[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.
____________________