[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 79 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4112-S4130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4899, which the clerk 
will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4899) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations with an amendment and an amendment 
to the title.

  [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
in italic.]

                               H.R. 4899

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency

           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For an additional amount for gross obligations for the 
     principal amount of direct and guaranteed farm ownership (7 
     U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) 
     loans, to be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit 
     Insurance Fund, as follows: guaranteed farm ownership loans, 
     $300,000,000; operating loans, $650,000,000, of which 
     $250,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, 
     $50,000,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans, and 
     $350,000,000 shall be for direct loans.
       For an additional amount for the cost of direct and 
     guaranteed loans, including the cost of modifying loans as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as follows: guaranteed farm ownership loans, 
     $1,110,000; operating loans, $29,470,000, of which $5,850,000 
     shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $7,030,000 shall 
     be for subsidized guaranteed loans, and $16,590,000 shall be 
     for direct loans.
       For an additional amount for administrative expenses 
     necessary to carry out the direct and guaranteed loan 
     programs, $1,000,000.

                  Emergency Forest Restoration Program

       For implementation of the emergency forest restoration 
     program established under section 407 of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2206) for expenses resulting 
     from natural disasters that occurred on or after January 1, 
     2010, and for other purposes, $18,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the program: (1) 
     shall be carried out without regard to chapter 35 of title 
     44, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Paperwork 
     Reduction Act'') and the Statement of Policy of the Secretary 
     of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), 
     relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public 
     participation in rulemaking; and (2) with rules issued 
     without a prior opportunity for notice and comment except, as 
     determined to be appropriate by the Farm Service Agency, 
     rules may be promulgated by an interim rule effective on 
     publication with an opportunity for notice and comment: 
     Provided further, That in carrying out this program, the 
     Secretary shall use the authority provided under section 
     808(2) of title 5, United States Code: Provided further, That 
     to reduce Federal costs in administering this heading, the 
     emergency forest restoration program shall be considered to 
     have met the requirements of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for activities 
     similar in nature and quantity to those of the emergency 
     conservation program established under title IV of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.).

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                     food for peace title ii grants

       For an additional amount for ``Food for Peace Title II 
     Grants'' for emergency relief and rehabilitation, and other 
     expenses related to Haiti following the earthquake of January 
     12, 2010, and for other disaster-response activities relating 
     to the earthquake, $150,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Section 101. None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a biomass 
     crop assistance program as authorized by section 9011 of 
     Public Law 107-171 in excess of $552,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2010 or $432,000,000 in fiscal year 2011: Provided, That 
     section 3002 shall not apply to the amount under this 
     section.
       Sec. 102. (a) Section 502(h)(8) of the Housing Act of 1949 
     (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) Fees.--Notwithstanding paragraph (14)(D), with 
     respect to a guaranteed loan issued or modified under this 
     subsection, the Secretary may collect from the lender--
       ``(A) at the time of issuance of the guarantee or 
     modification, a fee not to exceed 3.5 percent of the 
     principal obligation of the loan; and
       ``(B) an annual fee not to exceed 0.5 percent of the 
     outstanding principal balance of the loan for the life of the 
     loan.''.
       (b) Section 739 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation 
     Act, 2001 (H.R. 5426 as enacted by Public Law 106-387, 115 
     Stat. 1549A-34) is repealed.
       (c) For gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing Act 
     of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund, an additional amount shall be for section 502 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans sufficient to meet the 
     remaining fiscal year 2010 demand, provided that existing 
     program underwriting standards are maintained, and provided 
     further that the Secretary may waive fees described herein 
     for very low- and low-income borrowers, not to exceed 
     $697,000,000 in loan guarantees.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration'' for 
     Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program in prior years, 
     $111,500,000 are rescinded.

                  Economic Development Administration

                economic development assistance programs

       Pursuant to section 703 of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3233), for an additional amount 
     for ``Economic Development Assistance Programs'', for 
     necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 
     recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in States that 
     experienced damage due to severe storms and flooding during 
     March 2010 through May 2010 for which the President declared 
     a major disaster covering an entire State or States with more 
     than 20 counties declared major disasters under title IV of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act of 1974, $49,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                  operations, research, and facilities

       For an additional amount for ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', $5,000,000, for necessary expenses related to 
     commercial fishery failures as determined by the Secretary of 
     Commerce in January 2010.

[[Page S4113]]

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

                              Exploration

       The matter contained in title III of division B of Public 
     Law 111-117 regarding ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Exploration'' is amended by inserting at the 
     end of the last proviso ``: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     funds made available for Constellation in fiscal year 2010 
     for `National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     Exploration' and from previous appropriations for `National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration' shall be 
     available to fund continued performance of Constellation 
     contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts 
     may not be terminated for convenience by the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration in fiscal year 2010''.

                               CHAPTER 3

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $1,429,809,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $40,478,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $145,499,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $94,068,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $5,722,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $2,637,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $34,758,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $1,292,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $33,184,000.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $11,719,927,000, of which $218,300,000 shall be 
     available to restore amounts transferred from this account to 
     ``Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid'' for 
     emergency relief activities related to Haiti following the 
     earthquake of January 12, 2010, and for other disaster-
     response activities relating to the earthquake.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $2,735,194,000, of which $187,600,000 shall be 
     available to restore amounts transferred from this account to 
     ``Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid'' for 
     emergency relief activities related to Haiti following the 
     earthquake of January 12, 2010, and for other disaster-
     response activities relating to the earthquake.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $829,326,000, of which $30,700,000 shall be 
     available to restore amounts transferred from this account to 
     ``Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid'' for 
     emergency relief activities related to Haiti following the 
     earthquake of January 12, 2010, and for other disaster-
     response activities relating to the earthquake.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $3,835,095,000, of which $218,400,000 shall be 
     available to restore amounts transferred from this account to 
     ``Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid'' for 
     emergency relief activities related to Haiti following the 
     earthquake of January 12, 2010, and for other disaster-
     response activities relating to the earthquake.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $1,236,727,000: Provided, That up to 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     available for transfer to the Port of Guam Improvement 
     Enterprise Fund established by section 3512 of the Duncan 
     Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2009 (Public Law 110-417): Provided further, That funds 
     transferred under the previous proviso shall be merged with 
     and available for obligation for the same time period and for 
     the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That these funds may be transferred by the 
     Secretary of Defense only if he determines such amounts are 
     required to improve facilities, relieve port congestion, and 
     provide greater access to port facilities: Provided further, 
     That any amounts transferred pursuant to the previous three 
     provisos shall be available to the Secretary of 
     Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the 
     Maritime Administration, to carry out under the Port of Guam 
     Improvement Enterprise Program planning, design, and 
     construction of projects for the Port of Guam to improve 
     facilities, relieve port congestion, and provide greater 
     access to port facilities: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority in this section is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That the Secretary shall, not 
     fewer than five days prior to making transfers under this 
     authority, notify the congressional defense committees in 
     writing of the details of any such transfer.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $41,006,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $75,878,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $857,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve'', $124,039,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $180,960,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard'', $203,287,000.

                    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Afghanistan Security Forces 
     Fund'', $2,604,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2011: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the 
     Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purpose of allowing the Commander, Combined 
     Security Transition Command--Afghanistan, or the Secretary's 
     designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of State, to the security forces of Afghanistan, 
     including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, 
     training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
     construction, and funding: Provided further, That the 
     authority to provide assistance under this heading is in 
     addition to any other authority to provide assistance to 
     foreign nations: Provided further, That contributions of 
     funds for the purposes provided herein from any person, 
     foreign government, or international organization may be 
     credited to this Fund, to remain available until expended, 
     and used for such purposes: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall notify the congressional defense committees 
     in writing upon the receipt and upon the transfer of any 
     contribution, delineating the sources and amounts of the 
     funds received and the specific use of such contributions: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not 
     fewer than 15 days prior to making transfers from this 
     appropriation account, notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing of the details of any such transfer.

                       Iraq Security Forces Fund

       For the ``Iraq Security Forces Fund'', $1,000,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That 
     such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of allowing the Commander, United States Forces--Iraq, or the 
     Secretary's designee, to provide assistance, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State, to the security forces 
     of Iraq, including the provision of equipment, supplies, 
     services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, and 
     renovation: Provided further, That the authority to provide 
     assistance under this heading is in addition to any other 
     authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: Provided 
     further, That contributions of funds for the purposes 
     provided herein from any person, foreign government, or 
     international organization may be credited to this Fund, to 
     remain available until expended, and used for such purposes: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing upon the receipt 
     and upon the transfer of any contribution, delineating the 
     sources and amounts of the funds received and the specific 
     use of such contributions: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to 
     making transfers from this appropriation account, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer.

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $219,470,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $3,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2012.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $17,055,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $2,065,006,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $296,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $31,576,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $162,927,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.

[[Page S4114]]

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $174,766,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2012.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $672,741,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2012.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $189,276,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.

              Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Mine Resistant Ambush 
     Protected Vehicle Fund'', $1,123,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011: Provided, That such funds shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, to procure, sustain, transport, and 
     field Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall transfer such funds only to 
     appropriations for operations and maintenance; procurement; 
     research, development, test and evaluation; and defense 
     working capital funds to accomplish the purpose provided 
     herein: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be 
     merged with and available for the same purposes and the same 
     time period as the appropriation to which they are 
     transferred: Provided further, That this transfer authority 
     is in addition to any other transfer authority available to 
     the Department of Defense: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall, not fewer than 10 days prior to making 
     transfers from this appropriation, notify the congressional 
     defense committees in writing of the details of any such 
     transfer.

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Navy'', $44,835,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Air Force'', $163,775,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $65,138,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $1,134,887,000, to remain available until expended.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $33,367,000 for operation and maintenance: Provided, That 
     language under this heading in title VI, division A of Public 
     Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``$15,093,539,000'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$15,121,714,000''.

             Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $94,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 301.  Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504(a)(1) 
     of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1)): 
     Provided, That section 8079 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118; 123 Stat. 3446) 
     is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2010 until'' and all 
     that follows and insert ``fiscal year 2010.''.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 302.  Section 8005 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of Public Law 111-118) 
     is amended by striking ``$4,000,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$4,500,000,000''.
       Sec. 303.  Funds made available in this chapter to the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be 
     used to purchase items having an investment unit cost of not 
     more than $250,000: Provided, That upon determination by the 
     Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary to meet 
     the operational requirements of a Commander of a Combatant 
     Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, such 
     funds may be used to purchase items having an investment item 
     unit cost of not more than $500,000.
       Sec. 304.  Of the funds obligated or expended by any 
     Federal agency in support of emergency humanitarian 
     assistance services at the request of or in coordination with 
     the Department of Defense, the Department of State, or the 
     U.S. Agency for International Development, on or after 
     January 12, 2010 and before February 12, 2010, in support of 
     the Haitian earthquake relief efforts not to exceed $500,000 
     are deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 305.  Section 8011 of the title VIII, division A of 
     Public Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``within 30 days of 
     enactment of this Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``30 
     days prior to contract award''.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 306. (a) Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriation Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the 
     specified amounts:
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2009/2011'', $5,000,000; 
     and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2009/
     2010'', $72,161,000.
       (b) Section 3002 shall not apply to the amounts in this 
     section.
       Sec. 307.  None of the funds provided in this chapter may 
     be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress 
     in fiscal years 2009 or 2010 appropriations to the Department 
     of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, 
     development, test and evaluation new start program without 
     prior written notification to the congressional defense 
     committees.

       high-value detainee interrogation group charter and report

       Sec. 308. (a) Submission of Charter and Procedures.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the final approval of the charter 
     and procedures for the interagency body established to carry 
     out an interrogation pursuant to a recommendation of the 
     report of the Special Task Force on interrogation and 
     Transfer Policies submitted under section 5(g) of Executive 
     Order 13491 (commonly known as the High-Value Detainee 
     Interrogation Group), or not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later, the 
     Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees such charter and 
     procedures.
       (b) Updates.--Not later than 30 days after the final 
     approval of any significant modification or revision to the 
     charter or procedures referred to in subsection (a), the 
     Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees any such modification 
     or revision.
       (c) Lessons Learned.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence 
     committees a report setting forth an analysis and assessment 
     of the lessons learned as a result of the operations and 
     activities of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group 
     since the establishment of that group.

                               CHAPTER 4

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                             investigations

       For an additional amount for ``Investigations'', 
     $5,400,000: Provided, That funds provided under this heading 
     in this chapter shall be used for studies in States affected 
     by severe storms and flooding: Provided further, That the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide 
     a monthly report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the 
     allocation and obligation of these funds, beginning not later 
     than 60 days after enactment of this Act.

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For an additional amount for ``Mississippi River and 
     Tributaries'' to dredge eligible projects in response to, and 
     repair damages to Federal projects caused by, natural 
     disasters, $18,600,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
     Works shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     detailing the allocation and obligation of these funds, 
     beginning not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act.

                       operation and maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance'' 
     to dredge navigation projects in response to, and repair 
     damages to Corps projects caused by, natural disasters, 
     $173,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army is directed to use $44,000,000 
     of the amount provided under this heading for nondisaster 
     related emergency repairs to critical infrastructure: 
     Provided further, That the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
     for Civil Works shall provide a monthly report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate detailing the allocation and obligation of 
     these funds, beginning not later than 60 days after enactment 
     of this Act.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal 
     Emergencies'', as authorized by section 5 of the Act of 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), for necessary expenses 
     relating to natural disasters as authorized by law, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
     shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     detailing the allocation and obligation of these funds, 
     beginning not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 401.  Funds made available in the Energy and Water 
     Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 
     (Public Law 111-85), under the account ``Weapons Activities'' 
     shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed one 
     aircraft.

  reclassification of certain appropriations for the national nuclear 
                        security administration

       Sec. 402. (a) Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations.--The matter 
     under the heading ``Weapons Activities'' under the heading 
     ``National Nuclear Security Administration'' under the

[[Page S4115]]

     heading ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities'' under the 
     heading ``Department of Energy'' under title III of division 
     C of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 
     123 Stat. 621) is amended by striking ``the 09-D-007 LANSCE 
     Refurbishment, PED,'' and inserting ``capital equipment 
     acquisition, installation, and associated design funds for 
     LANSCE,''.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations.--The amount 
     appropriated under the heading ``Weapons Activities'' under 
     the heading ``National Nuclear Security Administration'' 
     under the heading ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities'' under 
     the heading ``Department of Energy'' under title III of the 
     Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85; 123 Stat. 2866) 
     and made available for LANSCE Reinvestment, PED, Los Alamos 
     National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, shall be made 
     available instead for capital equipment acquisition, 
     installation, and associated design funds for LANSCE, Los 
     Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
       Sec. 403. (a) Section 104(c) of the Reclamation States 
     Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2012'' in lieu thereof.
       (b) Section 301 of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought 
     Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2241) is amended by striking 
     ``through 2010'' and inserting ``through 2012'' in lieu 
     thereof.
       Sec. 404. (a) The Secretary of the Army shall not be 
     required to make a determination under the National Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.) for the 
     project for flood control, Trinity River and tributaries, 
     Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of 
     certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 2, 1945 [59 Stat. 18], as modified 
     by section 5141 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 [121 Stat. 1253].
       (b) The Federal Highway Administration is exempt from the 
     requirements of 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 for any 
     highway project to be constructed in the vicinity of the 
     Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.

                               CHAPTER 5

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     necessary expenses for emergency relief, rehabilitation, and 
     reconstruction aid, and other expenses related to Haiti 
     following the earthquake of January 12, 2010, and for other 
     disaster-response activities relating to the earthquake, 
     $690,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph may be used to reimburse 
     obligations incurred for the purposes provided herein prior 
     to enactment of this Act.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available for necessary expenses of the 
     Office of Inspector General under this heading in Public Law 
     111-117, $1,800,000 are rescinded: Provided, That section 
     3002 shall not apply to the amount under this heading.

                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                             Federal Funds

  federal payment to the public defender service for the district of 
                                columbia

                         (including rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Federal Payment to the 
     Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia'', 
     $700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.
       Of the funds provided under this heading for ``Federal 
     Payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service'' 
     in title IV of division D of Public Law 111-8, $700,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That section 3002 shall not apply to the 
     amounts under this heading.

                           INDEPENDENT AGENCY

                  Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For the necessary expenses of the Financial Crisis Inquiry 
     Commission established pursuant to section 5 of the Fraud 
     Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-21), 
     $1,800,000, to remain available until February 15, 2011: 
     Provided, That section 3002 shall not apply to the amount 
     under this heading.

                               CHAPTER 6

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                              Coast Guard

                           operating expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'' for 
     necessary expenses and other disaster-response activities 
     related to Haiti following the earthquake of January 12, 
     2010, $50,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012.

              acquisition, construction, and improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'', $15,500,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014, for aircraft replacement.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            disaster relief

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'', 
     $5,100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland 
     Security Office of the Inspector General for audits and 
     investigations related to disasters.

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For an additional amount for ``United States Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services'' for necessary expenses and other 
     disaster response activities related to Haiti following the 
     earthquake of January 12, 2010, $10,600,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 601.  Notwithstanding the 10 percent limitation 
     contained in section 503(c) of Public Law 111-83, for fiscal 
     year 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security may transfer to 
     the fund established by 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, up to 
     $20,000,000, from appropriations available to the Department 
     of Homeland Security: Provided, That the Secretary shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives 5 days in advance of such transfer.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 602. (a) The following unobligated balances made 
     available pursuant to section 505 of Public Law 110-329 are 
     rescinded: $2,200,000 from Coast Guard ``Operating 
     Expenses''; $1,800,000 from the ``Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management''; and $489,152 from ``Analysis and 
     Operations''.
       (b) The third clause of the proviso directing the 
     expenditure of funds under the heading ``Alteration of 
     Bridges'' in the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2009, is repealed, and from available 
     balances made available for Coast Guard ``Alteration of 
     Bridges'', $5,910,848 are rescinded: Provided, That funds 
     rescinded pursuant to this subsection shall exclude balances 
     made available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).
       (c) From the unobligated balances of prior year 
     appropriations made available to the ``Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding'', $700,000 are 
     rescinded.
       (d) Section 3002 shall not apply to the amounts in this 
     section.
       Sec. 603.  The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall consider satisfied for Hurricane 
     Katrina the non-Federal match requirement for assistance 
     provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency pursuant 
     to section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c(a).
       Sec. 604.  Funds appropriated in Public Law 111-83 under 
     the heading National Protection and Programs Directorate 
     ``Infrastructure Protection and Information Security'' shall 
     be available for facility upgrades and related costs to 
     establish a United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team 
     Operations Support Center/Continuity of Operations 
     capability.
       Sec. 605.  Two C-130J aircraft funded elsewhere in this Act 
     shall be transferred to the Coast Guard.
       Sec. 606.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including any agreement, the Federal share of assistance, 
     including direct Federal assistance provided under sections 
     403, 406, and 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5140b, 5172, and 
     5173), for damages resulting from FEMA-3311-EM-RI, FEMA-1894-
     DR, FEMA-1906-DR, FEMA-1909-DR, and all other areas 
     Presidentially declared a disaster, prior to or following 
     enactment, and resulting from the May 1 and 2, 2010 weather 
     events that elicited FEMA-1909-DR, shall not be less than 90 
     percent of the eligible costs under such sections.
       Sec. 607. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary for the 
     Transportation Security Administration shall issue a security 
     directive that requires a commercial foreign air carrier who 
     operates flights in and out of the United States to check the 
     list of individuals that the Transportation Security 
     Administration has prohibited from flying not later than 30 
     minutes after such list is modified and provided to such air 
     carrier.
       (b) The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     commercial foreign air carriers that operate flights in and 
     out of the United States and that are enrolled in the Secure 
     Flight program or that are Advance Passenger Information 
     System Quick Query (AQQ) compliant.

                               CHAPTER 7

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                        Departmental Management

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Departmental Management'' 
     for mine safety activities and legal services related to the 
     Department of Labor's caseload before the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Review Commission (``FMSHRC''), $18,200,000, which 
     shall remain available for obligation through the date that 
     is 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Labor may transfer such sums 
     as necessary to the ``Mine Safety and Health Administration'' 
     for enforcement and mine safety activities, which may include 
     conference litigation functions related to the FMSHRC 
     caseload, investigation of the Upper Big Branch Mine 
     disaster, standards and rulemaking activities, emergency 
     response equipment purchases and upgrades, and organizational 
     improvements: Provided further, That the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                        Office of the Secretary

            public health and social services emergency fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social 
     Services Emergency Fund'' for necessary expenses for 
     emergency relief and reconstruction aid, and other expenses 
     related to

[[Page S4116]]

     Haiti following the earthquake of January 12, 2010, and for 
     other disaster-response activities relating to the 
     earthquake, $220,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That these funds may be transferred by the 
     Secretary to accounts within the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, shall be merged with the appropriation to 
     which transferred, and shall be available only for the 
     purposes provided herein: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph may be transferred prior to 
     notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority available in this or any 
     other Act: Provided further, That funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph may be used to reimburse agencies for obligations 
     incurred for the purposes provided herein prior to enactment 
     of this Act: Provided further, That funds may be used for the 
     non-Federal share of expenditures for medical assistance 
     furnished under title XIX of the Social Security Act, and for 
     child health assistance furnished under title XXI of such 
     Act, that are related to earthquake response activities: 
     Provided further, That funds may be used for services 
     performed by the National Disaster Medical System in 
     connection with such earthquake, for the return of evacuated 
     Haitian citizens to Haiti, and for grants to States and other 
     entities to reimburse payments made for otherwise 
     uncompensated health and human services furnished in 
     connection with individuals given permission by the United 
     States Government to come from Haiti to the United States 
     after such earthquake, and not eligible for assistance under 
     such titles: Provided further, That the limitation in 
     subsection (d) of section 1113 of the Social Security Act 
     shall not apply with respect to any repatriation assistance 
     provided in response to the Haiti earthquake of January 12, 
     2010: Provided further, That with respect to the previous 
     proviso, such additional repatriation assistance shall only 
     be available from the funds appropriated herein.

                             RELATED AGENCY

            Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Review Commission, Salaries and Expenses''$3,800,000, 
     to remain available for obligation for 12 months after 
     enactment of this Act.

                               CHAPTER 8

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

      Payment to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress

       For a payment to Joyce Murtha, widow of John P. Murtha, 
     late a Representative from Pennsylvania, $174,000: Provided, 
     That section 3002 shall not apply to this appropriation.

                             CAPITOL POLICE

                            General Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Capitol Police, General 
     Expenses'' to purchase and install the indoor coverage 
     portion of the new radio system for the Capitol Police, 
     $12,956,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012: 
     Provided, That the Chief of the Capitol Police may not 
     obligate any of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     without approval of an obligation plan by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

                               CHAPTER 9

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                      Military Construction, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Army'', $242,296,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out 
     planning and design and military construction projects not 
     otherwise authorized by law.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air 
     Force'', $406,590,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2012: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out 
     planning and design and military construction projects not 
     otherwise authorized by law.

          Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', $7,953,000.

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       compensation and pensions

       For an additional amount for ``Compensation and Pensions'', 
     $13,377,189,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That section 3002 shall not apply to the amount 
     under this heading.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 901. (a) Of the amounts made available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs under the ``Construction, 
     Major Projects'' account, in fiscal year 2010 or previous 
     fiscal years, up to $67,000,000 may be transferred to the 
     ``Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund'' account: 
     Provided, That any amount transferred from ``Construction, 
     Major Projects'' shall be derived from unobligated balances 
     that are a direct result of bid savings: Provided further, 
     That no amounts may be transferred from amounts that were 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       (b) Section 3002 shall not apply to the amount in this 
     section.

                               CHAPTER 10

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs

                    diplomatic and consular programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs'', $1,261,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2011: Provided, That the Secretary of State may 
     transfer up to $149,500,000 of the total funds made available 
     under this heading to any other appropriation of any 
     department or agency of the United States, upon concurrence 
     of the head of such department or agency and after 
     consultation with the Committees on Appropriations, to 
     support operations in and assistance for Afghanistan and 
     Pakistan and to carry out the provisions of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.
       For an additional amount for ``Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs'' for necessary expenses for emergency relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction support, and other 
     expenses related to Haiti following the earthquake of January 
     12, 2010, $65,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2011: Provided, That funds appropriated in this paragraph 
     may be used to reimburse obligations incurred for the 
     purposes provided herein prior to enactment of this Act: 
     Provided further, That up to $3,700,000 of the funds made 
     available in this paragraph may be transferred to, and merged 
     with, funds made available under the heading ``Emergencies in 
     the Diplomatic and Consular Service'': Provided further, That 
     up to $290,000 of the funds made available in this paragraph 
     may be transferred to, and merged with, funds made available 
     under the heading ``Repatriation Loans Program Account''.

                      office of inspector general

       For an additional amount for ``Office of Inspector 
     General'' for necessary expenses for oversight of operations 
     and programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, $3,600,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2013.

            embassy security, construction, and maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'' for necessary expenses for 
     emergency needs in Haiti following the earthquake of January 
     12, 2010, $79,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated in this paragraph may be 
     used to reimburse obligations incurred for the purposes 
     provided herein prior to enactment of this Act.

                      International Organizations

        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For an additional amount for ``Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' for necessary 
     expenses for emergency security related to Haiti following 
     the earthquake of January 12, 2010, $96,500,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph may be used to reimburse 
     obligations incurred for the purposes provided herein prior 
     to enactment of this Act.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors

                 international broadcasting operations

       For an additional amount for ``International Broadcasting 
     Operations'' for necessary expenses for emergency 
     broadcasting support and other expenses related to Haiti 
     following the earthquake of January 12, 2010, $3,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph may be used to reimburse 
     obligations incurred for the purposes provided herein prior 
     to enactment of this Act.

           UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                      office of inspector general

       For an additional amount for ``Office of Inspector 
     General'' for necessary expenses for oversight of operations 
     and programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, $3,400,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2013.
       For an additional amount for ``Office of Inspector 
     General'' for necessary expenses for oversight of emergency 
     relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction aid, and other 
     expenses related to Haiti following the earthquake of January 
     12, 2010, $4,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012: Provided, That up to $1,500,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph may be used to reimburse 
     obligations incurred for the purposes provided herein prior 
     to enactment of this Act.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                    global health and child survival

       For an additional amount for ``Global Health and Child 
     Survival'' for necessary expenses for pandemic preparedness 
     and response, $45,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2011.

                   international disaster assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'' for necessary expenses for emergency relief and 
     rehabilitation, and other expenses related to Haiti following 
     the earthquake of January 12, 2010, $460,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph may be used to reimburse obligations 
     incurred for the purposes provided herein prior to enactment 
     of this Act.

                         Economic Support Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     $1,620,000,000, to remain available

[[Page S4117]]

     until September 30, 2012, of which not less than 
     $1,309,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     Afghanistan and not less than $259,000,000 shall be made 
     available for assistance for Pakistan: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading in this Act and in prior Acts 
     making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs that are made available for 
     assistance for Afghanistan may be made available, after 
     consultation with the Committees on Appropriations, for 
     disarmament, demobilization and reintegration activities, 
     subject to the requirements of section 904(e) in this 
     chapter, and for a United States contribution to an 
     internationally managed fund to support the reintegration 
     into Afghan society of individuals who have renounced 
     violence against the Government of Afghanistan.
       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'' for 
     necessary expenses for emergency relief, rehabilitation, and 
     reconstruction aid, and other expenses related to Haiti 
     following the earthquake of January 12, 2010, $770,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2012: Provided, That 
     of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, up to 
     $120,000,000 may be transferred to the Department of the 
     Treasury for United States contributions to a multi-donor 
     trust fund for reconstruction and recovery efforts in Haiti: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, up to $10,000,000 may be transferred to, and 
     merged with, funds made available under the heading ``United 
     States Agency for International Development, Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, Operating Expenses'' for 
     administrative costs relating to the purposes provided herein 
     and to reimburse obligations incurred for the purposes 
     provided herein prior to enactment of this Act: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph may be 
     transferred to, and merged with, funds available under the 
     heading ``Development Credit Authority'' for the purposes 
     provided herein: Provided further, That such transfer 
     authority is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided by this or any other Act: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to the Comptroller General pursuant to 
     title I, chapter 4 of Public Law 106-31, to monitor the 
     provision of assistance to address the effects of hurricanes 
     in Central America and the Caribbean, shall also be available 
     to the Comptroller General to monitor relief, rehabilitation, 
     and reconstruction aid, and other expenses related to Haiti 
     following the earthquake of January 12, 2010, and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph may be made available to the 
     United States Agency for International Development and the 
     Department of State to reimburse any accounts for obligations 
     incurred for the purpose provided herein prior to enactment 
     of this Act.
       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'' for 
     necessary expenses for assistance for Jordan, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2012.

                          Department of State

                    migration and refugee assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Migration and Refugee 
     Assistance'' for necessary expenses for assistance for 
     refugees and internally displaced persons, $165,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                       Department of the Treasury

               international affairs technical assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Affairs 
     Technical Assistance'' for necessary expenses for emergency 
     relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction aid, and other 
     expenses related to Haiti following the earthquake of January 
     12, 2010, $7,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2012: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, up to $60,000 may be used to reimburse obligations 
     incurred for the purposes provided herein prior to enactment 
     of this Act.

                   INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE

                          Department of State

          international narcotics control and law enforcement

       For an additional amount for ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'', $1,034,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2012: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $650,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Iraq 
     of which $450,000,000 is for one-time start up costs and 
     limited operational costs of the Iraqi police program, and 
     $200,000,000 is for implementation, management, security, 
     communications, and other expenses related to such program 
     and may be obligated only after the Secretary of State 
     determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that the Government of Iraq supports and is cooperating with 
     such program: Provided further, That funds appropriated in 
     this chapter for assistance for Iraq shall not be subject to 
     the limitation on assistance in section 7042(b)(1) of 
     division F of Public Law 111-117: Provided further, That of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than 
     $169,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     Afghanistan and not less than $40,000,000 shall be made 
     available for assistance for Pakistan: Provided further, That 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading, $175,000,000 
     shall be made available for assistance for Mexico for 
     judicial reform, institution building, anti-corruption, and 
     rule of law activities, and shall be available subject to 
     prior consultation with, and the regular notification 
     procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations.
       For an additional amount for ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'' for necessary expenses for 
     emergency relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction aid, and 
     other expenses related to Haiti following the earthquake of 
     January 12, 2010, $147,660,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2012: Provided, That funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph may be used to reimburse obligations incurred for 
     the purposes provided herein prior to enactment of this Act.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                   foreign military financing program

       For an additional amount for ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'', $100,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2012, of which not less than $50,000,000 shall be made 
     available for assistance for Pakistan and not less than 
     $50,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     Jordan.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

                        extension of authorities

       Sec. 1001.  Funds appropriated in this chapter may be 
     obligated and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public 
     Law 91-672 (22 U.S.C. 2412), section 15 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 6212), 
     and section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1)).

                              allocations

       Sec. 1002. (a) Funds appropriated in this chapter for the 
     following accounts shall be made available for programs and 
     countries in the amounts contained in the respective tables 
     included in the report accompanying this Act:
       (1) ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs''.
       (2) ``Economic Support Fund''.
       (3) ``International Narcotics Control and Law 
     Enforcement''.
       (b) For the purposes of implementing this section, and only 
     with respect to the tables included in the report 
     accompanying this Act, the Secretary of State and the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development, as appropriate, may propose deviations to the 
     amounts referred in subsection (a), subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations 
     and section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

               spending plans and notification procedures

       Sec. 1003. (a) Spending Plans.--Not later than 45 days 
     after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, and the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors, shall submit reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations detailing planned uses of funds appropriated 
     in this chapter, except for funds appropriated under the 
     headings ``International Disaster Assistance'' and 
     ``Migration and Refugee Assistance''.
       (b) Obligation Reports.--The Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, and the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors, shall submit reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations not later than 90 days after enactment of this 
     Act, and every 180 days thereafter until September 30, 2012, 
     on obligations, expenditures, and program outputs and 
     outcomes.
       (c) Notification.--Funds made available in this chapter 
     shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations and section 634A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except for funds appropriated 
     under the headings ``International Disaster Assistance'' and 
     ``Migration and Refugee Assistance''.

                              afghanistan

       Sec. 1004. (a) The terms and conditions of sections 
     1102(a), (b)(1), (c), and (d) of Public Law 111-32 shall 
     apply to funds appropriated in this chapter that are 
     available for assistance for Afghanistan.
       (b) Funds appropriated in this chapter and in prior Acts 
     making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs under the headings 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'' that are available for 
     assistance for Afghanistan may be obligated only if the 
     Secretary of State reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that prior to the disbursement of funds, 
     representatives of the Afghan national, provincial or local 
     government, local communities and civil society 
     organizations, as appropriate, will be consulted and 
     participate in the design of programs, projects, and 
     activities, and following such disbursement will participate 
     in implementation and oversight, and progress will be 
     measured against specific benchmarks.
       (c)(1) Funds appropriated in this chapter may be made 
     available for assistance for the Government of Afghanistan 
     only if the Secretary of State determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the Government of 
     Afghanistan is--
       (A) cooperating with United States reconstruction and 
     reform efforts;
       (B) demonstrating a commitment to accountability by 
     removing corrupt officials, implementing fiscal transparency 
     and other necessary reforms of government institutions, and 
     facilitating active public engagement in governance and 
     oversight of public resources; and
       (C) respecting the internationally recognized human rights 
     of Afghan women.
       (2) If at any time after making the determination required 
     in paragraph (1) the Secretary receives credible information 
     that the factual basis for such determination no longer 
     exists, the Secretary should suspend assistance and promptly 
     inform the relevant Afghan authorities that such assistance 
     is suspended until sufficient factual basis exists to support 
     the determination.
       (d) Funds appropriated in this chapter and in prior Acts 
     that are available for assistance for Afghanistan may be made 
     available to support reconciliation with, or reintegration 
     of, former

[[Page S4118]]

     combatants only if the Secretary of State determines and 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations that--
       (1) Afghan women are participating at national, provincial 
     and local levels of government in the design, policy 
     formulation and implementation of the reconciliation or 
     reintegration process, and women's internationally recognized 
     human rights are protected in such process; and
       (2) such funds will not be used to support any pardon, 
     immunity from prosecution or amnesty, or any position in the 
     Government of Afghanistan or security forces, for any leader 
     of an armed group responsible for crimes against humanity, 
     war crimes, or other violations of internationally recognized 
     human rights.
       (e) Funds appropriated in this chapter that are available 
     for assistance for Afghanistan may be made available to 
     support the work of the Independent Electoral Commission and 
     the Electoral Complaints Commission in Afghanistan only if 
     the Secretary of State determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that--
       (1) the Independent Electoral Commission and Electoral 
     Complaints Commission have independence from the executive 
     branch and there are adequate checks and balances on 
     Presidential appointments to such commissions; and
       (2) the central Government of Afghanistan has taken steps 
     to ensure that women are able to exercise their rights to 
     political participation, whether as candidates or voters.
       (f)(1) Not more than 45 days after enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     a strategy to address the needs and protect the rights of 
     Afghan women and girls, including planned expenditures of 
     funds appropriated in this chapter, and detailed plans for 
     implementing and monitoring such strategy.
       (2) Such strategy shall be coordinated with and support the 
     goals and objectives of the National Action Plan for Women of 
     Afghanistan and the Afghan National Development Strategy and 
     shall include a defined scope and methodology to measure the 
     impact of such assistance.

                                pakistan

       Sec. 1005. (a) Funds appropriated in this chapter and in 
     prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs under the headings 
     ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' and ``Pakistan 
     Counterinsurgency Capability Fund'' shall be made available--
       (1) in a manner that promotes unimpeded access by 
     humanitarian organizations to detainees, internally displaced 
     persons, and other Pakistani civilians adversely affected by 
     the conflict; and
       (2) in accordance with section 620J of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, and the Secretary of State shall 
     inform relevant Pakistani authorities of the requirements of 
     section 620J and of its application, and regularly monitor 
     units of Pakistani security forces that receive United States 
     assistance and the performance of such units.
       (b)(1) Of the funds appropriated in this chapter under the 
     heading ``Economic Support Fund'' for assistance for 
     Pakistan, $5,000,000 shall be made available through the 
     Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of 
     State, for human rights programs in Pakistan, including 
     training of government officials and security forces, and 
     assistance for human rights organizations.
       (2) Not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act and 
     prior to the obligation of funds under this subsection, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations a human rights strategy in Pakistan including 
     the proposed uses of funds.
       (c) Of the funds appropriated in this chapter under the 
     heading ``Economic Support Fund'' for assistance for 
     Pakistan, up to $1,500,000 should be made available to the 
     Department of State and the United States Agency for 
     International Development for the lease of aircraft to 
     implement programs and conduct oversight in northwestern 
     Pakistan, which shall be coordinated under the authority of 
     the United States Chief of Mission in Pakistan.

                                  iraq

       Sec. 1006. (a) The uses of aircraft in Iraq purchased or 
     leased with funds made available under the headings 
     ``International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' and 
     ``Diplomatic and Consular Affairs'' in this chapter and in 
     prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs shall be coordinated 
     under the authority of the United States Chief of Mission in 
     Iraq.
       (b) The terms and conditions of section 1106(b) of Public 
     Law 111-32 shall apply to funds made available in this 
     chapter for assistance for Iraq under the heading 
     ``International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement''.

                                 haiti

       Sec. 1007. (a) Funds appropriated in this chapter and in 
     prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs under the headings 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'' that are available for 
     assistance for Haiti may be obligated only if the Secretary 
     of State reports to the Committees on Appropriations that 
     prior to the disbursement of funds, representatives of the 
     Haitian national, provincial or local government, local 
     communities and civil society organizations, as appropriate, 
     will be consulted and participate in the design of programs, 
     projects, and activities, and following such disbursement 
     will participate in implementation and oversight, and 
     progress will be measured against specific benchmarks.
       (b)(1) Funds appropriated in this chapter under the 
     headings ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``International 
     Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' may be made available 
     for assistance for the Government of Haiti only if the 
     Secretary of State determines and reports to the Committees 
     on Appropriations that the Government of Haiti is--
       (A) cooperating with United States reconstruction and 
     reform efforts; and
       (B) demonstrating a commitment to accountability by 
     removing corrupt officials, implementing fiscal transparency 
     and other necessary reforms of government institutions, and 
     facilitating active public engagement in governance and 
     oversight of public resources.
       (2) If at any time after making the determination required 
     in paragraph (1) the Secretary receives credible information 
     that the factual basis for making such determination no 
     longer exists, the Secretary should suspend assistance and 
     promptly inform the relevant Haitian authorities that such 
     assistance is suspended until sufficient factual basis exists 
     to support the determination.
       (c)(1) Funds appropriated in this chapter for bilateral 
     assistance for Haiti may be provided as direct budget support 
     to the central Government of Haiti only if the Secretary of 
     State reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of the United States and the Government of Haiti 
     have agreed, in writing, to clear and achievable goals and 
     objectives for the use of such funds, and have established 
     mechanisms within each implementing agency to ensure that 
     such funds are used for the purposes for which they were 
     intended.
       (2) The Secretary should suspend any such direct budget 
     support to an implementing agency if the Secretary has 
     credible evidence of misuse of such funds by any such agency.
       (3) Any such direct budget support shall be subject to 
     prior consultation with the Committees on Appropriations.
       (d) Funds appropriated in this chapter that are made 
     available for assistance for Haiti shall be made available, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner that 
     emphasizes the participation and leadership of Haitian women 
     and directly improves the security, economic and social well-
     being, and political status of Haitian women and girls.
       (e) Funds appropriated in this chapter may be made 
     available for assistance for Haiti notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, except for section 620J of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and provisions of this chapter.

                           haiti debt relief

       Sec. 1008. (a) For an additional amount for ``Contribution 
     to the Inter-American Development Bank'', ``Contribution to 
     the International Development Association'', and 
     ``Contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural 
     Development'', to cancel Haiti's existing debts and 
     repayments on disbursements from loans committed prior to 
     January 12, 2010, and for the United States share of an 
     increase in the resources of the Fund for Special Operations 
     of the Inter-American Development Bank, to the extent 
     separately authorized in this chapter, in furtherance of 
     providing debt relief for Haiti in view of the Cancun 
     Declaration of March 21, 2010, a total of $212,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2012.
       (b) Up to $40,000,000 of the amounts appropriated under the 
     heading ``Department of the Treasury, Debt Restructuring'' in 
     prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs may be used to 
     cancel Haiti's existing debts and repayments on disbursements 
     from loans committed prior to January 12, 2010, to the Inter-
     American Development Bank, the International Development 
     Association, and the International Fund for Agricultural 
     Development, and for the United States share of an increase 
     in the resources of the Fund for Special Operations of the 
     Inter-American Development Bank in furtherance of providing 
     debt relief to Haiti in view of the Cancun Declaration of 
     March 21, 2010.

                      haiti debt relief authority

       Sec. 1009.  The Inter-American Development Bank Act, Public 
     Law 86-147, as amended (22 U.S.C. 283 et seq.), is further 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 40. AUTHORITY TO VOTE FOR AND CONTRIBUTE TO AN 
                   INCREASE IN RESOURCES OF THE FUND FOR SPECIAL 
                   OPERATIONS; PROVIDING DEBT RELIEF TO HAITI.

       ``(a) Vote Authorized.--In accordance with section 5 of 
     this Act, the United States Governor of the Bank is 
     authorized to vote in favor of a resolution to increase the 
     resources of the Fund for Special Operations up to 
     $479,000,000, in furtherance of providing debt relief for 
     Haiti in view of the Cancun Declaration of March 21, 2010, 
     which provides that:
       ``(1) Haiti's debts to the Fund for Special Operations are 
     to be cancelled;
       ``(2) Haiti's remaining local currency conversion 
     obligations to the Fund for Special Operations are to be 
     cancelled;
       ``(3) undisbursed balances of existing loans of the Fund 
     for Special Operations to Haiti are to be converted to 
     grants; and
       ``(4) the Fund for Special Operations is to make available 
     significant and immediate grant financing to Haiti as well as 
     appropriate resources to other countries remaining as 
     borrowers within the Fund for Special Operations, consistent 
     with paragraph 6 of the Cancun Declaration of March 21, 2010.
       ``(b) Contribution Authority.--To the extent and in the 
     amount provided in advance in appropriations Acts the United 
     States Governor of the Bank may, on behalf of the United 
     States and in accordance with section 5 of this Act, 
     contribute up to $252,000,000 to the Fund for Special 
     Operations, which will provide for debt relief of:
       ``(1) up to $240,000,000 to the Fund for Special 
     Operations;

[[Page S4119]]

       ``(2) up to $8,000,000 to the International Fund For 
     Agricultural Development (IFAD); and
       ``(3) up to $4,000,000 for the International Development 
     Association (IDA).
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--To pay for the 
     contribution authorized under subsection (b), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year 
     limitation, for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     $212,000,000, for the United States contribution to the Fund 
     for Special Operations.''.

                                 mexico

       Sec. 1010. (a) For purposes of funds appropriated in this 
     chapter and in prior Acts making appropriations for the 
     Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs 
     under the heading ``International Narcotics Control and Law 
     Enforcement'' that are made available for assistance for 
     Mexico, the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of 
     section 7045(e) of the Department of State, Foreign 
     Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 
     (division H of Public Law 111-8) shall apply and the report 
     required in paragraph (1) shall be based on a determination 
     by the Secretary of State of compliance with each of the 
     requirements in paragraph (1)(A) through (D).
       (b) Funds appropriated in this chapter under the heading 
     ``International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' that 
     are available for assistance for Mexico may be made available 
     only after the Secretary of State submits a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations detailing a coordinated, multi-
     year, interagency strategy to address the causes of drug-
     related violence and other organized criminal activity in 
     Central and South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean, which 
     shall describe--
       (1) the United States multi-year strategy for the region, 
     including a description of key challenges in the source, 
     transit, and demand zones; the key objectives of the 
     strategy; and a detailed description of outcome indicators 
     for measuring progress toward such objectives;
       (2) the integration of diplomatic, administration of 
     justice, law enforcement, civil society, economic 
     development, demand reduction, and other assistance to 
     achieve such objectives;
       (3) progress in phasing out law enforcement activities of 
     the militaries of each recipient country, as applicable; and
       (4) governmental efforts to investigate and prosecute 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights.
       (c) Of the funds appropriated in this chapter under the 
     heading ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'', up to 
     $5,000,000 may be made available for armored vehicles and 
     other emergency diplomatic security support for United States 
     Government personnel in Mexico.

                              el salvador

       Sec. 1011.  Of the funds appropriated in this chapter under 
     the heading ``Economic Support Fund'', $25,000,000 shall be 
     made available for necessary expenses for emergency relief 
     and reconstruction assistance for El Salvador related to 
     Hurricane/Tropical Storm Ida.

                    democratic republic of the congo

       Sec. 1012.  Of the funds appropriated in this chapter under 
     the heading ``Economic Support Fund'', $15,000,000 shall be 
     made available for necessary expenses for emergency security 
     and humanitarian assistance for civilians, particularly women 
     and girls, in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic 
     of the Congo.

                  international scientific cooperation

       Sec. 1013.  Funds appropriated in prior Acts making 
     appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
     operations, and related programs that are made available for 
     science and technology centers in the former Soviet Union may 
     be used to support productive, non-military activities that 
     engage scientists and engineers who have no weapons 
     background, but whose competence could otherwise be applied 
     to weapons development, notwithstanding sections 503 and 504 
     of the FREEDOM Support Act (Public Law 102-511), and 
     following consultation with the Committees on Appropriations, 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

                 international renewable energy agency

       Sec. 1014.  For fiscal year 2011 and thereafter, the 
     President is authorized to accept the statute of, and to 
     maintain membership of the United States in, the 
     International Renewable Energy Agency, and the United States' 
     assessed contributions to maintain such membership may be 
     paid from funds appropriated for ``Contributions to 
     International Organizations''.

                 office of inspector general personnel

       Sec. 1015. (a) Funds appropriated in this chapter for the 
     United States Agency for International Development Office of 
     Inspector General (OIG) may be made available to contract 
     with United States citizens for personal services when the 
     Inspector General determines that the personnel resources of 
     the OIG are otherwise insufficient.
       (1) Not more than 5 percent of the OIG personnel 
     (determined on a full-time equivalent basis), as of any given 
     date, are serving under personal services contracts.
       (2) Contracts under this paragraph shall not exceed a term 
     of 2 years unless the Inspector General determines that 
     exceptional circumstances justify an extension of up to 1 
     additional year, and contractors under this paragraph shall 
     not be considered employees of the Federal Government for 
     purposes of title 5, United States Code, or members of the 
     Foreign Service for purposes of title 22, United States Code.
       (b)(1) The Inspector General may waive subsections (a) 
     through (d) of section 8344, and subsections (a) through (e) 
     of section 8468 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     subsections (a) through (d) of section 4064 of title 22, 
     United States Code, on behalf of any re-employed annuitant 
     serving in a position within the OIG to facilitate the 
     assignment of persons to positions in Iraq, Pakistan, 
     Afghanistan, and Haiti or to positions vacated by members of 
     the Foreign Service assigned to those countries.
       (2) The authority provided in paragraph (1) shall be 
     exercised on a case-by-case basis for positions for which 
     there is difficulty recruiting or retaining a qualified 
     employee or to address a temporary emergency hiring need, 
     individuals employed by the OIG under this paragraph shall 
     not be considered employees for purposes of subchapter III of 
     chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, or chapter 84 of 
     such title, and the authorities of the Inspector General 
     under this paragraph shall terminate on October 1, 2012.


                        technical clarification

       Sec. 1016.  The second proviso of section 7081(d) of 
     division F, Public Law 111-117, shall be amended before 
     ``this Act'' by inserting ``title III of'', and by striking 
     ``, directly or indirectly,''.

                      authority to reprogram funds

       Sec. 1017.  Of the funds appropriated by this chapter for 
     assistance for Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, up to 
     $100,000,000 may be made available pursuant to the authority 
     of section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, for assistance in the Middle East and South Asia 
     regions if the President finds, in addition to the 
     requirements of section 451 and certifies and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, that exercising the authority 
     of this section is necessary to protect the national security 
     interests of the United States: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of State shall consult with the Committees on Appropriations 
     prior to the reprogramming of such funds, which shall be 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     funding limitation otherwise applicable to section 451 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to this 
     section: Provided further, That the authority of this section 
     shall expire upon enactment of the Department of State, 
     Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2011.

        special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction

                         (including rescission)

       Sec. 1018. (a) Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Department of State, Administration of Foreign Affairs, 
     Office of Inspector General'' and authorized to be 
     transferred to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
     Reconstruction in title XI of Public Law 111-32, $7,200,000 
     are rescinded.
       (b) For an additional amount for ``Department of State, 
     Administration of Foreign Affairs, Office of Inspector 
     General'' which shall be available for the Special Inspector 
     General for Afghanistan Reconstruction for reconstruction 
     oversight in Afghanistan, $7,200,000, and shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.

                               CHAPTER 11

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                     highway traffic safety grants

                          (highway trust fund)

                         (including rescission)

       Of the amounts provided for Safety Belt Performance Grants 
     in Public Law 111-117, $15,000,000 shall be available to pay 
     for expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     subtitle C of title X of Public Law 109-59 and chapter 301 
     and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, 
     and for the planning or execution of programs authorized 
     under section 403 of title 23, United States Code: Provided, 
     That such funds shall be available until September 30, 2011, 
     and shall be in addition to the amount of any limitation 
     imposed on obligations in fiscal year 2011.
       Of the amounts made available for Safety Belt Performance 
     Grants under section 406 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $15,000,000 in unobligated balances are permanently 
     rescinded: Provided, That section 3002 shall not apply to the 
     amounts under this heading.

            consumer assistance to recycle and save program

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available for the Consumer Assistance 
     to Recycle and Save Program, $44,000,000 in unobligated 
     balances are rescinded.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development

                       community development fund

       For an additional amount for the ``Community Development 
     Fund'', for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, 
     long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure, 
     housing, and economic revitalization in areas affected by 
     severe storms and flooding from March 2010 through May 2010 
     for which the President declared a major disaster covering an 
     entire State or States with more than 20 counties declared 
     major disasters under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974, 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     activities authorized under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383): 
     Provided, That funds shall be awarded directly to the State 
     or unit of general local government at the discretion of the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That prior to the obligation of 
     funds a grantee shall submit a plan to the Secretary 
     detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria 
     for eligibility and how the use of these

[[Page S4120]]

     funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of 
     infrastructure: Provided further, That funds provided under 
     this heading may be used by a State or locality as a matching 
     requirement, share, or contribution for any other Federal 
     program: Provided further, That such funds may not be used 
     for activities reimbursable by, or for which funds are made 
     available by, the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the 
     Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That funds 
     allocated under this heading shall not adversely affect the 
     amount of any formula assistance received by a State or 
     subdivision thereof under the Community Development Fund: 
     Provided further, That a State or subdivision thereof may use 
     up to 5 percent of its allocation for administrative costs: 
     Provided further, That in administering the funds under this 
     heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may 
     waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision 
     of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers 
     in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use 
     by the recipient of these funds or guarantees (except for 
     requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, 
     labor standards, and the environment), upon a request by a 
     State or subdivision thereof explaining why such waiver is 
     required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, 
     if the Secretary finds that such waiver would not be 
     inconsistent with the overall purpose of title I of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register any waiver of any statute or regulation that the 
     Secretary administers pursuant to title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 no later than 5 days before 
     the effective date of such waiver: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall obligate to a State or subdivision thereof 
     not less than 50 percent of the funding provided under this 
     heading within 90 days after the enactment of this Act.

                                TITLE II

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration

                economic development assistance programs

       For an additional amount, in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, for ``Economic Development Assistance 
     Programs'', to carry out planning, technical assistance and 
     other assistance under section 209, and consistent with 
     section 703(b), of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 3149, 3233), in States affected by the 
     incidents related to the discharge of oil that began in 2010 
     in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the 
     mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                  operations, research, and facilities

       For an additional amount, in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, for ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', $13,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for responding to economic impacts on fishermen and 
     fishery-dependent businesses: Provided, That the amounts 
     appropriated herein are not available unless the Secretary of 
     Commerce determines that resources provided under other 
     authorities and appropriations including by the responsible 
     parties under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., 
     are not sufficient to respond to economic impacts on 
     fishermen and fishery-dependent business following an 
     incident related to a spill of national significance declared 
     under the National Contingency Plan provided for under 
     section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605).
       For an additional amount, in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, for ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', for activities undertaken including scientific 
     investigations and sampling as a result of the incidents 
     related to the discharge of oil and the use of oil 
     dispersants that began in 2010 in connection with the 
     explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling 
     unit Deepwater Horizon, $7,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended. These activities may be funded through the 
     provision of grants to universities, colleges and other 
     research partners through extramural research funding.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human 
     Services, for food safety monitoring and response activities 
     in connection with the incidents related to the discharge of 
     oil that began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, 
     and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Departmental Offices

                        Office of the Secretary

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Secretary, 
     Salaries and Expenses'' for increased inspections, 
     enforcement, investigations, environmental and engineering 
     studies, and other activities related to emergency offshore 
     oil spill incidents in the Gulf of Mexico, $29,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That such funds 
     may be transferred by the Secretary to any other account in 
     the Department of the Interior to carry out the purposes 
     provided herein.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                            Legal Activities

            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     General Legal Activities'', $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for litigation expenses resulting from 
     incidents related to the discharge of oil that began in 2010 
     in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the 
     mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         Science and Technology

       For an additional amount for ``Science and Technology'' for 
     a study on the potential human and environmental risks and 
     impacts of the release of crude oil and the application of 
     dispersants, surface washing agents, bioremediation agents, 
     and other mitigation measures listed in the National 
     Contingency Plan Product List (40 C.F.R. Part 300 Subpart J), 
     as appropriate, $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the study shall be performed at the 
     direction of the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior: Provided further, 
     That the study may be funded through the provision of grants 
     to universities and colleges through extramural research 
     funding.

                     GENERAL PROVISION--THIS TITLE

                           deepwater horizon

       Sec. 2001.  Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 2752) is amended in the second sentence:
       (1) by inserting ``: (1)'' before ``may obtain an advance'' 
     and after ``the Coast Guard'';
       (2) by striking ``advance. Amounts'' and inserting the 
     following: ``advance; (2) in the case of discharge of oil 
     that began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and 
     sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, may, without further appropriation, obtain one or 
     more advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund as 
     needed, up to a maximum of $100,000,000 for each advance, the 
     total amount of all advances not to exceed the amounts 
     available under section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509(c)(2)), and within 7 days of 
     each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount advanced 
     and the facts and circumstances necessitating the advance; 
     and (3) amounts''.

                               TITLE III

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

                         availability of funds

       Sec. 3001  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.

                         emergency designation

       Sec. 3002.  Unless otherwise specified, each amount in this 
     Act is designated as an emergency requirement and necessary 
     to meet emergency needs pursuant to sections 403(a) and 
     423(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
       Sec. 3003. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     for fiscal year 2010 only, all funds received from sales, 
     bonuses, royalties, and rentals under the Geothermal Steam 
     Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1001 et seq.) shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury, of which--
       (1) 50 percent shall be used by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to make payments to States within the boundaries of 
     which the leased land and geothermal resources are located;
       (2) 25 percent shall be used by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to make payments to the counties within the 
     boundaries of which the leased land or geothermal resources 
     are located; and
       (3) 25 percent shall be deposited in miscellaneous 
     receipts.
       (b) Section 3002 shall not apply to this section.
       Sec. 3004. (a) Public Law 111-88, the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, 
     is amended under the heading ``Office of the Special Trustee 
     for American Indians'' by--
       (1) striking ``$185,984,000'' and inserting 
     ``$176,984,000''; and
       (2) striking ``$56,536,000'' and inserting ``$47,536,000''.
       (b) Section 3002 shall not apply to the amounts in this 
     section.
       Sec. 3005.  Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative 
     Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is 
     amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2011''.
       Sec. 3006.  For fiscal years 2010 and 2011--
       (1) the National Park Service Recreation Fee Program 
     account may be available for the cost of adjustments and 
     changes within the original scope of contracts for National 
     Park Service projects funded by Public Law 111-5 and for 
     associated administrative costs when no funds are otherwise 
     available for such purposes;
       (2) notwithstanding section 430 of division E of Public Law 
     111-8 and section 444 of Public Law 111-88, the Secretary of 
     the Interior may utilize unobligated balances for adjustments 
     and changes within the original scope of projects funded 
     through division A, title VII, of Public Law 111-5 and for 
     associated administrative costs when no funds are otherwise 
     available;
       (3) the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that any 
     unobligated balances utilized pursuant to paragraph (2) shall 
     be derived from the bureau and account for which the project 
     was funded in Public Law 111-5; and
       (4) the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the 
     Committees on Appropriations prior to making any charges 
     authorized by this section.
       Sec. 3007. (a) Section 205(d) of the Federal Land 
     Transaction Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2304(d)) is amended 
     by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``11 years''.

[[Page S4121]]

       (b) Section 3002 shall not apply to this section.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Supplemental Appropriations 
     Act, 2010''.
         Amend the title so as to read: ``Making supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 
     and for other purposes''.

                           Amendment No. 4174

  (Purpose: To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety 
     officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.)

  Mr. REID. Mr President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4174.

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


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S4121, May 24, the Record reads: . . . year ending 
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The ACTING PRESIDENT 
pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . year ending 
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. Amendment No. 4174 
(Purpose: To provide collective bargaining rights for public 
safety officers employed by States or their political 
subdivisions.) Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the 
desk. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report. The 
assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from 
Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 4174. Mr. REID. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 
Without objection, it is so ordered.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii is 
recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration 
of H.R. 4899, the FEMA supplemental as passed by the House on March 24 
and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, May 
13. As my colleagues may be aware, several attempts were made to 
proceed to the House-passed bill, but there were objections to 
proceeding.
  Because of the delay in acting upon the House bill, the vice chairman 
and I agreed that we should consider all of the supplemental provisions 
in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee that are pending 
before the Congress instead of just the FEMA portion as proposed by the 
House. The committee concurred in this recommendation and forwarded the 
bill to the full Senate by a unanimous vote of 30 to 0.
  This bill contains $45.4 billion in discretionary spending and $13.4 
billion in spending on mandatory programs. This amount is the same as 
the amount requested by the President. I want to point out to all of my 
colleagues that the bill does not include funding for the settlements 
between the Federal Government and African American-farmers and Native 
Americans.
  While I am strongly in favor of funding these settlements, these 
items are, in fact not in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations 
Committee. We have been informed by the leadership that these matters 
will be addressed elsewhere. I understand and expect that funding for 
these two settlements will be approved by the Congress and forwarded to 
the White House before the Memorial Day recess.
  The recommendations that Vice Chairman Cochran and I are presenting 
to you on behalf of the appropriations Committee reflect the collective 
efforts of each of our subcommittees. The main parts of the bill 
include $33.5 billion in Department of Defense funding to cover the 
cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, combat terrorism, and respond 
to the earthquake in Haiti. An additional $6.5 billion is provided for 
the State Department and other agencies in support of these and related 
efforts.
  The bill also includes $68 million in the first payment to cover 
Federal responsibilities resulting from the oilspill in the gulf. We 
recognize that additional funding and new legislative authorities are 
likely to be required in response to the oilspill. The amount we 
recommend results from our review of the budget amendment which was 
only submitted to the Administration the day before the committee 
markup. We are confident that the sums recommended are necessary but 
recognize more action will be needed in the coming months.
  As requested, the committee is also recommending $5.1 billion for 
FEMA'S disaster relief efforts. Everyone should be aware that the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency is out of funding for disaster 
relief. Even this sum is below what we anticipate will be required 
before the end of this year. However, the recommended sum is the amount 
sought by the Administration. The committee was unable to identify 
additional offsets to increase the total funding for FEMA.
  In addition to these, the committee has identified rescissions and 
other savings within the Administration's request to address many 
natural disasters for which the Administration did not request 
assistance.
  Two weeks ago, more than 40 counties in Tennessee were underwater. 
Rhode Island suffered through a once in a 500-year storm in March. A 
disaster was declared by the President in January for fisheries in 
Alaska. Tornadoes have tormented the Midwest and South. We have dams in 
need of emergency repair in the Northwest and an urgent requirement to 
address mine safety, but no funds have been requested to address these 
needs. Nothing has been offered to offset the enormous cost of clean-up 
and reconstruction for the States and communities which have suffered.
  In total, the committee has provided more than $425 million to 
address the disaster related shortfalls that were not requested by the 
Administration. This is a mere pittance when compared to the $1 or $2 
billion that is needed now to meet these needs, but it was that we 
could identify so late in the fiscal year to help meet these legitimate 
emergency costs.
  Some will say, ``Well, surely there are other offsets.'' I do not 
deny there are unobligated funds, but unobligated does not mean 
unneeded. For example, last week we identified a program with $8.3 
billion unobligated, the Joint Strike Fighter. The contract award for 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been delayed by months. Accordingly, 
the funding remains unobligated. Surely those that want to cut 
unobligated balances to offset the cost of this bill do not want us to 
rescind funds for this new fighter.
  We are told that some of our colleagues would like to send members of 
the National Guard to the border using unobligated balances to pay that 
cost.
  Well, I would point out that we have more than $2.6 billion in 
unobligated balances in funding that the Congress has appropriated over 
the past 3 years to purchase additional equipment for our National 
Guard and Reserve Forces. I suppose we could reallocate funds from that 
account to cover the cost of stationing additional National Guard 
troops on the border, But I doubt the proponents of such an amendment 
would support that. Moreover, like funding for the Joint Strike 
Fighter, the amount provided for National Guard equipment is needed 
even if it has not yet been spent.
  In recent months the rhetoric on Federal spending has focused solely 
on how much money has been spent rather than on what was necessary and 
what is still required. Many Senators question why we bailed out Wall 
Street. Others ask why we used Federal funds to ``prime the pump'' of 
our economy through the Recovery Act. I, for one, believe both were 
necessary to forestall an economic depression. Over the past few months 
as the stock market has rebounded and we have seen the beginnings of 
job creation, I am more confident than ever that the Congress acted 
wisely.
  But I want to inform all my colleagues that this bill is neither a 
bailout nor a stimulus. Instead, it is the minimum necessary to support 
our troops in harm's way and to meet emergency domestic and 
international requirements. The vice chairman and I agreed that the 
bill recommended by the committee would stay within the amounts 
requested by the Administration, even though we know more could be 
justified for these purposes.
  I recognize that many Senators on both sides of the aisle believe we 
simply should not spend more, but I say to you the Nation still has 
legitimate needs and a responsibility to act. We cannot stop investing 
in our Nation simply because of high deficits. This is a time for 
fiscal austerity but not for cutting legitimate spending needs. I can 
assure my colleagues this bill is both austere and responsible.
  The items in this bill are all either fully offset or bona fide 
emergencies. Many items are both emergency and offset to stay within 
the budget request. As chairman of this committee, I believe there are 
many more items which could be justified; but, to maintain necessary 
support for this bill, Vice Chairman Cochran and I committed to holding 
the line on spending. The committee met that objective.
  I want to thank Vice Chairman Cochran and his staff for their 
dedication and cooperation. This bill has been written in a completely 
bipartisan fashion, with input from all the chairmen and ranking 
members of our 12 subcommittees. I thank all members of the committee 
for their enormous contributions to this bill.
  Let me be clear. FEMA is out of money. More than 40 States have been 
told that they must wait for funds to cover disaster bills. Communities 
throughout the Northeast and Southeast are waiting for funds in this 
bill to begin rebuilding after devastating floods. We have an urgent 
requirement to respond rapidly to the devastating effects of the 
oilspill in the gulf. Funding for all of these cannot wait while

[[Page S4122]]

some might seek to delay action on this bill.
  But most importantly, next week, the Nation will honor those who 
sacrificed their lives in defense of our country. As I have said on 
many occasions, my colleagues should be mindful that less than 1 
percent of our population has volunteered to wear our country's 
uniform, to serve the rest of us. They defend our freedom, our way of 
life. They are called upon ever more frequently to leave their families 
behind and report to dangerous and inhospitable locations. Willingly, 
they do so.
  The Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for their patriotism and 
sacrifice. I can think of no better way to honor those who serve today 
and those who have gone before than by passing this bill expeditiously 
so that it can be forwarded to the House for action.
  I urge all Members to work with Vice Chairman Cochran and me to 
support this bill and secure its quick passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in 
presenting this supplemental appropriations bill to the Senate. The 
central purposes of the bill are to fund the military and diplomatic 
surge in Afghanistan, to respond to natural disasters in this country 
and in Haiti, and to address the immediate challenges we face from the 
oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  It has been 5 months since the President announced his strategy to 
achieve stability in Afghanistan. Central to that strategy is the 
addition of some 30,000 troops into the theater, together with a 
significant increase in aid and diplomatic resources to the region. 
Congress has the responsibility and the duty to carefully review and 
consider the President's request for these supplemental appropriations 
and approve the expenditure of the funds that are necessary for a 
successful outcome, one that serves the interests of the United States.
  We must be mindful, however, that more than half of the additional 
troops called for in the President's plan have already arrived in 
Afghanistan. Spring and summer offenses are being mounted now and in 
the coming months will become critical to our chances for success. It 
is also important that we act on the President's request in a timely 
manner. We should not procrastinate or drag our feet. We should not 
force the Pentagon to juggle accounts, delay procurements, and 
otherwise take actions that will detract from our efforts in the field.
  The committee has spent several months, as the distinguished chairman 
pointed out, carefully examining the supplemental request made by the 
Department of Defense and the State Department. Secretary Gates and 
Secretary Clinton have testified before the committee in support of 
these requests. The committee members and staff have met with other 
government officials and outside groups to refine the committee's 
recommendations.
  While this bill includes many of the supplemental requests made by 
the President, some of his proposals were deemed premature, 
unwarranted, or inappropriate for inclusion in an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill. The committee also heard from both 
Democratic and Republican Senators about urgent needs not addressed in 
the President's supplemental request. The chairman and I, as well as 
the various subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, have worked to 
address those needs. We have limited the total cost of the bill to the 
amount requested by the President, and we have kept the bill focused on 
its central purposes.
  In some parts of the country, recent natural disasters have left 
communities in desperate need of Federal assistance, but with flood 
waters still receding and damage assessments not yet complete, it has 
been difficult to respond to all of the requests we have received. The 
chairman and I will continue to work with Senators representing those 
communities to see that the Federal response is appropriate and 
addresses the most critical needs.
  For those of us who represent the gulf coast region, our States are 
dealing with a different kind of disaster. While it is not a natural 
disaster, it is a very serious event that will have very serious 
consequences for the natural environment as well as for local economies 
throughout the region. We cannot predict now and we cannot now know 
what the long-term impacts of this spill will be. While the Federal 
Government is intimately involved in the response and cleanup efforts, 
clearly the parties responsible for the spill must bear the ultimate 
cost of cleanup and associated damages. The President submitted an 
oilspill supplemental proposal 1 day prior to the committee's 
consideration of this bill. The proposal contained funding requests 
prompted by the spill but not directly tied to the Deepwater Horizon 
event. It also included broader policy proposals that would restructure 
the oilspill liability regime currently in place. The committee has had 
very little time to review these proposals. We have decided to 
recommend funding only items that are within the committee's 
jurisdiction that will address urgent needs.
  We do not suggest that the committee has arrived at the perfect 
solution. There may be other proposals that should be included in this 
legislation. There may be recommendations included by the committee 
that should be reconsidered based on additional analysis. I look 
forward to working with our colleagues from the gulf coast and all 
Senators to address this unfortunate event.
  During consideration of this bill in committee, several members 
identified additional funding needs or policy matters they intend to 
raise during floor debate. Members not on the committee will surely 
have amendments as well, and we look forward to working with all 
Senators to improve this bill where we can. But it is clear that adding 
additional costs to this bill will exacerbate our Nation's fiscal 
imbalance and potentially jeopardize our ability to rapidly get needed 
resources to our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 
in other parts of the world. This bill recommends $46 billion in 
discretionary appropriations and another $13 billion in mandatory 
funds. No matter how important the purposes, that is a significant 
amount of money. I expect amendments will be offered to offset some or 
all of these costs.
  The disaster relief fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
is currently allocating funds for immediate needs only. The fund owes 
more than $1.5 billion to States for projects already approved to 
assist communities recovering from disasters. Going into hurricane 
season, the fund has less than $900 million available to respond to 
disasters. One way or the other, we must take action to capitalize the 
fund.
  We also must act with a sense of urgency to provide the resources 
needed to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We should consider those 
requirements carefully. But I believe we will poorly serve our men and 
women in the field if we allow internal tactical battles to unduly 
delay delivery of a bill to the President, or if we burden this bill 
with other costs or legislative matters that are unrelated and 
controversial.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii and able members of his 
staff for their work on this bill and moving it to this point through 
the committee. I hope our colleagues who have amendments will contact 
us so we can help arrange for consideration of those in a timely 
manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4173

       (Purpose: To establish 3 year discretionary spending caps)

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I won't discuss any further the 
amendment I am going to call up. It was offered by Senator McCaskill 
and me 2 or 3 weeks ago. We reached as high as 59 votes for it, one 
short of passage. It is an amendment that would put a statutory limit 
on spending, making it more difficult to violate the limits we put by 
requiring a two-thirds vote to break that limit except in time of war 
and emergency.
  I ask at this time to call up amendment No. 4173.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator wish to set aside 
the pending amendment?

[[Page S4123]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. I now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and 
     Mrs. McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 4173.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Acting President pro tempore 
and yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business but to extend the time to up to 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I would say, since I do not see a 
Member of the majority on the floor, if there is a concern with that 
later, and somebody wishes to slip me a note, I would be happy to try 
to accommodate my schedule to the majority's schedule.


                           New START Concerns

  Mr. President, what I wish to speak to today is the START treaty 
which has been submitted by the administration for consideration by the 
Senate.
  The President signed the treaty on April 8 of this year, submitted it 
to the Senate for ratification on May 13, and 2 weeks ago the Foreign 
Relations Committee began hearings on the treaty.
  In the consideration of past treaties, the Senate has taken great 
care to consider the entire record of relevant documents and to seek 
the views of a wide variety of experts, and I am sure that will be done 
in this case as well.
  According to a report from Senator Thune, who is the head of the 
Republican Policy Committee:

       [On] the original START, almost 430 days passed between the 
     time President George H.W. Bush signed it--

  That was July 31, 1991--

     and the U.S. Senate provided its consent to the treaty [on 
     October 1, 1992]. As for the Treaty of Moscow, which is to 
     terminate if New START is ratified, it was signed on May 24, 
     2002 and ratified by the Senate more than nine months later 
     on March 6, 2003.

  That treaty, by the way, is only three pages long. So it is not 
surprising that it takes some time. What is surprising to me is that 
some have seemed intent on rushing the treaty that has been sent to us. 
According to Congressional Quarterly:

       A congressional aide who briefed reporters on the treaty 
     said Thursday that Senate Foreign Relations [Committee] 
     Chairman John Kerry [of Massachusetts] intended to complete 
     hearings ``in time for the Senate to take up the treaty 
     before the August recess, if it so chooses.''

  I am not aware of any similar precedent for so rushing such a treaty 
of this complexity, and I am not sure why the rush would be necessary. 
I wish to remind my colleagues, the White House assured us there would 
be no problem when it permitted the treaty to expire by not seeking its 
extension. The reason is expressed in a Joint Statement, which said as 
follows:

       Recognizing our mutual determination to support strategic 
     stability between the United States of America and the 
     Russian Federation, we express our commitment, as a matter of 
     principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the 
     START Treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm 
     intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter 
     into force at the earliest possible date.

  So what did these 65 words mean? Well, Deputy Secretary of Defense 
Lynn told us they meant that:

       In this interim period of START's expiration earlier in the 
     month, our two countries have agreed to continue observing 
     the spirit of the treaty's terms.

  Spokesman Kelly said they mean that ``both sides pledged not to take 
any measures that would undermine the strategic stability that START 
has provided during this period between the expiration of the START 
treaty.''
  So the idea that we are potentially disadvantaged every day the 
treaty goes unratified seems to me to be untrue, unless the Joint 
Statement does not mean what we were told it means. Certainly, there is 
no reason the Senate should not take the time it needs to perform its 
due diligence. The Constitution did not, after all, entrust to this 
body the requirement to perform the process of advise and consent on 
treaties, and did not set the extraordinarily high threshold of 67 
votes to achieve ratification because it intended the Senate to merely 
rubberstamp a treaty.
  I remind my colleagues of the recommendation of Dr. James 
Schlesinger, who the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said 
in a recent hearing has been called ``the former Secretary of 
Everything.'' Dr. Schlesinger said:

       First, the Senate will wish to scrutinize the Treaty 
     carefully, as it has previous arms control agreements. This 
     reflects the many changes as compared to START I.

  Of course, the treaty is more than just the treaty text, protocols, 
and annexes, which we have only recently received. There are other 
things we have not yet received. Again, quoting from Senator Thune's 
report:

       For example, the Secretary of State is required by statute 
     to submit a verifiability assessment of the treaty, and past 
     practice has been for the intelligence community to submit a 
     National Intelligence Estimate concerning the verifiability 
     of such matters. These two documents will be critical to 
     Senate evaluation of the treaty.
       Another set of documents that will be critical to the 
     Senate's evaluation of New START, particularly the 
     verification issue, is the annual report the President is to 
     complete assessing other nations' compliance with their arms 
     control, nonproliferation, and disarmament commitments. This 
     annual report is due on April 15 of each year, with the last 
     one submitted in August 2005--meaning the White House is now 
     five reports behind.

  So in this case, the verifiability assessment will be prepared by the 
Assistant Secretary for Verification, Rose Gottemoeller, who also 
happened to be our lead negotiator on the treaty. I am not certain if 
she will recuse herself from drafting the document, due to the obvious 
conflict of interest, but Senators must surely understand this.
  On the matter of the NIE, Senators must carefully review the record 
of the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 
which will file a report or submit a letter on the treaty. The NIE is 
important. It is not simply a statement on the verifiability of the 
treaty or at least it should not be. To be useful, it will provide an 
analysis of how the treaty informs our understanding of Russia's 
nuclear forces. It will analyze cheating scenarios and the likelihood 
we will detect them. This is an important document and one that will 
take time to put together.
  Another document promised, but not yet sent to the Senate, is the 
nuclear force posture. Senators will, of course, want to know how the 
triad will be composed during the 10 years of the treaty before we 
consider it. It is not sufficient to merely trust that the 700 deployed 
launchers called for in the treaty will be sufficient. We need to see 
the force posture and we need to see the analysis that supports it.

  I joined with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee who 
have requested access to the treaty negotiating record. I remind my 
colleagues that 22 U.S.C. section 2578 requires the Secretary of State 
to maintain a negotiating record of treaties to which the United States 
is a party. Obviously, Congress did not enact this requirement merely 
for the sake of doing it. Congress, obviously, intended to be able to 
have access to the record.
  There is a long history on this subject involving great disputes 
between the Senate, its committees, and its National Security Working 
Group--or its predecessor, the Arms Control Observer Group--which, 
incidentally, I cochair along with Senator Byrd, and the Executive on 
the INF and the START I treaty. I remind my colleagues of a statement 
made by Sam Nunn, the

[[Page S4124]]

former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when he was 
serving in this body in 1986:

       Mr. President, in my opinion, the administration's 
     rejection of our request for Senate access threatens a basic 
     institutional interest of the U.S. Senate--its constitutional 
     role in the treaty process.

  I agree with the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee that 
it is important for the Senate to have access to this negotiating 
record.
  Finally, let me say, I come to this very serious process with an open 
mind. I supported the START II treaty and the Moscow Treaty. I opposed 
the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 
Not all arms control agreements are the same. And just because they 
were negotiated, it does not follow they are in our best interest. So 
we need to examine the record and this treaty carefully.
  Today, I want to identify some areas of concern I believe Senators 
will want to focus on as they begin to consider the treaty. These are 
not objections. They are matters of concern we will want to 
investigate:
  One, the required nuclear modernization plan; two, limits on U.S. 
nuclear force levels and force structure; three, impact on U.S. missile 
defenses; four, verification under the new treaty; five, the impact of 
the treaty on the disparity between United States and Russian nuclear 
force levels, especially regarding tactical nuclear weapons; six, the 
Bilateral Consultative Commission; and, seven, the impact of the treaty 
on prompt global strike.
  Perhaps we should consider an eighth category and a new metric by 
which to evaluate the treaty. Secretary Clinton stated on March 18 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

       I am not suggesting that this treaty alone will convince 
     Iran or North Korea to change their behavior, but it does 
     demonstrate our leadership and strengthens our hand as we 
     seek to hold these and other governments accountable.

  I suggest the administration may want to carefully consider whether 
it wants the Senate to evaluate the treaty on that basis. What real 
progress has been made on nonproliferation since the President signed 
the treaty? Is the latest Security Council resolution an indication of 
the value of the New START?
  While the U.N. Security Council has not adopted a resolution yet with 
respect to Iran, the announcement by the administration on May 18 
included no reference to any sanctions that would close the noose 
around the IRGC, around Iran's energy sector, especially refined 
petroleum products, and Iran's banking sector, and all the other 
revenue streams that feed Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program and 
its terrorism apparatus.
  Most of what is in the draft resolution--for example, references to 
the Iranian Central Bank--are in the preamble. The administration has 
told us that preambles are not binding. So which is it? Are preambles 
binding or is the draft resolution a bunch of words with little effect?
  Also very troubling is the disclosure that the resolution does not 
prohibit the sale to Iran by Russia of the S-300 antiaircraft missile 
system. Not including the S-300 in the draft Security Council 
resolution is unfortunate confirmation that the administration has not 
``reset'' relations with Russia in any meaningful way. In fact, the 
Moscow-based Kommersant Online reported this morning--and I quote--
``Moreover, according to the terms of the deal, Washington is also 
lifting its objections to the sale to Iran of Russian S-300 
antiaircraft missile systems.'' I cannot stress how important this 
issue is. Under no circumstances can the administration permit Russia 
to think the United States is not opposed to this transfer. If Russia 
proceeds with this transfer, not only will the Russian entities 
involved have to be sanctioned under U.S. law, but United States-Russia 
relations will be in a grave state of crisis.

  It would appear the reason Russia agreed to the weak U.N. sanctions 
resolution is it will not affect any of its ties with Tehran. At the 
same time, it has announced it will embark on nuclear cooperation with 
Syria, as it announces, for example, the planned activation of the 
Bushehr reactor next August. What is the administration's reaction? We 
have learned it will roll back proliferation sanctions on Russian 
entities. Could this possibly be a quid pro quo for Russia's support 
for the draft resolution? I thought the START treaty was supposed to 
ensure their support. Nor has the President's ``leading by example,'' 
touted by Secretary Clinton, affected even NATO member Turkey and 
hemispheric member Brazil. The administration was obviously blindsided 
by Brazil and Turkey, working instead with Iran on an alternative plan.
  So it is fair to ask: What progress has been made on nonproliferation 
that the administration can point to that suggests the START treaty is 
a meaningful tool in keeping States such as Iran and North Korea from 
violating their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations?
  Let me turn back directly to START and begin the seven items I 
mentioned, beginning with the first: the modernization plan. This is 
the plan that section 1251 of last year's Defense Authorization Act 
required be submitted at the same time the treaty was sent to us for 
its ratification.
  The key goal of most arms control agreements is to achieve strategic 
stability. The New START treaty was negotiated on the premise of 
numeric stability, but there are a number of underlying factors 
required, a foundation upon which to base that stability. For the 
United States, it is the confidence provided by both the current U.S. 
nuclear warheads and delivery systems and by the weapons complex and 
its capacity to sustain and modernize those nuclear warheads. For this 
reason, 41 Senators wrote to President Obama last December, 
highlighting the direct link between nuclear force reductions under the 
treaty and modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
  What are some of the factors that affect its strategic stability, 
beyond the treaty numbers? Well, first, the weapons we deploy must be 
safe, secure and, most critically, for stability they must be reliable. 
Given the age of our current weapons, averaging close to 30 years, we 
must be extremely diligent about monitoring those deployed weapons 
through our surveillance programs.
  We also have warheads that require life extensions such as the W76, 
which is underway, and soon, I hope, the B61. Without life extension, 
these weapons will soon cease to be capable of protecting our country. 
We must be looking to the future stockpile with new approaches, 
including life extension, using a full spectrum of options responsive 
to future needs. To achieve this will require a strong science, 
technology, and engineering workforce in our national laboratories and 
military complex that maintains critical skills and is resolute in its 
determination to solve the complicated problems at hand.
  We must make an intense, unified push to restore a viable production 
capacity for nuclear warheads. Herein lives the greatest chink in our 
armor. As former Secretary Schlesinger recently testified:

       The Russians have a live production base. They turn over 
     their inventory of nuclear weapons every 10 years. We do not.

  Finally, we cannot neglect the delivery systems that carry these 
nuclear weapons. They are also aging and they also are prey to neglect 
and loss of critical capabilities.
  The section 1251 plan was to address the issues I have just 
highlighted. We have received this classified report, and we are in the 
process of reviewing the statements of the administration to ensure 
that modernization is, in fact, adequately addressed.
  The administration has outlined in this report a plan to provide, 
over the next decade, $80 billion for nuclear weapon activities and 
about $100 billion for delivery system activities. To be clear, most of 
this money is not new. In fact, the bulk of the money covers current 
spending levels plus inflation for the decade. While this is a needed 
improvement from the grossly inadequate fiscal year 2010 budget 
submission, we do not yet know how much the administration intends to 
commit to modernization and how it will be spent.
  It has been well advertised that there is a renewed emphasis by the 
administration on sustaining our stockpile and modernizing the 
infrastructure. Congress has long recognized the need for this extra 
attention, for example, calling for the Stockpile Management Program 
and the section 1251 plan requirement in the fiscal year 2010 National

[[Page S4125]]

Defense Authorization Act. But after reviewing the fiscal year 2011 
budget input, I am concerned the administration has not done all it 
should.
  The fiscal year 2011 budget weapons activities part of the budget of 
$7 billion is a 10-percent increase over fiscal year 2010, with a 26-
percent increase in the category of Directed Stockpile Work. This looks 
good on paper. The question is the substance. The fiscal years 2007 
through 2009 plans from NNSA predicted that the fiscal year 2011 budget 
should be, on average, $7 billion--exactly what the administration 
asked for this year. What we need to know is how much in addition to 
the $7 billion for NNSA weapon activities over the next 10 years.
  A cursory review of the numbers recommended in the section 1251 plan 
shows the proposed funding is, in fact, barely keeping up with 
inflation. In fiscal year 2010, Congress provided roughly $6.4 billion 
for the current nuclear weapons account at NNSA. If the fiscal year 
2010 budget is assumed as a new 10-year baseline, that would be $64 
billion of the $80 billion proposal for nuclear weapons activities at 
NNSA, assuming no increase for inflation or increased costs of 
modernization. If you assume a standard rate of inflation of 3 percent 
to cover cost-of-living adjustments in salaries and increased material 
costs using the fiscal year 2010 appropriations as the baseline, then 
holding that budget constant would require a total of $75.6 billion 
over the 10-year period. If a 2-year rate of inflation is used, then 
the increase is about $8 billion over the next 10 years.
  Unfortunately, we know the fiscal year 2010 budget is not a 
sustainable baseline. The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee noted in its committee report last year that:

       The committee does not believe this level of funding is 
     adequate to support modernization of the complex including 
     critical investment in infrastructure and scientific 
     capabilities.

  So our stockpile is aging, refurbishments are behind schedule, the 
Cold War infrastructure is falling apart, and the critical science and 
technology skills that underwrite our nuclear deterrence are atrophied. 
But rather than seeing a new commitment to this problem, the budget 
request and the 1251 plan seem to be based on a plan--the fiscal year 
2010 budget--that wasn't making much progress as it was.
  It appears to me this plan was based not so much on what is needed 
but what funding the administration was willing to make available. In 
this case, it seems to be what funding Secretary Gates could sacrifice 
from his budget because that is how the additional money for this year 
came about. Why was the administration only willing to find funding 
authority in the DOD budget, the one department of the Federal 
Government engaged in fighting two wars? Secretary Gates had to 
transfer money from his budget over to the Energy Department budget.
  As important as the amount of money available is the freedom to 
pursue all options available to ensure the safety, security, and 
reliability of our highly complex nuclear stockpile. The Nuclear 
Posture Review restricts options for modernizing existing warheads by 
stating:

       In any decision to proceed to engineering development for 
     warhead LEPs--

  That is, life extension projects--

     the United States will give strong preference to options for 
     refurbishment or reuse. Replacement of nuclear components 
     would be undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management 
     Program goals could not otherwise be met and if specifically 
     authorized by the President and approved by Congress.

  The 1251 plan tries to deal with this overly restrictive limitation 
by stating:

       The Laboratory Directors will ensure that the full range of 
     life extension program approaches, including refurbishment, 
     reuse, and replacement of nuclear components are studied.

  But it still reiterates that there is a ``policy preference for 
refurbishment and reuse in decisions to proceed from study to 
engineering development.''
  Why would our nuclear scientists spend time and limited resources and 
risk their careers studying the full range of options if, when they 
make their recommendations, the President requires that they prove the 
impossible; namely, that replacement must be the only choice? Why isn't 
the standard instead what is the best course of action?
  The Perry-Schlesinger Commission noted the importance of flexibility 
when it reported to Congress last May. It stated there are:

     . . . options along a spectrum . . . in between are various 
     options to utilize existing components and design solutions 
     while mixing in new components and solutions as needed. 
     Different warheads may lend themselves to different solutions 
     along this spectrum. The decision on which approach is best 
     should be made on a case-by-case basis as the existing 
     stockpile of warheads ages.

  The bipartisan commission of six Republicans and six Democrats 
determined that:

       So long as modernization proceeds within the framework of 
     existing U.S. policy, it should encounter minimum political 
     difficulty.

  Well, the NPR changes that policy, and the section 1251 plan 
reiterates the NPR language after initially suggesting scientists will 
be given complete latitude. I believe this will have a chilling effect 
on the scientists' work and that this issue must be resolved.
  Similarly, we have questions concerning the administration's 
commitment to maintaining and modernizing nuclear delivery systems. 
While the administration suggests in the Nuclear Posture Review and the 
1251 plan that it will maintain a nuclear triad, there is no funding in 
that plan for follow-on strategic systems, other than a replacement for 
our aging nuclear ballistic missile submarines. In fact, the 1251 plan 
notes that the administration will not even make a decision regarding a 
next generation bomber and a follow-on ICBM until 2013 and 2015, 
respectively. Likewise, rather than commit to a new nuclear cruise 
missile, the administration instead announces that a study is being 
done to determine if it will be replaced. Finally, the 1251 plan is 
silent on funding needed to develop and deploy conventional prompt 
global strike capabilities which, according to the Nuclear Posture 
Review, are to play a larger role in our strategic posture.
  The notional nuclear force structure under New START suggested in the 
1251 plan lacks sufficient detail. It calls for up to 420 ICBMs, up to 
60 strategic bombers, and no more than 240 SLBMs. It would be helpful 
to know exactly how U.S. forces will be configured, how we might expect 
Russia to configure its nuclear forces, both strategical and tactical, 
and then have a net assessment to determine whether the United States 
is still capable of carrying out its deterrence missions, especially 
providing nuclear security guarantees to allies and partners.
  With regard to New START limitations and force structure, the New 
START treaty limits the number of deployed strategic delivery systems 
to 700. Since the United States today deploys approximately 800 
delivery systems, this will require a reduction of some 180 ICBMs, 
SLBMs, and/or strategic bombers to reach the treaty limitations--more 
if we deploy conventional global strike missiles, since, by the terms 
of the treaty, these must be counted as nuclear as well.
  The Russians, on the other hand, are already below the 700 figure. So 
this is the first time that at least I am aware the United States will 
agree to launcher limitations that will require the United States to 
reduce its forces but require no reductions by Russia. It is fair to 
ask what the United States got for this concession.
  Moreover, because a bomber counts as only one delivery system and one 
warhead no matter how many bombs or cruise missiles are loaded on it, 
the Russians are able legally to field more than 1,150 warheads limited 
by the treaty. While this may appear to advantage both sides, I do not 
fear U.S. cheating--we would not--but the Russians could, and because 
of weak verification tools in the treaty, I am not sure we will know. 
This is another reason to await the NIE before making a decision on the 
treaty.
  Let me quote from the Heritage Foundation analysis on this point. It 
says:

       In fact, despite Obama administration claims to the 
     contrary, New START's counting rules and apparent lapses will 
     permit increases in Russian strategic force levels above the 
     1,700 to 2,200 deployed warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty.

  I am not going to quote the remainder of this analysis, but I would 
ask unanimous consent that the statement, as I submit it for the 
Record, contain the remainder of this analysis.

[[Page S4126]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       According to a Heritage Foundation analysis:

       In fact, despite Obama Administration claims to the 
     contrary, New START's counting rules and apparent lapses will 
     permit increases in Russian strategic force levels above the 
     1,700-2,200 deployed warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty. RIA 
     Novosti, an official news agency of the Russian Federation, 
     already has reported that given New START's counting rules, 
     Russia will be able to retain 2,100 strategic nuclear 
     warheads under New START, not 1,550. Russia will be able to 
     deploy even higher numbers under New START if it follows 
     through on-announced modernization programs, particularly the 
     new heavy bomber. In addition Russia could deploy strategic 
     nuclear systems that were limited or prohibited under START 
     I, but appear not to be limited whatsoever under New START.
       If Russia exploits the legal lapses in New START, there is 
     no actual limit in the new Treaty on the number of strategic 
     nuclear warheads that can be deployed. The number of Russia's 
     strategic nuclear warheads would be limited only by the 
     financial resources it is able to devote to strategic forces, 
     not by New START warhead ceilings--which would be the case 
     without this new Treaty.

  Mr. KYL. The bottom line is, there were concessions by the United 
States. The Russian conventions are essentially strictly based on their 
financial situation, not by any New START warhead ceilings. So what I 
think we should ask is why did we agree to it and what did we get in 
return.
  Additionally, what will the U.S. nuclear force structure look like 
after eliminating these 180 U.S. strategic delivery systems? I have 
already talked about it, but I wish to explain why this is an important 
requirement for Senators to consider before we vote on the treaty.
  The administration has provided some initial information as a basis 
for future planning. It could retain up to 420 ICBMs, up to 60 
strategic bombers, and deploy no more than 240 SLBMs at any time. We 
will require further details about where these reductions will be made 
and how this force structure fares against our most likely prediction 
about how the Russians will design their nuclear forces.
  An issue of concern is that while the United States intends to deploy 
only single-warhead ICBMs under the administration's new NPR, the 
treaty appears to be driving the Russians to deploy multiple-warhead 
missiles for their ICBM force. Land-based multiple-warhead missiles 
have long been considered destabilizing because they place a premium on 
striking first for fear of losing a large proportion of one's warheads 
by a preemptive strike by the other side. For this reason, MIRVs were 
to be banned by the START II treaty that never entered into force. Now, 
80 percent of Russia's ICBM force will be road mobile and MIRVed. In 
light of this, it is curious to hear the administration now argue that 
New Start will increase strategic stability.
  Assuming the U.S. nuclear force structure is survivable, the next 
question is whether it is sufficient for deterrence purposes--
especially the more difficult mission of extending nuclear guarantees 
to allies and partners.
  As I said, the New Start treaty limits deployed strategic delivery 
systems to 700. A September 2008 white paper by the Defense and Energy 
Departments suggests a force of approximately 900 delivery systems is 
necessary for deterrence purposes, and in congressional testimony last 
summer, Admiral Mullen and General Cartwright expressed concerns with 
force levels below 800. How, then, can 700 be the correct number? 
Again, Senators must see the analysis themselves to make a decision on 
this. I don't see how a mere assurance in an unclassified committee 
hearing can be sufficient on a matter like this.
  As to missile defense, despite being told consistently from the very 
beginning of negotiations that missile defense will be addressed only 
in the preamble of the treaty, we now discover that article V contains 
a direct restriction on U.S. missile defense activities--i.e. neither 
party can convert ICBM or SLBM launchers into launchers for missile 
defense interceptors. In fact, just prior to the treaty's public 
release, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher said the following: 
``But there is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do 
with its missile defense systems.'' Now, this begs two questions: 1, 
did Ms. Tauscher not know what was in the treaty her subordinates were 
negotiating; or 2, did whoever wrote Ms. Tauscher's talking points 
think Senators wouldn't notice an entire article of the treaty text?
  Some administration officials have tried to explain this away by 
saying that, since this administration has no current plans to do so, 
it's not a constraint. That stands the English language on its head. 
This concession to the Russian Federation will establish a dangerous 
precedent with respect to including missile defense limitations in 
future offensive arms control agreements. Why did the U.S. side feel it 
necessary to concede this point? What did we get in return? Again, this 
is why it is important to see the full negotiating record.
  When viewed together, the treaty's preamble, the Russian unilateral 
statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials 
provide the potential for Russia to essentially blackmail the U.S. 
against increasing its missile defense capabilities by threatening to 
withdraw from the treaty.
  The preamble states that ``current strategic defensive arms do not 
undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive 
arms of the parties.'' Does this suggest that moving beyond ``current'' 
systems could provide grounds for withdrawal?
  The Russians note in their unilateral statement that the treaty ``can 
operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains 
from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or 
qualitatively,'' and also link American missile defense capabilities to 
the treaty's withdrawal clause. Shouldn't we read this as an attempt to 
exert political pressure to forestall continued development and 
deployment of U.S. missile defenses? The preamble doesn't have to be 
legally binding to be influential.
  Even more disturbing is the administration's decision to limit U.S. 
missile defenses to be effective only against a ``limited attack,'' 
thus exempting Russian capabilities from the reach of our missile 
defenses. Since the U.S. unilateral statement makes quite clear that 
the administration intends to deploy only ``limited'' missile defenses 
to deal with ``limited attack,'' the administration has left itself no 
room to respond to strategic surprise or a disintegration of the 
current strategic relationship with key nuclear powers, let alone an 
accidental launch. Let me quote from the text of the U.S. unilateral 
statement:

       The United States missile defense systems would be employed 
     to defend the United States against limited missile launches, 
     and to defend its deployed forces, allies and partners 
     against regional threats. The United States intends to 
     continue improving and deploying its missile defense systems 
     in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part 
     of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in 
     key regions.

  Here is something else that's troubling. General Jones, in a May 12, 
2010, letter to me wrote, ``Russian unilateral statement is both beyond 
the control of the Administration and not binding or limiting in any 
way on current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.'' I will 
repeat that because it is important: ``not binding or limiting in any 
way on current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.''
  What about a program that is not current or planned? Our unilateral 
statement must lead one to ask whether the Russian statement was 
answered by the U.S. statement, in effect saying, ``you don't worry 
about our missile defense because we won't make it effective against 
you.'' What if a future administration decides to return to the concept 
of actually protecting America from any nuclear attack even from 
Russia?
  The Russians will have the right to rely on these statements for at 
least the ten years of the treaty's operation. These statements may 
become the new baseline in future arms control negotiations between the 
United States and the Russian Federation. Ronald Reagan enunciated the 
vision of U.S. missile defense, which I believe is as true today as it 
was in 1983:

       What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that 
     their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. 
     retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept 
     and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached 
     our own soil or that of our allies? But isn't it worth every 
     investment necessary to free the world from the threat of 
     nuclear war? We know it is.''


[[Page S4127]]


  I am concerned that when Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov warned, on 
March 28, that ``the treaty and all the obligations it contains are 
valid only within the context of the levels which are now present in 
the sphere of strategic defensive systems,'' it means the Russians will 
threaten to pull out of START if we deploy additional ground-based 
interceptors in Alaska or if we deploy the SM-3 block IIB missile in 
Europe, as the administration promised.
  There is something fundamentally disturbing about entering into a 
treaty with the Russians when we have such a divergence in view over a 
substantial issue like missile defense. At the very least this likely 
sets the stage for misunderstanding and confrontation as the United 
States continues its missile defense activities, particularly in 
Europe. Remember, the goal of the treaty was supposed to be stability 
from a common understanding and agreement on core principles.
  Those who have rushed to embrace the treaty must confront this 
reality and the administration must be required to square the circle.
  On verification, Secretary Gates testified that this treaty provides 
``a strong verification regime . . . which provides a firm basis for 
monitoring Russia's compliance with its treaty obligations.'' I 
certainly have a great deal respect for Secretary Gates, but I'm not 
sure how he can know that yet. Has he seen the NIE on the treaty? Or 
the State Department verifiability assessment? And, even if treaty 
noncompliance can be verified, what have we lost in intelligence as a 
result of the weakening of the verification compared to the START 
treaty?
  Independent assessments of the treaty suggest important new gaps in 
monitoring. For example, the treaty no longer requires on-the-ground, 
continuous monitoring of Russia's missile manufacturing facility and 
permits Russia to withhold telemetry of many of its missile tests, 
undermining our ability to know how many missiles are being produced 
and, perhaps, limiting our ability to understand what new capabilities 
are being developed. The administration has blamed the Bush 
administration for this, and I have asked for the evidence in letters 
to the Secretary of State, including a December 4, 2009, letter. So far 
the administration has been unwilling to substantiate this allegation--
which it could do by responding to my letters and inquiries on the 
matter.
  The ability to monitor compliance with the terms of the treaty is 
important, but as important is whether our intelligence community can 
monitor the status of Russian strategic nuclear forces. What new 
capabilities is Russia developing? Is Russia building and stockpiling 
additional missiles and warheads that could provide it a break-out 
capability? Will we be able to maintain confidence in our assessment of 
Russian forces throughout the 10-year period of the treaty? According 
to Secretary Gates, ``And I think what you are likely to hear from them 
[the Intelligence Community] is that they have high confidence in their 
ability to monitor this treaty until toward the end of the 10-year 
term, when their confidence level will go to moderate.''
  What is the impact of a judgment like that when we know Russia is 
increasing its reliance on its nuclear forces, conducting war games 
involving simulating raids against NATO allies like Poland, and 
modernizing almost every element of its strategic and tactical nuclear 
forces? For example, Russia is, in fact, deploying a new multipurpose 
attack submarine that can launch long range cruise missiles with 
nuclear warheads against land targets at a range of 5,000 kilometers--
just barely missing the threshold to be considered a strategic weapon 
under the New START treaty. Of course, a tactical nuclear weapon has a 
strategic effect if it is detonated above a U.S. or allied city.
  We will need the intelligence community to consider these important 
factors before we can fully evaluate the treaty; I look forward to a 
thorough NIE that rigorously analyzes our ability to monitor Russian 
nuclear forces. And, I am sure the Intelligence Committee will hold 
numerous hearings to flesh out these issues.
  As to the impact the treaty has on U.S. and Russian nuclear force 
levels, especially regarding tactical nuclear weapons, the 
administration argues that New Start will ``increase'' or ``provide'' 
strategic stability, but has yet to explain why the 10-1 disparity in 
tactical nuclear weapons doesn't upset that strategic stability, 
especially at lower levels of strategic nuclear forces. As former 
Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger recently testified, ``the 
significance of tactical nuclear weapons rises steadily as strategic 
nuclear arms are reduced.''
  The Strategic Posture Commission estimates Russia may have 
approximately 3,800 operational tactical nuclear warheads, and that the 
combination of new warhead designs and precision delivery systems 
``opens up new possibilities for Russian efforts to threaten to use 
nuclear weapons to influence regional conflicts.''
  Likewise, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, 
has observed that the Russians are ``actually increasing their reliance 
on nuclear weapons and the role of nuclear weapons in their strategy.'' 
There is a fine line--actually, no line at all except as to how they 
are delivered--between strategic and tactical weapons.
  If the Russians intend to use nuclear weapons to influence regional 
conflicts, then shouldn't we try to understand the impact of their 
numbers in the context of declining U.S. strategic nuclear weapons 
required by the treaty? In other words, what will be the effect of 
Russian tactical nuclear weapons on strategic stability and our ability 
to extend deterrence into various regions? We should understand this 
before agreeing with the administration's contention that this treaty 
increases stability.
  The administration's retort is that they understand the importance of 
dealing with the disparity in tactical nuclear weapons, but that we 
must first ratify New Start before getting to Russian tactical nuclear 
weapons in the next treaty. But what leverage will we have left? And 
why should we think a ``next treaty'' that further reduces our weapons 
will be in our rational interest?
  And if tactical weapons are as important as most seem to believe, why 
didn't we make them a priority in this treaty? Because the Russians 
didn't want to talk about them? Why was that enough to demur? How hard 
did we push? Again, this is why Senators need to see the negotiating 
record, and why they shouldn't make up their minds on the treaty until 
they do.
  BCC--Bilateral Consultative Commission
  One of the matters the administration will have to address before the 
Senate could consider ratification is the role of the Bilateral 
Consultative Commission in the treaty. As Ambassadors Edelman and 
Joseph observe in their May 10th National Review Online article:

       A preliminary reading of the Treaty Protocol suggests that 
     the U.S. and Russian commissioners could reach secret 
     agreement on changes to ensure the `viability and 
     effectiveness' of the treaty. These changes could create 
     additional limits on missile defense that would appear to be 
     beyond the reach of the Senate's responsibility to advise and 
     consent.

  Obviously, that is not acceptable. This matter will have to be 
thoroughly vetted during the hearings and presumably be dealt with in 
the resolution of ratification. While there may have been similar 
provisions in past treaties, the Senate should insist on a reasonable 
check on such an open-ended provision in the resolution of 
ratification.
  Now to the conventional prompt global strike or PGS. Although 
tactical nuclear weapons were not addressed in this treaty, the United 
States conceded to Russian demands to place limits on our conventional 
prompt global strike capabilities by counting conventionally armed 
strategic ballistic missiles under the limits for delivery systems. At 
the very least, this will require a one-for-one reduction in U.S.-
deployed nuclear weapons for each conventional ICBM it intends to 
deploy. This is yet another reason Senators need to see the force 
posture before they can make up their minds on the treaty.
  The treaty also sets the stage for further limitations on U.S. 
conventional strike capabilities in the preamble by noting that the 
parties are ``mindful of the impact of conventionally armed ICBMs and 
SLBMs on strategic stability.'' Does any Senator imagine the Russians 
will not raise objections when

[[Page S4128]]

the United States begins the serious development of prompt global 
strike capabilities, as called for by the Nuclear Posture Review?
  Moreover, the administration must be candid when it testifies about 
issues such as PGS missile defense. It cannot continue to state that 
the treaty does not limit PGS or missile defenses when it clearly does.
  In conclusion, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have predicated 
their support for the treaty on their answer to the question: Are we 
better off with an agreement or without it? They suggest that without 
the agreement, we would lack the ability to limit and monitor Russian 
strategic forces.
  My response is twofold:
  First, the existing 2002 Moscow Treaty already limits Russian 
warheads. True, the Moscow Treaty relied on the now-expired START 
treaty's verification procedures, but these could have been extended by 
mutual consent. The Russians refused or the administration did not 
bother to ask. We will not know until the administration shares the 
negotiating record with us.
  Second, I believe the better question is, Are we better off with this 
treaty or a treaty that did not include any references to missile 
defense or prompt global strike and which did contain limitations on 
Russian tactical nuclear weapons? These are issues for Senators to 
consider when they debate the resolution of ratification and amendments 
to it, whether they be reservations or conditions or otherwise.
  In her opening statement at the May 18 Foreign Relations Committee 
hearing on New START, Secretary Clinton asserted that ``the choice 
before us is between this treaty and no treaty governing our nuclear 
security relationship with Russia.'' This assertion is obviously a 
false choice. It reflects sort of an ``our way or the highway'' 
approach, completely inconsistent with the responsibilities of the 
Senate. Since the administration did not consult the Senate for its 
advice before making its negotiating concessions, it should not now 
argue that the Senate has only the choice of voting for the treaty that 
we cannot amend and therefore must vote yes and that it would be 
impossible to negotiate another agreement. After all, isn't that what 
both sides did in walking away from the START II agreement? The Senate 
is not a rubberstamp.
  We have the opportunity and responsibility to fully understand this 
treaty and understand whether it furthers the security of the American 
people. And we must consider it in the context of other considerations 
such as the nuclear modernization that goes hand-in-hand with 
consideration of the treaty. The administration will have to find a 
way, for example, to ensure the necessary funding for modernization 
before the Senate votes on the treaty.
  Sergei Karagonov, chairman of the Russian Council on Defense and 
Foreign Policy, summarized the Russian view of the treaty saying:

       In the course of the negotiations, Russia reached almost 
     all of the objectives it could possibly set.

  I think that is a pretty good metric by which to evaluate the outcome 
of the treaty. Are we able to say the same thing for the United States? 
That is a question which will need to be answered affirmatively for the 
Senate to ratify the treaty.
  We have just begun the process of evaluation and potentially 
ratification. I urge all of my colleagues to refrain from judgments 
before our process is complete. I do not doubt there are arguments in 
support of the treaty. The recitation of my concerns today should be 
taken as just that--concerns--hopefully to make the point that there 
are reasons for us to be careful and thoughtful and not jump to 
conclusions. I look forward to an exercise worthy of the Senate in the 
consideration of this important submission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Tribute to Officer Thomas Wortham IV

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I come before this august body with a very 
heavy heart this afternoon. Last Friday night, just a few blocks from 
my home in Chicago, a terrible act of violence claimed the life of a 
young police officer. Thomas Wortham IV was a distinguished Chicago 
police officer. He was off duty on Wednesday night, so he went to visit 
his parents in a nice neighborhood called Chatham--in which I live only 
2\1/2\ blocks away--to show them his new motorcycle.
  Officer Wortham was used to putting his life on the line. In addition 
to being one of Chicago's finest, he recently served two tours in Iraq. 
He devoted himself to his community and to his country. He exhibited 
the same courage, valor, and selfless dedication wherever he went.
  Thomas Wortham was a true American hero. He was the kind of person 
who keeps us safe and makes it possible for the rest of us to go about 
our lives free from fear; the kind of person who serves as an example 
to those around him and inspires others to give back.
  But last Wednesday night, as he sat on his brandnew motorcycle 
outside of his parents' home, this remarkable young man was violently 
taken from us. After two tours in Iraq and endless hours patrolling the 
mean streets, Officer Wortham was struck down practically in his own 
backyard. Several young men tried to rob him, and he was shot in the 
struggle. His father, who is also a military veteran and retired police 
sergeant, heroically rushed to his defense and returned fire on those 
who attacked his son. But it was too late. Gun violence had already 
claimed Officer Wortham's life.
  For all his heroism, for all the good he did for his community and 
his country, in the end Thomas Wortham IV was tragically killed where 
he should have been perfectly safe. There is no justice in this; there 
is no silver lining. This is just major outrage. It was a despicable, 
senseless act committed by dangerous people, all of whom must suffer 
the full consequences of the law.
  Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning Thomas Wortham IV, 
who was taken from us far before his time. Let us remember his selfless 
devotion to his community and to his country. Let us celebrate his 
heroism and honor his memory by living out his values in our daily 
lives.
  I extend my deepest condolences to his family, whose pain far exceeds 
even the deep sense of loss felt by others in the Chicago community. 
This Nation stands with them today, just as their son stood with us in 
the sands of Iraq and the streets of Chicago.
  As we lay this fallen hero to rest, let us do more than remember. Let 
us take action. This tragic murder reminds us of the gun violence 
pandemic that holds cities and towns across America in a vice grip. It 
can strike anywhere at any time, and it is tearing apart families, 
communities, and our own sense of security.
  It is time to reclaim our future. It is time to stop the shooting and 
start to invest in education, violence prevention, and afterschool 
programs so we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep 
kids from turning down the wrong path in the first place. This means 
creating jobs and cracking down on those who should not be able to buy 
guns. It means challenging our young people to aspire to a better life 
and giving them the tools to make the right choices so they do not end 
up on the road to violence.
  This is not a political issue or a matter of dollars and cents. This 
is about the place where we live, work, and go to church, the places 
where our children play and go to school. Officer Wortham lived and 
died for these folks, for his friends and his neighbors and his 
countrymen. Even in a moment of tragedy, as we grieve this devastating 
loss, I believe we must summon the courage to walk in this young man's 
footsteps, to take up his cause as our own and lift up his noble 
example.
  As I advised the parents when I met with them, let us take back our 
streets, our schools, our churches, and our children's future. Where 
Thomas Wortham IV fell, let us all rise in his place to confront this 
challenge and end the scourge of gun violence once and for all. Let us 
do that.
  His family is also in mourning because retired Sergeant Wortham 
killed one of the offenders and shot the second one, who is now in 
critical condition in the hospital. Thank goodness for the Chicago 
Police Department and good detective work because the other two 
offenders are now in custody.
  What we must do is stand and be counted when it comes to guns and

[[Page S4129]]

young people with guns in their hands and no jobs and no future and no 
hope. That is what we experience. In this legislation that is before 
this body, there is money that has to be provided for summer jobs for 
our youth.
  Patrolman Wortham would not be the last person to expire through gun 
violence on our streets. I ask my colleagues to look at what we are 
doing and what we have to do and make sure we do our part to provide 
the resources and opportunity for our youth in these urban areas to 
have some hope, some direction, something on which to rely.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Department of State and Foreign 
Operations chapter of this supplemental totals $6.17 billion, which is 
the same as the President's request. The bulk of these funds are for 
emergency operations and programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and 
Haiti.
  Senator Gregg and I supported most of the President's requests, but 
we could not support them all and there were other items, like pandemic 
flu and assistance for disaster victims and refugees in other parts of 
the world, which we could not ignore.
  We also provide additional assistance for Mexico, where drug-related 
violence spilling into the United States is a growing concern of many 
Senators, and for Jordan, a key ally in the Middle East.
  We include language requiring a determination by the Secretary of 
State that the governments of Afghanistan and Haiti are taking 
necessary steps concerning transparency and corruption. We require 
consultation with local communities and a central role for women in 
decisions about assistance programs.
  The funds in the State and Foreign Operations chapter of this bill 
are for programs that are strongly supported by both the Department of 
State and the Department of Defense, in countries where the United 
States has important national security interests.
  I very much appreciate the way Senator Gregg and his staff worked 
with me and my staff on our chapter of this bill. At a time when it is 
popular to complain that Washington is ``broken,'' the Appropriations 
Committee continues to do important and necessary work in its 
traditional, bipartisan manner and I think this bill is an example of 
that.
  I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran for the 
support they have given us during this process. I would also ask that 
if Members have amendments to the State and Foreign Operations chapter 
that they inform Senator Gregg and me as soon as possible.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a couple of 
minutes--I know the time at 4:45 is otherwise obligated; I will be 
briefer than that--about President Calderon's visit to the United 
States, his joint session speech to Congress, and a border security 
amendment I intend to offer, hopefully, as soon as tomorrow.
  As you know, Mr. President, President Calderon addressed a joint 
session of Congress, and I was fortunate enough to have a very brief 
conversation with him in the anteroom before he came to the floor of 
the House, during which time I told him I admire his commitment to 
fight the drug cartels in Mexico.
  During his remarks before the Congress and to the American people, 
President Calderon said some things I thought were very important for 
all of us to hear.
  First of all, he said Mexico has gone ``all-in'' against the 
cartels--with increased commitments and personnel and equipment--and, 
unfortunately, is suffering significant losses and casualties in the 
fight. There have indeed been 23,000 Mexicans, approximately, since 
2006, who have lost their lives in Mexico during these drug wars.
  President Calderon also reminded us that Mexico is one of our most 
important trading partners, primarily as a result of NAFTA--the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. He pointed out that Mexico has, 
notwithstanding its other challenges, managed to keep its budget 
deficit low relative to its GDP--a record of fiscal discipline that 
should give us some embarrassment in Washington.
  President Calderon acknowledged--and I think this is very important--
that the lack of economic opportunities available in Mexico are a 
primary cause of illegal immigration into the United States.
  While I admire some of the things President Calderon said, I do think 
he crossed a line he should not have crossed when he used this 
setting--a speech to a joint session of Congress and to the American 
people--to lecture Americans on our own State and Federal laws. For 
example, he criticized America's gun laws and seemed to suggest that we 
should somehow consider relinquishing our second amendment rights in 
order to help them disarm the cartels.
  With all due respect to President Calderon, America's second 
amendment rights are not a proper subject of international negotiation 
with Mexico or any other nation.
  Then President Calderon went on to criticize Arizona's immigration 
law last week on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--at the White House 
and at the Capitol--which I also believe was inappropriate under the 
circumstances.
  There is no doubt there is fear and frustration all along the 
border--fear that the border violence that is raging just to the south 
is going to spill over into the United States, and frustration that 
Washington, DC--especially Congress and the President--is not doing 
enough about it. Arizona's law was written in response to this fear and 
frustration.
  It is important to note--and this is a key fact that needs to be 
corrected on the record--that the Arizona Legislature amended their law 
to make clear that ethnic and racial profiling by law enforcement 
officials is strictly prohibited. That was a necessary and important 
change. But it doesn't appear President Calderon or many of the 
critics--including the President of the United States, the Attorney 
General, or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--have 
actually even read the 10-page bill, which you can read online if you 
have access to the Internet. I have found it always helps in any 
discussion to actually know what you are talking about, to have 
actually read the bill so that you can have an intelligent conversation 
and perhaps then differ about policies.
  But to misrepresent the contents of the bill, not having read it, is 
simply inexcusable.
  To be sure, a patchwork of State laws is not the optimal way to fix 
our broken immigration system. We need sensible reforms at the national 
level. I am prepared to work in good faith with anyone committed to 
immigration laws that make sense in terms of our national security, in 
terms of the restoration of the rule of law, in terms of our economy 
and our values.
  But some of the criticism of Arizona's law by the administration has 
been just simply misleading and counterproductive. Just last week we 
learned that a State Department representative--Michael Posner--
actually apologized to China for the Arizona law, saying: ``We brought 
it up early and often.'' Early and often in talks with one of the most 
repressive regimes in the world? Unbelievable.
  President Obama himself has set a bad example, repeatedly criticizing 
Arizonans for taking action while his own promises for immigration 
reform have gone unfulfilled.
  The problem raging on our southern border is that the Federal 
Government needs to do more to improve our border security. That is 
something on which we can all agree and should all agree.
  How bad is the situation? Well, this morning the El Paso Times 
reported:

       Mexican Federal police were attacked by a drive-by shooting 
     during the weekend as Juarez surpassed 1,000 homicides for 
     the year.

  Ciudad Juarez--within several hundred feet of the city of El Paso in 
the United States--has lost 1,000 people to the drug wars just this 
year.
  As I mentioned, it is estimated that 23,000 Mexicans have lost their 
lives in the drug wars during the last 3 years.
  The fear is palpable on this side of the border. I must tell you, I 
have

[[Page S4130]]

never seen it quite this way. From Laredo, TX, to McAllen, TX, to El 
Paso--where people are accustomed to the novelty and the unique nature 
of our international border with Mexico, and they believe in 
maintaining those ties for economic and other reasons--people along the 
border in Texas, the longest section of the U.S.-Mexican border, are 
more apprehensive and concerned about what lurks just beyond the 
border. That fear ranges from cartels actively recruiting students in 
our public schools to gangs in order to help them with their drug-
smuggling operations.
  The Border Patrol has developed ``Operation Detour'' to show our 
students how the cartels treat the young people they recruit. The 
response to this video presentation has reportedly been powerful.
  For example, in McAllen, TX, in the Rio Grande Valley, a 14-year-old 
girl made an emotional exit halfway during the presentation. She told 
the Border Patrol her father had recently been the victim of a cross-
border abduction and her family was afraid to report the kidnapping to 
authorities for fear of retaliation from the cartel that took him.
  In Rio Grande City, TX, another city in the Rio Grande Valley, kids 
were crying midway through the first video because the night before a 
classmate had died while running drugs.
  Mr. President, our children are living in fear, but the White House's 
budget for border security shows it is living in denial. The 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 cuts the Secure Border 
Initiative by more than 25 percent, and we know the Department of 
Homeland Security is considering the elimination of the SBInet Program 
with no alternative or replacement in place.
  The SBInet Program is a Secure Border Initiative. This is supposed to 
be the virtual fence that, along with boots on the ground and tactical 
infrastructure, are designed to help us contain and control movement of 
people across the border. Yet it has been cut by some 25 percent.
  The President's budget also cuts the High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Area Program--or the HIDA Program--by over 12 percent.
  The White House even wanted to make cuts--albeit modest--to the 
Border Patrol by about 181 agents, before those of us in Congress made 
clear this was simply unacceptable. Rather than cutting, we need to be 
growing the size of the Border Patrol and the boots on the ground.
  Mr. President, the amendment I intend to offer at the first 
opportunity--hopefully, tomorrow morning--says border security is a 
priority, not an afterthought. This amendment will fix six priorities 
to improve border security.

  First, it will fund additional equipment that can help protect our 
border, including helicopters and Predator drones. We have been 
fighting with the Federal Aviation Administration to try to get them to 
quit dragging their feet in authorizing the use of unmanned aerial 
vehicles to patrol our southern border, to help the Border Patrol and 
other law enforcement officials do their job. We are just beginning to 
see some headway, but they are incredibly undersourced with the lack of 
helicopters and the lack of additional Predator drones.
  Second, my amendment will fund additional personnel in several law 
enforcement agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration; 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigrations 
and Customs Enforcement; Custom and Border Protection; and the 
Counterdrug units of the National Guard.
  The third thing my amendment will do will be to fund improvements for 
task forces and fusion centers that enhance interagency cooperation.
  Fourth, it will fund additional personnel and facilities to improve 
detention and removal activities under Federal law.
  And, fifth, it will create a $300 million grant program to assist 
State and local law enforcement officials who operate within 100 miles 
of the U.S.-Mexican border. Because the Federal Government simply 
hasn't done enough in terms of border security, local and State law 
enforcement have had to step up, and they need the additional help that 
this grant program will provide to those local and State law 
enforcement agencies operating within 100 miles of the border.
  Finally, my amendment will provide $100 million to fund 
infrastructure improvement at our ports of entry. This amendment is 
urgently needed, and I must add that it is fully funded. The total cost 
of my amendment is roughly $2 billion. This cost is fully offset using 
unspent stimulus funds because we know the White House predictions 
about the uses of those stimulus funds have been discredited.
  Remember, we were told if we voted for a $787 billion unfunded--
borrowed money--fund in order to get the economy moving again, 
unemployment would be kept to no more than 8 percent. Now, with 
unemployment at 9.9 percent, roughly, we know that stimulus program has 
been unsuccessful.
  Two-thirds of the American people believe, according to Rasmussen--or 
I believe it is a Pew poll--the stimulus funds simply have not created 
or helped to retain jobs. We know during the period of time the White 
House predicted 3\1/2\ million jobs would be saved and created that 3 
million jobs have been lost or destroyed by the recession.
  This amendment represents a clear choice: a choice between funding 
the Nation's priorities, such as border security or funding the same 
failed stimulus strategy. It is a choice between paying for our 
Nation's priorities or adding more debt to our national credit card, 
already nearly maxed out at $13 trillion.
  I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and help 
send the message to our border communities and across our country that 
the Federal Government acknowledges and accepts and embraces its 
responsibility to help keep them and our Nation safe.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________