[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20178-20185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2638, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, I 
call up a committee substitute which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2383.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this morning, I gave my opening remarks for 
consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations 
bill. The Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, has produced 
a balanced and responsible bill which needs action now.
  The bill includes significant resources for border security, for 
enforcing our immigration laws, and for improving security at our 
airports. We include significant new resources for implementing the 
SAFE Port Act. We also restore cuts in first responder grant programs.
  I thank Senator Cochran and his able staff for their support in 
producing this legislation.
  Just last week, the administration released its latest National 
Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. 
homeland. I am going to quote from the report.
  I will say that again so that the audience out there in the homeland 
will understand just exactly what is going on here.
  Just last week, the administration released its latest National 
Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. 
homeland. We are talking about the Bush administration's latest 
National Intelligence Estimate. I will quote from the report. Hear me, 
I am quoting from the report of the administration, the Bush 
administration, from its latest National Intelligence Estimate 
concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Hear me:

       We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and 
     evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. The main 
     threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, 
     especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to 
     attack the U.S. homeland and a continued effort by these 
     terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities. . . 
     . [W]e judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put 
     operatives here.

  Let me say that again. Listen. Just last week, the administration 
released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the 
terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. That is right here--not 
somewhere else--the U.S. homeland. And I will quote from this report 
from the Bush administration:

       We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and 
     evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. The main 
     threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, 
     especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to 
     attack the homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist 
     groups to adapt and improve their capabilities. . . . [W]e 
     judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put 
     operatives here.

  Not somewhere else--here. Those are the words that should force our 
Government, both in the executive and in the legislative branches, to 
reevaluate the priority that we are giving to funding to stop terrorist 
attacks against this country--our country, your country, my country. I 
look forward to a good debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

[[Page 20179]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia in presenting the fiscal year 2008 
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. President, I appreciate very much the courtesies of the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia and his staff and all members 
of the Appropriations Committee during our hearings and the preparation 
of this bill. We haven't agreed on everything, but this bill reflects 
our best effort to reach a fair resolution of our differences.
  I had hoped, for instance, that we could have held the overall level 
of proposed spending to no more than the President requested in his 
budget that was submitted to the Congress earlier this year. I am 
pleased that the bill recommends approval of the President's budget 
request for border security and includes 3,000 new Border Patrol 
agents, $1 billion for continued work on the virtual fence, and other 
tactical infrastructure. Funding above the President's request is added 
to accommodate an additional 3,000 detention beds.
  One of the consistent criticisms we hear about the Department is its 
challenges to hire the right people for the right jobs and to reduce 
its reliance on contractors. Unfortunately, the bill before us proposes 
to cut the human resource accounts significantly. These cuts handicap 
the Department in getting the right people into the right jobs to 
address many of the issues critics have complained about. We can all 
agree that the Department should be focused on hiring and retaining the 
best personnel it can.
  Succession planning, diversity initiatives, performance management, 
and workforce relations are all critical issues. By underfunding the 
programs that are designed to meet these challenges, we run the risk of 
creating a cycle of unmet promises and potential. This Department is 
too important for that.
  I must also express my concern that this bill restricts the 
obligation of funds in 10 instances. While I recognize this is within 
the power of the Appropriations Committee and is sometimes necessary, I 
think we have overdone it in this bill.
  In three separate instances, this bill provides reductions in funding 
for the Deputy Secretary of the Department of $1,000 per day if certain 
deadlines are not met. I would prefer to express our concerns in some 
other way and at least consider reasons that may have caused the 
deadlines to have been missed before automatically reducing 
appropriated accounts. I am equally frustrated with the Department's 
inability to meet deadlines Congress sets, and I expect the Department 
to meet statutory deadlines, but this approach is not workable.
  The report accompanying this bill is harshly critical of the 
administration's handling of security at Federal facilities. These are 
Federal facilities which receive protection from the Federal Protective 
Service, and I do not agree with that. The Federal Protective Service 
has worked hard to rationalize its fee structure and its mission since 
joining the Department of Homeland Security. It has not yet finished 
the process. But the administration remains deeply committed to the 
safety and security of all Government employees.
  The report accompanying this bill also criticizes the Department for 
legislation Congress has passed. It is unlikely that all Senators agree 
with all of the legislation that is enacted here, but to blame it on 
the executive branch agency charged with carrying out the law is hard 
to rationalize. It is unfair and it is wrong.
  Last year, the Appropriations Committee worked very closely with the 
authorizing committees to craft a compromise on chemical site security 
language. Chairman Byrd's leadership last year led to the enactment of 
a provision in the fiscal year 2007 act that will lead to regulating 
the chemical sector for the first time. I intend to continue to work 
with the chairman to ensure sufficient resources are provided to the 
Department so enforcement of these regulations is achieved.
  I am pleased the committee is recommending nearly full funding for 
the Coast Guard's Deepwater recapitalization effort as well as support 
for the Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, and infrastructure protection. These are activities 
which are needed to continue to improve the security of our homeland, 
and generous funding is fully justified.
  This bill comes to the Senate floor during a time when our 
intelligence community has judged that the Nation is, and I quote, ``in 
a heightened threat environment.'' While there continues to be no 
credible specific intelligence to suggest an imminent threat, recent 
events in the United Kingdom serve to remind us of the very serious 
nature and the potential consequences of terrorist attacks.
  I hope we can move expeditiously to pass this bill so that we can 
begin conference with the House.
  Mr. President, earlier remarks today on the floor of the Senate may 
have suggested that the Department of Homeland Security isn't doing its 
job.
  Well, today, this one day, the Department of Homeland Security will 
process more than 1.1 million passengers and pedestrians, including 
680,000 aliens arriving at our Nation's airports and seaports.
  Today, the Department will inspect more than 70,900 trucks and 
containers, 580 vessels, 2,459 aircraft, and 327,042 privately owned 
vehicles coming into this country. It will house and care for 19,000 
aliens in detention facilities. It will screen approximately 2 million 
passengers and their 1.6 million pieces of checked baggage before they 
board commercial aircraft. It will make 63 arrests at ports of entry 
and 2,984 apprehensions between ports for illegal entry. It will 
intercept 27,000 prohibited items at airport checkpoints, including 
over 3,000 knives. It will train more than 3,500 Federal officers and 
agents from more than 80 different Federal agencies as well as State, 
local, tribal, and international officers and agents.
  Today, the Coast Guard will save 14 lives, assist 123 people in 
distress, and respond to 12 oil and hazardous chemical spills.
  Today, the Department of Homeland Security will naturalize more than 
1,900 new citizens. It will conduct 135,000 national security 
background checks on those applying for immigration benefits. It will 
process 30,000 applications for immigrant benefits. It will help 
American parents adopt nearly 125 foreign-born orphans. The Department 
will help protect an additional 104 homes from the devastating effects 
of flooding and protect dozens of high-profile Government officials, 
including Members of this body, the President, and the Vice President 
of the United States, visiting heads of state, and former Presidents.
  This list of daily accomplishments provides just a sample of the 
important responsibilities and roles of the Department of Homeland 
Security. To accomplish these responsibilities, this bill provides 
$36.4 billion in discretionary spending and $1.1 billion in mandatory 
spending for fiscal year 2008.
  I must point out that this bill provides $2.25 billion more in 
discretionary appropriations than the amount proposed by the President 
in his budget submission to the Congress. The bulk of the increase from 
the President's request level, $1.8 billion, is devoted to increasing 
grants to States and localities. These proposed increases would come 
quickly on the heels of nearly $300 million being added for grants 
contained in the Emergency Appropriations Act, which was enacted in 
May.
  The 9/11 Commission Report warned about grant programs becoming 
entrenched as entitlement programs for State and local governments. We 
need to make a strong and successful effort to ensure that all funds we 
appropriate are fully justified.
  Mr. President, I look forward to considering any amendments Senators 
may suggest to the bill and to continuing our work to ensure we produce 
a work product that will reflect credit on the Senate and provide the 
funds that are important to the carrying out of duties and 
responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security for the next 
fiscal year.

[[Page 20180]]


  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my able friend from Mississippi, 
Senator Cochran, for his comments related to securing our chemical 
plants. He and I will work together--as we always have, as we always 
do--to ensure that the Department has the resources it needs to enforce 
the new chemical security standards.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we face extremely serious threats here at 
home, and that is why it is so important that the Senate pass the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill that is now before us.
  This bill is designed to help strengthen our security at the Federal 
level, at the State level, and at the local level. From our local 
firehouses and our police departments, to our borders, airports, and 
seaports, this bill will help our country be more secure and better 
able to respond to any disasters we may encounter.
  This year, in his budget, President Bush sought to cut funding for 
first responders and for emergency planning. And, frankly, he failed to 
adequately fund border security and port security. But here in the 
Senate, we have a different view. We want to invest in our security 
here at home, and we have written and signed a bill that I believe 
reflects the right priorities for this country.
  Mr. President, I am honored to serve on the Appropriations Committee 
and on the Homeland Security Subcommittee under our distinguished 
chairman, Senator Byrd. No one cares more about the American people and 
no one has worked harder on this bill than Senator Byrd. Thanks to his 
efforts, and those of Senator Cochran, the bill that is before us 
passed our subcommittee unanimously, and it passed the full 
Appropriations Committee unanimously as well. That strong support we 
saw in both the subcommittee and full committee is really critical 
because the President has threatened to veto this bill. He thinks it 
spends too much on homeland security.
  The President is welcome to make that argument, but in these times 
when we are facing terror threats and natural disasters, the American 
people want us to provide more support for homeland security, not less.
  There are many very important investments in this bill. I wish to 
focus on three of them in which I have a special interest because I 
come as a Senator from a border State and my State has some of the 
Nation's busiest cargo ports, and I am an advocate for the local law 
enforcement, first responders, and emergency planners.
  This bill will provide more resources for our border security. It 
actually provides an additional $240 million for new immigration-
related homeland security costs. Those costs are not funded in the 
President's bill. As we all work to step up enforcement at our borders, 
we have to provide the resources from the Federal Government. That is 
why this bill does that.
  I am also especially pleased that this bill boosts our investment in 
port security. Over the years I have worked with all of the 
stakeholders to make our ports more secure. Last year, in fact, the 
Senate passed the Murray-Collins GreenLane bill, now known as the SAFE 
Ports Act. The President of the United States signed our bill into law 
but he did not provide adequate funding so we could carry out the 
provisions of that legislation. We have been working to fix that here 
in the Senate. We started in the supplemental bill that passed a few 
months ago, where we boosted funding for port security grants, hiring 
more customs inspectors. We are continuing that work with this bill by 
fully funding port security grants for the first time ever.
  This bill provides $60 million as well to create Coast Guard 
interagency operation centers. Those are centers that will allow the 
Federal Government, local governments, and State authorities to 
coordinate their efforts in maritime security.
  The final part of this bill I want to quickly mention will be a 
tremendous help to our responders, to our emergency planners, and to 
our local law enforcement agencies. In his budget the President cut the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program in half. This bill restores that 
cut. It is going to raise those State grants from the President's level 
of $250 million to the appropriate level of $525 million.
  Our States and our cities have huge security needs and many of those 
needs go unmet today. I believe the Federal Government, which is in 
charge of our Nation's security, has a role in sharing that burden.
  In addition, the budget of the President drastically cuts the Law 
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. To me, that is out of touch 
with what our local law enforcement leaders at home are telling us they 
need. They are telling us they need more help, not less, so I am very 
pleased that in this bill we save that important program so it can 
continue to help our local law enforcement officials. This grant 
provides funds for antiterrorism to our first responders in each of our 
States. That is an area we have to strengthen, and we do so with the 
bill now before the Senate.
  Given the strong support this bill got in subcommittee and in full 
committee, I am hopeful this Senate will pass it fairly quickly over 
the next several days by a wide margin. Then, of course, it will be up 
to the President to decide if the American people will get the security 
they deserve.
  As I said a few minutes ago, President Bush has threatened to veto 
this bill because he says it spends too much on homeland security. 
Think about that for a minute. Our intelligence agencies warned us last 
Tuesday that al-Qaida is undiminished in its goal of attacking our 
homeland. What does the President say? He wants to cut funding for our 
first responders. That report found that al-Qaida is rebuilding its 
capabilities, its leadership is intact, and it continues to plan high-
impact plots. That is what the President's NIE is telling us.
  What is the President saying? Right now he wants to cut funding for 
our local antiterror efforts. Our intelligence experts ``judge that al-
Qaida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here,'' on our soil, 
here, but the President wants to cut funding to enforce our borders.
  We have all this evidence we need to be more secure here at home and 
we have the President's budget that makes us less secure at home. If 
the President wants to veto this bill, he is going to have to explain 
to the American people why the police department down the street from 
you is going to be getting less support. He is going to have to explain 
why the fire station around the corner is going to get less help. He is 
going to have to explain why your community can't develop an emergency 
plan so they are prepared for any disaster that may occur. If the 
President plans to veto this bill, he is going to have to make the case 
to the American people.
  I say I am proud of this bill, I am proud of the work of the 
committee, and I know it will help our communities take the steps they 
must to keep us all safe.
  I urge all of our colleagues to quickly pass this bill, vote for it, 
and move it along the process so we can say we have done our part to 
make our communities more secure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I want to thank and I do thank--I don't 
just want to say I want to thank, I do thank Senator Murray for her 
kind remarks. She has made important contributions. She always makes 
important contributions. And she has made important contributions to 
this critical legislation. Senator Murray has developed expertise in 
the field of homeland security, particularly with regard to port 
security.
  Let me say that again. Senator Murray has developed expertise in the 
field of homeland security, particularly with regard to port security. 
That takes time, that takes effort, that takes work. You just don't 
develop expertise by rising on the Senate floor and saying ``I've got 
it.'' No. It takes time, it

[[Page 20181]]

takes labor, it takes toil, it takes work, it takes thought. Senator 
Murray has developed expertise in the field of homeland security. That 
is your security. That is my security. That is your security, I say to 
the people out there in the homeland, in the great mountains and 
valleys of this country.
  Senator Murray has developed expertise in the field of homeland 
security, particularly with regard to port security. I have come to 
rely on her expertise and I look forward to her assistance as we 
process this very important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the two legislators who bring this bill 
to the floor of the Senate are serious and thoughtful legislators. 
Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran have been around this place for some 
while. They have been on the Appropriations Committee. Both have 
chaired that committee. I am pleased to be here to support their work. 
I think this is a very important subcommittee and one that funds 
critically important programs for this country. But I want to say that 
unlike other subcommittees on Appropriations--one of which I chair and 
will hopefully bring that bill to the floor of the Senate--this 
subcommittee's actions and this subcommittee's product represent an 
urgency for this country. We probably don't say that about every 
subcommittee because we need to fund the things we need to do, but this 
is urgent. I want to describe why it is urgent.
  I come from a small town of 300 people in the southwestern corner of 
my State. I was thinking as I was sitting here waiting to speak, this 
is called homeland security. If, in fact, this were a decision and 
deliberation by my hometown and the subject was hometown security and 
we knew what the most serious threat to our town was, we would go find 
that threat and try to eliminate it.
  I want to tell you why I believe it is an urgent circumstance to pass 
this legislation. My colleague from Washington described the National 
Intelligence Estimate of last week. I am going to talk about that just 
a bit before I talk about the funding of the accounts in this 
legislation that is so important to fighting terrorism--that is 
providing security for our ports and security in aviation, law 
enforcement, border protection, and so on.
  Last week the National Intelligence Estimate was provided to us, both 
in a classified and an unclassified version. Here is what it said, in 
part:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland . . . we assess the group has 
     protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack 
     capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan federally 
     administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its 
     top leadership.

  Let me say that again. The National Intelligence Estimate says to us 
the greatest threat, the most serious terrorist threat to the 
homeland--that means the most serious threat to the United States of 
America and to our homeland--is an organization called al-Qaida. They 
have protected or regenerated key elements of their homeland attack 
capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistan federally 
administered tribal areas.
  That is a different subject on which I spoke about recently. There 
ought not be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that would be safe 
for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Six years after 9/11, there ought not 
be 1 square inch on this entire planet Earth that is a safe haven or 
protected secure hideaway for the greatest or most serious threat to 
our country.
  This should not be a surprise to us, the National Intelligence 
Estimate. We have been reading the accounts. This is from June 26, 
Jonathan Landay from the McClatchy Bureau:

       While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to 
     al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, 
     regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border 
     between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military and 
     intelligence and law enforcement officials said. The threat 
     from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more 
     dangerous than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his 
     aides call the central front in the war on terrorism, said 
     some current and former U.S. officials and experts.

  A month or two prior to that, senior leaders of al-Qaida operating 
from Pakistan over the past year have set up a band of training camps 
in tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American 
intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American officials said 
there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy al 
Zawahiri had been steadily building an operations hub in the 
mountainous Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. What does this mean, that the Senator just said? Tell us.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it means if the most serious threat to our 
country exists from a terrorist organization that has rebuilt and 
regenerated its capability to attack us in our homeland--and that is 
what our National Intelligence Estimate tells us--it means homeland 
security is ever more important and the investments in that homeland 
security, in the accounts such as port security, aviation security, 
border security, are so unbelievably important. That is why I called 
this bill ``urgent.'' There is an urgency about passing this bill 
because of this serious threat.
  Mr. BYRD. And what is this bill?
  Mr. DORGAN. This bill is the Homeland Security Appropriations bill 
which provides the kinds of protections that we need for the threats 
and attacks against our homeland. When I describe what the National 
Intelligence Estimate last week said was the most serious threat to our 
country, I described that that threat comes from those who will attempt 
to cross our borders. Therefore, this bill has border security.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. That threat may come from those who might try to board 
airplanes.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is addressed by the issue of aviation security. That 
threat may come from someone nailing themselves into a container with 
food and telephones and a heater----
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. As we heard happened before, and was shipped into a port 
in this country in the middle of a container ship with a weapon of mass 
destruction or some other device by which they can attack this country. 
That is why this legislation of this Appropriations subcommittee 
contains port security. That is why there is an urgency about all of 
these issues.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield further.
  Mr. BYRD. Say that again, will you please, Senator. I want the people 
of America to hear what you just said.
  The point is very simple. There is an urgency in this appropriations 
subcommittee bill that I think is beyond the importance of other bills. 
Why? Because we have been told in recent weeks there is a gut feeling 
on the part of the person who heads our Homeland Security Agency that 
we may be attacked again.
  We have been told by the National Intelligence Estimate that the al-
Qaida organization has reconstituted and regenerated itself and is the 
most serious threat to attack the homeland of the United States of 
America. If that is the case, and we have been warned--let me describe, 
again, the August 2001 Presidential daily briefing was headlined this: 
``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.''
  That is what the President received in August of 2001.
  Mr. BYRD. Now, you say the President. What are you talking about?
  Mr. DORGAN. The President of the United States, in August 2001, 
received this Presidential daily briefing with this title: ``Bin Laden 
Determined to Strike in the U.S.''
  My point is, in July 2007, nearly 6 years later, July 2007, the 
intelligence assessment from the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center 
says this: ``Al-Qaida better positioned to strike in the West.''
  Nearly 6 years later, those who attacked our country and murdered 
thousands of innocent Americans, we are

[[Page 20182]]

told by those who provide the intelligence for this country that they 
are in a better position now to attack this country in its homeland.
  Mr. BYRD. Senator, I think that is worth hearing again. I want the 
American people to hear what you have said.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me say it in a different way, concluding in the same 
manner. I am not, with this, describing one person, one organization, 
one philosophy at fault. I am saying there is something wrong with 
respect to what I think is a failure here, that is a significant 
failure, part of which I hope and believe can be remedied by the bill 
that has been put together by Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran, dealing 
with homeland security.
  It has been almost 6 years since the terrorists attacked this country 
on 9/11/2001. After almost 6 years and two wars in two countries and 
well over half a trillion dollars spent at home and abroad, the deaths 
of thousands in our military and the wounding of tens of thousands in 
our military, after all that period of time, we are told there is a 
sanctuary, a safe haven, a safe harbor for the leaders of the greatest 
threat to this country, the leaders of al-Qaida.
  My point is, there ought not be anywhere safe on the face of this 
planet. If the greatest threat to our country exists in the leadership 
of this organization that is rebuilding training camps and terrorist 
training camps, then we have done something wrong. We must, as the 
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Mississippi suggested 
in this bill, we must rebuild our capabilities to defend ourselves 
against an attack on our homeland.
  But even as we do that, we must rededicate ourselves as a country to 
save the first and most important job, the first and most important 
effort, to go after and eliminate the terrorist threat. I mean, it gets 
back to the debate we have had with--I respect other people's views on 
this, but we are going door to door in Baghdad with our soldiers in the 
middle of sectarian violence or a civil war when, in fact, the greatest 
threat to our country is in the hills somewhere between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, building training camps and having the greatest capacity to 
attack our homeland because they have regenerated their strength.
  In my judgment, that is a failure. So we have to rededicate ourselves 
on two points. No. 1, I believe we have to find a way to extract 
ourselves from the civil war in Iraq. Yes, we need to continue to do 
several things in force protection for our forces, training the Iraqi 
security and Iraqi police and Iraqi soldiers for Iraq's security, and 
also taking on the areas in Iraq where al-Qaida does exist.
  But what is principally happening in Iraq is not about al-Qaida and 
terrorism, what is principally happening in Iraq is about sectarian 
violence and a civil war. My point is, we ought to see if we cannot 
make sure that we will change the policies in this country and begin to 
start fighting terrorists first.
  That ought to be the priority. If the terrorists, al-Qaida, Osama bin 
Laden and their leadership, represent the greatest threat to this 
country, then why is that not the process by which we fight terrorists 
first? Instead, we are bogged down going door to door in Baghdad. Well, 
here is what we have. We have a piece of legislation on the floor of 
the Senate now that deals with homeland security.
  We want homeland security, we want it to succeed. We want to be safe 
and secure with the ways to do that. One is to do what we have done and 
try to strengthen our ports, strengthen aviation, strengthen our 
borders. The legislation that has been brought to us today does all of 
that and more. This has money for mass transit security. Well, that is 
critically important. We know the danger and the potential danger to 
our subway systems, as we have seen in London with terrorist attacks.
  Port security. We have had discussions on the floor of this Senate 
that go on and on and on, but we have these ships that come into our 
ports with giant containers. We are going to spend, I think in the 
appropriations bill on defense, we are going to spend $10 to $11 
billion to try to provide an electronic catcher's mitt for 
intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads.
  So if we can create a catcher's mitt of some type, or hit a bullet 
with a bullet when an ICBM is coming in with a nuclear warhead, we are 
going to spend $10 to $11 billion to try to solve that problem. The 
more likely attack with a nuclear weapon is a ship, a container ship, 
pulling up to a port at 3 to 4 miles an hour, pulling up at the dock of 
one of America's major cities with a container right smack in the 
middle of the ship containing a weapon of mass destruction. That is the 
most likely threat against this country. We are not spending $10 or $11 
billion to deal with that.
  I went to a seaport once. In fact, I went to a seaport in Seattle, 
WA, because I do not know much about seaports. I come from a State that 
is not boundaried by water. So I wished to see what security was like 
at the seaport.
  One of the things I remember from that visit was they had opened a 
container. Now, they do not open very many. I believe we have something 
akin to 11 million containers come into this country on container 
ships, 11 million containers. I believe it is somewhere around 3 to 5 
percent are inspected, and 97 or 95 percent are not inspected.
  They opened the container. It was a refrigerated container. I was 
kind of curious. So I looked at the back of it. There it was, 100-pound 
bags of broccoli from Poland. I said: Well, I see now this is a giant 
container full of frozen broccoli from Poland. I can see now that 
because you opened the door in the back and you have cut open a couple 
of bags.
  I said, what is the middle of this container? I see what is in the 
back. What is deep in the middle of this container?
  Well, we do not know that. We assume it is frozen broccoli. We pulled 
some bags out to make sure there was broccoli in this container. But 
the fact is, they did not check that, they could not check it. So 
millions of containers come in and they are not checked.
  Now we have what amounts to kind of a CAT-scan device for big trucks 
and containers, very expensive, but it is kind of like a CAT scan for 
your body; you run it past the container and you can see right through 
the container and see what is in it. It is very expensive, very 
difficult to get done on 11 million containers. The same is true for 
air cargo. We have a Herculean task to protect this country against 
those who are perfectly willing to kill themselves, as long as they can 
kill many innocent people. This is a very difficult proposition.
  So again, I say to the chairman and ranking member on the 
subcommittee, I think they have done a terrific job. I deeply 
appreciate their work. I share the comments of my colleague, Senator 
Murray from Washington, about it, with respect to border protection and 
the Coast Guard and all those issues they have had to deal with, 
without unlimited money. The fact is, we have some limited funding.
  Mr. BYRD. Who is the chairman and ranking member?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, the chairman of the subcommittee is the Honorable 
Senator Byrd from West Virginia, and the ranking member, of course, is 
Senator Cochran from Mississippi.
  Let me say to both of them, if they do not mind my saying it, at a 
time when there is all this discussion in the newspapers about nobody 
gets along, things have deteriorated in the Senate, the fact is, I 
think the evidence exists all across this Senate Chamber, it exists 
certainly with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, and Senator 
Cochran, that they not only get along, they work together. They have 
put together a terrific piece of legislation.
  That is called cooperation. There is a lot of it in this Chamber, 
particularly on the Appropriations Committee, which makes me proud 
because I think that is the way the Senate ought to work.
  Now, if you will permit me, however, if the Senator from West 
Virginia and the Senator from Mississippi will accommodate me for one 
additional moment while I say wonderful things about their work, I do 
wish to make a cautionary comment about FEMA because we are funding 
FEMA to the tune

[[Page 20183]]

of $6.89 billion in this legislation. I am a big fan of FEMA--used to 
be a big fan of FEMA, I should say. I am not anymore. I hope and pray 
that maybe it gets its act together. It does not appear to me it is 
quite there yet.
  But in my State, we evacuated, 10 years ago, an entire city, the 
largest mass evacuation since the Civil War, when Grand Forks was 
flooded and then had a fire in the middle of the flood, and a city of 
nearly 50,000 people was evacuated because of the floods in the Red 
River Valley.
  We had FEMA show up. Unbelievable, James Lee Witt and FEMA, they knew 
what they were doing. They were outstanding. Everybody believed they 
helped that community come back together and fight that flood and deal 
with the consequences and come roaring back. Ten years later, that is a 
great success story.
  FEMA, regrettably, has, in my judgment, been part of the problem 
rather than part of the solution. We have natural disasters that occur 
in this country. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. FEMA obviously was a 
disgrace with respect to--at least many in FEMA were disgraceful in the 
way they responded to that. I wish to tell the chairman and the ranking 
member of one example I discovered out of many examples.
  I wish to tell you about it because as we fund FEMA--and we must; we 
do not have a choice. When natural disasters strike, we have to have 
the funding to go to those folks, whether it is a hurricane or a flood 
or drought, we have to go to those people and say: You are not alone. 
This country is with you. This country wants to help you.
  But I wish to tell you a story about what happened to FEMA, as I 
conclude. I was on the phone one day to a guy named Paul Mullinax. Paul 
Mullinax had a refrigerated truck in Florida. He was one of those 
truckers who responded when FEMA wanted to send ice down to the victims 
in the gulf. When Katrina hit and you had the evacuations and the 
dislocations and all that trouble, they needed ice. Paul Mullinax was a 
trucker with a refrigerated truck. So he contacted FEMA, as did 
thousands of others. He went to New York. He was told go to New York to 
pick up ice. So he went to New York to pick up some ice. He was told: 
Take it to Missouri. When he got to Missouri, he was told: Take it to 
Mississippi. When he got to Mississippi, he sat there on the tarmac of 
an old military installation, along with over 100 other truckers. Here 
is a picture of Paul. This is actually Paul's route right here. New 
York to Missouri to Alabama, and then, here is a photo of Paul. He sat 
at a military installation in front of his truck for about 12 days.
  Then he was told: I want you to take the ice back to Massachusetts. 
So ice, destined for the victims of Katrina, was picked up in New York, 
taken to Missouri, and then in this case Arkansas--excuse me, Alabama--
and then it was offloaded in Massachusetts.
  The reason I tell you that story right now is because that story 
ended last week. That ice--and by the way, it cost $15,000 for the 
taxpayers to pay Paul Mullinax to pick up New York ice to take to the 
victims of Katrina, to go to Missouri, to Alabama and finally be told, 
after sitting there for 12 days, to go drive it to Massachusetts to 
offload it--that ice has now been stored for 2 years and this week was 
discarded by FEMA because they felt maybe after 2 years the ice was 
contaminated.
  So the taxpayers took a bath. The storage of that ice was around $20 
million. The taxpayers took a bath. The victims never got the ice they 
needed. People such as Paul Mullinax, this guy here, said, after 
driving his truck all that distance: I got paid, but this was wrong for 
the American taxpayers. Somebody ought to answer for it.
  I have spent 2 years trying to figure out who gave the orders on ice 
transport in FEMA. And you, by God, cannot find the answer. You cannot 
find the answer. I know many of the top people in FEMA were cronies, 
had nothing to do or no experience at all with dealing with disasters 
and emergency preparedness, who did not know anything about it. So the 
result was a complete breakdown. This is just one example.
  In some ways I regret taking time during this debate, but when else? 
We are going to give FEMA $6.9 billion. I want FEMA to work. I want us 
to be proud of FEMA. I don't want political cronies running it. I don't 
want someone like Paul Mullinax who hauls ice for victims to scratch 
his head and say: What on Earth has happened? Where has common sense 
gone? How is it I am told to pick up ice in New York and deliver to it 
Massachusetts, when it is supposed to be helping victims in Mississippi 
and Louisiana?
  As we fund FEMA, I hope we will also do a lot of oversight in the 
authorizing committees because there is something fundamentally wrong. 
We all know that, and we need to fix it.
  Mr. BYRD. Something wrong, yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Having said all that and given the requisite compliments 
to everyone on the floor--compliments I sincerely mean in this case--
about a bill I believe is urgent, I hope we can move ahead. If there 
are amendments to the bill, I hope people will come and offer them, 
that they will allow us to vote on them, that we won't have delay, and 
in the next couple of days we will demonstrate with this first 
appropriations bill that we can pass appropriations bills. We can do 
that because we will cooperate to get them done.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. If we come to the floor in the next couple days and see 
delay on Homeland Security, I am going to be one disappointed person.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir.
  Mr. DORGAN. Of all the bills, we ought to be saying: Let's lock arms 
and do this in a reasonable time; let's do this with the leadership of 
Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran.
  Mr. BYRD. Let's do it.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record, the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008.
  The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
provides $36.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $21.3 billion. When 
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $38.4 billion.
  The Senate-reported bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and $10 million below its allocation for outlays. No 
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous 
consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     H.R. 2638, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS, 2008
  [Spending comparisons--Senate-Reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     General
                                          Defense    purpose     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
    Budget Authority...................     $1,131    $35,308    $36,439
    Outlays............................      1,267     37,140     38,407
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........     36,439
    Outlays............................  .........  .........     38,417
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...................      1,137     35,125     36,262
    Outlays............................      1,270     36,872     38,142
President's Request
    Budget Authority...................      1,142     33,054     34,196
    Outlays............................      1,272     36,537     37,809
 
   Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........          0
    Outlays............................  .........  .........        -10
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...................         -6        183        177
    Outlays............................         -3        268        265
President's Request:
    Budget Authority...................        -11      2,254      2,243
    Outlays............................         -5        603        598
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 2384 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so I may call up amendment 2384.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent is not required. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2384 to amendment No. 2383.


[[Page 20184]]

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

(Purpose: To allow for expanded uses of funding allocated to Louisiana 
 under the hazard mitigation program while preserving the goals of the 
   program to reduce future damage from disasters through mitigation)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. PROHIBITION OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     shall not prohibit the use by the State of Louisiana under 
     the Road Home Program of that State of any amounts described 
     in subsection (e), based upon the existence or extent of any 
     requirement or condition under that program that--
       (1) limits the amount made available to an eligible 
     homeowner who does not agree to remain an owner and occupant 
     of a home in Louisiana; or
       (2) waives the applicability of any limitation described in 
     paragraph (1) for eligible homeowners who are elderly or 
     senior citizens.
       (b) Procedures.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall identify and implement mechanisms to 
     simplify the expedited distribution of amounts described in 
     subsection (e), including--
       (1) creating a programmatic cost-benefit analysis to 
     provide a means of conducting cost-benefit analysis by 
     project type and geographic factors rather than on a 
     structure-by-structure basis; and
       (2) developing a streamlined environmental review process 
     to significantly speed the approval of project applications.
       (c) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in 
     using amounts described in subsection (e), the President 
     shall waive the requirements of section 206.434(c) of title 
     44, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar 
     regulation or ruling), or specify alternative requirements, 
     upon a request by the State of Louisiana that such waiver is 
     required to facilitate the timely use of funds or a guarantee 
     provided under section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).
       (2) Exception.--The President may not waive any requirement 
     relating to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, 
     or, except as provided in subsection (b), the environment 
     under paragraph (1).
       (d) Savings Provision.--Except as provided in subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c), section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c) shall apply to amounts described in subsection (e) 
     that are used by the State of Louisiana under the Road Home 
     Program of that State.
       (e) Covered Amounts.--The amounts described in this 
     subsection are any amounts provided to the State of Louisiana 
     because of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 
     2005 under the hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency under section 404 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170c).

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this is an important amendment for the 
State of Louisiana. It would be not the whole solution but a 
significant part of the solution to a real problem--even a crisis--we 
have with our recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
  This Congress and, in fact, the American people have been enormously 
generous in terms of responding to the devastation of those storms. One 
of the best examples of that unprecedented generosity is the billions 
of dollars the American taxpayer, through Congress, sent to the 
devastated areas to help people who were wiped out and had enormous 
uninsured losses. At the time there was a big debate: Shouldn't these 
folks have had more insurance? Shouldn't they have done this or that?
  Congress and the American people got it right, recognizing that the 
event was unprecedented and recognizing, in the case of Louisiana, that 
most of the losses were caused by the actual failures of Federal 
levees. The levees broke. They broke from underneath. They were 
inadequately engineered. That caused devastating losses to folks 
throughout the greater New Orleans area in particular.
  The American people and Congress responded generously. In the case of 
Louisiana, most of that money went into what was called the Road Home 
Program to help compensate folks for enormous uninsured losses, up to 
$150,000 per household. That is the good news. It was unprecedented 
generosity. Again, we say thank you for that.
  The bad news is that months later, it was determined that 
appropriated money would not be enough and, in fact, the Road Home 
Program was running short because even more claims were coming in than 
had been anticipated and calculated. So there is a shortfall in the 
program which is at the very heart of our ongoing struggle to recover.
  My amendment will not fix all of that shortfall, but it would fix a 
big part of it. It would be a big piece of the puzzle, a big part of 
the solution, without costing the Federal taxpayer any more money.
  There is something called the Hazard Mitigation Program that is 
always involved when there are natural disasters. Because of the scope 
and size of the devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, following 
those storms, that Hazard Mitigation Program would send $1.2 billion to 
Louisiana. We wish to use that money in the context of the Road Home 
Program to help meet that shortfall, to help bridge the gap, to help 
fund that program. However, there are some technical requirements under 
normal hazard mitigation rules that prevent us from doing that. My 
amendment would waive those few technical requirements so the hazard 
mitigation money, $1.2 billion in this case, could be used in the 
context of the Road Home Program to help bridge the gap, to help make 
people whole.
  It is important and accurate that I underscore that these 
requirements are technical. They are things that are normal 
requirements of hazard mitigation, but nothing I am waiving with this 
amendment would go to the heart of the hazard mitigation purpose. 
Congress, in setting up the program, wanted to make sure funds would be 
used to mitigate hazards, to make sure the same sort of losses don't 
happen again, to build higher, better, stronger, smarter. Nothing in my 
amendment gets away from that fundamental intent. That is important 
because I don't want to get away from the mandate and neither do most 
people in the House or the Senate.
  Again, I underscore, this amendment would help fund our Road Home 
shortfall, would not cost the Federal taxpayer any more money, would 
preserve and honor the intent of the Hazard Mitigation Program by 
making sure the funds went to true hazard mitigation, rebuilding higher 
and better and stronger and smarter, not simply allowing people to 
rebuild any way they could build before. What it would do is waive 
certain technical requirements to make all of this work. That is 
appropriate given the unprecedented scope, size, and nature of the 
disasters about which we are talking.
  I urge all of my colleagues to look hard at the amendment and then 
support it, because this funding shortfall within the Road Home Program 
is a real impediment to our ongoing challenge and struggle to recover. 
This amendment would be a major piece of the puzzle to solve the 
problem without costing the Federal taxpayer any more money and without 
throwing out the window the very significant and smart focus of the 
Hazard Mitigation Program. It would make us build smarter and stronger 
and higher but still help get people back, make them whole, rebuild 
through the Road Home Program.
  I yield the floor.


                           Moment of Silence

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
observe a moment of silence in memory of Detective John Gibson and 
Officer Jacob Chestnut who lost their lives on July 24, 1998, 
protecting the men and women who visit and work in this building.
  (Moment of silence.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been watching the floor, and not 
much is happening. What we are going to try

[[Page 20185]]

to do now, with the consent of the two managers, is move to something 
the Republican leader has worked on for many years, and that is the 
Burma sanctions legislation. That will take about an hour. That will 
take us to 5 o'clock or thereabouts, if we do it right away. But in 
conferring with the two managers--this is an important appropriations 
bill--we want to get this thing to conference so that for any problems 
the White House has with it, they can weigh in and try to work this out 
so we can send the President a bill. So if we do not have amendments 
start coming in tonight or in the morning, we will move to third 
reading.
  I have laid out, in as much detail as I could, alerting everybody 
what we need to do this work period. I think I am like most everyone. 
We have worked long and hard. We had one work period during this year 
that was 7 weeks long. We have worked hard. We have worked late nights. 
We have worked a couple of weekends. We worked all night last week. We 
have things we need to do at home in our States.
  Speaking for this Senator, 90 percent of the people in the State of 
Nevada are in Reno and Las Vegas, but that makes up a relatively small 
part of the area of the State of Nevada. I have 10 percent of the 
people in the State of Nevada whom I also represent, and I need to 
visit with them. I have a wonderful trip scheduled this August to make 
a tour of places I do not have the opportunity to get to very much. 
With the rules changes we have made and the lack of air travel, I have 
to drive. I cannot take a train. There is no air travel. So I will 
drive around there. I am looking forward to it.
  The reason I mention that is we have a lot to do when we go home in 
August. People have things to do, just as I do. But I told people we 
have to finish this Homeland Security appropriations bill. We have to 
complete SCHIP, which is a bipartisan bill. It was reported out of the 
Finance Committee 17 to 4. The two big cheerleaders we have for that 
legislation are Senators Baucus and Grassley. We need to finish that. 
The 9/11 Commission recommendations conference, Senator Lieberman 
informed me earlier today, should be completed very shortly, within a 
matter of hours. Then we have ethics and lobbying reform. We have to do 
that before we leave here.
  I hope we can do all this by a week from Friday, but if we have a lot 
of delays, we cannot do that. I have said it a number of times, but we 
are going to finish that stuff before we leave. If there are 
insurmountable obstacles, one of the obstacles that is not 
insurmountable is to stay here until we get it done. So this is not a 
threat. I have indicated this is what we needed to do weeks and weeks 
ago.
  So I hope we can have some cooperation. We need to get appropriations 
bills done. I had a conversation with Josh Bolten today, the 
President's Chief of Staff. We are trying to figure out some way we can 
work together on this issue. I hope we can. One way we could start is 
to finish this bill.
  One thing I didn't mention--it won't take a vote--but the Tuesday we 
get back here after the break, we are going to be on another 
appropriations bill. If we cannot get a motion to proceed agreed to, 
then we will file cloture on it and have cloture the day we get back.
  I also telegraph my punches here, so there is no surprise; the next 
bill I want to move to is the VA-Military Construction appropriations 
bill. The subcommittee has changed a little bit from in the past, but 
my friend from Mississippi can remember when we used to do the Military 
Construction bill in wrap-up. There was no discussion on it at all. We 
know it has more jurisdiction than it had in the past. I chaired that 
Subcommittee on Military Construction for a while. It was really a good 
experience. You understand what our military leaders need. They have a 
process they go through to put on the drawing board what they would 
like, but we never give them everything they want. But, with rare 
exceptions, these are not just things we throw in; we work this out 
with the military. So that is what we are going to move to when we get 
back.
  I laid out the schedule, and we have to move to third reading if we 
do not have some amendments here. We will wait until the morning. We 
should give everybody a chance.
  Also, I say to the managers of this bill, I do not want to file 
cloture. I really don't want to file cloture. I hope on an 
appropriations bill we do not have to file cloture. Now, I know I 
cannot control unusual amendments on my side, and I know the 
distinguished former chairman and ranking member of this committee 
cannot control them on his side, but I hope it will not be necessary to 
have cloture as a result of amendments that have nothing to do with 
this very important piece of legislation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, one of the things I did not do when I 
talked about the Burma sanctions bill--because I was so focused on the 
Republican leader--was to mention that working with him side by side on 
this legislation has been Senator Feinstein. She has worked on this 
very much. So, again, this is something we can bring to the floor that 
is bipartisan. But I apologize for not mentioning her name because she 
has worked on this very long and hard herself.
  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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________