEN Charlie Bolden, is it 
any wonder there were so many people who came in front of the Senate 
Commerce Committee yesterday to say a word on his behalf? And now, as 
we will consider his nomination first in the Commerce Committee--which 
ought to happen very shortly--and then in front of the Senate, I don't 
think there is any expectation of any opposition. I believe that 
Charlie, as the newly installed NASA Administrator, is going to take on 
this task where he is going to have to be an overcomer again, because 
NASA is at a crossroads. America's space program is at a crossroads, 
and it needs a vigorous leader. But NASA not only needs an 
administrator who will lead it, it needs to be led by the President of 
the United States, who is the only one who can be the leader of 
America's ventures into space. I am hoping the combination of the two 
of them will put us on a path of reliving a lot of the excitement and 
the magic this country lived several decades ago when we were achieving 
extraordinary achievements. It gave a whole new perspective to the 
human race when astronauts outside the bounds of Earth could look back 
at this extraordinary planet suspended in the middle of a void and 
recognize that is our home--planet Earth.

  When astronaut John Glenn lifted off on the first American successful 
orbital flight: ``Godspeed, John Glenn,'' said Scott Carpenter on that 
immortal day.
  I think we in the Senate will unite in saying: Godspeed, Charlie 
Bolden, in your new assignment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
are hoping to get a vote in the next 15 minutes, about 2 o'clock, so we 
can continue to move this bill forward.
  I note that there is a Senator here who wishes to speak in morning 
business. I am happy to accommodate him, but hopefully we will have 
this agreement and be able to move forward on that very shortly.
  I wanted to advise all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     NEW STEM CELL RESEARCH POLICY

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the administration 
for promptly issuing guidelines implementing President Obama's March 
2009 Executive Order on stem cell research. This week, the 
administration removed the barriers to responsible scientific research 
involving embryonic stem cells that had been imposed by the previous 
administration in 2001. The new guidelines establish sound policy and 
procedures under which the Federal Government will fund such research 
and help ensure that the research is ethically responsible, 
scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable 
laws.
  President Obama's action will have a profound impact on the long-term 
health and well-being of millions of Americans. More than 100 million 
Americans have chronic, debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ALS. In addition, many Americans have 
serious spinal cord injuries. Embryonic stem cell research offers hope 
for advancements in treatment that will improve the quality of life for 
countless numbers of Americans.
  For the past 8 years, American scientists have received limited 
Federal funding for stem cell research. In 2001, soon after taking 
office, President Bush issued his stem cell policy. It permitted the 
use of Federal funds to support research only on the stem cell lines 
that were in existence as of the date of his Executive order, August 9, 
2001.
  The Bush compromise seemed reasonable to many in the scientific 
community at the time, as researchers at NIH believed between 60 and 78 
stem cell lines would be available for use. In fact, only 22 lines were 
available and some of these were found to have been contaminated. In 
addition, the 22 available lines were developed using science that has 
since seen significant improvements. Scientists have testified that 
these lines lack the genetic diversity necessary to perform research 
for

[[Page S7296]]

several diseases that disproportionately affect minority populations. 
In short, there were real deficiencies in the former administration's 
policy. It reduced the opportunities available to our scientists, 
undermined progress, and it discouraged scientific exploration.
  Perhaps the best case for stem cell research comes from the patients 
in the communities we represent here in Congress. I have learned first 
hand of the importance of moving forward on groundbreaking scientific 
research through my friendships with three individuals.
  A few years ago, my closest friend in law school, Larry Katz, was 
diagnosed with ALS. Once an active attorney in Baltimore, Larry's body 
experienced a rapid decline from the symptoms of this debilitating 
disease, and he died soon after his diagnosis.
  Later, I was privileged to meet a young man named Josh Basile, who 
served as an intern in my House office. Three years before he came to 
Capitol Hill, he was a healthy young man, leading an active life. But 
while wading in the Atlantic Ocean, a wave caught him, and he became a 
quadriplegic overnight. Josh is determined to walk again, and he is 
making substantial progress. He is also dedicated to helping others 
make similar strides, and he has established a foundation called 
``Determined-2-Heal.'' Through hard work and rehabilitation, Josh has 
regained movement that many doctors thought was impossible. Josh is 
also asking the Federal Government to do its part, by funding research 
and allowing scientists access to the tools they need to make medical 
advances possible.
  Later, in 2006, I came to know Michael J. Fox, a brilliant and 
talented actor with a remarkable spirit. In 1991, Michael was diagnosed 
with Parkinson's disease. He has used his prominence as a tireless 
advocate for stem cell research.
  The time I have spent with these three people has taught me much 
about the burden of debilitating diseases. Those of us who have loved 
ones experiencing these and similar circumstances share a 
responsibility to do everything we can to promote medical research. Our 
scientists need the tools to discover cures and treatments, and stem 
cell research holds hope for dramatic progress.
  There is an added benefit for our Nation beyond improving the health 
and lives of patients. We are also talking about maintaining the 
international preeminence of the United States in the field of medical 
research. My State of Maryland is home to some of the world's leading 
research institutions, including Johns Hopkins University and the 
University of Maryland Medical Centers. These institutions have 
cutting-edge research technology and freeing up these important stem 
cell lines would jumpstart the numerous promising research tracks in 
this area.
  I meet regularly with scientists like Dr. John Gearhart and Dr. 
Douglas Kerr to try to get a better understanding about this issue. I 
am not a scientist nor do I know all the technicalities, but I have had 
a chance to meet with these scientists to see what they are doing. They 
have been able to implant embryonic stem cell growth in mice and see 
movement where there had been paralysis. This research is extremely 
promising and is happening right now in my State.
  The new National Institutes of Health funding guidelines for human 
embryonic stem cell research are the next important step to expand this 
research even further. It will result in the availability of 
approximately 700 lines for research, a dramatic increase over the 
number of currently available lines.
  The new guidelines are based on solid principles. First, that Federal 
funding for responsible research with human embryonic stem cells has 
the potential to improve our understanding of human health and illness 
and discover new ways to prevent and treat illness. Second, individuals 
donating embryos for research purposes must do so freely, with 
voluntary and informed consent. They must be derived from embryos that 
were created for in vitro fertilization and not for research purposes, 
and they must be excess embryos. To be eligible for NIH funding the 
embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained through monetary payments or 
other inducements.
  Additionally, human embryonic stem cells eligible for testing must 
have originated from facilities with proper documentation that the 
embryos were obtained in a voluntary and legitimate manner. Finally, 
the guidelines prohibit Federal funding of research that would 
introduce human embryonic stem cells into breeding animals or into 
nonhuman primate blastocysts. These guidelines are responsible, have 
stringent safeguards, and they are ethically sound.
  As the new NIH guidelines are implemented, America's knowledge of the 
potential of stem cell research will continue to broaden. President 
Obama's courageous actions will accelerate this process. The guidelines 
send a clear message to scientists across the United States that their 
important work is now backed by the confidence and resources of the 
Federal Government.
  I commend the administration for this decisive action which will 
strengthen America's position as the global leader in medical research 
and for the tremendous hope and promise that its new policy is bringing 
to millions of Americans.
  I yield the floor.


                          Admendment No. 1378

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m., the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 1378, with the 
time between now and then equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote in 
relation thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in clear, strong opposition to 
this amendment. Let me just say that the fact that this is located in 
West Virginia is not part of my consideration. I am thinking about 
national security, Border Patrol. I served as chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee. I know something about these things. What the 
Senator from Arizona wants to do doesn't make any sense at all.
  What we are talking about is a one-of-a-kind. It is the only one in 
the country that trains senior officers as well as others in border 
protection, customs, and other things regarding homeland security. 
There is no other place in the country that does this. There are 3,300 
students there now. They are planning on 5,000 next year. There is no 
other place where this can be done. If we cut this, there is no 
substitute. We talk about border control. We talk about all those 
things. Particularly senior officers side, this is where people are 
trained. There is a huge master plan which I will not hold up. It has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, by the homeland 
security folks, and was submitted to Congress in 2007. The facility is 
used to train officers on waterborne tactics and operating ports of 
entry, things which are obscure but essential to national security. It 
includes a firing range which is not only used by CPB officers but 
local law enforcement, DEA, Fish and Wildlife personnel, as well as the 
Capitol Police. It is the only facility of its kind in the Nation. 
These are crucial jobs. There is no place to take its place. If we cut 
it, there is no way to make it up and carry out our responsibilities 
for homeland security.
  It is a very grievously formulated amendment. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his remarks. I 
would remind him that this amendment strikes $39.7 million which has 
been added to the $30 million that is already there for the center. The 
$39.7 million is described to equip, furnish, and expand a leadership 
academy at the center. So all the missions the Senator just described 
don't have anything to do with the additional $39.7 million. It does 
strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark. The 
administration didn't ask for the additional $39.7 million, nearly $40 
million. No Member of Congress, regardless of position or seniority, 
should be able to spend $40 million on a pet project with no scrutiny, 
no hearing, and no competitive bidding process.

[[Page S7297]]

  I will take the word of the Senator from West Virginia. This is 
important. If it is important, why didn't we have a hearing on it 
before the Homeland Security Committee? Why didn't we have some 
competition from other parts of America? Why didn't we have a request 
for it from the administration?
  This is just another one of these egregious earmarks that may or may 
not have merit. We may actually need a leadership academy that needs to 
be equipped, furnished, and expanded in some place in West Virginia, 
but no one will ever know that because we have never undergone the 
scrutiny that should be required before we spend $40 million of the 
taxpayers' money.
  I probably talked enough about this, and I would imagine that we will 
lose this amendment again. This is in the backdrop of a Federal budget 
which for the first 9 months of the fiscal year 2009--3 more months to 
go--is $1.1 trillion. It is estimated to be as high as $1.8 trillion. 
The last budget deficit that was anywhere near this in recent history 
was about $450 billion. We are looking at a deficit of massive 
proportions, and yet we have to pile on additional millions, tens of 
millions and even billions of dollars in projects that are of 
questionable value. They may even be valuable, but there has been no 
authorization, no request, no scrutiny, no competition. It is simply 
put into a bill in a process we call earmarking. That is not fair to 
the American taxpayers.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield back the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1378.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bond
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 1378) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are working with the Republicans at 
this time to come up with a list of remaining amendments this afternoon 
so we can make progress. We hope to be able to move forward shortly on 
a number of amendments that will be pending that we have agreed on.
  While we are doing that, the Senator from Illinois would like to 
speak as in morning business. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. BURRIS. I need 3 or 4 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois for morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      general james e. cartwright

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I often have the opportunity to meet with the fine men and 
women who serve this country in uniform. Every day we demand the very 
best from each of them--and in return, we owe them the best we have to 
offer. That means keeping our commitment to this Nation's veterans. But 
it also means supporting our troops in the field--with resources, 
equipment, and--perhaps most importantly--sound leadership at the very 
highest levels.
  No one understands this better than GEN James Cartwright, the current 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Our committee met with General Cartwright just this morning. The 
Senate has been asked to confirm his nomination for a second term as 
Vice Chairman. And I rise today to offer him my strongest support.
  After speaking with General Cartwright, I am convinced that his long 
record of loyal service, impeccable judgment, and bold leadership make 
him the very best choice to continue in this important post. Up to this 
point, his tenure as a member of the Joint Chiefs has been marked by 
innovative thinking.
  Along with Admiral Mullen, General Cartwright has helped to shape the 
modern American military as we confront a range of new threats from 
across the globe.
  A native of my home State, General Cartwright was born in Rockford, 
IL, and began his service as a marine fighter pilot more than 30 years 
ago. He is a distinguished graduate of the Air Command and Staff 
College at Maxwell Air Force Base, and has served all over the world. 
As an aviator, he put his extensive training to good use on the front 
lines of our global defense network.
  As a U.S. marine, he has never wavered in his commitment to the 
country we all love. And as a former head of the U.S. Strategic 
Command, General Cartwright has demonstrated his leadership skills and 
his deep understanding of the threats we face.
  He has led the fight for cyber security technology at the Department 
of Defense, helping to protect America from the evolving threats of the 
21st century.
  He is a credit to the fighting men and women of our Armed Forces, and 
an asset to the elected leaders who depend on him every day. Time and 
again, he has answered the call.
  When Secretary Gates first recommended him for nomination 2 years 
ago, he understood that James Cartwright was someone we can rely upon. 
Today, as we consider whether he should remain Vice Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, I believe his record speaks for itself.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a speedy confirmation 
of General Cartwright.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we need serious, substantive health care 
reform. The reasons for reform are well known, and they have led to 
overwhelming consensus in Congress that something needs to be done to 
make health care more affordable and more accessible.
  The desire for action extends beyond the walls of this great 
building. The American people also want us to act. But this desire for 
action should not

[[Page S7298]]

give way to legislative haste. Americans do not want us to rush at the 
expense of getting it right. They have questions, and they deserve 
answers.
  There are two very basic and important questions with regard to 
health care reform. No. 1, how much is it going to cost? And No. 2, how 
will we pay for it? First let's look at the question of cost.
  The American public is alarmed about the massive debt we are 
accumulating. They realize that in the past year, on top of the almost 
$1 trillion stimulus bill, the Federal Government has also purchased 
banks, an insurance company, and an auto company, all using borrowed 
money that we, as taxpayers, will need to pay back. All this massive 
borrowing and spending was done quickly and with little debate. This 
was done, the public was told, in order to save the economy. How has 
that turned out?
  At the beginning of the year, the Obama administration told the 
American people massive stimulus spending, if done quickly, would 
create 3 to 4 million jobs and would keep the country's unemployment 
rate at 8 percent. Today, sadly, unemployment is at 9.5 percent, the 
highest level since 1983. The jobs that were promised have not 
materialized. In fact, 467,000 additional jobs were lost last month 
alone.
  The administration now says they misread the economy. Our government 
rushed to borrow and spend $1 trillion, but now we are basically being 
told they were wrong. Vice President Biden said as much only a few days 
ago.
  Unfortunately, the American taxpayers are not going to get a do-over 
on this spending. They are still on the hook for the almost $1 trillion 
we borrowed, plus interest. Now there is talk of yet another expensive 
stimulus package to make up for the one that did not work.
  So considering this, it is no surprise the American public is 
skeptical about the rush to spend yet another $1 trillion or more to 
create a Washington-run health care scheme.
  We have a number of proposals in Congress that attempt to fix health 
care. There are workable reform proposals that go at the problem in a 
way that does not incur such prohibitive costs for taxpayers. 
Unfortunately, however, our Democratic colleagues have plans 
accompanied by astronomical costs to taxpayers. The Finance Committee 
is struggling to keep its bill at $1 trillion over 10 years. We are 
told that just a portion of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee bill will cost over $1 trillion. That is just a portion of 
their bill. Some have estimated the total cost for that bill will be 
over $3 trillion. These are not scare tactics. These are Congressional 
Budget Office estimates.
  On the other side of the Capitol, the House Democrats' bill is 
expected to cost closer to $2 trillion. Over and above these Federal 
costs, there are frightening costs to the States. If the HELP Committee 
proposal to expand Medicaid is enacted, we can expect a wholesale 
collapse of State budgets and, of course, we are already seeing the 
collapse of some State budgets. They are already struggling under the 
unsustainable costs of the current program.
  These spending figures are startling by themselves and even more 
troubling taken on top of the massive amount of debt we have already 
acquired.
  Even more troubling is the expectation that costs of the Democratic 
proposals will continue to rise year after year, well beyond the 10-
year budget window used to figure the pricetag of these proposals.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated the annual cost of the 
insurance subsidy program contained in an earlier version of the HELP 
bill would rise 6.7 percent per year until it is fully phased in. This 
potential spending explosion should not come as a surprise. Medicare 
and Medicaid, two programs we need to strengthen, help, and sustain, 
are both already on unsustainable paths with enormous unfunded 
liabilities.
  This daunting amount of spending has taxpayers worried, and they are 
beginning to speak up. One of my Democratic colleagues acknowledged 
this recently saying: ``The big challenge--and I actually heard this at 
home during the recess--is the sticker shock.''
  Other supporters of the President are also warning him and his 
Democratic colleagues in Congress to slow down and be more careful with 
taxpayer dollars.
  On Sunday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, an Obama supporter 
last year, warned the President about the ongoing spending spree, 
saying:

       You can't have so many things on the table that you can't 
     absorb it all.

  To quote Secretary Powell:

       And we can't pay for it all.

  In addition to the massive costs associated with these proposals, no 
one can yet tell us where the money will come from to pay for it. All 
the proposals we have seen are creative in the way they spend tax 
dollars but very short on specifics on how to fund them.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have vaguely outlined 
some ways they may pay for their plan, including a series of cuts to 
Medicare and Medicaid--I repeat, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid--along 
with new taxes. But they have not been as forthcoming and specific as 
they need to be with the American taxpayers.
  There is a reason why more details have yet to be released. Since we 
do not have the money to pay for a government takeover of health care, 
there will need to be massive tax increases or more borrowing or a 
combination of the two. In fact, one leading Senate Democrat was quoted 
in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal as saying they were ``broadening the 
search for revenue''--broadening the search for revenue--to pay for 
this massive plan. What that means, of course, is they are intensifying 
their search for ways to raise taxes on the American people, whether it 
be taxes on small business, which we have been hearing about lately, or 
on health insurance plans or surtaxes on soft drinks or anything else 
they can think of--massive tax increases for the American people for 
plans which admittedly will only cover one-third of the uninsured 
persons in the United States of America. All the while, this is being 
done quickly and without time needed to provide the scrutiny the 
American public expects and deserves.
  All Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--want health 
care reform, but they do not want a government-run health care plan. 
They do not want to pay for it with Medicare and Medicaid cuts. They do 
not want to drive up the debt. Getting it right is more important than 
getting it done quickly.
  Let's learn from the mistakes that were made in hastily passing the 
stimulus bill. Massive new amounts of borrowing, spending, and taxes 
are not the way to successful health care reform.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business. 
However, if anybody comes to the Chamber with an amendment or anything, 
I will immediately stop. I want to make that clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Cap And Trade Legislation

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I only rise on the floor for one reason; 
and that is, it is my intention next week--probably Tuesday or 
Wednesday, whenever I get the floor time--to give a rather long history 
of the whole issue of the cap and trade. What I intend to do is start 
from the very beginning.
  While the Presiding Officer was not presiding over the Senate back 
during the Kyoto Treaty some 11 years ago, I was. At that time, the 
Republicans were the majority, and I happened to be the chairman of the 
committee that had jurisdiction.
  I have to tell you, at that time, I was a believer that manmade gas, 
anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane were the cause of global 
warming. The reason is because everybody said that. Nobody had a 
dissenting view. It was not until the Wharton School came out with the 
Wharton Econometrics Survey and said if we were to ratify the Kyoto 
Treaty and live by its emissions requirements,

[[Page S7299]]

it would cost somewhere between $300 billion and $330 billion a year 
that I started thinking about that. I remember a tax increase that was 
enacted in 1993. That was the Clinton-Gore tax increase that at that 
time was the largest one in a long period of time. This would have been 
10 times greater than that.
  So I thought: Let's be sure the science is there. That is when I 
discovered there were many scientists who had been intimidated through 
the use of manipulation in the awarding of grants from the Federal 
Government or from the Heinz Foundation or from many of these 
organizations. They had been suppressed very much like the man in the 
EPA was suppressed last week. In looking at that, we started examining 
it and finding out that many scientists around said: No, that is not 
the case.
  I will be specific because this was back when President Clinton was 
in office and Al Gore was the Vice President. At that time, he wanted 
to determine how much we could accomplish if the developed nations 
ratified and lived by the Kyoto Treaty.
  He went to Thomas Wigley, who was one of the top scientists at that 
time. He was chosen by the then-Vice President of the United States, Al 
Gore, who said: We want a study. Over a 50-year period, if all 
developed nations would ratify and live by the emissions standards of 
this treaty, how much would it reduce the temperature over a 50-year 
period?
  When the results came out, it was seven one-hundredths of 1 degree 
Celsius; in other words, not even measurable. That is what began to 
catch on, and people realized it was a lot of pain, a lot of 
punishment, a lot of heavy taxes--like the current cap-and-trade 
proposal is, or like the one that passed the House--yet there is not 
any gain. Even if you were to believe--as I do not--that a major cause 
of global warming is CO2, then what good would it do for us 
unilaterally to do it if the developing nations are not doing it?
  We discovered something yesterday in a hearing. I have a great deal 
of respect for Lisa Jackson, who is the new Administrator of the EPA. 
Her honesty was incredible yesterday. Showing her a chart, I asked her 
a question, stating: This is what we used during the consideration, 13 
months ago, of the Warner-Lieberman bill. The chart shows the numbers 
as to living within or without the limits of the CO2 
emissions. If we only did it in the United States, would it make any 
difference at all in the world amount of CO2? She said: No, 
it would not.
  I think that is the most significant thing. Because individuals, and 
well-meaning individuals who believe manmade gases are causing global 
warming, should realize that does not do it, even if you believed it. 
In fact, the reverse would be true. There is no doubt--and we have all 
kinds of studies to show it--if we had passed any of the last three 
cap-and-trade bills we considered on the floor of this Senate, that 
would have had the effect of pushing the manufacturing jobs out of 
America into countries where they have no emissions requirements, such 
as China, and that would have caused a net increase--a net increase--of 
CO2.
  So I think that was a major thing yesterday that took place. It is my 
intention next week to go back through the history of this issue, to 
bring us up to the present time, and then to look into the future as to 
what we might be doing with this legislation.
  I was very happy to hear, a few minutes ago, that Chairman Barbara 
Boxer has decided not to come out of the committee with a bill until 
after the August recess. Quite frankly, I think it works in my favor. 
The longer we have to inform people as to some of the misinformation, 
the better I think it is going to be in terms of a vote that would take 
place. I cannot imagine that if there are only some 35, 36 votes that 
would have been there to pass the Warner-Lieberman bill 13 months ago, 
that there would be any way today to get up to 60 votes.
  So, quite frankly, I do not think it is going to pass anyway. But I 
do think during the recess we are going to have an opportunity to talk 
about this issue.
  Today, I visited with a national farm group, and we were talking 
about how it would disproportionately hurt the farmers. The fact is, 70 
percent of their wheat cost is in fertilizer and energy. Fertilizer and 
energy are where the costs would be increased dramatically if we were 
to pass some kind of a cap-and-trade bill.
  Then, of course, there is the regressive feature. The fact is, poor 
people in America have to have gasoline in their cars. They have to 
heat their homes. They spend a lot larger percentage of their 
disposable income on heating and in using energy than wealthy people 
do.
  So I think, with all these things working right now, we are in a 
position to stand back and say, cap and trade is not going to work. It 
is going to be history. And we can start approaching this in ways, 
perhaps somewhat like President Bush tried to do with the Clear Skies 
Act, where he talked about real pollutants, such as SOX, 
NOX, and mercury, and have meaningful reductions in those to 
protect our environment.
  That is what our plans are for next week, and I look forward to 
sharing these thoughts with anyone who is willing to listen.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded, just that I may speak for up to 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, as the manager of this bill, who has 
been very cooperative, and others on the floor know, I have been 
working hard to get a vote on my reimportation amendment. It is a very 
simple, straightforward amendment. It is a limitation amendment--at 
least it will be once it is perfected and modified. In fact, it is an 
amendment that has passed the Senate before, in 2006. So it is not new. 
It has actually passed the Senate before.
  Unfortunately, because of the nature of the issue and, in fact, 
because of the powerful nature of the pharmaceutical interests who 
oppose this amendment, this is being blocked using every procedural 
tool in the book. That is unfortunate, but it seems as if that is going 
to be the case.
  If I cannot get a fair hearing and a fair vote on this amendment, I 
am going to use the procedural tools available to me to block votes on 
other nongermane amendments, on other amendments that are subject to 
points of order--which I think are most, if not all, of the other 
pending amendments.
  At this point, given the fairly certain nature of certain Members' 
fierce opposition to this reimportation provision, I simply suggest we 
move forward and not waste folks' time. I am certainly amenable to 
moving to dispense with any pending amendment which is germane, which 
does not have a point of order against it, move through those and then 
move to final passage of the bill as quickly as possible. I am 
certainly open to that and would encourage that and would like to move 
forward in that vein.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                         long term care reform

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I recently spoke to my colleagues 
about the urgent need to pass health care reform, and in particular 
about the importance of ensuring that reform includes a strong public 
option. Today, I want to discuss another one of my priorities for 
health care reform, and that is long-term care.
  I have been working to reform long-term care since I began my career 
in public service. In 1982, during my first term as a Wisconsin State 
Senator, I became Chair of the State Senate Aging Committee. I was not 
yet 30 years old, so you can imagine that I was not the obvious 
candidate to chair a committee on aging. It was through my work on this 
committee that I was first exposed to the fractured system of supports 
and services available to those needing long-term care, and learned 
about the efforts to reform

[[Page S7300]]

that system which were just beginning in Wisconsin. Over the next 10 
years, made long-term care reform a priority, authoring the State's 
Alzheimer's program and drawing attention and resources to the 
management of this devastating disease. I helped expand Wisconsin's 
Community Options Program, known as COP, which provided flexible, 
consumer-oriented and consumer-directed long-term care services in 
community-based settings, enabling thousands of people needing long-
term care to remain in their own homes rather than going to a nursing 
home.
  I have continued to fight for long-term care reform in the U.S. 
Senate. I served as Chair of the Long-Term Care Working Group at the 
request of then-Majority Leader George Mitchell during the 1994 attempt 
at health reform. The recommendations of our working group proved to be 
one of the least controversial aspects of health reform legislation. 
Our recommendations drew from the lessons and experiences of states on 
the cutting edge of long-term care, such as Wisconsin. But when overall 
reform efforts failed, our recommendations went nowhere.
  Now, 15 years later, Congress is debating health reform legislation 
once again. And reform is even more necessary than it was in 1994. More 
and more families are struggling to provide care for loved ones who are 
disabled, ill, and aged. More and more families face the difficult 
decision of moving a loved one into a nursing facility because no other 
options exist. These families are stuck in an impossible situation--
limited by financial resources and community programs, but dedicated to 
securing the best care for their family member. We can and must do 
better.
  Long-term care reform is not a luxury, or a minor part of health care 
reform--it is needed in order to help achieve the goals of health care 
reform. Federal, State, local, and individual expenditures on health 
care, including long-term care, are unsustainable. In 2007, the Federal 
and State governments spent $311 billion on long-term care, or just 
under 3 percent of the United States' gross domestic product.
  Approximately three-quarters of this amount represents government 
spending on Medicaid and Medicare. Long-term care reform could be one 
of the most effective tools to ensure solvency for our entitlement 
programs, reducing the Medicaid burden on State budgets, and getting 
health care spending under control.
  I have worked on these issues for the better part of three decades. 
And after devoting so much time to long-term care, a number of things 
are clear. First, we must have a cohesive strategy to care for those 
needing long- term supports and services. Modern medicine has turned 
fatal diseases into chronic diseases, and enabled individuals to live 
much longer. These are tremendous accomplishments. But the reality is 
that these individuals need even more assistance because of medical 
advancements from their families, communities, and government.
  Long-term care assistance is not something that most people can plan 
for or save for. This is a very important point. Of the 10 million 
Americans needing long-term care, 40 percent were working-age adults or 
children who have become disabled, or too ill, to live independently. 
This is something that the Trifunovich family in Cudahy, WI, knows all 
too well. At 33, Aleksandar Trifunovich suddenly suffered a deadly 
brain stem stroke, cruelly leaving him ``locked in.'' His brain 
function, eyesight, and hearing remained normal, but his entire body 
was paralyzed. Against all odds, Aleksandar survived surgery and has 
made miraculous development through rehabilitation. Today, Aleksandar 
is no longer ``locked in,'' but fights every day to preserve the 
progress he has made and regain even more of his mobility. Along the 
way, his sisters Vera and Andjelija have stepped in, as so many family 
members do, to support and care for their brother. The family is 
acutely aware of the current fractured long-term care system. Calling 
it ``unnavigable,'' they say that it is a daily battle to ensure 
Aleksandar has access to the care, supports, and services he needs to 
continue regaining his mobility and independence.
  As for the 60 percent of older Americans and senior citizens needing 
long-term care, who theoretically might have had time to save for these 
medical needs, financing long-term care on their own is simply too 
expensive. Not only is the cost of long-term care growing at twice the 
rate of inflation, seniors are using long-term care supports and 
services earlier and more often. And families are feeling the strain. 
Studies estimate that over 85 percent of long-term care is provided by 
family and friends, but the cost of providing care and forgoing 
earnings elsewhere is not included in projections on long-term care 
spending. Long-term care reform is not an issue of making people be 
more responsible, save earlier, or save more. It is needed because the 
system, on a fundamental level, is strained to the breaking point.

  Second, we do not necessarily need to spend more, but we must spend 
more wisely. This means establishing consumer-oriented and consumer-
directed flexible benefits as well as making fundamental reforms to the 
linkages between the long-term care and acute care systems. For too 
long, long-term care has been synonymous with institutional care. 
Congress has a rare opportunity to redefine long-term care, and put 
real weight and spending power behind home- and community-based long-
term care options.
  Central to this effort is creating a system of home- and community-
based flexible services that respond to individual consumer choice and 
preference from the initial assessment right on through to ongoing 
services, with case managers and others regularly consulting with the 
consumer and family members to be sure their needs are met in a 
satisfying manner. I have been working with my colleagues on the Senate 
Finance Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee for months now, to draw attention to the excellent programs 
we have in my home State of Wisconsin as we begin to fill the gaps in 
long-term care supports and services. Wisconsin's progress in long-term 
care should be used as a template for national reform, and I was 
pleased that Chairman Baucus included new incentives for home and 
community-based care programs like those Wisconsin uses today in the 
policy proposals he put forward earlier this year.
  Wisconsin's progressive tradition is the driving force behind Family 
Care, our State entitlement program for low-income and disabled adults 
to receive necessary care, supports, and services in their homes and 
communities. Family Care currently operates in almost every county in 
the State, and provides a flexible benefit for beneficiaries to receive 
long-term care supports and services in the comfort of their own homes. 
Family Care has demonstrated two important things: First, it showed 
that you can establish a long-term care program that is flexible and 
able to respond to the needs of individual consumers; second, it showed 
that kind of flexible program could be a cost-effective alternative to 
nursing homes.

  Family Care coordinates consumers with social workers, registered 
nurses, and local Aging and Disability Resource Centers to identify 
what each consumer needs to remain a productive and independent 
citizen. Entitlement benefits can be used for such purposes as hiring 
help with basic daily tasks like bathing, dressing, or shopping, or 
with challenges like shoveling snow, which in Wisconsin is not a 
trivial task.
  Because of this benefit, long-term care consumers in the State are 
choosing to stay in their own homes and saving the State money in the 
process. One independent assessment of Family Care estimates that the 
program saves the State $1.2 million each month by allowing long-term 
care consumers to arrange for the care they need to remain independent, 
and out of the nursing home. If overwhelming popularity and savings 
were not enough, counties with Family Care have seen decreases in 
nursing home admissions, emergency room use, and hospital readmittance. 
Instead, long-term care consumers are seeing their primary care 
physicians more to maintain and manage their health.
  How we care for those who need it most--seniors, people with 
disabilities and other who need long term care--is a key part of any 
effort to change our health care system. I have thought often of my 
work as Chair of the long-term care working group over the last

[[Page S7301]]

15 years. If just those recommendations we put together back then had 
been enacted, we might not be spending the trillions on health care 
that we are today. We can not continue to make the mistake of 
overlooking long-term care in the broader debate. Congress must place 
this critical issue front and center in the health care debate. It is 
time to put long-term care in the spotlight and use Family Care, 
Wisconsin's outstanding example of flexible and cost-effective care, as 
a model for broader reform.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as soon as this amendment logjam is 
broken, it is my intention to offer an amendment which is cosponsored 
by Senators Carper, Casey, and Kerry. This amendment deals with an 
issue of significance to all 50 States in our country and maybe 
especially rural America.
  In the midst of the financial crisis we are facing, our capabilities 
to support fire departments--both professional and volunteer--and the 
EMS services they provide is under great stress.
  What my amendment would do is add $100 million for the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program as well as for another important program for 
fire departments, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 
Response, or SAFER, Grant Program--$50 million for each program. In the 
$50 million for the SAFER Grant Program would be included $30 million 
that would go for addressing the real crisis rural volunteer fire 
departments are facing.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, I do not know what the situation is 
in New Hampshire, but in Vermont--and I think in many parts of the 
country--we are seeing a real problem with recruitment and retention. 
Many people in urban areas may not understand that. But in rural 
America, most folks get their fire service and most folks get their 
EMS, their first responder service, from volunteers. If there are not 
volunteers available for one or another reason--and we have seen both 
recruitment and retention problems in volunteer fire departments--if 
those volunteers are not there, what is going to happen is, when fires 
happen, those fires are not going to be able to be contained. When 
somebody has a heart attack and dials 911, they are not going to get 
the kind of speedy ambulance service they need.
  In the midst of this recession, what we are seeing is not only a 
reduction and a real stress on volunteer firefighting departments all 
over this country, and their EMS services, we are also seeing, in terms 
of professional firefighters, reductions in one part of the country 
after another part of the country, after another part of the country. 
Cities and towns under stress are cutting back, and they are doing it 
in ways which are certainly endangering the well-being and the health 
of the people in their communities.
  Surveys by the International Association of Fire Fighters say that up 
to 5,000 firefighting jobs are in jeopardy. In Prince George's County, 
MD--not far from here--there is a new phenomenon called ``brownouts.'' 
This is where fire stations are closed, five at a time, to save money. 
In Atlanta, GA, the economic crisis has resulted in the shutting of 
five firehouses. In Flint, MI, 22 firefighters were laid off. Proposals 
in Columbus, OH, include laying off 238 firefighters. In Warren, OH, 17 
firefighters received layoff notices. Orlando, FL, plans on laying off 
46 firefighters. In Spokane, WA, up to 15 firefighting positions could 
be eliminated. There is also a serious problem about funding the 
equipment our firefighters need.
  So we have a real problem. It seems to me at this moment this is a 
priority for this Nation, and it is something we should be addressing.
  This amendment is supported by the volunteer firefighters of America.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from the National Volunteer Fire Council. The National 
Volunteer Fire Council is strongly supporting this amendment, and they 
represent thousands of volunteer firefighters throughout this country.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              National Volunteer Fire Council,

                                      Greenbelt, MD, July 9, 2009.
     Hon. Bernie Sanders,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert Casey,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sanders: I am writing to express the full 
     support of the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) for 
     your amendment to increase funding for the Assistance to 
     Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing for 
     Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program by 
     $50 million each in the FY 2010 Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act. The NVFC represents the 
     interests of the more than one million volunteer firefighters 
     and EMS personnel in the United States.
       AFG helps fire departments and EMS agencies purchase 
     desperately needed equipment, apparatus and training. Nearly 
     20,000 fire departments applied for more than $3.1 billion in 
     funding through AFG in FY 2009--more than five times the $565 
     million appropriated for this year. The $380 million 
     allocation in the Committee-passed version of the FY 2010 DHS 
     Appropriations Act represents a reduction of 33 percent from 
     last year and is $10 million below the House-passed companion 
     bill.
       AFG is a highly successful program that relies on input 
     from the fire service and a direct grant process to ensure 
     that funding quickly reaches the agencies that need it most. 
     An FY 2007 review of AFG by DHS found the program to be 95 
     percent effective, the second highest rating of any program 
     at DHS.
       A needs assessment survey conducted by the Fireman's Fund 
     Insurance Company recently found that 60 percent of 
     respondents report that their fire department has delayed 
     equipment replacement purchases due to the economic downturn. 
     Fifty percent of respondents reported that if economic 
     conditions do not improve within the next 12 months that it 
     could affect their ability to provide service to their 
     communities. Local fire and EMS agencies need AFG funding now 
     more than ever.
       SAFER funds assist fire departments to build staffing 
     capacity through hiring of career firefighters and 
     recruitment and retention of volunteers. There is no single 
     more significant challenge facing the volunteer fire service 
     than recruitment and retention. Since 1987, the percentage of 
     volunteer firefighters under the age of 40 has shrunk from 65 
     percent to approximately 50 percent today. As this trend 
     suggests, fire departments are increasingly having difficulty 
     recruiting and retaining the next generation of volunteer 
     firefighters. Volunteer fire departments can use recruitment 
     and retention funds for a variety of activities from 
     marketing campaigns to establishing modest incentive 
     programs.
       Your amendment would provide critical additional funding to 
     assist first responders and signal to local fire and EMS 
     agencies that they remain an important national priority even 
     in these difficult budgetary times. Thank you again for 
     offering this amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Heather Schafer,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I will be speaking about this amendment 
at a later time, but I wanted to let my colleagues know this issue is 
of great concern all over this country. It is a concern to the 
firefighting community, it is a concern to the EMS community, and it is 
certainly a concern to rural America.
  I look forward to my colleagues supporting this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Amendments Nos. 1459 and 1455, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1373

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside and that it be in order for me to call 
up the following two amendments en bloc: amendment No. 1459 and 
amendment No. 1455, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Tester, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1459 to amendment No. 1373.

[[Page S7302]]

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. KYL, for 
     himself, and Mr. McCAIN, proposes an amendment numbered 1455, 
     as modified, to amendment No. 1373.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1459

 (Purpose: To condition funding for the National Bio and Agro-defense 
                               Facility)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 5__.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be obligated for the construction of the National Bio and 
     Agro-defense Facility on the United States mainland until 90 
     days after the later of--
       (1) the date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     completes a site-specific bio-safety and bio-security 
     mitigation assessment to determine the requirements necessary 
     to ensure safe operation of the National Bio and Agro-defense 
     Facility at the preferred site identified in the January 16, 
     2009, record of decision published in Federal Register Vol. 
     74, Number 111;
       (2) the date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, submits to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a 
     report that--
       (A) describes the procedure that will be used to issue the 
     permit to conduct foot-and-mouth disease live virus research 
     under section 7524 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (21 U.S.C. 113a note; Public Law 110-246); and
       (B) includes plans to establish an emergency response plan 
     with city, regional, and State officials in the event of an 
     accidental release of foot-and-mouth disease or another 
     hazardous pathogen.


                    amendment no. 1455, as modified

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a 
  detailed report to Congress regarding the utilization and potential 
              expansion of Operation Streamline programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General and the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, shall submit a report to 
     the congressional committees set forth in subsection (b) that 
     provides details about--
       (1) additional Border Patrol sectors that should be 
     utilizing Operation Streamline programs; and
       (2) resources needed from the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Department of Justice, and the Judiciary, to 
     increase the effectiveness of Operation Streamline programs 
     at some Border Patrol sectors and to utilize such programs at 
     additional sectors.
       (b) The congressional committees set forth in this 
     subsection are--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (3) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (4) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives, and
       (5) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid 
upon the table en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (No. 1459) and (No. 1455), as modified, were agreed to 
en bloc.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. 1458 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 1458 be the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Dodd, 
     for himself, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Carper, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1458 to amendment No. 1373.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional funds for FIRE grants under section 33 
        of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. _ (a) The amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``firefighter assistance grants'' under the heading ``Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency'' under by title III for 
     necessary expenses for programs authorized by the Federal 
     Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 is increased by 
     $10,000,000 for necessary expenses to carry out the programs 
     authorized under section 33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229).
       (b) The total amount of appropriations under the heading 
     ``Aviation Security'' under the heading ``Transportation 
     Security Administration'' under title II, the amount for 
     screening operations and the amount for explosives detection 
     systems under the first proviso under that heading, and the 
     amount for the purchase and installation of explosives 
     detection systems under the second proviso under that heading 
     are reduced by $4,500,000.
       (c) From the unobligated balances of amounts appropriated 
     before the date of enactment of this Act for the 
     appropriations account under the heading ``state and local 
     programs'' under the heading ``Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency'' for ``Trucking Industry Security Grants'', 
     $5,500,000 are rescinded.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that is now pending is an 
amendment that increases fire grant programs by $10 million. It is 
fully offset. The fire grant programs provide funds to equip, train, 
and hire our firefighters. The committee provided an increase in the 
bill because in 2007 there were over 20,731 applications, totaling $3.1 
billion, and FEMA could only approve 5,132 of those applications due to 
limited funds.
  I hope we can move quickly to a vote on this amendment. We wish to 
move forward. I know several Senators have amendments they wish to 
offer, and if we can move to a vote on this fairly quickly, I think 
everybody would be amenable to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 1467 to Amendment No. 1458

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I certainly share the desire to move 
forward and resolve these issues and go through these votes. In that 
vein, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Dodd 
amendment.
  This is a straight limitation amendment. It is a germane amendment 
with no points of order against it, which would simply enact 
legislation that the Senate enacted in 2006 with regard to 
reimportation.
  I would be happy to explain the amendment more fully if it is 
appropriate to have a debate either now or in the near future on it. 
But again, it enacts language that was previously enacted by the Senate 
in 2006. It is a straight limitation amendment, which is germane, and 
does not have points of order against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1467 to amendment No. 1458.

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

(Purpose: To prevent funds from being used to prevent individuals from 
       importing prescription drugs under certain circumstances)

       At the end add the following:
       Sec. None of the funds made available in this Act for U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent an 
     individual not in the business of importing a prescription 
     drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) from importing a prescription 
     drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act: Provided, That the prescription drug may 
     not be--

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider a managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in a moment I will send a managers' 
package to the desk. We are waiting for one quick decision. Hopefully, 
in a moment, I will be sending a managers' package to the desk with a 
number of

[[Page S7303]]

amendments that have been worked out on both sides. We hope to adopt 
that package.
  I know Members have been waiting to get to votes. We have several 
Senators who require votes on their amendments. We hope to start that 
fairly shortly, as soon as this package is adopted.


  Amendments Nos. 1401; 1447; 1457; 1463, as Modified; 1456; 1454, as 
Modified; 1466, as Modified; 1465; and 1464, as Modified, to Amendment 
                                No. 1373

  So, Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' package, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered, and modified, as 
indicated, where indicated, and agreed to en bloc; and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that the consideration of 
these amendments appear separately in the Record, and any statements 
relating to their consideration be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1401

  (Purpose: To amend title 46, United States Code, to ensure that the 
     prohibition on disclosure of maritime transportation security 
    information is not used inappropriately to shield certain other 
      information from public disclosure, and for other purposes)

     SECTION ------. MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INFORMATION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``American Communities' Right to Public Information Act''.
       (b) In General.--Section 70103(d) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Nondisclosure of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Information developed under this chapter 
     is not required to be disclosed to the public, including--
       ``(A) facility security plans, vessel security plans, and 
     port vulnerability assessments; and
       ``(B) other information related to security plans, 
     procedures, or programs for vessels or facilities authorized 
     under this chapter.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be 
     construed to authorize the designation of information as 
     sensitive security information (as defined in section 1520.5 
     of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations)--
       ``(A) to conceal a violation of law, inefficiency, or 
     administrative error;
       ``(B) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, 
     or agency;
       ``(C) to restrain competition; or
       ``(D) to prevent or delay the release of information that 
     does not require protection in the interest of transportation 
     security, including basic scientific research information not 
     clearly related to transportation security.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 114(r) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(4) Limitations.--Nothing in this subsection, or any 
     other provision of law, shall be construed to authorize the 
     designation of information as sensitive security information 
     (as defined in section 1520.5 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations)--
       ``(A) to conceal a violation of law, inefficiency, or 
     administrative error;
       ``(B) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, 
     or agency;
       ``(C) to restrain competition; or
       ``(D) to prevent or delay the release of information that 
     does not require protection in the interest of transportation 
     security, including basic scientific research information not 
     clearly related to transportation security.''.
       (2) Section 40119(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(3) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to 
     authorize the designation of information as sensitive 
     security information (as defined in section 15.5 of title 49, 
     Code of Federal Regulations)--
       ``(A) to conceal a violation of law, inefficiency, or 
     administrative error;
       ``(B) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, 
     or agency;
       ``(C) to restrain competition; or
       ``(D) to prevent or delay the release of information that 
     does not require protection in the interest of transportation 
     security, including basic scientific research information not 
     clearly related to transportation security.''.


                           amendment no. 1447

       (Purpose: To clarify the definition of switchblade knives)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, add the following:

     SEC. 556. DEFINITION OF SWITCHBLADE KNIVES.

       Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the 
     introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into 
     interstate commerce of switchblade knives, and for other 
     purposes'' (commonly known as the Federal Switchblade Act) 
     (15 U.S.C. 1244) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; or'' and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) a knife that contains a spring, detent, or other 
     mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure of the 
     blade and that requires exertion applied to the blade by 
     hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure to 
     assist in opening the knife.''.


                           amendment no. 1457

(Purpose: To protect taxpayers by improving financial accountability at 
                  the Department of Homeland Security)

       On page 3, line 13, insert ``: Provided, That of the total 
     amount made available under this heading, $5,000,000 shall 
     not be obligated until the Chief Financial Officer or an 
     individual acting in such capacity submits a financial 
     management improvement plan that addresses the 
     recommendations outlined in the Department of Homeland 
     Security Office of Inspector General report # OIG-09-72, 
     including yearly measurable milestones, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives: Provided further, That the plan described in 
     the preceding proviso shall be submitted not later than 
     January 4, 2010'' before the period.


                    amendment no. 1463, as modified

    (Purpose: To make a technical correction to the Federal Deposit 
                             Insurance Act)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17 insert the following:

     SEC. 556. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       (a) Applicable Annual Percentage Rate of Interest.--Section 
     44(f)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831u(f)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``(or in the case of a governmental entity located in such 
     State, paid)'' after ``received, or reserved''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``nondepository institution operating in such State'' and 
     inserting ``governmental entity located in such State or any 
     person that is not a depository institution described in 
     subparagraph (A) doing business in such State'';
       (B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii);
       (C) in clause (i)--
       (i) in subclause (III)--

       (I) in item (aa), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (II) in item (bb), by striking ``, to facilitate'' and all 
     that follows through ``2009''; and
       (III) by striking item (cc); and

       (ii) by adding after subclause (III) the following:

       ``(IV) the uniform accessibility of bonds and obligations 
     issued under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009;''; and

       (D) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) to facilitate interstate commerce through the 
     issuance of bonds and obligations under any provision of 
     State law, including bonds and obligations for the purpose of 
     economic development, education, and improvements to 
     infrastructure; and''.
       (b) Effective Period.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to contracts consummated during the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on December 31, 2010.


                           amendment no. 1456

(Purpose: To provide that certain photographic records relating to the 
   treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after 
    September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in 
operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure 
under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to 
as the Freedom of Information Act), to amend section 552(b)(3) of title 
     5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 
Information Act) to provide that statutory exemptions to the disclosure 
 requirements of that Act shall specifically cite to the provision of 
      that Act authorizing such exemptions, to ensure an open and 
 deliberative process in Congress by providing for related legislative 
 proposals to explicitly state such required citations, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DETAINEE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS PROTECTION AND OPEN 
                   FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

       (a) Detainee Photographic Records Protection.--
       (1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the 
     ``Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009''.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Covered record.--The term ``covered record'' means any 
     record--
       (i) that is a photograph that--

       (I) was taken during the period beginning on September 11, 
     2001, through January 22, 2009; and
       (II) relates to the treatment of individuals engaged, 
     captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed 
     Forces of the United States in operations outside of the 
     United States; and

       (ii) for which a certification by the Secretary of Defense 
     under paragraph (3) is in effect.
       (B) Photograph.--The term ``photograph'' encompasses all 
     photographic images, whether originals or copies, including 
     still photographs, negatives, digital images, films, video 
     tapes, and motion pictures.

[[Page S7304]]

       (3) Certification.--
       (A) In general.--For any photograph described under 
     paragraph (2)(A)(i), the Secretary of Defense shall issue a 
     certification, if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines 
     that the disclosure of that photograph would endanger --
       (i) citizens of the United States; or
       (ii) members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United 
     States Government deployed outside the United States.
       (B) Certification expiration.--A certification under 
     subparagraph (A) and a renewal of a certification under 
     subparagraph (C) shall expire 3 years after the date on which 
     the certification or renewal, as the case may be, is made.
       (C) Certification renewal.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     issue--
       (i) a renewal of a certification in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A) at any time; and
       (ii) more than 1 renewal of a certification.
       (D) Notice to congress.--A timely notice of the Secretary's 
     certification shall be submitted to Congress.
       (4) Nondisclosure of detainee records.--A covered record 
     shall not be subject to--
       (A) disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information 
     Act); or
       (B) disclosure under any proceeding under that section.
       (5) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to preclude the voluntary disclosure of a 
     covered record.
       (6) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and apply to any photograph 
     created before, on, or after that date that is a covered 
     record.
       (b) Open Freedom of Information Act.--
       (1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the 
     ``OPEN FOIA Act of 2009''.
       (2) Specific citations in statutory exemptions.--Section 
     552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute 
     (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute--
       ``(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the 
     public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the 
     issue; or
       ``(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or 
     refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
       ``(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN 
     FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.''.


                    Amendment no. 1454, as modified

  Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to 
 Congress a report on reducing the time to travel between locations in 
  the United States and locations in Ontario and Quebec by intercity 
                            passenger rail)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall, in consultation with the entities specified 
     in subsection (c), submit to Congress a report on improving 
     cross-border inspection processes in an effort to reduce the 
     time to travel between locations in the United States and 
     locations in Ontario and Quebec by intercity passenger rail.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) an evaluation of potential cross-border inspection 
     processes and methods including rolling inspections that 
     comply with Department of Homeland Security requirements that 
     would--
       (A) reduce the time to perform inspections on routes 
     between locations in the United States and locations in 
     Ontario and Quebec by intercity passenger rail;
       (2) an assessment of the extent to which improving or 
     expanding infrastructure and increasing staffing could 
     increase the efficiency with which intercity rail passengers 
     are inspected at border crossings without decreasing 
     security;
       (3) an updated evaluation of the potential for pre-
     clearance by the Department of Homeland Security of intercity 
     rail passengers at locations along routes between locations 
     in the United States and locations in Ontario and Quebec, 
     including through the joint use of inspection facilities with 
     the Canada Border Services Agency, based on the report 
     required by section 1523 of the Implementing Recommendations 
     of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53; 121 
     Stat. 450);
       (4) an estimate of the timeline for implementing the 
     methods for reducing the time to perform inspections between 
     locations in the United States and locations in Ontario and 
     Quebec by intercity passenger rail based on the evaluations 
     and assessments described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); 
     and
       (5) a description of how such evaluations and assessments 
     would apply with respect to--
       (A) all existing intercity passenger rail routes between 
     locations in the United States and locations in Ontario and 
     Quebec, including designated high-speed rail corridors;
       (B) any intercity passenger rail routes between such 
     locations that have been used over the past 20 years and on 
     which cross-border passenger rail service does not exist as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (C) any potential future rail routes between such 
     locations.
       (c) Entities Specified.--The entities to be consulted in 
     the development of the report required by subsection (a) 
     are--
       (1) the Government of Canada, including the Canada Border 
     Services Agency and Transport Canada and other agencies of 
     the Government of Canada with responsibility for providing 
     border services;
       (2) the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec;
       (3) the States of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 
     York, and Vermont;
       (4) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; and
       (5) the Federal Railroad Administration.


                    amendment no. 1466, as modified

                     (Purpose: To require a report)

       On page 39, line 9, after ``spending:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided Further, That not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall submit a report 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senaten that includes (1) a plan for the 
     acquisition of alternative temporary housing units, and (2) 
     procedures for expanding repair of existing multi-family 
     rental housing units authorized under section 689i(a) of the 
     Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 
     U.S.C. 776(a)), semi-permanent, or permanent housing 
     options:''.


                           amendment no. 1465

(Purpose: To authorize the temporary reemployment of administrative law 
  judge annuitants for disputes relating to certain public assistance 
applications under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                            Assistance Act)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 556. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES.

       The administrative law judge annuitants participating in 
     the Senior Administrative Law Judge Program managed by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management under section 
     3323 of title 5, United States Code, shall be available on a 
     temporary reemployment basis to conduct arbitrations of 
     disputes as part of the arbitration panel established by the 
     President under section 601 of division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 
     Stat. 164).


                    amendment no. 1464, as modified

 (Purpose: To protect the privacy of personal information provided by 
  United States travelers who participated in the Registered Traveler 
                                program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROPER DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL INFORMATION COLLECTED 
                   THROUGH THE REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Any company that collects or retains 
     personal information directly from individuals who 
     participated in the Registered Traveler program shall 
     safeguard and dispose of such information in accordance with 
     the requirements in--
       (1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
     Special Publication 800-30, entitled ``Risk Management Guide 
     for Information Technology Systems''; and
       (2) the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
     Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, entitled 
     ``Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information 
     Systems and Organizations,'';
       (3) any supplemental standards established by the Assistant 
     Secretary, Transportation Security Administration (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Assistant Secretary'').
       (b) Certification.--The Assistant Secretary shall--
       require any company through the sponsoring entity described 
     in subsection (a) to provide, not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, written certification 
     to the sponsoring entity that such procedures are consistent 
     with the minimum standards established under paragraph (a)(1-
     3) with a description of the procedures used to comply with 
     such standards.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress that--
       (1) describes the procedures that have been used to 
     safeguard and dispose of personal information collected 
     through the Registered Traveler program; and
       (2) provides the status of the certification by any company 
     described in subsection (a) that such procedures are 
     consistent with the minimum standards established by 
     paragraph (a)(1-3).


                           Amendment No. 1447

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Cornyn and 
Pryor to offer this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. This bipartisan amendment will bring clarity to 
the definition of what should be classified as a switchblade knife. 
This amendment is in response to a proposal by the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, CBP, to revoke four ruling letters that would change 
the definition of a switchblade knife.
  The definition of what is a switchblade has been clear and settled 
since the Federal Switchblade Act was

[[Page S7305]]

passed in 1958, and it has been reaffirmed by many years of legal 
decisions. The act is very clear that a switchblade must have an 
automatic mechanism that is activated by a button usually located on 
the handle. Without a button, it is not a switchblade, and this has 
been upheld by numerous cases on many levels over the years.
  This amendment will clearly define that any knife that can be opened 
with one hand is not and should not be classified as a switchblade. 
This amendment conforms to the original intent of Congress when it 
passed the Federal Switchblade Act in 1958.
  According to knife industry sources, 80 percent of pocketknives sold 
today are one-hand or assisted openers. On a daily basis, good working 
folks use these knives in their daily tasks as electricians, 
carpenters, and construction workers. As such, Leatherman-type 
multitools with one-hand opening features, as well as folding utility 
knives that have a stud on the blunt portion of the blade to assist 
one-hand opening, would have been defined as a switchblade. The 
amendment offered today will provide a permanent statutory remedy to 
this issue. This amendment will continue to prohibit switchblades, but 
not at the expense of knives that were never meant to be categorized as 
a switchblade. Because of that, I saw the need to offer this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. 1428, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hatch 
amendment, No. 1428, as modified, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1428), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
speak about an issue that I have been working on for several years and 
which has been addressed once and for all by the amendment that Senator 
Hatch has proposed--No. 1428--and that I have cosponsored, along with 
Senators Cornyn, Bennett of Utah, Schumer, Menendez, Reid, Kennedy, and 
Gillibrand. The amendment contains several important provisions, 
including my bill to put an end to what has become known as the ``widow 
penalty.'' This bipartisan support for this amendment has brought out 
the best in the Senate, and the Senate's action today represents a 
great achievement.
  Under our immigration laws, a foreigner who marries a U.S. citizen is 
entitled to become a permanent U.S. resident. Yet our own immigration 
service has been trying to deport several hundred widows and a few 
widowers--foreigners who had been married to American citizens when the 
Americans died.
  To illustrate, here is a little story from a June 14 CBS ``60 
Minutes'' rebroadcast:
  Raquel Williams, a young nursing student from Brazil, was visiting 
Florida when one night she and three girl friends drove into a gas 
station. They caught the eye of a car full of guys who were also 
getting gas.
  ``I guess they noticed that we were, you know, not from here,'' 
Raquel remembers, recalling when she first met her future husband. That 
chance meeting with Derek Williams led to love, marriage, and 
eventually parenthood. Two years after they met, their son Ian was 
born.
  But then the unthinkable happened.
  Raquel told ``60 Minutes'' she woke up about 4:30 a.m. one morning to 
find her husband lying on the couch. She could see something was wrong. 
He wasn't breathing. Raquel called 911. ``Please, please,'' she 
pleaded, ``come fast. Fast.''
  But he was already gone. Derek had insomnia, so he would watch TV on 
their couch during the night. But he also had breathing problems and an 
irregular heartbeat, which proved fatal.
  After he died, Raquel and Ian moved in with Derek's parents. And 3 
months after Derek died, Raquel finally had the immigration interview 
that she had been seeking for a year to gain status as a permanent U.S. 
resident.
  She went to the interview with Ian, and brought all the documentation 
needed to prove she had been married to Derek; she also brought the 
death certificate.
  Her case was denied. ``They said, `You're gonna have to go back to 
Brazil.' And I said, `I have my son. You know? This is my son. He's 
[an] American citizen.' And they said that, `You can go. He can stay.' 
''
  Ian was 5 months old at the time.
  Raquel found herself caught in what is now referred to by many as the 
widow penalty--when a surviving spouse faces deportation because they 
had yet to be married 2 full years when their American husband or wife 
died.
  Tragically, there are hundreds of cases in which men and women are 
crying out for common sense and reason to prevail. Earlier this year, I 
filed standalone legislation--the Fairness to Surviving Spouses Act of 
2009--to put an end to the unfair and arbitrary widow penalty.
  Then, 2 weeks ago, joined by Representative Jim McGovern, the sponsor 
of the House counterpart to my bill, I held a meeting here in 
Washington with a number of surviving spouses from around the country. 
All of them today find themselves in Raquel's situation.
  They included Diana Engstrom, whose husband was killed working with 
the Army in Iraq, and Natalia Goukassian, a Florida woman who, like 
Raquel, lost her American husband and then found the Federal Government 
moving to deport her.
  Natalia is but one of a few hundred spouses of deceased Americans 
whose legal status hangs in the balance, but her story is illustrative. 
She came into the country legally from Russia and met her future 
husband. They married on June 30, 2006, and soon after they filed for 
Natalia's permanent resident status in the Orlando office of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Tigran died on December 1, 2006, 
of an aggressive form of cancer related to his service in the U.S. 
military. Natalia was denied in March 2009. For now she is here 
legally, but that status soon will end unless this amendment becomes 
law.
  Widows and widowers facing deportation were given a potential 
lifeline on June 9, when the Obama administration put plans to send 
them to their home country on hold. But the administration says they 
will need a permanent fix, legislation from Congress, to be able to 
keep them in the country.
  Today, with the adoption of our amendment, we finally have given them 
one. Our amendment puts an end to the widow penalty once and for all. 
Surviving spouses would still need to prove their marriage was a bona 
fide marriage before receiving a green card. And they would be still be 
counted against the overall cap of persons allowed to immigrate to this 
country each year. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would 
retain the discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny 
them automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse.
  The significance of the Senate's action today to the surviving 
spouses who will benefit from its provisions cannot be overstated. Our 
government no longer will be ``piling on'' by responding to the tragic 
death of spouse with an order of deportation instead of an offer of 
condolences. On behalf of Diana Engstrom, Natalia Goukassian, Raquel 
Williams, and all the surviving spouses who will have the chance to 
continue their lives in this country, I thank my colleagues and look 
forward to seeing this provision, which reflects our values as 
Americans, embraced by the House so that it may finally become the law 
of the land.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to present my second-degree 
amendment.

[[Page S7306]]

  In a few minutes we will be voting on the Vitter second-degree 
amendment to the Dodd amendment. This is very straightforward and is 
something this body has considered very directly before. This amendment 
simply prohibits funds in the bill from being used by Customs and 
Border security to prevent the reimportation of prescription drugs from 
Canada only and for personal use only. So it is a reimportation 
amendment but only from Canada and only for personal use. It is very 
limited in that regard.
  Also, it only limits funds with regard to enforcement by Customs and 
Border security. There are numerous other agencies in the Federal 
Government, such as the Justice Department and many law enforcement 
agencies, which regularly are in the business of going after 
counterfeits and other problems in the drug trade. This amendment 
doesn't limit that activity in any way because it only impacts Customs 
and Border security.
  Finally, this exact amendment was considered and passed by the Senate 
in July of 2006. It was not only passed by the Senate, but that Vitter 
amendment, essentially identical, was adopted 68 to 32. A few months 
later, modified language passed the entire Congress. It was somewhat 
modified, but it passed the entire Congress and is law now.
  So based on all that history, I urge a strong bipartisan vote in 
favor of this amendment as we had in 2006. I reserve the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my friend's 
amendment.
  For the past several years, there has been a provision in this 
appropriations bill that says that Customs and Border Protection cannot 
stop an individual from bringing in on their person 90 days' worth of a 
prescription drug from Canada. While I am not crazy about that 
language, it has been law for some time and codifies what had been an 
existing practice at the border. However, my colleague from Louisiana 
is proposing to radically alter what happens at the border.
  This amendment is bad policy, and I hope our colleagues will vote 
against it. It is not adequate to protect the public health, and it 
will not keep Americans safe.
  This amendment would strike three important elements of existing law. 
Instead of just individuals, anyone could bring in drugs. There would 
be no license required for businesses to get into this line of work. 
There would be no inspections of their facilities, no minimum 
qualifications, no background checks, no limits on resale, no oversight 
whatsoever. This would be an open door for criminals to get into 
Americans' medicine cabinets.
  The amendment removes the limit on the method of importation. Instead 
of bringing in the drugs on your person, you could do it by mail order 
or more likely via the Internet. This creates a problem with drugs 
coming not from Canada but through Canada. Many of the drugs ordered 
online today are purported to be from Canada, but when GAO and others 
investigate, they are found to be from other countries.
  Finally, there would be no limits on the quantities permitted to be 
imported. Canada has only one-tenth the population of the United 
States. They cannot serve as our pharmacy. The drugs will be sourced 
from somewhere else. It is inevitable. While many people may be 
comfortable with drugs from Canada, I doubt they will have the same 
level of comfort with drugs from Pakistan, China, or Malta. There is 
nothing in this amendment to ensure that the drugs come from Canada, 
but there is every incentive for them not to come from Canada.
  Most Americans who turn to imported drugs do so because of cost, but 
a counterfeit, tainted, or substandard drug is unsafe at any price. As 
we consider the issue of drug importation, the safety of our citizens 
must be our primary concern.
  I support finding ways to reduce the cost of drugs but never at the 
expense of safety. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  It is a well-intentioned amendment, I am sure. I care a great deal 
for my colleague, but I think we should oppose it and vote it down.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to briefly address some of the 
issues brought up by my distinguished colleague from Utah.
  First, this amendment is only about individuals, and you can look at 
the clear language of the amendment. It is about individuals, not 
corporations, not mega businesses, not anything else but individuals.
  Secondly, it is only about personal use. It is only about businesses 
not in the business of importing prescription drugs. So these 
individuals cannot be in that business, cannot be in that activity as a 
business. We specifically refer to the relevant portion of the Federal 
Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, section 801(g).
  Third, it is for personal use because of that limitation.
  Fourth, we are only limiting funds that go through border security 
for this purpose, not any other law enforcement agency; and there are 
many that are involved in the fight against counterfeits and other 
things, including the Department of Justice.
  Fifth, and finally, this language was passed by this body in 2006 by 
a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 and, as Senator Hatch said, a 
modified version was actually passed into law and has operated in law 
for 3 years, with no apparent safety problems that we are aware of.
  I yield back my time and look forward to the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back my time, also.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we just approved a 3-year extension of 
the Religious Workers Act, which has a good goal and a worthy motive. 
We need to do better with this program.
  We did have, in this legislation that passed, a study of the program 
to see how well it is working. But in July of 2006, the Homeland 
Security Department conducted an evaluation of the program, and it was 
not a good report. Essentially, the situation is that a religious group 
would be entitled to ask for and petition for someone to be brought 
into the country to work in their religious entity. It is called a 
``religious worker program.'' It is usually not a minister, but some 
sort of lay worker.
  The assessment was done by the Homeland Security group. It was an 
assessment of 200-plus cases, without any indication that any of those 
were fraudulent. They just took them at random and checked the 220 
cases. Field inquiries were conducted where necessary, and fraud was 
determined to be the willful misrepresentation or falsification of a 
material fact--that means something that would probably have meant they 
were not entitled to the benefit of the program.
  Under this evaluation, it was found that out of 220 cases evaluated, 
72 were fraudulent; that is, 33 percent--or 1 out of 3--of the 
religious workers entering the country under this program entered 
fraudulently. That is not a good record. In fact, it appears to be the 
highest fraudulent record of any immigrant program we have in the 
country.
  They cited some of the examples of abuses. For example, a beneficiary 
was invited into the country by a petitioner to work at a religious 
institution, and when they checked, the institution didn't exist. And 
the petitioner had filed a number of other petitions bringing in other 
people.
  Another one dealt with a paper church--a church that didn't exist--
and the addresses and all that were given were not legitimate.
  Another one: Age 33, the beneficiary. The person who filed the 
petition to bring this foreign worker in couldn't be located, and there 
could be no connection between the person who petitioned and the group 
for which they claimed to be petitioning. So it appears that this 
individual petitioned for another individual to come and work at a 
school or a church, and the school or church they said they were going 
to work at didn't even know this was happening. Of course, when the 
person came in, they were therefore just able

[[Page S7307]]

to enter the country illegally and never worked at a church.
  There are several more like that. Here is another one. The signer of 
the petition was no longer at the school, and the school board members 
interviewed said they didn't know who was invited to come through the 
petition and were not even aware a petition had been filed.
  In another case, the petitioner had filed at least 82 petitions, with 
many fraudulent indicators, including the misrepresentation of the 
qualifications and duties of the beneficiary.
  Another one dealt with a situation where the beneficiary couldn't be 
located, and the petitioner whose name was on the petition when found 
and interviewed said he didn't know anything about the filing. He 
didn't file it. So somebody just filed it and used his name and brought 
in somebody, supposedly to work at a religious institution, and it was 
all bogus.
  So this is a program which has some real difficulties. I hope the 
study will help us figure out how to make it a more honest system that 
can meet the goals of our program without allowing for so much fraud 
and abuse.
  Mr. President, I yield floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only amendments remaining in order to the 
Byrd substitute amendment No. 1373 and H.R. 2892, and that at 8:25 p.m. 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order 
listed; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form; that no other amendments be 
in order; further, that upon disposition of the Vitter amendment No. 
1467, the Dodd amendment No. 1458, as amended, if amended, be agreed to 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that after the 
first vote in the sequence, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes 
each. The amendments in order are Vitter amendment No. 1467, Dodd 
amendment No. 1458, Coburn amendment No. 1433, Murray amendment No. 
1468, Coburn amendment No. 1434, Grassley amendment No. 1415, and 
Sanders amendment No. 1430; that upon disposition of the listed 
amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote 
on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate and that members of the 
subcommittee be appointed as conferees; further, that if a budget point 
of order or any other point of order is raised and sustained, then it 
be in order for the majority manager to offer another substitute 
amendment minus any offending provision, but including any amendments 
which had been agreed to, and that no further amendments be in order; 
that the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, 
and the remaining provisions beyond adoption of the substitute 
remaining in effect; and further, that the cloture motions be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vitter Amendment No. 1467

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with that, we are ready to vote on the 
Vitter amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  There is 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I have both spoken, and 
I am prepared to yield back the time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. And I will yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1467.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and 
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Risch
     Roberts
     Udall (CO)
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bond
     Burris
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Martinez
     Reed
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1467) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 1458, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1458, 
offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, as amended, is 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 1458), as amended, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1433 to Amendment No. 1373

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1433, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I had a chance to discuss amendment No. 
1433 with Senator Coburn during the previous vote. I believe he is 
willing to take a voice vote on it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1433 to amendment No. 1373.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the payment of bonuses to government contractors 
                         for poor performance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


       proper awarding of incentive fees for contract performance

       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act may be used to pay award or incentive fees for 
     contractor performance that has been judged to be below 
     satisfactory performance or performance that does not meet 
     the basic requirements of a contract.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Washington. 
This simply eliminates inappropriate

[[Page S7308]]

bonuses at the Department of Human Services. We did that at the 
Department of Defense, which saved $500 million. It is also an OMB reg 
for the agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1433) was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 1468, to Amendment No. 1373

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I call up amendment No. 1468.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk the read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1468 to amendment number 1373.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       None of the funds appropriated or othewise made available 
     by this Act may be used by the Department of Homeland 
     Security to enter into any federal contract unless such 
     contract is entered into in accordance with the requirements 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) or Chapter 137 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless 
     such contract is otherwise authorized by statute to be 
     entered into without regard to the above referenced statutes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the 
amendment following the vote on the Murray amendment is a Coburn 
amendment about ensuring that government contracts are competitively 
awarded. I agree with the premise of the amendment that follows this. 
However, his amendment is drafted in a way that precludes certain types 
of contracts that are authorized by statute and have the strong support 
of Congress. For example, his amendment doesn't acknowledge contracts 
that are authorized by the Small Business Act, such as minority-owned 
businesses, women-owned businesses, businesses owned by service-
disabled veterans. The Coburn language also ignores the AbilityOne 
Program, known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program, which provides job 
opportunities for blind and disabled Americans through Federal 
contracts.
  The amendment I am offering assures that we do award government 
contracts competitively but does it in a way that makes sure we take 
care of small businesses and veteran-owned businesses and women-owned 
businesses.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if I understand this correctly, this will 
actually eliminate competitive bidding on grants so grants may be 
earmarked and would not have to be competitively bid. I believe it is 
important the American people know we competitively bid for contracts 
and we competitively bid for grants on the basis of priority and merit. 
Therefore, I am in opposition to this amendment and in support of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Murray 
amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1468.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bond
     Burris
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Martinez
     Reed
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1468) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                Amendment No. 1434 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe Coburn amendment No. 1434 is in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It is a 
commonsense amendment. It says we should competitively bid contracts at 
the Department of Homeland Security, and we should competitively bid 
grants. If you vote against my amendment, you are saying we should not. 
That is all there is to it.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator offering the amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I actually have to offer the amendment. I 
call up amendment No. 1434 and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1434 to amendment No. 1373.

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

    (Purpose: To prohibit no bid contracts by requiring the use of 
competitive procedures to award contracts and grants funded under this 
                                  Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


                          competitive bidding

       Sec. __.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to make any payment in 
     connection with a contract unless the contract is awarded 
     using competitive procedures in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 303 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 
     2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be awarded by grant unless the process used to award 
     such grant uses competitive procedures to select the grantee 
     or award recipient.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate just adopted an amendment that 
ensures that the government contracts are competitively awarded. The 
amendment Senator Coburn is now offering will undo everything we just 
did to assure that all businesses--small business, minority-owned 
businesses, women-owned businesses, businesses owned by service-
disabled veterans--

[[Page S7309]]

will be eligible to bid on these contracts.
  I urge the Senate to vote no.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bond
     Burris
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Martinez
     Reed
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1434) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1415

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next amendment in order is the 
Grassley amendment No. 1415. I have told the Senator we are willing to 
take it on a voice vote if he wants to offer it.
  I call up amendment No. 1415.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1415) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1430 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next amendment and final amendment in 
order is the Sanders amendment. I believe the Senator will speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator 
Casey, Senator Carper, and Senator Kerry. It is also supported by the 
National Volunteer Fire Council representing the interests of over 
800,000 volunteer firefighters.
  At a time when due to the economic crisis fire departments all over 
this country are laying off firefighters, and in rural America 
volunteer fire departments are finding it increasingly difficult to 
attract and retain those firefighters who not only help us, saving our 
property and our lives, but also are involved in EMS services, we are 
putting some of that $100 million directly into recruitment and 
retention for volunteer firefighting efforts. The offset is the science 
and technology fund, which I have nothing against, but I think the 
priorities now have to be for firefighting and for volunteer fire 
departments.
  I yield 15 seconds to Senator Casey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself, Mr. 
     Casey, Mr. Kaufman, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1430 to Amendment No. 1373.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase funding for firefighter assistance grants and 
                   recruitment and retention grants)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS AND RECRUITMENT AND 
                   RETENTION GRANTS.

       For an additional amount for programs authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.) under the heading ``firefighter assistance 
     grants'' under the heading ``Federal Emergency and Management 
     Agency'' under title III there are appropriated $100,000,000, 
     of which $50,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     33 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229) and $50,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2229a) : Provided, That of the $50,000,000 made available 
     under this section to carry out section 34 of that Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2229a), $20,000,000 shall be available for recruitment 
     and retention grants under that section. The total amount of 
     appropriations under the heading ``research, development, 
     acquisition, and operations'' under the heading ``Science and 
     Technology'' under title IV of this Act is reduced by 
     $100,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
also want fire grants. I want everybody to understand that the 
committee amendment already has $810 million in it for fire grants. 
That is an increase of $35 million. We just adopted another amendment 
to add $10 million to this.
  The offset that is in this bill will eliminate all the technology 
development and design to address capabilities. It decimates the 
counter-improvised explosive device--IED--technology. It specifically 
eliminates mass transit-specific counter-IED technologies. It decimates 
cyber-security research and development. The Senate computers are being 
attacked today. It eliminates the research to make sure we can stop 
that. It eliminates development and assessment of high throughput cargo 
screening technology. The list goes on.
  I believe we should be doing all we can for our firefighters. Even 
the International Association of Firefighters does not support this 
amendment--although I appreciate the Senator offering this amendment, 
and I agree with what he would like to do. But the offset decimates 
much of the technology we need to protect our citizens.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1430.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote aye.
  Mr. KYL. The following Seantors are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desing to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Baucus
     Bennet
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Harkin
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lincoln
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett

[[Page S7310]]


     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bond
     Burris
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Martinez
     Reed
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1430) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


             Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning Program

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into 
a colloquy with the Senator to highlight a serious concern with regard 
to FEMA's subcontracting practices related to the Risk Mapping, 
Assessment, and Planning Program.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. Menendez. I thank the Senator. I have constituents back in my 
home State of New Jersey who have highlighted a concern with a current 
FEMA solicitation for their Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning 
Program. I am concerned that this solicitation shuts out both small and 
medium sized businesses. After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA was, rightly so, 
criticized for issuing sole-source contracts to three very large 
companies. We need to be sure this pattern is not repeating itself.
  I agree that updating the Nation's flood map is critical to managing 
and reducing the Nation's flood risk, but operating the program to 
benefit taxpayers by utilizing local, highly qualified businesses, I am 
sure, will produce the best results for the region, the State, and the 
country as well.
  In addition, I believe that taking local companies, with over a 
decade of experience and a track record of success, out of regional 
Indefinite Quantity and Indefinite Delivery contract work is 
counterproductive and has the potential to cost the taxpayers more 
money while providing an inferior product.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for highlighting 
this issue. I agree that the flood-map program is an instrumental tool 
in reducing the loss of life and property from floods. The Homeland 
Security Subcommittee will work with the Senator to review the recent 
contract solicitation. I am committed to ensuring that DHS invests 
acquisition dollars in projects that are well planned, competitively 
awarded, well managed, closely overseen, and best able to serve local 
needs.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator's comments on that. This is 
not just about the State of New Jersey, which has had a number of 
flooding problems in the past, but this is an important concern of 
fairness to address the issue of flooding across the country as well. I 
thank the Senator for her interest and willingness to work with me on 
this issue.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the 
fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  First, let me thank my colleagues who have worked to develop this 
legislation, especially Senators Byrd and Voinovich, the chairman and 
ranking member, respectively, of the Appropriations subcommittee on 
Homeland Security. I also thank Senators Inouye and Cochran, the 
chairman and ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. 
Finally, thanks also to Senator Murray for her skilled management of 
the appropriations bill in Senator Byrd's absence.
  The bill before us is a fair, carefully balanced, and well-considered 
spending plan for the Department of Homeland Security. The resources 
provided in the bill are sufficient to carry out the Department's core 
missions of protecting the homeland against the threat of terrorism, 
securing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws, and preparing for 
and responding to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. While there 
are many programs and activities at DHS deserving of funding above the 
level provided in this bill, we are in a time of serious economic 
challenge, and obviously tough choices had to be and were--made in 
putting this legislation together.
  This bill reflects the priorities of a department that has made great 
strides in the last 6 years but still faces many hurdles before we can 
say it has fulfilled the mission Congress laid out for it in 2002. 
Senator Collins and I have worked together since DHS was created--
alternating as chairman and ranking member of the primary authorizing 
committee for the Department--to strengthen the Department's ability to 
carry out its many national security missions, to strengthen its 
management, facilitate its integration, and to hold its leadership 
accountable to an American public that has a right to be safe and 
secure within the borders of our own nation.
  In May, I wrote to Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Voinovich setting 
forth what I believed to be the most significant appropriations 
priorities for the Department, and I am grateful that a number of my 
recommendations have been incorporated into this bill. Let me briefly 
discuss a few sections of this bill that I believe are particularly 
important to our homeland security.
  First, I am pleased the Appropriations Committee recognized that the 
Department's management and operations accounts need adequate funding 
if DHS is to succeed as it must. Secretary Napolitano has emphasized 
the need to create ``One DHS'' where the Department's many components 
are working closely together. To accomplish this, the offices for 
policy, human capital, acquisition, and information technology need 
additional resources, and all received significant increases in their 
budgets. The additional investments in acquisition oversight is 
particularly gratifying, as it will improve the Department's ability to 
oversee the $12 billion it spends each year on contracts with the 
private sector to better ensure our tax dollars are not wasted on 
bloated or ineffective programs.
  In previous years, these management and operations accounts have 
often been used as offsets for amendments. I would urge my colleagues 
to refrain from offering amendments that would take away funds from 
management and operations; these funds are critical to the success of 
the entire Department.
  Second, this bill, together with the funding provided in the fiscal 
year 2009 supplemental, significantly increases resources for combating 
violence on our southern border and includes the bulk of the $500 
million in border security funding Senator Collins and I successfully 
added to the Senate budget resolution in March. The FBI has said that 
the Mexican drug cartels are the No. 1 organized crime threat in 
America today, replacing the Mafia, and now DHS will be able to send 
over 500 additional law enforcement officers to ports of entry. Almost 
half will help conduct southbound inspections to interdict the illegal 
flow of cash and guns into Mexico that is fueling the cartel-driven 
violence.
  The funding will also add hundreds of ICE investigators to work on 
drug, currency, and firearms cases in the border region and will expand 
the Border Enforcement Security Task Force fusion centers that ICE has 
established along the southwest border. This funding was badly needed 
to help Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies take down 
these sophisticated and dangerous drug-and-human smuggling networks. 
The Mexican drug cartels represent a clear and present threat to 
homeland security, and I remain fully committed to working with the 
administration to support our Federal law enforcement agencies in this 
crucial fight.
  Third, this bill continues funding for the Homeland Security Grant 
Programs that our first responders need to prepare for acts of 
terrorism and natural disasters at the State, local, and tribal levels. 
Funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides 
basic preparedness funds to all States and is the largest of DHS's 
grant programs, remains steady from last year at $950 million, 
including $60 million for grants focused on border security, 
essentially the full level authorized by Congress in the implementing 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Funds for Urban 
Area Security Initiative, UASI, grants, which provide resources to the

[[Page S7311]]

Nation's highest risk metropolitan areas, are increased by nearly $50 
million over last year.
  I am also pleased that funding for SAFER grants , which assist local 
fire departments with the cost of hiring new firefighters, was doubled 
to $420 million for fiscal year 2010. In this era of budget 
constraints, this funding will help ensure that communities are able to 
continue to staff their local fire houses. The Appropriations Committee 
has also wisely restored a significant portion of the funding cut from 
the President's budget for assistance to firefighter grants. These 
grants fund essential equipment, vehicles and training for 
firefighters. However, the $380 million for these grants represents a 
cut of nearly one-third below the fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
  Fourth, this bill wisely supports the administration's request for a 
significant increase in funding for cybersecurity at DHS, which has 
been identified as one of our top national security priorities. The 
Department needs resources to protect Federal civilian networks from 
cyber-related threats and to work with the private sector to protect 
their networks and infrastructures. The Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee is currently working to develop 
legislation that strengthens the government's authorities with respect 
to cybersecurity, so this funding decision is particularly important.
  This bill makes other essential homeland security investments in port 
security, transit security, science and technology, and biosecurity, 
all of which are critical to the overall security of the Nation.
  I am concerned that the bill cuts funding for FEMA's main operating 
account, making it difficult for FEMA to continue implementing the 
critical improvements necessary for it to become, nearly 4 years after 
Hurricane Katrina, the ``new FEMA.''
  Also, insufficient funding has been appropriated for the Secret 
Service to make necessary improvements to its information technology 
systems, and, in particular, to complete essential work to allow secure 
communications between the Secret Service's White House detail and its 
field office.
  Despite these particular concerns, however, I believe that overall 
this is a strong and essential piece of legislation. I thank the 
leadership and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their 
work on this bill and strongly urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been a long day, but I appreciate 
everyone's cooperation. It has taken a long time to get to where we 
are. We set out this week to accomplish a few things, and with the 
cooperation of the Members, we have been able to do it. We don't have 
to vote tomorrow; we don't have to vote over the weekend. Our first 
vote next week will be at 5:30 p.m. on the nomination of the Census 
Director, Mr. Groves. That is on cloture with Mr. Groves.
  We are coming in at 10 a.m. tomorrow, but there will be no votes. 
Monday, we will be in at 11 a.m. Senators Levin and McCain will begin 
managing the Defense Authorization bill, and we appreciate being able 
to start that. There are a lot of very big, important amendments on 
that bill.
  Next week is the only disjointed week of this work period. As I 
indicated earlier, we will have no votes after 2 p.m. on Tuesday, and 
Friday has been long announced as a no-vote day, which means the 
following 3 weeks are going to be very grueling, and everyone should 
understand that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are now moving to final passage on the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I thank all our Senators, 
especially Senator Voinovich, for his cooperation. I want to thank all 
our staff members, and I will submit their names for the Record. I 
thank everyone for helping us move this bill forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I didn't thank, 
first of all, the chairman of our subcommittee, Robert Byrd, for the 
cooperation he has shown me and his staff. I particularly thank Senator 
Murray. I think this is my first opportunity to do one of these bills 
on the floor of the Senate, and it has been an interesting experience 
for me.
  I also particularly thank Chuck for his work, and my great staff 
here, because without them, we wouldn't have been able to get this job 
done. I thank all of you for your cooperation in making this all 
happen.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the substitute amendment, as amended, is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1373), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill as amended, pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) would each vote ``aye.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Bayh
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     McCain

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bond
     Burris
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Martinez
     Reed
     Rockefeller
  The bill (H.R. 2892), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

                          ____________________