[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20353-20396]
[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 
resume consideration of H.R. 2638, which the clerk will report.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Byrd/Cochran amendment No. 2383, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Bingaman amendment No. 2388 (to amendment No. 2383), to 
     provide financial aid to local law enforcement officials 
     along the Nation's borders.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the very 
able and distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for his 
characteristic courtesy.
  Mr. President, this morning, we return to the consideration of the 
fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The 
Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, produced a balanced and 
responsible bill.
  The bill includes significant resources for border security, for 
enforcing our immigration laws, and for improving security at our 
airports. We include--we include, may I say--significant new resources 
for implementing the SAFE Port Act. We also restore cuts in the first 
responder grants program.
  Last week, the administration released its latest National 
Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. 
homeland. Hear me now. I will say that again. Last week, the 
administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate 
concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. That is right 
here, the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report. This is not just 
Robert Byrd talking.
  Let me say that again. Last week, the administration released its 
latest--I am talking about the administration, the Bush administration, 
the administration in control of the executive branch--the 
administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate 
concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I will quote from 
the report:

       We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and 
     evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.

  That ought to make us sit up and take notice. I am going to say it 
again. Hear me.
  Last week, the administration released its latest National 
Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. 
homeland. I will quote from the report:

       We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and 
     evolving terrorist threat over

[[Page 20354]]

     the next three 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.

  Let me repeat that word--here, H-E-R-E.
  Yesterday, in light of this latest threat assessment from the 
Government's most senior intelligence analyst--I better read that 
again. Yesterday, in light of this latest threat assessment from the 
Government's most senior intelligence analyst, I urged the President to 
reconsider his veto threat of this bill. This morning, we received the 
White House's response. The President has said he will veto this bill 
because he, the President--President Bush--regards the additional 
spending for border security, port security, aviation security, and for 
first responder grants as excessive.
  The President has every right to make this threat, but, in my view, 
the view of this West Virginia mountaineer, the threat is 
irresponsible. Let me say that again. In my view--and I am a U.S. 
Senator--the threat is irresponsible.
  If the President is going to scare the Nation by issuing intelligence 
estimates that say the threat of a terrorist attack is persistent and 
evolving, he, the President--President Bush--has a responsibility to 
back it up with resources to deter that threat. The Appropriations 
Committee recognizes the threat, and the Appropriations Committee of 
the Senate has responded responsibly.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement 
of Administration Policy dated July 25, 2007.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Statement of Administration Policy, S. 1644--Department of Homeland 
                   Security Appropriations Act, 2008

       (Sponsor: Senator Byrd (D), West Virginia.)
       The Administration strongly opposes S. 1644 because, in 
     combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it 
     includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and 
     includes other objectionable provisions.
       The President has proposed a responsible plan for a 
     balanced budget by 2012 through spending restraint and 
     without raising taxes. To achieve this important goal, the 
     Administration supports a responsible discretionary spending 
     total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a 
     $60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level. The 
     Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending 
     allocations adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     exceed the President's discretionary spending topline by $22 
     billion causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008 discretionary 
     spending. In addition, the Administration opposes the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee's plan to shift $3.5 billion from 
     the Defense appropriations bill to non-defense spending, 
     which is inconsistent with the Democrats' Budget Resolution 
     and risks diminishing America's war fighting capacity.
       S. 1644 exceeds the President's request for programs funded 
     in this bill by $2.2 billion, part of the $22 billion 
     increase above the President's request for FY 2008 
     appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress 
     demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and 
     cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions 
     elsewhere. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a 
     path. if S. 1644 were presented to the President, he would 
     veto the bill.
       The President has called on Congress to reform the 
     earmarking process that has led to wasteful and unnecessary 
     spending. Specifically, he called on Congress to provide 
     greater transparency and full disclosure of earmarks, to put 
     them in the language of the bill itself, eliminate wasteful 
     earmarks, and to cut the cost and number by at least half. 
     The Administration opposes any efforts to shield earmarks 
     from public scrutiny and urges Congress to bring full 
     transparency to the earmarking process and to cut the cost 
     and number of earmarks by at least half.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.


                          securing our borders

       The Administration has requested a total of $11.8 billion 
     in FY 2008 for border security and interior enforcement 
     measures, representing a nearly 50 percent increase since FY 
     2006. The Administration is pleased that the bill supports 
     the requested funding for strengthening border security by 
     adding 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, enhancing interior 
     enforcement efforts, and providing $1 billion for fencing and 
     other infrastructure improvements through the Secure Border 
     Initiative. The Senate is asked to support other key elements 
     of the Administration's effort to control our border as well.
       The Administration strongly objects to the $100 million 
     reduction to the US-VISIT budget. While the Administration 
     appreciates the Senate's support for the Unique Identity 
     program, US-VISIT cannot collect and analyze 10-print or move 
     towards completing IDENT/IAFIS interoperability without the 
     full request, as these funds are necessary to critical 
     support operations and key program management and support 
     functions, such as data center operations and fingerprint 
     examiners. This shortfall will deny DHS and the FBI the 
     ability to search each other's databases using a full 10 
     fingerprints, to assist with terrorism and criminal 
     investigations.
       The Administration opposes any provision delaying Western 
     Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) implementation at our 
     land and sea borders to June 2009. The Administration is 
     committed to working with Congress and the public to 
     implement WHTI in a manner that will cause as little 
     disruption as possible, while providing Americans with the 
     enhanced security that they expect. Recently, the U.S. 
     Departments of State and Homeland Security announced that 
     U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and 
     Bermuda, by air, who have applied for but not yet received 
     passports can nevertheless temporarily enter and depart the 
     United States with a government issued photo identification 
     and proof of application for a passport from the Department 
     of State through September 30, 2007. The federal government 
     is making this accommodation for air travel due to longer-
     than-expected processing times for passport applications in 
     the face of record demand. In addition, earlier this summer, 
     DHS announced that it will accept an expanded list of secure 
     documents at land and sea ports of entry when WHTI becomes 
     effective on January 31, 2008.
       The Administration is concerned by the decision to 
     significantly reduce funding for the Secure Flight program, 
     which addresses critical vulnerabilities in the Nation's 
     aviation security system. The program has been delayed for 
     many years, and lack of sufficient funding in FY 2008 would 
     further delay it beyond the current target deployment of 
     2010. TSA has provided all requested information on the 
     program and continues to work closely with Congress and the 
     Government Accountability Office (GAO) to meet the ten 
     mandates specified in P.L. 108-334. Hence, the Administration 
     asks that Congress fund the Secure Flight program at the 
     requested level while providing TSA authority to transfer 
     sufficient funds, if needed, after Congressional 
     notification, to meet the ten requirements as soon as 
     possible.


               federal emergency management agency (fema)

       The Administration strongly opposes the dramatic increase 
     of $1.8 billion for State and local homeland security grant 
     programs. By the end of FY 2007, DHS will have provided over 
     $23 billion in direct preparedness support to State and local 
     agencies of which approximately $8.5 billion will be unspent 
     and available for preparedness projects in FY 2008. Rather 
     than appropriating additional unjustified dollars, Congress 
     should work together with the Administration to ensure that 
     existing dollars are being appropriately spent and to develop 
     a better understanding of what reductions in risk and 
     increases in State and local capabilities will be achieved 
     with these unspent funds. The Administration strongly 
     believes that the FY 2008 request level of $2.2 billion is 
     appropriate and allows the Federal Government to meet 
     national priorities and stand together with State and local 
     first responders in preparing for terrorist attacks and other 
     major disasters. Further, the Administration is opposed to 
     the creation of a new regional preparedness grant program, 
     which would be duplicative of current programs. While the 
     Administration strongly supports efforts to enhance 
     preparedness on a regional scale, existing grant programs 
     currently offer strong incentives for regional collaboration 
     through State homeland security strategies and programs.


                       chemical facility security

       The Administration opposes section 531, which would prevent 
     the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from establishing 
     and enforcing, for the first time, a single, national 
     performance-based standard for enhancing the security of 
     high-risk chemical facilities. Allowing State preemption of 
     Federal law could thwart DHS's efforts to establish a 
     national chemical facility security framework. Separately, 
     while the Administration would prefer that Congress not 
     restrict the Department's authorities in this manner, the 
     Administration notes that the approach taken by this bill 
     would cause less disruption to the chemical security program 
     than language contained in the House version of the bill, 
     H.R. 2638 which in addition to allowing State preemption, 
     would also lessen the protection of sensitive information 
     relating to the security of these facilities.


                             secret service

       The Administration strongly objects to the elimination of 
     $3.1 million for presidentially

[[Page 20355]]

     designated Secret Service protection for Executive Office of 
     the President (EOP) personnel, which leaves these costs 
     unfunded for FY 2008. In addition, beyond FY 2008, the 
     uncertainty of who will be protected and how much the Secret 
     Service protection will cost would create an unnecessary 
     burden for the EOP.
       The Administration also strongly objects to section 516(b) 
     that would limit the Secret Service's protective mission by 
     creating a burdensome reimbursable mechanism in lieu of the 
     appropriate flexibility needed to protect these officials. 
     The Secret Service is better equipped to manage these costs.


                    principal federal official (pfo)

       The Department of Homeland Security supports the Senate 
     bill's omission of language previously included in the House 
     bill, H.R. 2638, which would prohibit funding PFOs during 
     disasters or emergencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     serves as the principal Federal official for domestic 
     incident management. The PFO plays a valuable role as the 
     representative of the Secretary in the field by coordinating 
     Federal operations to respond to and recover from terrorist 
     attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The 
     Administration understands the need to clarify the chain of 
     command for incident management and is currently revising the 
     National Response Plan to address this need.


                               Management

       The Administration strongly supports funding provided in 
     the bill for the design and buildout of the St. Elizabeths 
     campus, which is the first critical step toward a 
     consolidated DHS headquarters.
       The Administration is strongly opposed to any effort to 
     reduce, limit, or delay funding for DHS human resources 
     initiatives. The bill provides only $5 million of the $15 
     million requested for a human capital system, whi?h would 
     severely impact support to basic human resource services and 
     development of practices designed to meet the Department's 
     diverse personnel requirements.
       While the Administration understands the need for prompt 
     delivery of reports to Congress, the requirement to deliver 
     reports on complicated matters before receiving funding could 
     inhibit the Department's efforts to carry out its mission. 
     Congress already requires more than 1,000 appropriations-
     related DHS reports and is urged to ease the administrative 
     burden upon DHS and reduce the additional reports required in 
     the bill.
       The Administration objects to the provision that would 
     prohibit the use of funds for further data center development 
     until the National Center for Critical Information Processing 
     is fully used. The Department is consolidating its data 
     center operations into two primary facilities and this 
     provision would limit the Department's ability to improve and 
     streamline its data management capabilities.
       The Administration appreciates the importance of GAO's 
     ability to conduct inquiries efficiently and effectively, and 
     DHS is taking action to speed its response to GAO requests. 
     However, the Administration objects to the requirement that 
     DHS revise departmental guidance regarding relations with GAO 
     in consultation with the Comptroller General. Congress's 
     directing the adoption of certain truncated deadlines and 
     procedural hurdles is inconsistent with the principle of 
     separation of powers, because it would interfere with the 
     time-tested process of accommodation between the Executive 
     and Legislative branches.
       The Administration strongy objects to section 502, which 
     would suspend for FY 2008 the DHS Secretary's authority to 
     reorganize the Department to rapidly meet changing mission 
     needs.


                     National Communications System

       The Administration is concerned with the level of funding 
     provided for Next Generation Network priority 
     telecommunications services. Without the full request, the 
     Wireless Priority Service and Government Emergency 
     Telecommunications Service would lose coverage as 
     communications carriers migrate from circuit-switched 
     networks to packet-switched networks, preventing national 
     security decision makers from receiving prioritized bandwidth 
     for emergency communications.


                    United States Coast Guard (USCG)

       The Administration objects to section 529, which prohibits 
     alteration of the Civil Engineering Program of the Coast 
     Guard. This language would severely limit USCG's 
     administration of its engineering programs, including its 
     ability to make such programs more cost-effective, and 
     undermine the Commandant's authority under 14 U.S.C. 632. It 
     would also significantly affect the Commandant's efforts to 
     realign the USCG's mission support organization, of which 
     civil engineering activities and elements comprise only one 
     part.


       United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

       The Administration is disappointed that the bill does not 
     include a provision necessary to clarify fee authority with 
     respect to the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for 
     Entitlements (SAVE) program. The SAVE program serves the 
     needs of numerous Federal, State and local agencies that need 
     to verify immigration status for the purpose of determining 
     eligibility for a wide variety of public benefit programs by 
     providing them the necessary information from DHS records.


                          Competitive Sourcing

       The Administration strongly opposes sections 515 and 528, 
     which impose restrictions on competitive sourcing for work 
     performed by the Immigration Information Officers at the U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center instructor staff. Depriving DHS 
     of the operational efficiencies gained by competition limits 
     its ability to direct Federal resources to other priorities. 
     Management decisions about public-private competition and 
     accountability for results should be vested with the 
     Department.


                        Constitutional Concerns

       Several provisions of the bill purport to require advance 
     approval by congressional committees prior to the obligation 
     of funds. These include sections 504, 505, 509, and 534; and 
     under the headings, ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology,'' and ``Air and Marine 
     Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement,'' 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection; ``Salaries and 
     Expenses,'' United States Secret Service; ``Management and 
     Administration,'' National Protection and Programs 
     Directorate; and ``Indicator Technology,'' United States 
     Visitor and Immigrant Status.
       Section 513 of the bill, which purports to prohibit the 
     Executive Branch from screening certain airline passengers, 
     should be stricken as inconsistent with the President's 
     constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to take steps 
     necessary to protect the Nation from foreign attack.
       Section 518 purports to prohibit the use of funds with 
     respect to the transmission of certain information to 
     Congress. This section could impede communications within the 
     Executive Branch and could undercut the President's 
     constitutional duty to ``take care that the Laws be 
     faithfully executed.'' The Administration urges the Senate to 
     delete the provision.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from South Carolina 
is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2412 To Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself, 
     Mr. Gregg, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. McConnell, 
     Mr. Domenici, Mr. McCain, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
     Coleman, and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2412.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment builds a little bit on what 
Senator Byrd is talking about. How the threats to the Nation are real, 
how to handle those threats, how much money we need, and where to put 
the money are all honest and genuine debates. But I think we found some 
common ground here as a nation from the last immigration debate.
  Senator Judd Gregg has been one of the leading advocates for stronger 
border security since I have been in the Senate.
  During the last immigration debate in terms of a comprehensive 
approach to solving immigration policy, one of the things we seemed to 
find common ground on was the idea of providing additional border 
security. So the amendment I have just offered, which will be 
cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn, McConnell, 
Domenici, McCain, Sununu, Martinez, Coleman, Specter, and many others, 
seeks to build on what we did in the last debate--to make it a reality 
in the area in which we have common ground.
  The amendment has $3 billion in terms of spending, emergency funding. 
I would argue that the border security situation in this country and 
visa overstays are emergencies and that we have lost operational 
control of our border. We have lost the ability to track people who 
come here on visas in terms of when their visas expire and whether they 
left, and we will pay a heavy price, not only economically and socially 
but from a national security perspective. Of the ``Fort Dix Six'' 
people who were caught conspiring to attack Fort Dix, NJ, I think three 
overstayed their visas and three came across the border illegally 
earlier on in their life. So this amendment puts the

[[Page 20356]]

Senate and the American people's money where our mouth has been, and $3 
billion will go a long way.
  The goal of this amendment is to provide complete operational control 
of the U.S.-Mexican border. It will increase the number of Border 
Patrol agents to 23,000. It will allow us to appropriate four new 
unmanned aerial vehicles, 105 ground-based radar camera towers, 300 
miles of vehicle barriers, 700 miles of border fencing, and a permanent 
end to the catch-and-release policy with 45,000 new detention beds.
  This is a comprehensive border security amendment. It also authorizes 
things we need to have authorized from the last debate where we were 
not able to pass a comprehensive bill. It takes some of the stronger 
border security measures and makes them part of this amendment. As I 
said, it will increase the number of border security agents to 23,000. 
It adds 14,500 new Customs Border Patrol agents through fiscal year 
2012, increasing the overall number to 30,000. The Sanctuary City 
problem Senator Coburn identified--he has modified his original 
proposal, and that is in this amendment.
  This amendment authorizes a continued National Guard presence. It 
strengthens our laws to deny immigration benefits to aggravated felons, 
gang members, sex offenders, and child abusers. It really goes into our 
law and cleans up what is pretty much a mess by making sure we have the 
ability to detain and deport people who are dangerous, who have been 
convicted of serious offenses.
  It gives State and local law enforcement authorities the ability to 
detain illegal aliens and transfer them to the Department of Homeland 
Security. It basically allows them to take money from Homeland Security 
grants and apply it to the cost of detaining and turning over illegal 
immigrants they may run into and apprehend.
  As to visa overstayers, the 19 hijackers who came into America who 
perpetrated the acts of 9/11, I believe all of them--if not all of 
them, most of them--were visa overstayers. Forty percent of the illegal 
aliens in this country never come across the border; they overstay 
their visa. This will allow the Department of Homeland Security to come 
up with a tracking system to better identify visa overstayers, who have 
proven to be in the past some of the most dangerous people in terms of 
threat to the homeland. It will allow the agency to coordinate with 
local law enforcement mandatory detention and deportation.
  It also gets tough on those who keep coming back across the border. 
There is this catch-and-release concept which needs to end. That is why 
we have 45,000 new bedspaces to detain people, give them the hearings 
required by law, and under this amendment, if you are caught coming 
back into the country after you have been deported, it has mandatory 
jail time.
  One reason we have 12 million people here is that no one seems to 
take our laws too seriously, including ourselves. So now it is time to 
tell the world at large and those who would violate our laws that there 
will be a price to be paid, unlike the current system; that if you are 
caught coming back into the country after you have been deported, there 
will be mandatory jail time. This has been tried in some areas of the 
border, and it has been enormously successful.
  There are many parts in this bill regarding employment eligibility 
and verification. The pilot program to have biometric cards to 
determine employment will be expanded, and those who tell us about 
possible threats to our Nation's transportation system or homeland, we 
are going to protect them from civil lawsuits. If you are trying to 
identify a problem and you call your government and say: I think there 
is a problem here, we are going to make sure you don't get sued for 
doing your civic duty.
  So it is a comprehensive approach. It is a $3 billion dollar 
appropriation, and within that appropriation, we have some change in 
policy that will secure the homeland in a better fashion than the 
current system does. If this is not an emergency, I don't know what 
would be in terms of our national security interests.
  The one thing the Congress--the Senate and the House--should agree on 
immediately, in my opinion, is gaining operational control, regaining 
operational control of our border and controlling the visa program that 
allows millions of people over time to come to the United States.
  I would just make one point here. Rahm Emanuel, one of the Democratic 
House leaders, was quoted recently as saying that his party will not 
attempt comprehensive immigration reform until at least the second term 
of a prospective Democratic President. That is a chilling statement. I 
think that is a very dangerous thing to be saying at a time when our 
Nation is under siege, and to suggest to the American people that the 
Democratic leadership in the House is going to put this topic off until 
the second term of a prospective Democratic President misses the point 
and really, literally, misses the boat. This is an emergency if there 
ever was one, and the idea of putting this off for 6 or 7 more years I 
think would be a national security nightmare. It would be an economic 
and social mistake for the ages in terms of the role the Congress would 
play.
  So I urge my colleagues in the Senate not to go down the road that 
Congressman Emanuel has laid out for the Democratic-controlled House; 
that is, putting this whole discussion off until the second term of a 
prospective Democratic President. I couldn't find a better issue to 
show difference between myself and my colleagues in the House at the 
Democratic leadership level than this issue. Not only should we do this 
now on this bill at this moment, we should have done this years ago.
  This is one of the issues facing the American people where there is 
broad consensus by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People 
want operational control of their borders. They want more money spent 
to secure their borders and to control who comes to the country, and 
for those who violate our laws and commit crimes, a better process to 
detain them and deport them. That is exactly what this amendment does.
  I believe our thinking on this amendment is very much in line with 
the American people. They see this very much as something we should 
have done a long time ago. Let's not forgo this opportunity. We tried 
just a few weeks ago, and that failed; a chance of having comprehensive 
reform failed. I feel an obligation to join forces with people who were 
disagreeing with me on a comprehensive approach to find common ground. 
I think the country is urging us to find that common ground. I believe 
this is a great place to start.
  The Border Security First Act of 2007 has been a product that has 
been bipartisan in nature. It is a collaborative effort between people 
who have a common view of our border security needs, and it is good 
legislation. It is needed money at the right time. It is policy changes 
that will make us safer as a nation.
  I would like to recognize Senator Judd Gregg's efforts over many 
years to push the administration--and the Senate particularly--to deal 
better with the lack of control on our borders.
  I look forward to talking about this amendment further. I appreciate 
all the cosponsors and the effort to do something constructive now. 
Let's, for heaven's sake, not wait 6 more years before we do something. 
Let's seize the moment, and the moment is now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Maryland be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before congratulating the Senator from 
South Carolina for bringing forward this extremely important amendment, 
let me begin by congratulating the Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from Mississippi, the senior members of the Appropriations 
Committee, chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, 
who also are chairman and ranking member of

[[Page 20357]]

the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for bringing forward a bill 
which makes major strides toward addressing our needs as a nation to 
protect ourselves and to make sure our borders are secure.
  This has been a very integral issue for both of these leaders for 
many years. Senator Cochran, who chaired this committee before the 
Democratic majority took over, and Senator Byrd, who was the ranking 
member on this committee for years and has been intimately involved in 
the effort to try to make sure we adequately address things like port 
security--their leadership is extraordinary, and this bill is a 
reflection of that. I do not want this amendment to in any way imply 
they have not made an extraordinary and a very effective effort to move 
forward with border security because within the context of the dollars 
they had available to them, they have done excellent work.
  What this amendment does, however--and I congratulate the Senator 
from South Carolina for bringing it forward--is acknowledge the fact 
that we have an emergency here. It is as big and important an emergency 
relative to national security as the war in Iraq is. I look at them 
pretty much as the same type of national emergency. The issue of 
controlling our borders is an issue of national security, of making 
sure that we as a country are safe and we maintain our viability as a 
nation. A country that doesn't control its borders is not safe and will 
lose its viability as a nation. So nothing is more important to us from 
the standpoint of protecting national security and making sure we get 
operational control over the borders, which the Senator pointed out 
effectively, as this amendment moves forward.
  Some have said: Why would the former Budget Committee chairman, and 
now ranking member, be willing to offer an emergency resolution which 
brings this bill up by $3 billion? That is the reason. I have voted to 
make sure our troops are fully funded in Iraq. I am voting for this 
amendment because it will make sure we have the people we need on the 
border to assure that our national security is maintained. In 
maintaining security over the border, this amendment, once and for all, 
will put into place the necessary funding--this isn't an authorizing 
event, remember--to be sure we have the boots on the ground, the 
technology in place, and the detention capability in place in order to 
manage the border.
  It takes the present situation where we are ramping up the 20,000 
border agents and increases that number to 30,000 by 2012, and prefunds 
it, for all intents and purposes. In addition, it gives us 45,000 
detention beds, which is what we need to stop the catch-and-release 
process. So when the border agents apprehend someone whom they deem to 
be in this country inappropriately, they have a place they can put that 
person, where they can find them until they make a final 
determination--when the court system makes a final determination of 
whether that person is illegally in this country and should be 
returned.
  The way the law works now, unfortunately, we don't have enough beds. 
What happens is the person gets detained and the court system says 
return in a couple weeks and we will dispose of whether you are here 
legally. For the most part, they don't show up for court. This 
amendment will end that practice of catch and release, and I 
congratulate the Department for having worked hard to try to do this 
with the resources they presently have.
  In addition, this amendment will fully fund the commitment that we as 
a Congress made at least 2 years ago now to put into place the 
necessary hard fence and the virtual fence so that we know who is 
crossing the border, or when someone is crossing illegally, and we can 
stop, as well as possible, those who attempt to enter illegally. We 
know we need hard fencing in urban areas and we need virtual fencing 
along the less populated areas. We put out a plan and hired a 
contractor to put up the virtual fencing. This amendment guarantees 
that that virtual fencing, which involves a lot of electronics and air 
observation through Predators and the equipment necessary, such as 
helicopters and vehicles, will enable the people on the ground to 
apprehend these individuals who come in illegally where the crossing 
occurs, and it involves the necessary resources and capital investment 
to accomplish all of that, which is absolutely critical.
  It has the capital resources in it necessary to get the job done of 
protecting our borders, and the American people, if this amendment 
passes, will be able to look at the dollars that have been put into the 
pipeline, which will accomplish what is the first thing the American 
people want relative to immigration reform, which is secure borders.
  I supported the last comprehensive immigration bill. I was one of the 
few members on our side who voted for that bill. I believe we need to 
do something in a comprehensive way. But I also recognize the reality 
of the situation, which is that the American people will not move 
forward or will not accept movement in the area of comprehensive 
immigration reform until they are confident we have regained control 
over our borders. This amendment accomplishes that.
  In addition, there are a number of authorizing events in here. I 
recognize that authorizing appropriations is anathema to many of us. As 
was pointed out eloquently by the Senator from South Carolina, we don't 
have effective immigration reform. So the vehicle for accomplishing 
very targeted law enforcement reform--and this is law enforcement 
reform--in the area of protecting our borders is going to have to fall 
to the Appropriations Committee. It has not been unusual for the 
Appropriations Committee to assume the role of taking on an authorizing 
event when it is narrow and aimed at an issue of doing something that 
delivers a better service, and in this instance it is protecting our 
borders. That is not an unusual event for the Appropriations Committee. 
It is a lift, but it is something the Committee has done in the past 
and done rather well. I have chaired a couple of committees where that 
has been done.
  This is the time to do it. This is the time to put into place the 
authorizing language necessary to do the demonstration programs on US-
VISIT, which we absolutely need, to address the issue of how you deal 
with criminal aliens who have committed a felony, a rape, or are child 
abusers--that language is in here--and to address the issue of how you 
deal with sanctuary cities, and especially give State and local law 
enforcement individuals the authority to be an adjunct to the law 
enforcement effort being put forward by border control and Customs in 
the area of making sure our borders are secure.
  When someone comes through the northern border, for example--we don't 
have a lot of security on the northern border in the sense that we have 
it on the southern border because it is mostly forest or terrain that 
is not open. People can cross that border fairly quickly and easily and 
always have been able to. We don't have the same problem on the 
southern border. We have waves of people coming in there. Most of the 
first individuals coming in at the northern border will usually meet 
people of a law enforcement nature, but not our Customs and Border 
Patrol agents. It is probably going to be somebody south of there, in 
Epping, NH, or in New Ipswich, who says I want to know if you are here 
legally, and they have to have some authority to be able to raise that 
issue. They have to have probable cause. They have to have the 
authority to step forward when they have probable cause. This bill 
gives that authority.
  This is a good and appropriate piece of legislation for us to take up 
at this time. I recognize it puts the bill in further jeopardy because 
it is emergency funding and it adds $3 billion to the bill. But this is 
a national security issue and it needs to be done. I also recognize the 
Senator from West Virginia pointed out that this bill has received a 
letter from the administration saying they may or may not--but implying 
they would--veto it because it is over their allocation.
  Like the Senator from West Virginia, that concerns me a great deal 
because

[[Page 20358]]

I, again, must state that I don't see a whole lot of difference between 
fighting the war in Iraq and fighting the war on the border to protect 
ourselves from people coming into this country who may do us harm. 
Those are two issues which merge in this entire question of how we 
fight the war on terror. I can separate this bill from the other 
appropriations bills that may be over the administration's request--
maybe in agriculture, or in foreign operations, or in education and 
labor, or maybe in transportation, which is the actual day-to-day 
operations of the Government. But when it comes to fighting the war on 
terror and protecting national security, I believe we have to do 
everything necessary to accomplish that, and that means, in this 
instance, fully funding the necessary people to go on the border and 
the capital resources necessary to support those people on the border.


                Amendment No. 2415 to Amendment No. 2412

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time, I send a second-degree 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2415 to amendment No. 2412.

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

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       This division shall become effective one day after the date 
     of enactment.

  Mr. GREGG. This amendment simply changes the date, Mr. President. It 
is a technical amendment. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from 
Maryland in allowing me to proceed and, obviously, the Senators from 
West Virginia and Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I yield to the chairman of the 
committee, the Senator from West Virginia, who I understand would like 
some time to respond to the amendment offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from 
Maryland, the able Senator, for yielding.
  I rise to discuss the Graham amendment. In total, in fiscal year 
2008, the bill includes $11,377,816,000 for border security programs 
within U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement. This is $1,288,302,000, or 12.7 percent, above 
fiscal year 2007, and $338,846,000 above the President's request. That 
is 3 percent over the President's request.
  With these funds, by the end of fiscal year 2008, there will be a 
total of 17,819 Border Patrol agents, 31,500 detention beds, and more 
than 12,700 immigration enforcement and detention personnel. 
Additionally, the combined funding in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 
for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology is more 
than $2.5 billion.
  Including the funding provided in this bill, since 2004, on a 
bipartisan basis under the leadership of Senators Byrd, Craig, and 
Gregg, Congress will have increased the number of Border Patrol agents 
by 7,000, the number of immigration enforcement personnel by 2,546, and 
the number of detention beds by 13,150.
  The President has threatened to veto this bill because of what he 
considers to be ``excessive'' spending. However, it is not 
``excessive'' when we provide funds to secure our borders. I support 
continued bipartisan efforts to provide funding for real border 
security. We do not yet have the amendment, but I look forward to 
reviewing it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator 
Cochran and the members of the Appropriations Committee for the fine 
work they have done on this 2008 Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill.
  As has been pointed out, this will provide $2.2 billion more than the 
President's request for homeland security. I note that it received the 
unanimous support of all members of the committee, and for good reason: 
It is an important investment in the security of our Nation. It 
provides the needed resources so we can deal with the security concerns 
in our own country, whether they be at our airports, seaports, rail 
stations, or in our home communities. That is what we should be doing. 
It should be our highest priority. I congratulate the committee for the 
manner in which it considered this legislation and has brought it 
forward. I urge us to move it forward as rapidly as possible.
  Two weeks ago, Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, said he had a gut feeling our Nation is at an 
increased risk of a terrorist attack this summer. While I hope his 
warnings would be based on more than a feeling, the National 
Intelligence Estimate released last week supports Secretary Chertoff's 
instincts. Based upon the facts before it, the National Intelligence 
Council judged that ``the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and 
evolving terrorist threat.'' Al-Qaida has ``protected and regenerated 
key elements of its Homeland attack capability'' and is now as strong 
as it was in 2001. The NIE states that ``the United States currently is 
in a heightened threat environment.''
  Based upon that, it is disheartening that while the intelligence 
community is discovering evidence of an increased threat to this 
country, President Bush has recommended cutting funding to grant 
programs that secure our ports, airports, and bolster local law 
enforcement and fire departments around Maryland and our Nation.
  The increased funding in this bill for our port and aviation security 
and first responders will have a profound impact on my State of 
Maryland.
  Let me start with the Port of Baltimore. It is one of our country's 
most important ports and a significant economic engine for our entire 
region, providing more than 33,000 jobs in Maryland and generating $1.5 
billion in revenue every year. It is the Nation's eighth largest port, 
handling about 2,000 ships and 3l million tons of cargo each year.
  With the size of the Port of Baltimore, proximity to Washington, 
workload, and productivity come increased risks. That is why I was a 
strong proponent of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act 
of 2006, the SAFE Port Act of 2006. This bill authorized more funding 
for programs that are critically important to the security of our 
ports, including risk-based port and cargo security grant programs, the 
development of a long-range ship-tracking system, the development of a 
biometric transportation security card for port workers, and 
development of a system to identify high-risk containers.
  These were all programs that, after hearings in the Congress, we felt 
were critically important to secure our seaports.
  You can imagine my dismay and the distress of the public safety 
officials and emergency planners in Maryland when President Bush, who 
signed the SAFE Port Act, did not propose to fund many of the new 
activities that legislation authorized. I am grateful to the 
Appropriations Committee for recognizing the risk to the Port of 
Baltimore and other ports around the country. It provided the funds so 
we can move forward with those initiatives.
  The bill will provide $15 million above President Bush's request to 
hire additional port security inspectors, conduct vulnerability 
assessments at 10 high-risk ports, and develop a long-range vessel-
tracking system so we can monitor ships as they travel around the 
world.
  Most importantly, this bill provides $400 million in port security 
grants, $190 million above the President's request as authorized--as 
authorized--by the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which the President signed. 
These grants will provide Maryland with critical support to improve 
perimeter fencing, underwater detection capability, and enhanced video 
surveillance systems.
  I am pleased the committee recognizes the importance of the Coast

[[Page 20359]]

Guard's presence at Curtis Bay, MD, and notes it is a ``critical 
component of the Coast Guard's core logistics capability'' and 
``directly supports fleet readiness.''
  The committee further recognizes the vital role the yard has played 
in ``the Coast Guard's readiness and infrastructure for more than 100 
years'' and recommends ``that sufficient industrial work should be 
assigned to the Yard to maintain this capability.'' I agree, and I 
intend to do my best to make sure the committee's recommendations are, 
in fact, followed.
  The bill provides $15 million above President Bush's request to 
address a shortage of Coast Guard boats and qualified personnel to 
allow the Coast Guard to enforce security zones and protect critical 
infrastructure.
  The bill provides $60 million above the President's request for the 
establishment of Coast Guard interagency maritime operational centers 
authorized, again, by the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which will improve 
collection and coordination of intelligence, increase information 
sharing, and unify efforts among Federal, State, and local agencies.
  The bill gives equal attention to transportation security, providing 
$3.7 billion for transportation security improvements, $764 million 
more than the President's request. This funding includes $400 million 
for rail and mass transit security grants, $529 million for explosive 
detection systems, and $41 million for surface transportation security. 
The bill provides the needed funds for passenger and luggage screening.
  These grants will provide much-needed funding to protect airports in 
Maryland and across the Nation. In the past, I have worked with the 
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to bring the latest high-
tech devices to Baltimore, including state-of-the-art equipment to scan 
baggage and passengers for explosives. I am proud the BWI Thurgood 
Marshall Airport was the first airport in the Nation to have a fully 
federalized screening workforce after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  Despite continued threats to aviation security, President Bush sought 
to cut funds to purchase and install explosive detection equipment at 
airports by 17 percent. Once again, I thank the committee for not 
following the President's recommendation in that area.
  This bill provides $66 million for TSA air cargo security, $10 
million above the President's request. When combined with the $80 
million included in the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill, these funds will put TSA on a path to screen all 
cargo placed on passenger aircraft, and that is what we should be 
doing.

       The bill provides nearly $530 million, almost $90 million 
     above the President's request, to purchase and install 
     explosive detection equipment at airports around the country. 
     We need to do that. We need to have the latest equipment for 
     explosives at our airports.

  I am disappointed the committee was forced to shift $45 million from 
container security to secure pathways, such as airfreight. We should 
not be in a position where we have to make those kinds of choices.
  We must do more to ensure the safety of the Nation's chemical 
facilities. Enhanced security requires strong regulatory standards and 
policies attuned to the risks faced by the communities surrounding such 
facilities. In December 2006, the Bush administration proposed 
regulations to preempt State and local governments from adopting 
stronger chemical security protections than those proposed by the 
Federal Government. While the Federal Government must ensure chemical 
facilities meet minimal safety standards, States must retain the 
ability to set stricter standards to address the unique needs of their 
local communities. This bill ensures the essential ability of States to 
pass and enforce tougher chemical site standards than existing Federal 
standards, and it provides an additional $15 million to help States 
meet those standards.
  Again, I applaud the committee for providing that help. It is very 
important to the area I represent in Maryland, where we have so many 
chemical plants.
  Despite tragically ample proof in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that 
State and local governments were unprepared for a major natural 
disaster or terrorist attack, the President's budget proposes a $1.2 
billion cut in vital homeland security grant programs that provide 
critical support to local law enforcement and firefighting departments.
  I know we all talk about how important these agencies are, our local 
firefighters, our local first responders. The President's budget cuts 
those funds. I am pleased the Appropriations Committee did not follow 
the recommendation of President Bush but instead increased funding by 
$1.8 billion over the President's request for our States and cities to 
improve their ability to respond to attacks and natural disasters.
  These allocations include $560 million for firefighter equipment 
grants, $525 million for State homeland security grants, $275,000 more 
than President Bush's request, and $375 million for law enforcement and 
terrorist prevention grants.
  The committee also provided FEMA with $100 million to rebuild its 
core competencies and improve management. I hope the Agency will make 
wise use of these additional funds.
  Emergency preparedness officials in Maryland are especially happy to 
see increased allocations in FEMA's budget for predisaster mitigation. 
Increased preparedness funding will lead to long-term savings by 
decreasing subsequent damage claims. Most importantly, increased 
preparedness ensures we are ready to keep our people out of harm's way.
  I am pleased the bill contains critical resources to develop and 
implement improved detection and communications technology, improve 
communications, and improve and streamline intelligence-gathering 
agencies. Better technology and intelligence are a critical part of us 
being prepared against threats. We need to do better on intelligence 
gathering, and this bill provides help in doing that.
  Congress can provide resources, but we cannot legislate appropriate 
action by DHS officials. All of us remember with outrage how DHS 
officials placed the Washington, DC, and the New York City metropolitan 
areas in a low-risk category for terrorist attacks or catastrophe. That 
decision was ridiculous. That decision, if it had been allowed to 
stand, would have cost those regions millions of dollars of 
antiterrorist funds and would have had a devastating impact on their 
ability to respond to attacks. Last year, many of DHS's grants were not 
released until December 29, 2006, the day before the end of the fiscal 
year. When the money Congress appropriates sits around in Washington 
for more than 11 months, Americans certainly are not any safer. The 
delay in releasing funds undermines the budget and plans of emergency 
response agencies in all our communities. The appropriations bill will 
penalize DHS for releasing grants late--a reduction of $1,000 per day 
when mandated timelines are not met. Local officials are hamstrung 
waiting for guidance and grant moneys from DHS. Once again, I thank the 
Appropriations Committee for putting that provision in the bill.
  This bill takes other unusual measures, such as requiring the 
Department to submit expenditure plans for key programs to the 
committee for review before funds will be released. We saw the 
devastating results of incompetent management in the disastrous days 
before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005.
  At the beginning of this month, the Washington Post reported the Bush 
administration had failed to fill roughly one-quarter of the top 
leadership posts at DHS, ``creating a `gaping hole' in the nation's 
preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat.'' These are 
serious problems the administration needs to address immediately.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 2, a bill implementing many 
of the remaining 9/11 recommendations. Ever since I served on the House 
Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have strongly supported the 9/
11 recommendations that we distribute homeland security money based on 
risk and ``be mindful of threats'' increased

[[Page 20360]]

security measures will pose ``to vital personal and civil liberties.'' 
In other words, put our money where it is needed based on risk 
assessment, but be mindful of civil liberties.
  S. 2 increases the amount of grant money distributed based on risk, 
and it strengthens protections for all our most cherished liberties. I 
hope the Senate will get a chance to pass the conference report to this 
bill before the August recess. I look forward to sending it to 
President Bush for his signature. It nicely complements the 
appropriations bill we are poised to pass in the next day or two.
  Nearly 6 years ago, on a sunny September morning, Americans received 
a terrible wakeup call, telling us we can be attacked here and we need 
to do more to protect ourselves. Congress took that responsibility to 
heart, passing legislation empowering the President to protect our 
Nation.
  I am proud to offer my support for this critical bill. Given the 
current state of our national security and the most recent NIE report, 
it is imperative we pass this bill immediately. There is no time for 
delay.
  Once again, I thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this bill forward. It deserves our support. I hope we will 
have a chance to vote on it within the next day or two so this bill can 
become enacted in a timely way to meet the needs of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for up to 10 minutes and then immediately thereafter for my colleague 
on this issue, Senator Nelson, to be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2400

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up the Vitter amendment No. 2400, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending matter?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this time, I object to setting aside 
the amendment. Certainly, the Senator can speak on the amendment, but 
we are working through the process on the first amendment and are 
unable to, at this point, set it aside. Certainly, he is welcome to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Louisiana 
is recognized to speak on his amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, that is disappointing because we have been 
in communication with all the floor leaders of this bill to actually 
call up the amendment, but I will certainly proceed to speak on it. It 
is amendment No. 2400, which is at the desk, which would amend the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act to allow the reasonable 
reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada only.
  I am joined in this very important amendment by Senator Nelson of 
Florida and Senator Stabenow of Michigan, and I thank my colleagues, 
and many other colleagues, who are supportive of this idea. This will 
be a continuation of a very important, very productive policy we began 
last year. Last year, I again joined with Senator Nelson of Florida, 
Senator Stabenow, and many others in coming forward with this specific 
amendment on last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  We had a full and healthy debate on the topic. After that full and 
healthy debate, it passed the Senate floor 68 to 32. After it was 
retained in the conference committee and passed through the House and 
the Senate in the final version of the appropriations bill, this 
amendment and the policy was signed into law. Because of that, we 
effectively ended the practice by Customs and Border Patrol of seizing 
from Americans what are otherwise lawful, safe, prescription drugs that 
happen to be purchased from Canada--drugs which are identical to those 
that can be purchased in the United States.
  Again, Mr. President, I want to make clear to all my colleagues that 
this amendment merely continues the important work we began last year, 
which received a very resoundingly positive vote of the full Senate--68 
to 32. Why do we need to continue that? Well, everybody knows--
everybody who buys prescription drugs, everyone who has an elderly 
parent, grandparent, or aunt whom they are helping in terms of those 
very real needs and costs--we are burdened with sky-high prescription 
drug costs in this country, while virtually the rest of the world pays 
far greater reduced prices for exactly the same prescription drugs. 
That is the system we are trying to break up and break through. That is 
what we are trying to end in order to allow Americans to have access to 
safe and cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, and elsewhere.
  It is very important that we take this step forward to continue the 
policy we started last year, to continue it for this fiscal year, in 
order to allow Americans this opportunity. Again, I want to underscore 
several things, at the risk of repeating myself.
  No. 1, this is a continuation of what we did last year by a vote of 
68 to 32. No. 2, this applies to individuals only, and individual 
amounts of prescription drugs for individual use. We are not talking 
about wholesalers, we are not talking about businesses getting into the 
business of buying from Canada. And, No. 3, this does apply to Canada 
only. We are not talking about any other country.
  Now, let me say straight off that I support much broader and stronger 
reimportation legislation. I have supported that position consistently 
since I came to the Senate and before that while I was in the House, 
and I am very hopeful that I will be successful, working with others on 
this issue, in passing that broader reimportation language this year. 
But in the meantime, this is a very important step forward that we must 
preserve into the next fiscal year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and invite Senator Nelson to share 
his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to discuss this 
bipartisan amendment, which we overwhelmingly passed last year as an 
amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It basically 
gets at one little thing that we can do to protect against the rising 
cost of prescription drugs.
  At the end of the day, what we are going to have to be able to do, on 
a big program such as Medicare and the Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, we are going to have to give that negotiating power to the 
Federal Government, through Medicare, to negotiate, through bulk 
purchases, the price of the drugs in order to bring them down. Until we 
can get that--and we tried earlier this year and we were not successful 
in getting 60 votes to cut off debate. So until we can get that, we 
have to go at whatever avenue we can.
  One way is to allow citizens to order, through Canadian pharmacies, 
the very same drugs they get from American pharmacies. And it is not 
only the same drug, it is manufactured in the same place--indeed, with 
the same packaging. They can order from Canadian pharmacies where they 
get that drug, in many cases, at half the retail price they are paying 
in pharmacies in the United States. I am talking about not only going 
across the border and bringing it back, but I am talking about also 
being able to order by mail, by telephone, and by the Internet without 
having U.S. Customs intercept and confiscate these packages.
  We went through this whole discussion a year ago, and we pointed out 
the history of this program. We pointed out how Customs had gotten into 
it and were confiscating these packages. Yet the Acting FDA--Food and 
Drug Administration--Commissioner said it wasn't a safety factor if the 
drugs were coming from Canada. I want to underscore Canada. I didn't 
say another country. I said Canada--if the drugs were for the personal 
use of the person ordering the prescriptions, and if they were for a 
limited supply. And they defined that limited supply as 90 days or 
less--3 months. And, of course, that is what a lot of our constituents 
have been doing for years, and getting their prescriptions at less than 
half the cost.
  So we passed that amendment last year overwhelmingly. What happened

[[Page 20361]]

was, the pharmaceutical lobby got hold of it when it got into the 
conference committee with the House and it got watered down so you 
could do it as long as you traveled into Canada and brought the drugs 
back. Well, for somebody who lives in Detroit, maybe that helps them, 
or somebody who lives on the northern end of any of the northern States 
that have a border with Canada, maybe that helps them, but it doesn't 
help our constituents who live elsewhere in the country, particularly 
in a State such as mine, Florida, where they are trying to make 
financial ends meet.
  I recall for the Senate the fact that there are senior citizens in 
America today who cannot afford the cost of their prescriptions and the 
cost of their food as well. They go in and they cut their prescription 
tablets in half, which, of course, does not solve their problem. So 
what we are trying to do is, in one little way here, to get at the cost 
of these drugs to be able to bring them down.
  What we want to do is pass this amendment. If we can get it up for a 
vote, it will pass the Senate. What Senator is going to say to a senior 
citizen: You cannot order prescription drugs from Canada at half the 
price. Every Senator is going to vote for it, and then we will have to 
protect it again when it gets down in the conference committee with the 
House to see that it doesn't get watered down. And we will have to 
protect against the putting in of such limitations as they have in the 
past, saying: Oh, well, the White House will approve this amendment if 
they make it subject to the Secretary of HHS determining that it is 
safe.
  Well, of course, they never make that determination, so, in effect, 
it doesn't ever happen. In point of fact, if you ask these officials 
privately, they will admit that it is safe because it is the same drug, 
made by the same manufacturer, even with the same packaging.
  So Senator Vitter and I will be offering this amendment later, at a 
time that we are allowed under the parliamentary procedure to offer it, 
just as we offered it last year, and I would then encourage the Senate 
to pass it overwhelmingly, just as we did last year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Congressional Delegation to Greenland

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand we are going to have a 
group of Senators visiting Greenland this weekend to see the effects of 
global warming on glaciers. I am sure they will visit areas where you 
can see icebergs breaking off glaciers, presumably more frequently than 
normal, due to global warming, although this phenomena has always 
occurred to some extent.
  Perhaps these Senators will also visit with local residents, such as 
farmers who have been able to graze their sheep longer during this 
warmer weather that now seems to be there.
  However, I wonder if, for a little historical perspective, the group 
will be visiting the Viking ruins on the southern tip of Greenland. As 
someone interested in history, I think such a visit would be very 
fascinating. I have always believed that we can learn a lot from 
history, so I am sure some value could be found in such an excursion to 
the Viking ruins at the southern tip of Greenland.
  As many of my colleagues may be aware, archeologists have dug through 
the permafrost to excavate the remains of Viking farms, part of 2 major 
settlements that at one time may have had up to 5,000 inhabitants, and 
those settlements, presumably, lasted for over 400 years.
  As we all know, Greenland was first settled by Erik the Red, who 
encouraged fellow Norsemen to join him in colonizing the empty land 
that we call Greenland today. These men grew grain and grazed sheep and 
cows in pastures. They prospered, at least at first, building 
structures like a great hall and a cathedral, as well as homes and 
barns. The remains of about 400 stone structures still exist on 
Greenland.
  For reasons I am not sure are fully understood, sometime around the 
end of the 15th century, the Viking settlement in Greenland 
disappeared. No one knows precisely why the Vikings disappeared from 
Greenland, but it appears from the archeological evidence that life got 
somewhat harder and the climate became cooler and the land more 
difficult to farm, until Greenland could no longer sustain the Viking 
settlements.
  I had an opportunity to be reminded of this as I saw on the Discovery 
Channel this week where they were talking about a small ice age 
overcoming the Northern Hemisphere during the late 1400s, 1500s, and 
1600s. Maybe that had something to do with the Viking settlements 
disappearing from Greenland. But 500 years later, we are able to catch 
a glimpse of what their life must have been like by digging through a 
farm buried in that permafrost on Greenland. Only a little more time 
has passed since the Viking settlements disappeared until today, than 
from the time they were established there in Greenland until they were 
abandoned.
  Contemplating the passage of time over centuries humbles us by 
putting our own short lifespan in historical perspective. It makes us 
realize that God is ultimately in control and the activities of human 
beings today are one tiny part of that divine plan. I think, from time 
to time, we need to reflect that way, which is why I hope my colleagues 
visiting Greenland this weekend have an opportunity to take time out of 
their schedule to visit the Viking ruins.
  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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on 
the Graham-Gregg-McConnell amendment that has been offered this morning 
and to support it. It is the Border Security First Act. It includes 
actual funding which would be emergency funding. I think this is 
justified.
  I know my colleague, Senator Gregg, is a former chairman of the 
Budget Committee. He is very astute and alert that we do not abuse 
emergency funding, and he believes this is a justified emergency--and I 
do too. In other words, how much longer can we continue to have 
lawlessness at our borders? This bill would go a long way in fixing 
that. Certainly, every aspect of the bill, I believe, is a positive 
step in returning us to a lawful system of immigration in America.
  One reason actually funding this project, these efforts, through this 
bill and through emergency spending is so important is because we have 
a history of promising things and not doing them. Not this year but 
last year the bill came forward in the Judiciary Committee to 
comprehensively reform immigration. I realized we had a shortage of 
border enforcement officers, Border Patrol, and I offered an amendment 
to do that as part of that authorization bill, that immigration reform 
bill. It was readily accepted.
  I offered an amendment that added bed spaces, and it was readily 
accepted, because I knew we needed more if we were going to be 
effective.
  I offered more funding to train State and local law enforcement. It 
was accepted.
  I offered amendments on fencing which were accepted as well--at least 
some of them. More on the floor were accepted.
  Then I had an insight that hit me. That insight was that when we pass 
an authorization, what occurs is we authorize certain legal changes. 
Those

[[Page 20362]]

legal changes take place at once. For example, the guaranteed path to 
citizenship in that immigration bill--it passed, it became law, it was 
guaranteed, it would happen no matter what. But I realized it was real 
easy for my colleagues to agree to things that involved enforcement 
that required money, real dollars, to carry out because I realized they 
may have no intention of seeing that effort be funded. Or, if they did 
have an intention to see it funded, there are so many steps, hurdles, 
and loopholes to go through before it is ever funded it may never get 
funding because it would have to go through the appropriators and they 
would have to appropriate the money.
  To authorize money for a fence is not to build a fence. That is the 
point. You have to appropriate some money to build a fence. That was 
the gimmick, I believed all along, and that led to a suggestion I made 
about having a trigger. Senator Isakson went into that in some depth 
and offered the amendment to have a trigger. The trigger said: Before 
any of these other law changes about amnesty or legalization of those 
here illegally could occur, some other things had to happen first. If 
you didn't spend the money on the others, this would never happen. 
There was a trigger. That was a good idea, it was. It dealt with the 
problem we were dealing with.
  There is cynicism that is out there because of what happened in 1986. 
Let's be honest about it, what happened in 1986 was amnesty occurred. 
They didn't deny it was amnesty. They were giving people legal 
residence and path to citizenship in 1986. But they promised to do the 
things necessary to create a lawful system in the future and that it 
would not happen again. Three million people in 1986 were provided 
amnesty. But as we all know, the promises were never fulfilled. We did 
not create a lawful system of immigration. We did not do the things 
necessary to enforce our laws at the border. As a result of that, we 
now have 12 million people illegally in our country. Right? That is 
what happened. There is no mystery about this. This is actually fact.
  We had this bill that came up, the so-called comprehensive reform 
bill. I absolutely believe it did not get us there. That is why I 
opposed it. I made up my mind I was not going to participate in a 
legislative process that would tell our people of America, and my 
constituents, we were going to create a lawful system in the future, if 
we were not going to do it. That is why a number of people suggested we 
should have a border security first bill. That is what the House of 
Representatives said last year. They said they were not even going to 
consider our bill because they believed we ought to prove to the 
American people we could create a lawful system of immigration first.
  In this amendment, Senator Gregg and Senator Graham and Senator Kyl 
and McConnell--many of those who had supported the comprehensive 
reform--are saying let's get some credibility with the American people. 
I thank them for that. I believe this is a step in the right direction.
  Senator Graham and Senator Gregg--we discussed it recently with 
members of the press and they made the point: The American people want 
to see we are serious about what we promise first. That is why they 
support that.
  For example, this legislation would fund 23,000 border agents. The 
bill that is on the floor today, the basic Homeland Security bill, 
would fund a little less than 18,000 agents. We need more agents. We 
have to get to that tipping point. We don't need a whole unlimited 
number of agents. In my opinion, somebody who has been involved in law 
enforcement most of my career, I believe we can get to a point where 
the word is out worldwide that our borders are not wide open, and if 
you come to the United States, you are likely going to be caught, 
unless you come legally. If we do, we could see a substantial reduction 
in the number of people attempting to come here illegally. But we have 
to get other agents out there to get to that point--so 23,000 would 
help a lot. It is more than this bill has in it.
  Another thing you have to have is detention beds. In other words, if 
you arrest someone for illegally entering our country, if you are in a 
position where they are released on a promise to come back for some 
proceeding because you do not have a prison bed, a detention bed in 
which to put them, they do not show up. We have examples of the catch-
and-release policy, where 95 percent of the people released on bail on 
a promise to come back for their hearing didn't show up--surprise, 
surprise. They were willing to come to the country illegally. Who 
thinks they are going to show up legally to be deported? How silly is 
that? It was an indication to me and the American people that this 
Government was not serious about immigration. We were not serious. Any 
government that allows such a silly, worthless, no-good policy as that 
is not serious about it.
  So this bill would add detention beds. The underlying bill is at 
31,000. This would take us to 45,000. Hopefully, that will take us to 
that tipping point, so then we can say to a person who has been 
apprehended: We are not going to release you, we are going to hold you 
until you are deported. Sometimes it is difficult, if they are from 
foreign countries, distant countries, not our border countries, to get 
them back to their countries. It takes some time to get a plane or a 
boat to ship them out.
  Another thing that is a part of this--certainly, if we are serious 
about immigration, one of the things we want to do is welcome 
legitimate help from our State and local law enforcement agencies. 
There are only a few thousand Federal immigration agents inside the 
United States--not at the border, I mean inside the United States. 
There are 600,000-plus State and local law enforcement agents. They 
basically have been blocked from being able to participate in any way.
  There is, however, a program called a 287(g) provision that gives 
training to State and local officers so they don't mess up, and they 
treat everybody exactly properly and help in an effective way to 
partner with Federal officers to enforce immigration laws.
  If you don't want immigration laws enforced, you don't want the 
600,000 State and local law officers participating. See? If you don't 
want the law enforced, you don't want these people to participate in 
any way because right now we only have several thousand Federal 
agents--not on the border, inside the whole United States of America. 
The only people we can rely on would be voluntary State and local 
support.
  What we learned in Alabama, my home State, we trained 60 State 
troopers in this program. It took far too long, in my view. The State 
had to pay their salaries. It cost the State of Alabama $120,000 to be 
a partner with the Federal Government to enforce laws that they have 
authority to enforce--but to enforce laws of the Federal Government on 
an issue, immigration, that should be primarily a Federal 
responsibility.
  This bill, the amendment that was offered, this border security first 
amendment, would provide some grant programs to enable more States to 
participate in this program.
  It also funds--actually puts the money out to fund the fence. We have 
had a half dozen votes on the fence, and it has still not been built. 
They are building some now, they say. They are doing some. But it is 
still not on track to be completed, and it is not funded according to 
what we voted. We voted to build 700 miles of fencing. The underlying 
legislation, this appropriations bill, only funds 370 miles. That is 
not what we voted to do.
  You see what I am saying? It is one thing to authorize and vote to do 
something. We all go back home and we are so proud: I voted to build a 
fence. But nobody ever comes around to provide the money to actually do 
it. So this bill would fund that.
  On the question of our local facilities to apprehend people for 
serious crimes, people who are in the country illegally, who are 
subject to being deported as soon as they are released from jail 
occurs--under current law, that is not working well at all.
  This bill would allow local facilities, detention facilities, to 
detain them for up to 14 days, to give the Federal Government the right 
to do that, to get

[[Page 20363]]

them deported, as they should be, if they committed felonies in the 
United States.
  Last September, 80 Senators voted to build 700 miles of fencing along 
our border. Ninety-four Senators voted for the amendment I offered for 
$1.8 billion to be appropriated. It eventually got reduced in 
conference to $1.2 billion to build the fence we said we were going to 
build. This bill, the underlying bill, calls for an additional $1 
billion toward construction of the fencing. But that is not enough. The 
Gregg-Graham-Kyl amendment would provide the money sufficient to do 
that and get us on the right track.
  I will mention briefly a couple of other things in the legislation 
that I strongly favor. Senator Graham has advocated previously that we 
need to have penalties for people who come back into the country 
illegally. I mean, how silly is it to have persons enter the country 
illegally, you apprehend them, you do not prosecute them, you do not 
put them in jail--you could, because it is a crime--and you deport 
them, and here they are the next week, or even the next day coming back 
into the country. You have got to, at some point, if you are serious 
about law, have a penalty extracted.
  So this bill would require penalties for people who reenter a second 
time, at least, in our country illegally. Certainly that is a good 
step, but it is not happening today. There is a deal going on among 
certain judges, and it has gotten to be a real problem for our 
immigration enforcement system. That is, local State judges, if they 
have an individual who is about to be deported, often will cut the 
sentence and not make it the required sentence, and that would obviate 
their deportation from the country for being convicted of a felony. 
This would keep judges from going back and manipulating the criminal 
justice system to try to prevent a result that should naturally occur 
in the future.
  It has institutional removal program funding. This is important as a 
practical matter. It does not work to wait until a person has completed 
their jail time for a serious criminal offense, and then have the 
Federal Government start up a proposal to deport them. They run away; 
they do not show up to be deported. It is so obvious that that is 
happening. So we have a program, the institutional removal program, 
that does allow the Federal Government to take those people before they 
are released from jail and do the paperwork and commence the hearing so 
at the time of their departure, they are released into State prison for 
the serious offense they have committed, they would directly be 
deported. That only makes sense. We are doing some of that now, and 
this bill would provide extra money for that.
  In every aspect of the legislation, it is a step in the right 
direction. It does not get us there if the executive branch or if the 
Government does not want to enforce these laws. It does not get us 
there if the House or conferees fail to put this money in the bill. 
There are still a lot of loopholes. We should not pat ourselves on the 
back. But these are all critical steps toward creating a lawful 
immigration system. If we can do that and regain some confidence among 
the American people, we will be able to talk about many more of the 
issues in favor of that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 2392, the Isakson-
Chambliss amendment, be called forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I regretfully inform the Senator at this 
point we are not setting aside amendments until we have disposed of or 
determined how we are going to dispose of some of the other amendments 
that are in front of us. I would be happy to let the Senator speak on 
the amendment at this time. We are going to object until we have a way 
to proceed forward with the amendments that have been offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I 
ask unanimous consent--I am going to speak briefly--Senator Chambliss 
be allowed to speak immediately after me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2392

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks that 
I have been able to hear this morning by Senator Gregg, Senator 
Sessions, Senator Graham, and others. I rise to bring forward--I cannot 
bring it forward because they will not let me call it up, but at least 
talk about amendment 2392 offered by myself and Senator Chambliss from 
Georgia. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record our joint letters--Senator Chambliss and my joint letters--of 
June 12 and July 12.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, the reason I entered these two letters is 
they reflect precisely what the amendment does. The amendment offered 
is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is the sense of the Senate that 
expresses the following: This is a team sport. It takes the executive 
and the legislative branch to get our Nation secured, our homeland 
security, and in this case, our borders secured. The letters I 
submitted by Senator Chambliss and myself are letters to the President 
of the United States--one submitted during the debate on immigration, 
one submitted 2 weeks following the debate on immigration--asking the 
President of the United States to send an emergency supplemental to the 
floor of the House and Senate to fund all of the border security 
measures we have passed, such as the fence bill, which we authorized 
last year, and the five key provisions of the immigration bill that 
were lost that deal with border security. That is Border Patrol agents; 
the unmanned aerial vehicles and ground positioning radar; it is 
detention facilities; and, most importantly, most importantly, it is 
the biometrical secure ID which gives you the redundancy to see to it 
that we finally stop the forged document business, close the border, 
remove the attractive nuisance to come to America, and motivate people 
to go back and come in the right way and the legal way.
  Some may say, well, an emergency supplemental is not the way to go. I 
would submit it is the only way to go. If anybody doesn't think this is 
an emergency, I don't know about your phone system, but mine broke down 
with the volume of calls we had last month. The Senate broke down with 
the volume of calls and the weight and the complexity of this issue. 
But, most importantly of all, we broke down because the people of the 
United States do not have the confidence in this Congress or the 
President that they will secure the border.
  There is no question that this country needs an immigration policy 
system that works for high skilled, moderately skilled and lower 
skilled. There is no question that we need to review our entire 
immigration system. There is no question it needs fixing. But there is 
equally no question that is never going to take place until the 
American people feel we have secured the homeland and, in particular, 
have secured the border to the South with Mexico.
  We know what it takes to do it. It is delineated in the bill that was 
on the floor of the Senate a month ago. We know what it takes to do it. 
We know how to do it. In fact, in the last year, we developed an entire 
new system of building fences that has allowed us to accelerate barrier 
construction along the border. It is being done right now at San Luis, 
between San Luis and Yuma, AZ. I have been there and seen it. It speeds 
up the system, and it is foolproof. It gets the redundancy we need in 
our security system to make it work.
  I am not asking the Senate to do anything I have not asked the 
President of the United States to do. I think every day we wait is a 
serious mistake. We know it will take a minimum of 24 months to do the 
biometric ID, train

[[Page 20364]]

the number of Border Patrol officers we need to add, build the 30,000 
detention cells, put the unmanned aerial vehicles in the sky, and get 
the ground positioning radar and ground sensor systems in. We know it 
is going to take 24 months. But it is going to take 24 months from when 
we finally have the political courage and will to fund the money. The 
only way to ensure that is for us to join hands with the President, 
pass a singular bill without any other subject on it, that appropriates 
the emergency funds necessary to accomplish those things.
  It is not complicated, and I do not think it should be controversial. 
It is my hope when the majority reads this amendment and decides on 
whatever their posturing would be on this bill, that they understand 
this is a clear, concise message that a unanimous Senate should send to 
the President of the United States to see to it that we start that 24-
month clock by funding the money and appropriating it and getting the 
job done. This issue is too critical; it is too important. It is job 
one and we must do it now.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 2007.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Although the Senate's effort to reform 
     our nation's immigration laws through the Secure Borders, 
     Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is 
     stalled, illegal immigration remains our nation's number one 
     domestic issue. We therefore believe it is incumbent upon us 
     and our colleagues to tackle this issue and not leave this 
     problem for future generations to solve.
       As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our 
     constituents, the message from a majority of Georgians is 
     that they have no trust that the United States Government 
     will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and 
     secure the border first. This lack of trust is rooted in the 
     mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our 
     immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the 
     federal government has on this issue gives merit to the 
     skepticism of many about future immigration reform.
       We believe the way to build greater support for immigration 
     reform in the United States Senate and among the American 
     public is to regain the trust in the ability of the federal 
     government to responsibly administer immigration programs and 
     enforce immigration laws. There is bipartisan agreement that 
     we need to secure our borders first, and we believe this 
     approach will serve as a platform towards addressing the 
     other issues surrounding immigration reform.
       To that end, we believe that you and your administration 
     could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by 
     calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the 
     border and interior security initiatives contained in 
     legislation currently pending in the Senate, as well as any 
     outstanding existing authorizations. Such a move would show 
     your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping 
     the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It 
     will also work towards restoring the credibility of the 
     federal government on this critical issue.
       We urge you to carefully consider this request, and thank 
     you for the opportunity to express the views of the people of 
     Georgia on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Saxby Chambliss,
       Senator.
     Johnny Isakson,
       Senator.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2007.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On June 12, 2007, we wrote to you 
     regarding our commitment to securing our nation's borders and 
     suggesting a way forward on comprehensive immigration reform. 
     Now that the Senate has again rejected the comprehensive 
     approach embodied in the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity 
     and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, we want to underscore our 
     belief that illegal immigration remains our nation's top 
     domestic issue. Although the Senate has turned its attention 
     to other legislative priorities, the American public, who 
     daily encounters the effects of our current failed 
     immigration system, has not forgotten the duty we have, as 
     their federal representatives, to address the issue of 
     illegal immigration.
       Many Americans from across the nation have become engaged 
     in this issue, and shared with us their wide ranging and 
     passionate opinions on how we can reform our immigration 
     system. While there is no consensus on the best approach to 
     comprehensive immigration reform, there is near unanimity in 
     the belief that we should secure our borders first. We 
     sincerely believe the greatest obstacle we face with the 
     American people on the issue of immigration reform is trust. 
     The government's past failures to uphold and enforce our 
     immigration laws have eroded respect for those laws and 
     eliminated the faith of the American people in the ability of 
     the government to responsibly administer immigration 
     programs.
       We believe there is a clear way to regain the trust of the 
     American public in the competency of the federal government 
     to enforce our immigration laws and manage our immigration 
     system: We should prove our abilities with actions rather 
     than make promises. To that end, we believe that you and your 
     administration could alleviate many of the fears of our 
     constituents by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to 
     fully fund the border and interior security initiatives 
     contained in the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and 
     Immigration Reform Act of 2007, as well as any outstanding 
     existing authorizations. Such a move would show your 
     commitment to securing the border first, stopping the flow of 
     illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation, and creating a 
     tamper-proof biometric identification card for foreign 
     workers. It will also work towards restoring the credibility 
     of the federal government on this critical issue.
       We urge you to carefully consider this request, and thank 
     you for the opportunity to express the views of the people of 
     Georgia on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Saxby Chambliss,
       Senator.
     Johnny Isakson,
       Senator.
                                  ____

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 2392

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, I associate myself with the 
remarks of my good friend and my colleague from Georgia relative to 
this particular amendment. He is dead on target. We have been there for 
2 years now encouraging this border security issue, that it be brought 
forward to the forefront on this issue of immigration. We are going to 
continue to pound at this until it is, in fact, realized by Congress 
and the administration and something is done.
  I also associate myself with the remarks of my good friend from 
Alabama, Senator Sessions, along with Senator Gregg and Senator Graham. 
This problem relative to illegal immigration was debated here 
thoroughly in the halls of the Senate a year ago as well as last month. 
Unfortunately, we have not come to any conclusion as to any part of 
this issue. The problem has not gone away. So I rise today to discuss 
amendment No. 2392, which is an amendment Senator Isakson and I have 
offered regarding the need for emergency spending to secure the borders 
of the United States.
  Since September 11, our local, State, and Federal law enforcement 
officials have taken great strides to make communities, air and water 
ports, cities, and national landmarks safer and more secure. I think it 
is a credit to this administration, as well as to the Congress, that we 
have not suffered another attack domestically since September 11. But 
we must continue to be vigilant. One part of that is securing our 
borders. We have improved our information-sharing capabilities between 
Federal and local first responders and law enforcement officials.
  Within our intelligence community--the CIA, the FBI, NSA--we have 
also increased our information-sharing capabilities -both vertically 
within each agency and horizontally with each other.
  Since the inception of our global war on terrorism, we have made 
numerous arrests, disrupted al-Qaida communication and planning 
capabilities, prevented and foiled potential terror attacks, broken up 
sleeper cells, and captured members of al-Qaida's top leadership.
  When it comes to our national security, terrorists only have to get 
it right once. We have to get it right every single time. None of us 
can afford to take our safety and our freedom for granted. Much more 
still needs to be done, But there is no doubt about it, we are winning 
the war on terrorism.
  On June 28, 2007, the Senate, by a vote of 46 to 53, rejected cloture 
on a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform. However, 
illegal immigration remains as a top domestic issue in the United 
States. The American people continue to encounter the

[[Page 20365]]

effects of our failed immigration system on a daily basis. They have 
not forgotten the duty of Congress and the President to address this 
issue of illegal immigration and the security of the international 
borders of the United States. This amendment will help remind the 
President and Congress that the problem of illegal immigration is still 
with us. There is no consensus on the best overall approach to 
comprehensive immigration reform, but I believe, and many Americans do 
as well, that the first step is funding the necessary tools to defend 
our country. The Federal Government has the responsibility to, and 
immediately should, secure the borders of the United States.
  Even with our best efforts, illegal entry into the United States 
remains a vast problem that is getting more and more out of control. 
This is a security breach we must address. We must commit the 
sufficient money for our border security agencies, including Customs 
and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as the 
National Guard currently on our borders through Operation Jump Start.
  Many Americans from across the Nation have become engaged in this 
issue and shared with me their wide-ranging and passionate opinions on 
how we can secure our borders and resolve our illegal immigration 
crisis.
  I sincerely believe the greatest obstacle this body faces with the 
American people on the issue of border security and immigration reform 
is trust. The Federal Government's lack of action to uphold and enforce 
our immigration laws and secure our borders has eroded respect for 
those laws and eliminated the faith of the American people in the 
ability of the Government to responsibly administer immigration 
programs and protect our citizenry.
  I believe there is a clear way to regain the trust of the American 
people in the ability of the Federal Government to enforce our 
immigration laws and secure our borders. We should prove our abilities 
with actions rather than continuing to make promises.
  To that end, Senator Isakson and I believe the President could 
alleviate many of the fears of our constituents and other great 
citizens of America by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to 
fully fund the border and interior security initiatives contained in 
the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 
2007, as well as any outstanding existing authorizations.
  Such a move would show his commitment to securing the border first, 
stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into this country, 
and creating a tamper proof biometric identification card for foreign 
workers who are here legally. It will also work toward restoring the 
credibility of the Federal Government on this very critical issue. 
Frankly, Congress has not done a very good job of addressing this issue 
for about two decades. It is imperative that we find and implement a 
solution quickly. This is a national security emergency which must be 
addressed immediately. I certainly do not have all of the answers, but 
I do know that, first and foremost, what we have to do is secure the 
borders. This is where the problem originates, and this is where it 
must be halted. If we don't secure our borders, then nothing else we do 
relative to immigration reform or national security will really matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in support of 
the Graham amendment, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor, and to 
provide my colleagues some information I found particularly revealing 
in the form of a four-part series in my hometown newspaper, the San 
Antonio Express News, written in May of 2007. The author of the series, 
a reporter by the name of Todd Bensman, chronicles the movement of an 
Iraqi individual from Damascus, Syria, to Detroit, MI. It is 
particularly instructive, as we are contemplating this amendment and 
the importance of funding border security measures, that this kind of 
information be brought to the attention of the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the first of the four-part article 
from MySA.com entitled ``Breaching America: War refugees or threats?'' 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Bensman, in this article, found the following in his 
investigation, and I will summarize. More than 5,700 illegal immigrants 
from 43 countries with majority Muslim populations, including state 
sponsors of terror, have been caught while traveling over the Canadian 
and Mexican border along well-established underground smuggling routes 
since 9/11, a traffic that continues today. Mr. Bensman estimates 
between 20,000 and 60,000 of these so-called special interest aliens, 
by virtue of their country of origin being countries where terrorism 
is, unfortunately, alive and well or because they are state sponsors of 
international terrorism, have gotten through without being caught since 
9/11. These migrants, although relatively small in total numbers, are 
high risk because they hail from countries where American troops are 
actively battling Islamic insurgents, nations where radical Islamic 
organizations have bombed U.S. interests or murdered Americans. 
Unguarded U.S. borders are most certainly in the terrorists' playbooks 
as a means of entering the country. Since the late 1990s, at least a 
dozen confirmed terrorists have sneaked over U.S. borders, including 
operatives from Hezbollah, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, and one al-Qaida 
terrorist once No. 27 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list.
  On the U.S. side of the border, the FBI is supposed to interrogate 
and conduct a threat assessment and interrogations on every captured 
special interest alien, but the process is severely flawed and open to 
error. Often, the FBI signs off on captured special interest aliens, 
allowing them access to the political asylum process without 
conclusively knowing whether they are or are not associated with 
terrorist organizations. Furthermore, Border Patrol agents are simply 
using expedited removal processes to kick special interest aliens back 
over the border into Mexico, where they will certainly try to cross 
again, with no investigation and no FBI referral whatsoever.
  This series of articles published in the San Antonio Express News 
will be an eye-opener for the people of this country.
  Frankly, those of us who are Members of the Senate have the privilege 
of having classified briefings from time to time. Of course, we cannot 
talk about that intelligence information on which we are briefed behind 
closed doors. But here in the public domain are the results of Mr. 
Bensman's investigation in chilling detail, chronicling the movement of 
an individual from Damascus, Syria, to Detroit, MI, via Moscow, Havana, 
into Guatemala, and then up through Mexico's southern border and into 
the United States.
  I have met with Border Patrol agents. Perhaps the current occupant of 
the chair and others have had the same experience I have. I asked them, 
out of the 1.1 or the 1.3 million people we actually detain coming 
across our southern border, for every person we detain, how many people 
do you think get across? I have heard estimates ranging from detaining 
maybe one out of every three to one out of every four. The truth is, 
nobody knows for sure who gets away. We do know that people who are 
detained and returned across the border likely try again. So it is hard 
to get good information.
  This is not a matter of solely economic migrants coming from Mexico 
or Central or South America into the United States. The truth is, 
Central America and Mexico are a land bridge into the United States for 
anybody anywhere around the world who wants to come here, anybody who 
has the money to pay the human smugglers to get them here. Obviously, 
these could be individuals who want to work and who want nothing but a 
better life--what we all have and want in America--but it can also be 
very dangerous people who want to do us harm. That is the reason this 
funding, this emergency funding for border security, is so important.

[[Page 20366]]

  It is also important that we begin to regain the lost public 
confidence that the Federal Government can actually deliver on its 
promises. We have been telling people for a long time how important it 
is in a post-9/11 world to know who is coming into our country and why 
people are coming here. Recognizing that if there is a way to separate 
the economic migrants and to create an immigration system that would 
give people an opportunity through legal immigration to come to the 
United States on a controlled basis, it will then allow law enforcement 
agencies an effort to target those who are common criminals, drug 
dealers or, indeed, terrorists or special interest aliens from state 
sponsors of terrorism.
  We were reminded again about the dangers from our porous borders 
when, on Monday, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
announced that they had arrested more than 100 gang members in Texas. 
These 121 suspects represent 27 different gangs, including the 
notorious Mexican Mafia and MS-13. Of course, MS-13 is the ultraviolent 
Central American gang that has come into the United States through our 
broken borders. More than half of these gang members had criminal 
charges against them, and nearly half of them were arrested on 
administrative and immigration-related charges. So we see time and time 
again, as most recently as the daily newspaper, what the threat is. Yet 
Congress continues to do not nearly enough to fix it.
  This amendment gives us an opportunity to fix the problem at the 
border. It is not just at the border. We need to deal with our broken 
immigration system because roughly 45 percent of the people who are 
illegally present in the country today in violation of our immigration 
laws came in on a legal visa but simply overstayed and melted into the 
vast American landscape. So we have to, as this amendment does, make 
sure we find ways to police visa overstayers. We need to make sure we 
continue to work on document fraud and identity theft that makes it 
hard for even good faith employers to determine the legal eligibility 
of prospective employees to work in America. This amendment is the 
first big step toward regaining the public's confidence again and 
demonstrating that we are actually serious about delivering on our 
promises, not engaged in overpromising but underdelivering, as we have 
in the past.
  I will be offering at a later time some amendments myself. Coming 
from a border State with 1,600 miles of common border with Mexico, this 
is a personal issue to many of my constituents, particularly. While 
some, such as the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, believe strongly 
in the need for more fencing along the border, it is controversial 
along the border in south Texas. I have worked with those local 
officials and property owners. We have two amendments I will be talking 
more about later. The consultations we have conducted have been useful 
in coming up with creative ways to accomplish the nonnegotiable goal of 
border security.
  I noticed most of the property abutting the Rio Grande River is 
private property. I am not sure the Border Patrol or the Department of 
Homeland Security has really thought through the fencing idea and what 
it would mean to condemn through eminent domain proceedings private 
property along the border in Texas. I am informed that in Arizona and 
other places, much of the property along the border is already owned by 
the Federal Government, so we don't have that issue. But I have found 
in Texas, this is a controversial issue.
  I have been pleased to work with my colleague, Senator Hutchison, to 
make sure that in this amendment and in every opportunity, we have 
insisted upon consultation with local elected officials and property 
owners to achieve the most effective means of border security, 
recognizing that result is nonnegotiable but how we get there should be 
the subject of consultation and negotiation.
  Getting back to the private property issue, one of my amendments will 
ask the Department of Homeland Security to produce a report talking 
about the impact on border security due to the fact that much of the 
property, for example, in Texas is private property and asking them to 
come back and tell Congress so we can make more intelligent decisions 
about how to effectively use the taxpayers' money to accomplish that 
nonnegotiable goal of border security, given the fact that a lot of 
that property is private property and would require, if fencing was 
going to be built on it, that some sort of eminent domain proceeding 
would go forward. Obviously, the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, the Senator from Mississippi, and the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee would want to know whether the Federal 
taxpayer is going to be asked to pay just compensation for eminent 
domain proceedings if, in fact, those were contemplated.
  There is a lot of beneficial discussion going on as we talk about 
this with local officials and others. For example, on my many visits to 
the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, I have heard local law enforcement 
officials and the Border Patrol talk about the problems caused by an 
invasive plant commonly called Carrizo cane. Carrizo cane, as it turns 
out, grows so big and so fast that not even the night-vision technology 
used by Border Patrol agents can penetrate the Carrizo cane. It serves 
as a safe haven for human smugglers and common criminals along the 
border. If the Federal Government could work with local officials and 
local property owners to eradicate Carrizo cane, this robust perennial 
grass that can grow to a height of 20 to 30 feet, multistemmed clumps 
that resemble bamboo and forms large colonies, it would enhance the 
natural barrier the Rio Grande River already provides in many places 
along the border. Thus, it would also assist the local Border Patrol 
agents by providing a clear line of sight and ready access to areas 
that are currently not available to them because of the dense growth of 
this Carrizo cane.
  I am pleased to say the Border Patrol has taken the suggestion and is 
talking to local officials and property owners. This shows some real 
promise. But it demonstrates what happens when you have local officials 
and people who live in the community talking to Federal officials 
trying to come up with a solution to a common problem.
  Now, when the Federal Government--folks operating in the Beltway--
decide they have a better idea, and they do not care what local and 
State officials think about it, well, usually that creates a lot of 
conflict and it also creates a less perfect solution and maybe not a 
solution at all.
  So I will be offering that Carrizo cane amendment as well as another 
amendment which would require a report by the Department of Homeland 
Security on the impact of border security measures on private property 
owners along the Rio Grande River a little later on.
  But I close by saying the threat posed by common criminals--as a 
result of our broken borders--to drug dealers is very real. As Mr. 
Bensman's article points out, the access through our broken borders to 
virtually anybody in the world who has enough money to pay the 
smugglers to get them in is an open door to people whom we prefer not 
come here; namely, people who come from countries that are state 
sponsors of international terror and, perhaps, people with the goals of 
harming innocent Americans, taking advantage of the same broken borders 
that yield access to economic migrants.

                               Exhibit 1

                  [From the San Antonio Express-News]

              Breaching America: War Refugees or Threats?

                           (By Todd Bensman)

       Damascus, Syria.--Al Nawateer restaurant is a place where 
     dreams are bartered and secrets are kept.
       Dining areas partitioned by thickets of crawling vines and 
     knee-high concrete fountains offer privacy from informants 
     and agents of the Mukhabarat secret police.
       The Mukhabarat try to monitor the hundreds of thousands of 
     Iraq war refugees in this ancient city, where clandestine 
     human smuggling rings have sprung up to help refugees move 
     on--often to the United States.
       But the refugees who frequent Al Nawateer, gathering around 
     Table 75 or sitting alone in a corner, are undaunted, willing 
     to risk everything to meet a smuggler.

[[Page 20367]]

     They come to be solicited by someone who, for the right 
     price, will help them obtain visas from the sometimes 
     bribery-greased consulates of nations adversarial or 
     indifferent to American security concerns.
       The deals cut at places like Al Nawateer could affect you. 
     Americans from San Antonio to Detroit might find themselves 
     living among immigrants from Islamic countries who have come 
     to America with darker pursuits than escaping war or starting 
     a new life.
       U.S.-bound illicit travel from Islamic countries, which 
     started long before 9-11 and includes some reputed 
     terrorists, has gained momentum and worried counterterrorism 
     officials as smugglers exploit 2 million Iraq war refugees. 
     The irony is that the war America started to make itself 
     safer has forced more people regarded as security threats 
     toward its borders.
       A stark reminder of U.S. vulnerability at home came this 
     month when six foreign-born Muslims, three of whom had 
     entered the country illegally, were arrested and accused of 
     plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix in New Jersey.
       What might have happened there is sure to stoke the debate 
     in Congress, which this week will take up border security and 
     immigration reform. But the Iraqi refugee problem provides a 
     twist on the question of what assurances America owes itself 
     in uncertain times: What do we owe Iraqis thrown into chaos 
     by the war?
       Politically, immigration can be a faceless issue. But 
     beyond the rhetoric, the lives of real people hang in the 
     balance. A relatively small but politically significant 
     number are from Islamic countries, raising the specter, some 
     officials say, of terrorists at the gate.
       For those few, the long journey to America starts at places 
     like Al Nawateer.
       The restaurant's reputation as a meeting place is what drew 
     Aamr Bahnan Boles.
       Night after night, Boles, a lanky 24-year-old, sat alone 
     eating grilled chicken and tabouli in shadows cast by Al 
     Nawateer's profusion of hanging lanterns: Boles always came 
     packing the $5,000 stake his father had given him when he 
     fled Iraq.
       Boles was ordering his meal after another backbreaking day 
     working a steam iron at one of the area's many basement-level 
     garment shops when he noticed a Syrian man loitering near his 
     table. The Syrian appeared to be listening intently. He was 
     of average build and wearing a collared shirt. Boles guessed, 
     he was about 35 years old.
       When the waiter walked away, the Syrian approached Boles, 
     leaned over the cheap plastic table and spoke softly. He 
     introduced himself as Abu Nabil, a common street nickname 
     revealing nothing.
       ``I noticed your accent,'' the Syrian said politely. ``Are 
     you from Iraq?''
       Boles nodded.
       ``I could help you if you want to leave,'' the Syrian said. 
     ``Just tell me when and where. I can get you wherever you 
     want to go.''
       For an instant, Boles hesitated. Was the Syrian a 
     Mukhabarat agent plotting to take his money and send him back 
     to Iraq? Was he a con artist who would deliver nothing in 
     return for a man's money?
       ``I want to go to the USA,'' Boles blurted.
       ``It can be done,'' said the Syrian. But it wouldn't be 
     cheap, he warned. The cost might be as high as $10,000.
       Hedging against a con, Boles said he didn't have that kind 
     of money.
       The Syrian told him there was a bargain-basement way of 
     getting to America. For $750, he could get Boles a visitor's 
     visa from the government of Guatemala in neighboring Jordan.
       ``After that you're on your own,'' the Syrian said. ``But 
     it's easy. You fly to Moscow, then Cuba and from there to 
     Guatemala.''
       The implication was obvious. The Syrian would help Boles 
     get within striking distance of the U.S. border. The rest was 
     up to him.
       Boles knew it wouldn't be easy or quick: Not until a year 
     later in-fact, in the-darkness just before dawn on April 29, 
     2006, would he finally swim across the Rio Grande on an inner 
     tube and clamber up the Texas riverbank 40 miles west of 
     Brownsville.
       But Boles was undaunted. He cut a deal with the Syrian, 
     setting in motion a journey into the vortex of a little-known 
     American strategy in the war on terror: stopping people like 
     him from stealing over the border.


                          River of immigrants

       Near the tiny Texas community of Los Indios, the Rio Grande 
     is deep, placid and seemingly of little consequence.
       But its northern bank is rigged with motion sensors that 
     U.S. Border Patrol agents monitor closely, swarming whenever 
     the sensors are tripped:
       Here and all along the river, an abstract concept becomes 
     real. America's border with Mexico isn't simply a political 
     issue or security concern. It is a living body of water, 
     surprisingly narrow, with one nation abutting its greenish-
     brown waters from the north and another from the south.
       Since 9-11, the U.S. government has made guarding the 
     1,952-mile Mexican border a top priority. One million 
     undocumented immigrants are caught each year trying to cross 
     the southern and northern U.S. borders.
       Because all but a tiny fraction of those arrested crossing 
     the southern border are Mexican or Central American, issues 
     of border security get framed accordingly and cast in the 
     image of America's neighbors to the south. Right or wrong, in 
     this country the public face of illegal immigration has 
     Latino features.
       But there are others coming across the Rio Grande, and many 
     are in Boles' image.
       People from 43 so-called ``countries of interest'' in the 
     Middle East, South Asia and North Africa are sneaking into 
     the United States, many by way of Texas, forming a human 
     pipeline that exists largely outside the public consciousness 
     but that has worried counterterrorism authorities since 9-11.
       These immigrants are known as ``special-interest aliens.'' 
     When caught, they can be subjected to FBI interrogation, 
     detention holds that can last for months and, in rare 
     instances, federal prison terms.
       The perceived danger is that they can evade being screened 
     through terror-watch lists.
       The 43 countries of interest are singled out because 
     terrorist groups operate there. Special-interest immigrants 
     are coming all the time, from countries where U.S. military 
     personnel are battling radical Islamist movements, such as 
     Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Philippines. They come 
     from countries where organized Islamic extremists have bombed 
     U.S. interests, such as Kenya, Tanzania and Lebanon. They 
     come from U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, such as 
     Iran, Syria and Sudan.
       And they come from Saudi Arabia, the nation that spawned 
     most of the 9-11 hijackers.
       Iraq war refugees, trapped in neighboring countries with no 
     way out, are finding their way into the pipeline.
       Zigzagging wildly across the globe on their own or more 
     often with well-paid smugglers, their disparate routes 
     determined by the availability of bogus travel documents and 
     relative laxity of customs-enforcement practices, special-
     interest immigrants often converge in Latin America.
       And, there, a northward flow begins.


                  Nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to, if I may, turn to one 
other issue; and that has to do with the nomination of Judge Leslie 
Southwick.
  I heard the distinguished Democratic whip, majority whip, speak to 
the Southwick nomination earlier, and I wish to make sure, in fairness, 
there is a complete consideration of the facts.
  Of course, Judge Southwick, the nominee to which the majority whip 
objects, has been given the highest marks by his peers for the 
qualities of fairness and compassion by both the Mississippi Bar 
Association and the American Bar Association on two occasions, both 
when he was nominated to serve as a Federal district judge and now with 
his nomination to the Fifth Circuit.
  Regarding Senator Durbin's concerns, of course, as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, he voted to confirm Judge Southwick to a lifetime 
Federal bench. So I wonder why, now that he has been nominated to the 
Fifth Circuit, those concerns have arisen when, in fact, there were no 
such concerns expressed when Judge Southwick was nominated and 
confirmed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Federal 
district bench.
  I heard Senator Durbin criticize Judge Southwick for his 
participation in the case of Richmond v. Mississippi Department of 
Human Services. The fact of it is, Judge Southwick did not write the 
opinion Senator Durbin is critical of. Of course, as a judge, unlike a 
legislator, a judge has no choice but to vote. He voted for the result, 
for the outcome of the case, but I think it is unfair to attribute the 
writing of the opinion to Judge Southwick, something he did not write.
  Of course, we all deplore the racial slur which was the subject of 
that opinion. The board determined, from the evidence before it, that 
the racial slur was an isolated comment, was made outside of the 
target's presence, was followed by an apology--which I think is 
significant--which was accepted and did not result in significant 
disruption of the workplace.
  Under Mississippi law, the board's ruling could only be reversed if 
it was ``arbitrary and capricious, accepting in principle the notion 
that a decision unsupported by any evidence is by definition arbitrary 
and capricious.''
  The court of appeals majority, including Judge Southwick, operating 
under a highly deferential standard of review--which is applied in the 
case of agency decisions routinely--upheld the board's decision and 
found that there was some evidence to support the

[[Page 20368]]

board's ruling that the isolated comment did not sufficiently disturb 
the workplace so as to justify the employee's termination.
  The majority made clear it did not endorse or excuse the slur. They 
said:

       We do not suggest that a public employee's use of racial 
     slurs . . . is a matter beyond the authority of the employing 
     agency to discipline.

  In other words, they said it would be appropriate to discipline a 
person for using racial slurs.
  Of course, Judge Southwick reiterated his disdain for the use of any 
racial slurs and has repeatedly told the committee that the use of the 
word at issue is--in his words--``always offensive''--I would hope we 
would all agree with that--and ``inherently and highly derogatory.'' At 
the hearing he said: ``There is no worse word.'' He said it was 
``unique'' and that he could not imagine anything more offensive.
  In response to a written question from Senator Durbin, Judge 
Southwick wrote:

       Use of this word is wrong, improper, and should offend 
     everyone regardless of the speaker's intent.

  I agree.
  As a legal matter, the Supreme Court of Mississippi explicitly agreed 
with the appellate court's conclusion that dismissal was unwarranted. 
That was the appeal from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of 
Mississippi. The supreme court said:

       In this case, we find that the harsh penalty of dismissal 
     of Bonnie Richmond from her employment is not warranted under 
     the circumstances.

  We can agree or disagree with the decision made by the board that 
reviewed that. We can agree or disagree with the decision of the court 
of appeals. But I do not know why, after the American Bar Association--
the professional organization that reviews Federal nominees--after they 
have reviewed Judge Southwick's record, including his participation in 
that decision, and found him to be highly qualified, why we would come 
back and try to besmirch his reputation as a part of trying to defeat 
this nomination.
  I am sure there will be more discussion about Judge Southwick as we 
go forward. I hope we are not heading down a very dangerous path again, 
which is to deny this President's nominees--or any President's 
nominees--an opportunity for an up-or-down vote. Right now, I know the 
senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, has been talking to the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman has offered a 
vote for Judge Southwick's nomination in the committee.
  But right now Judge Southwick is continuing to have consultation with 
members of the committee, in hopes he can get an up-or-down vote in the 
committee and then hopefully come to the floor where we can have a 
debate which will cover the whole range of Judge Southwick's 
qualifications and his resume and his record so the Members of the 
Senate can fairly ascertain for themselves whether he should be 
confirmed and then have an up-or-down vote.
  But right now I hate to see Judge Southwick unfairly criticized by 
attributing to him something he did not even say, by joining an opinion 
which was ultimately upheld by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 
compliance with appropriate legal standards. That is what judges do. 
They do not decide winners and losers and then try to justify the 
result. They apply the law impartially to everyone who comes before 
them. From all appearances, Judge Southwick has been true to that 
requirement and that great tradition of our judiciary.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. CORNYN. My apologies, Mr. President. I will be brief. My staff 
reminded me there was one other amendment I was going to mention that I 
failed to mention. It will be an amendment I will also offer later on 
that builds upon the good work of Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from New 
Mexico, that was unanimously approved by the Senate earlier this week.
  My amendment will actually double the amount Congress can provide for 
the Border Relief Grant Program that will help local law enforcement in 
towns and cities along our borders cover some of the costs they incur 
serving as the backup to Federal officials when it comes to combating 
illegal immigration and fighting drug traffickers and other border-
related crimes.
  The Senate unanimously approved this same amendment during debate on 
the immigration bill we considered earlier this year. It is also 
included in the comprehensive border security package Senator Graham 
has offered and is currently pending, and, of course, of which I am a 
cosponsor.
  It is the obligation of the Federal Government to adequately secure 
the Nation's borders and prevent the flow of undocumented persons and 
illegal drugs into the United States.
  For far too long, local law enforcement officers--I am talking about 
sheriffs, I am talking about police chiefs, and others--as well as 
local taxpayers, have borne the burden of law enforcement, given the 
failure of the Federal Government to adequately fund the Border Patrol 
and to demonstrate its willingness to secure the border. So now it is 
time not only to add to the Federal law enforcement officials--by 
increasing the number of Border Patrol--but it is time for the Federal 
Government to own up to its responsibilities and fund local law 
enforcement through this grant program to the extent they are willing 
and able to support the Federal Government's efforts to secure the 
border.
  This Border Relief Grant Program will give the men and women in law 
enforcement, who are on the frontline of securing America's border, the 
necessary support to do their jobs and ensure that local taxpayers do 
not have to foot the bill. These funds can be used to obtain equipment, 
hire additional personnel, and upgrade law enforcement technology.
  It is my hope my colleagues will support this amendment again, as 
they have before.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I 
may be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reply to a 
floor statement made earlier today by the senior Senator from Illinois 
concerning the pending nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick for the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The Senator from Illinois asserted that ``there are too many 
questions about whether Judge Southwick would bring a measure of 
fairness in cases involving civil rights and the rights of ordinary 
people in his court.'' But in the course of the speech of the Senator 
from Illinois, he only raised one question. That one question was about 
a specific case.
  The Senator from Illinois went on to say:

       This perception as to whether he will be fair or evenhanded 
     is determinative in my mind. Whether you agree with that 
     perception, it is there.

  I begin by disagreeing categorically with the Senator from Illinois 
that it is a matter of perception. It is a matter of fact. When he says 
this perception as to whether he will be fair or evenhanded is 
determinative, I disagree strongly. What is determinative is

[[Page 20369]]

what are the facts of his record taken in totality.
  The one question which the Senator from Illinois has raised involves 
a case where the Mississippi intermediate appellate court upheld a 
finding by an administrative board that an employee should not be fired 
under the circumstances which I will now describe.
  The employee had made a racial statement which was a one-time 
comment. The slur was not in the presence of the targeted coworker. The 
employee apologized to the coworker. The coworker accepted the apology. 
The incident did not produce any significant workplace disruption.
  The administrative board then made the determination that the 
incident did not warrant dismissal of the employee. The question then 
presented to the court on which Judge Southwick sat, the intermediate 
appellate court, was whether the finding by the administrative board 
was arbitrary and capricious; that is, whether there was sufficient 
evidence for them to find to that effect.
  When Judge Southwick testified before the Judiciary Committee, he was 
emphatic in his statement that the slur was unacceptable, that he did 
not agree with that kind of conduct, and that it was the worst kind of 
word to use--the so-called ``N'' word--but that his role as an 
appellate judge was to make a legal determination on whether there was 
sufficient evidence to uphold the decision or whether the 
administrative board was arbitrary and capricious.
  The Senator from Illinois then said that the Mississippi Supreme 
Court unanimously reversed the majority opinion. But, the fact is--and 
this is implicitly acknowledged by the Senator from Illinois--that the 
only reversal was on the very narrow ground of whether there had been 
sufficient findings by the administrative board to come to its 
conclusion.
  The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with the Mississippi 
intermediate appellate court that dismissal was an inappropriate 
remedy. That was really the core of the case. But the State supreme 
court said there ought to be more facts stated by the administrative 
board in coming to that conclusion, which was a highly technical 
modification as to what the appellate court had said.
  The Senator from Illinois further made a very brief reference, a one-
sentence reference, in his speech, to a custody case in which ``he 
voted to take an 8-year-old girl away from her lesbian mother. I 
disagree with Judge Southwick's position in these cases.'' That is the 
only thing he had to say about the custody case which has been cited 
against Judge Southwick.
  Here again, as in the case involving the racial slur, Judge Southwick 
did not write the opinion. He concurred in the opinion. I think fairly 
stated as a legal matter, when someone writes the opinion, there is 
full responsibility for everything in it. In a sense, one might say the 
same thing about someone who concurs. That person could write a 
separate concurring opinion. But unless there is something 
extraordinarily wrong, out of line, that is not a common practice.
  In the second case to which the Senator from Illinois referred--only 
one sentence--there were many factors which led to the award of custody 
to the father, such as he had a steady job, he had a higher income, he 
owned a large residence, and he had roots in the community. Although 
the Senator from Illinois did not refer to one sentence in the 
opinion--again, which Judge Southwick did not write but concurred in--
there was a reference to a ``homosexual lifestyle'' which has been used 
frequently, including the Lawrence v. Texas decision. It is perhaps not 
the most sensitive kind of language, and perhaps there could have been 
a substitution for it, but it certainly does not rise to the level of a 
disqualifier.
  The Senator from Illinois has said that Judge Southwick could not be 
fair to run-of-the-mill litigants in the courts and cited a couple of 
studies, which are not identified, which do not specify any authors, 
and on their face, in the statement by the Senator from Illinois, I 
think fairly stated should be entitled to really very little, if any, 
weight. But let's take a look at some of the specific cases that Judge 
Southwick has decided.
  In a case captioned McCarty Farms Inc. v. Caprice Banks, Judge 
Southwick affirmed an award of permanent partial disability benefits 
for a woman who experienced a 70-percent industrial disability to her 
right arm and a 30-percent loss to her left. However, Judge Southwick 
wrote separately to argue that injured workers deserve more evidentiary 
options to prove damages. He would have instructed the court to 
consider wage-earning capacity as well as functional or medical 
impairment.
  In the case captioned Sherwin Williams v. Brown, Judge Southwick held 
a 45-year-old carpet layer was permanently and totally industrially 
disabled due to an onsite injury and that the carpet layer made 
reasonable efforts to obtain other employment. Judge Southwick 
concluded he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
  In a case captioned United Methodist Senior Services v. Ice, Judge 
Southwick affirmed the award of workmen's compensation benefits to a 
woman who hurt her back while working as a certified nursing assistant, 
despite her first employer's claim that she exacerbated the injury 
during her subsequent employment. In addition, Judge Southwick 
recognized that the evidentiary standard the employer sought to impose 
would have prevented many plaintiffs from receiving compensation for a 
work injury.
  In Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, Judge Southwick reversed the 
Workers Compensation Commission's decision that a truck driver from a 
logging company did not suffer a permanent loss of wage-earning 
capacity, and remanded the case for further consideration.
  In Total Transportation v. Shores, a 6-to-4 decision, Judge Southwick 
joined the other three dissenters, who would have upheld an award of 
workmen's compensation benefits for a truck driver's widow where the 
majority ruled in favor of the employer.
  In Burleson v. Hancock County Sheriff's Department, a 6-to-3 
decision, again Judge Southwick joined in dissent, arguing that a 
public employee was unconstitutionally fired, while the majority ruled 
in favor of the employer.
  Similarly, Judge Southwick has ruled numerous times in favor of tort 
victims and against businesses. In Ducksworth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Judge 
Southwick voted to reverse a trial court's verdict against a customer 
who had slipped on an unknown substance at Wal-Mart.
  In Breland v. Gulfside Casino Partnership, Judge Southwick voted to 
reverse summary judgment for a casino in a slip-and-fall action brought 
by a patron who had suffered multiple injuries falling down a casino 
staircase.
  In Martin v. B. P. Exploration & Oil, Judge Southwick voted to 
reverse summary judgment against the plaintiff, who injured her ankle 
upon exiting a gas station's restroom on an allegedly poorly 
constructed access ramp.
  In Wilkins v. Bloodsaw, Judge Southwick voted to reverse a grant of 
summary judgment in favor of a Pizza Hut which was sued by a mother who 
was injured when her disabled son fell as she tried to help him exit 
the restaurant.
  Similarly, Judge Southwick has voted in favor of criminal defendants 
on numerous occasions, often in dissent. For example, in Jones v. 
State, a 5-to-5 decision, Judge Southwick dissented, arguing for 
reversing a conviction because the indictment did not provide the 
defendant with sufficient clarity to know with certainty what crime was 
being charged.
  In Parker v. State, Judge Southwick dissented, arguing that a murder 
conviction should be reversed because the trial judge failed to give a 
proper jury instruction.
  In Mills v. State, a 6-to-3 decision, Judge Southwick dissented from 
the majority, affirming a drug conviction on the grounds that the court 
should not have admitted a statement by the defendant's 4-year-old son, 
and the State failed to disclose a piece of evidence against the 
defendant that it had in its possession.

[[Page 20370]]

  In Harris v. State, a 5-to-4 decision, Judge Southwick dissented from 
the majority opinion, affirming a drunk driving conviction on the 
grounds that the trial court erroneously allowed the State to avoid 
proving all the elements charged in the indictment.
  In Hughey v. State of Mississippi, Judge Southwick affirmed the trial 
court's decision to disallow cross-examination as to the victim's 
sexual preference, recognizing that whether the victim was homosexual 
was not relevant to the defense, and that such a line of inquiry could 
produce undue prejudice.
  This Hughey v. State of Mississippi case, where Judge Southwick 
excluded a victim's sexual preference, is a strong indication--much 
stronger than the one line in the argument by the Senator from 
Illinois--concerning the issue of a ``homosexual lifestyle.''
  There are also testimonials, and I will offer two. La'Verne Edney, a 
distinguished African-American woman partner in a prominent Jackson, 
Mississippi, law firm, a member of the Magnolia Bar Association, the 
Mississippi Women Lawyers' Association, and a member of the Mississippi 
Task Force for Gender Fairness, has shared her compelling story of 
Judge Southwick, who gave her an opportunity when few would. This is 
what she said, and I quote:

       When I finished law school . . . I believed that my chances 
     for landing a clerkship were slim because there was only one 
     African-American Court of Appeals judge on the bench at the 
     time and there were very few Caucasian judges during the 
     history of the Mississippi Supreme Court or the Court of 
     Appeals . . . who had ever hired African-American law clerks. 
     . . . While Judge Southwick had many applicants to choose 
     from, he saw that I was qualified for the position and 
     granted me the opportunity.

  Ms. Edney further observed:

       It did not matter the parties' affiliation, color or 
     stature--what mattered was what the law said and Judge 
     Southwick worked very hard to apply it fairly. Judge 
     Southwick valued my opinions and included me in all of the 
     discussions of issues presented for discussion. Having worked 
     closely with Judge Southwick, I have no doubt he is fair, 
     impartial, and has all of the other qualities necessary to be 
     an excellent addition to the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the Fifth Circuit.

  Now, contrast what Ms. Edney said, a prominent lawyer engaged in all 
of the advocacy groups--gender fairness, women trial lawyers, Magnolia 
Bar--compare that to the opinion of Judge Southwick in one case, where 
he joined in a concurring opinion, where there was a racial slur 
immediately apologized for, with what this woman, who was his law 
clerk, found in a very detailed relationship showing fairness and 
justice.
  Patrick E. Beasley, a practicing attorney in Jackson, Mississippi, 
who also happens to be African-American, endorsed Judge Southwick for, 
among other qualities, his fairness to minorities. This is what Mr. 
Beasley had to say:

       I speak from personal experience that Leslie Southwick is a 
     good man who has been kind to me for no ulterior reason. I am 
     not from an affluent family and have no political ties. While 
     I graduated in the top third of my law school class, there 
     were many individuals in my class with higher grade point 
     averages and with family ``pedigrees'' to match. Yet, despite 
     all of the typical requirements for the clerkship that I 
     lacked, Judge Southwick gave me an opportunity. Despite all 
     the press to the contrary, Judge Southwick is a fair man and 
     this is one of the qualities that makes him an excellent 
     choice for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. No. But I will be glad to respond to the Senator from 
Alabama when I finish my speech. I will be glad to respond to him at 
length.
  The overall record--I have changed my mind. I will yield for a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SPECTER. Maybe the Senator from Illinois will change his mind, 
too.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the first time, on the question of 
Judge Southwick's ruling, the Senator's remarks make clear to me that 
he was required as a judge, as I understand it, to not reverse the 
administrative panel's opinion unless it was arbitrary and capricious, 
I believe is what the Senator said.
  It seems to me that sometimes we make a mistake, and I was going to 
ask the Senator a question, as one of the most able lawyers here in 
this body for sure, about whether he thinks sometimes we ascribe to the 
judge who has to rule on a case following the law, that somehow we 
would suggest he may have approved this racial slur even though he may 
have ruled in a way different from that?
  In other words, does the Senator think we ought to be careful in this 
body not to unfairly suggest that the judge approved this racial slur, 
which I know he did not, as a result of that ruling?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the question posed by the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama is illustrative of the unfairness of citing that 
case against Judge Southwick, because he did not sanction the slur 
which was uttered.
  In fact, the administrative review board did not sanction the slur. 
The administrative review board had only the question to decide as to 
whether that was grounds for permanent dismissal. That is the only 
question they had to decide. And then when the case came before the 
Mississippi intermediate appellate Court, as the Senator from Alabama 
has noted, that court had only to decide whether the ruling by the 
administrative review board was arbitrary and capricious, which means 
that there was insufficient evidence to sustain it.
  So Judge Southwick is removed by two major barriers from any 
conceivable approval of a racial slur: first, on the fact that the 
administrative board said it was bad, Judge Southwick said it was bad; 
and, in addition, there was sufficient evidence for the administrative 
board to find what it did.
  Now, on the critical question as to whether there were any grounds 
for permanent dismissal because of what was said, everybody said no--
that is, the administrative board, the intermediate appellate court, 
and the State Supreme Court--contrary to the bland assertion by the 
Senator from Illinois that the intermediate appellate court was 
reversed. The Supreme Court said everybody is correct, there are not 
grounds for permanent dismissal, but we think the administrative board 
should have given more details as to the reasons why it came to that 
conclusion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his effort and 
the time it takes to be able to examine the complexities of this 
situation. Most of us are too busy to do it. You do indeed have a 
passion for the truth, and you have done well in getting there, and I 
thank you for sharing those thoughts with us.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, I thank the Senator from Alabama for complimenting 
me for my passion for truth. It so happens that is the title of the 
book I wrote--Harper Collins, available online.
  Back to the case, though, Mr. President, and I will be brief here. I 
would point to Judge Southwick's overall record. It is an excellent 
record: cum laude from Rice, J.D. from the University of Texas Law 
School, clerk for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an 
adjunct professor in the Mississippi College of Law, unanimously well 
qualified by the American Bar Association.
  And then an extraordinary thing. When he was in his fifties, he 
volunteered to go to Iraq in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and 
was in areas with very heavy fighting. He interrupted a 12-year service 
on the Mississippi appellate court to do that. That is an extraordinary 
act, really extraordinary, for somebody in his position to do.
  I sat down with Judge Southwick at some length to talk to him, and he 
is an enormously impressive man. He is very mild mannered. He has been 
on the court, as I say, for 12 years. He has participated in 6,000 
cases, he has written 985 opinions, and all they can extract out of 
this record is one case which, as the colloquy with the Senator from 
Alabama points out, doesn't establish a peppercorn. That is a legal 
expression for being practically weightless in terms of what their 
objections are.

[[Page 20371]]

  The Senator from Illinois then went through the history of the last 
two nominees who were shot down. I have a reputation and a record to 
back it up, to have supported President Clinton's nominees, crossing 
party lines, when they were qualified.
  The Senator from Illinois makes it a point--not that it has anything 
to do with this case--that the Republicans didn't give 70 of President 
Clinton's nominees a hearing.
  That was wrong. That was wrong. But what we are doing here is we are 
visiting on Judge Southwick somebody else's sins. If I thought he was 
not qualified, I wouldn't be taking the lead that I am in this case.
  When we go through these issues, it is reminiscent of the very 
contentious controversy which was raised on this floor in 2005 when the 
Democrats were filibustering judges in retaliation for what had 
happened during the Clinton years and the Republicans were threatening 
the so-called constitutional or nuclear option. We ought not go back to 
those days.
  When you have a man with the record of Judge Leslie Southwick, he is 
being picked on. With the extensive record he has, to cite one case and 
to talk about perception--I repeat, when the Senator from Illinois says 
that perception is determinative, I say that this body ought to vote on 
the facts.
  I am pleased to see that a number of Democrats are interviewing Judge 
Southwick, and I believe they will find him to be very impressive, as I 
did. I strongly urge my colleagues to look at the facts very carefully. 
The Senate should not function on perception. The Senate should not 
function on what somebody else concludes or believes. We ought not do 
that. We ought to look at the record and make the decision in fairness 
to this man and in fairness to the entire process of confirmation of 
Federal judges.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask the manager of the bill if it would be 
appropriate for me to speak now on the amendment I propose to offer. 
Seeing no objection, I will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to speak on the 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2405

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will not ask unanimous consent that 
the pending amendment be set aside because I understand from the bill's 
managers that at this point there would be an objection to that.
  That disappoints me. I have an amendment I would like to offer. It is 
an amendment we discussed in the full Appropriations Committee when it 
was considered, and I hope I have the opportunity to offer the 
amendment at another time.
  The amendment was filed earlier today. It is No. 2405. The amendment 
has as cosponsor Senator Collins.
  I ask unanimous consent at this time that Senator Voinovich and 
Senator Warner be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2405.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment, the Alexander-Collins-
Voinovich-Warner amendment, has to do with the law we call REAL ID.
  I will describe REAL ID in a moment, but fundamentally what the 
amendment proposes is to offer $300 million in funding to the States to 
implement REAL ID. The offset would be a 0.8-percent across-the-board 
cut in the rest of the bill. The total bill is $37 billion, more or 
less. I know that offset is not one the chairman and ranking member of 
the committee are likely to approve of, but during our committee 
discussions I offered other offsets which weren't approved of, and I 
feel strongly that if the Congress requires the States to adopt REAL ID 
or something similar to REAL ID, then the Congress ought to pay for 
it--hence the $300 million amendment.
  Someone once said about me last year--and I haven't been here very 
long, this is my fifth year as a Senator, but I have been around a 
while--they said the problem with Lamar is he hasn't gotten over being 
Governor, which I was privileged to be in my home State of Tennessee 
for several years.
  I hope when I get over being Governor, the people of Tennessee send 
me home because I think one of the contributions I can make is to 
remind the Congress and remind the country that our country's strengths 
begin with strong communities and strong counties and strong cities and 
strong States and that the central government, according to our 
traditions and our Constitution, is for the rest of the things that 
States, communities, cities and counties can't do. According to the 
10th amendment and its spirit, if we require it of the State and local 
governments from here, we should fund it from here.
  Nothing used to make me more angry as a Governor than for some 
Senator or Congressman to pass a bill with a big-sounding idea in 
Washington, DC, hold a press conference, take credit for it, and then 
send the bill to me to pay. Then that same Senator or Congressman more 
than likely would be back in Tennessee within the next few weeks making 
a big speech at the Lincoln Day or Jackson Day dinner about local 
control.
  This is such an important issue that the 1994 elections turned on it, 
to a great extent. I remember dozens of Republican Congressmen and 
candidates standing with Newt Gingrich on the Capitol steps, saying:

       No more unfunded Federal mandates. If we break our promise, 
     send us home.

  That may be one of the reasons the Republican Congress got sent home 
last year, because we hadn't paid enough attention to that promise. I 
can remember Senator Dole, when he was the majority leader in the 
Senate in 1995. He was campaigning for President, campaigning around 
the country and I was often at the same events. He would hold up his 
copy of the Constitution and talk about the 10th amendment. That is the 
spirit I wish to talk about today.
  The REAL ID Act began in a good way. The 9/11 Commission recommended, 
in some fairly vague language, that we needed to improve our 
identification documents in the United States. The Commission found 
that:

       [a]ll but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of 
     U.S. identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of 
     these documents would have assisted them in boarding 
     commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary 
     activities.

  So said the 9/11 Commission. The Commission added that the Federal 
Government should:

       . . . set standards for the issuance of . . . sources of 
     identification, such as drivers' licenses. Fraud in 
     identification documents is no longer just a problem of 
     theft.

  The Congress began to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission soon thereafter, and in December of 2004 the Senate passed 
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which 
called for States to create secure driver's licenses and ID cards under 
section 7212 of the bill.
  It established a negotiated rulemaking process that included State 
government officials, which was a direct effort to deal with the 
problem I discussed. Through that, standards would be promulgated that 
would make it more difficult to create and obtain fraudulent driver's 
licenses.
  The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was so that as 
Congress said that our national needs called for more secure documents, 
the State and local governments could say let us talk with you about 
the realities at home, about what we use driver's licenses for, about 
how many there are, about what the cost would be of implementing new 
standards, and about how long it might take. In addition, we might have 
some other ideas about a different kind of secure document that might 
be better than a driver's license for this purpose. And there are some 
privacy standards we are worried about.
  In addition to that, the experience with national identification 
cards around the world hasn't been all that promising. In Nazi Germany 
it wasn't a good story. Those who remember the more recent history of 
South Africa, when every citizen had a card to carry around which would 
decree what their

[[Page 20372]]

race is and whether they were of mixed blood, that sort of ``Big 
Brother'' attitude is of great concern in the land of liberty, the 
United States of America. So the negotiated rulemaking process was to 
take into account all of that.
  Then came along the REAL ID Act of 2005 in the midst of all this 
careful consideration. It was attached to the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill of 2005. In other words, it was stuck in, by the 
House of Representatives, on the troop funding bill and it was signed 
into law by the President in May. We had no choice but to pass it. We 
had our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had to pay the bills 
for their service. This was just stuck in there. We had to vote it up 
or down and REAL ID became law. The Senate didn't hold any hearings. It 
was swept through Congress.
  The REAL ID Act superseded that negotiated rulemaking process 
included in the Intelligence Reform bill, in which the States and the 
Federal Government were working back and forth to set minimum standards 
for State driver's licenses in an effort to deter terrorists. REAL ID 
established a de facto national ID card by setting Federal standards 
for State driver's licenses and making the States create and issue 
them.
  One might say the States don't have to do it. They don't have to do 
it unless they want their citizens to be unable to fly on airplanes or 
obtain other necessary Federal services. It is a Hobson's choice. So, 
in effect, the REAL ID law, with no hearings, no consideration of 
whether there might be some other kind of card or set of different 
cards that would be more appropriate, became law. The States had to 
comply with that and that meant 245 million U.S. driver's licenses or 
ID holders would have to get new identification.
  The Department of Homeland Security has not yet issued final 
regulations of this massive act, even though the States are supposed to 
be ready to comply with these new standards and measures by May 11 of 
next year, 2008. Final regulations are expected to be released in the 
early fall, and this will give States just months to reach the May 2008 
deadline.
  It is true that, thanks to Senator Collins and others, and our 
willingness to forgo an amendment earlier this year, the Department of 
Homeland Security agreed to grant waivers to States to delay 
implementation. But, still, under the present route, 245 million people 
in America will need to get new ID cards by May of 2013.
  REAL ID is a massive unfunded mandate on the States to begin with. 
Last fall the National Governors Association and others released a 
study putting the cost of REAL ID at $11 billion over 5 years. The 
Department of Homeland Security itself said the cost may reach $20 
billion over 10 years. To date, the Federal Government has appropriated 
$40 million for the States to comply with REAL ID, and only $6 million 
of the $40 million has actually been given to the States.
  Here we go again. After a lot of promises from Washington, DC, on 
this side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle--we say no more 
unfunded mandates, but we have a real big idea, we announce it, take 
credit for it and send the bill to the Governors and the legislatures. 
We let them worry about whether to raise college tuitions, raise 
property taxes, or cut services over here--worry how do we pay for this 
new mandate?
  No wonder 17 States now have passed legislation opposing the REAL ID 
Act, including Tennessee, which became the 16th State on June 11 of 
this year.
  To get an idea of what REAL ID would require, first, you have to 
prove the applicant's identity, which would take a passport, birth 
certificate, a consular report--there are a number of other documents 
that could be used. Then you have to prove your date of birth. That 
might mean you have to bring in two documents. Then you have to prove 
your Social Security number. That might mean you have to go find your 
Social Security card. I wonder how many people have their Social 
Security card today. You are up to three documents. You need the 
address of your principal residence--you have to prove that. Then you 
have to prove you are lawfully here. That is not just for someone who 
is becoming a citizen or someone coming here, this is for every single 
person who drives a car or gets an ID; he or she has to prove they are 
lawfully here under REAL ID. In all the States, that is 245 million 
people.
  In Tennessee last year, there were 1,711,000 new or renewed driver's 
licenses. I renewed mine by mail; 154,000 renewed theirs online. There 
will be no mail renewals, there will be no online renewals in Tennessee 
or Maryland or Mississippi or Washington State. Everybody will get to 
go to the driver's license office. There are 53 of those in Tennessee, 
and 1.7 million of us will show up at those 53 offices, not just at one 
time, not just in 1 week, but just in 1 month, scrambling around, 
trying to figure out what documents we need to have. I can imagine 
there are going to be phone calls coming into our offices that make the 
phone calls on immigration look like a Sunday school class.
  We need only look at the recent passport backlog to imagine what 
might happen with the REAL ID backlog. We remember that the passport 
quagmire in which we have been in the last few months was triggered by 
a very well intentioned policy change designed to thwart terrorists. 
Specifically, new rules were implemented in January of 2007 requiring 
Americans to have passports for travel between the United States and 
Canada, Mexico and most of the islands of the Caribbean. This caused a 
massive surge in passport applications. There were 12 million passports 
issued in 2006. The State Department expects to issue 17 million this 
year--a 42-percent increase. Prior to the passport regulations, 
applications were increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 million a year. We are 
expecting an increase of 5 million applications from 2006 to 2007.
  In March of this year, there was a backlog of 3 million passports. 
The current backlog is 2.3 million passports. Prior to the new 
regulations, turnaround time was 6 weeks on regular service and 2 weeks 
on expedited service. At the worst part of this year, they were running 
12 to 14 weeks on regular service and 4 to 6 weeks on expedited 
service. This massive backlog destroyed summer vacations, ruined 
wedding and honeymoon plans, disrupted business meetings and 
educational trips, caused people to lose days of work waiting in line, 
and caused people to lose money for nonrefundable travel and hotel 
deposits and reservations.
  My office has worked with the passport office over the last few 
months. I would compliment them for the dedication of the employees and 
how they were trying to deal with this massive surge, but we imposed 
upon them a burden they simply could not handle.
  What do we say to the people of Tennessee: Show up at our 53 driver's 
license offices with the correct documentation; otherwise, you may wait 
for 2 hours, you get up to the window, and then they tell you've 
forgotten your Social Security card and you must come back again. If 
they show up over 1 month, this is going to make the passport 
application surge look like a small problem.
  I believe we have a choice in Congress. I think insofar as REAL ID 
goes, we should either fund it or we should repeal it. Fund it or 
repeal it.
  It may be that we need to have a national identification card. I have 
always been opposed to that, but we live in a different era now. But I 
would much prefer to have seen the Senate debate this in the usual way 
and let us consider, for example, whether a secure work card, such as 
the kind Senator Schumer and Senator Graham have proposed and Senator 
Cornyn and I have talked about, might not be a better form of ID card.
  Most of our immigration problems, for example, are related to work. 
Maybe a secure identification card would be better, a secure Social 
Security card would be better, or maybe, because of privacy concerns 
and our memory of Nazi Germany and our memory of South Africa, we want 
to be very careful about having anything that is actually called a 
national ID card or even a de facto ID card. So maybe we can work over 
a period of years and help to create several cards:

[[Page 20373]]

maybe a travel card that some can use on airplanes or other forms of 
travel; maybe a work card; maybe some States would want to use the 
driver's license as that form of ID card. But the point would be that 
there would be three or four choices which could be used for ID which 
would be secure and would help with the terrorism threat we face.
  I regret very much that we did not have a chance to take this 
problem, this recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, properly through 
the Senate and consider it. I was glad to see the legislation that 
created the negotiated rulemaking process that at least involved the 
States in what is going on.
  We have an obligation in this body to recognize the fact that if we 
are going to have something called REAL ID--and according to our own 
Department of Homeland Security, it is going to cost $20 billion over 
10 years--then we have a responsibility to appropriate that money or 
most of that money to pay for it. Today, we are at $40 million. That is 
why Senator Collins and Senator Warner and Senator Voinovich and I 
intend to offer this amendment to the appropriations bill to provide 
$300 million in funding to the States to implement REAL ID. In the 
meantime, I am going to work with other Senators to either reestablish 
the negotiated rulemaking process or to repeal REAL ID and let us move 
ahead with a different way of developing a secure identification card.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, while I am not offering any amendments 
now on Homeland Security appropriations, I do wish to speak about a 
couple of amendments I will be offering.
  First, we all understand that the inspector generals are the eyes and 
ears for not only the public and the executive branch but also for 
Congress within Federal agencies.
  As part of a piece of broader legislation I have previously filed, I 
wanted to include in this bill the provisions that would relate to the 
Department of Homeland Security. Keep in mind, the Department of 
Homeland Security has been on the high-risk list as long as it has been 
in existence. The high-risk list is put out, in terms of management 
issues, by the Government Accountability Office.
  There are so many areas I could go into of mismanagement and problems 
within FEMA and other parts of Homeland Security, but suffice it to say 
that my amendment is going to help the public get access to the 
inspector general's information. It would require that the Department 
of Homeland Security put on the home page of their Web site a direct 
link to the inspector general's report and, furthermore, provide 
information on the home page of how people can, in fact, turn in the 
Department of Homeland Security for issues of fraud, waste, and abuse.
  We need to enlist the public's help. In order for them to do that, 
they have to know what is going on. It is my goal eventually to make 
sure the IG Web site is on the home page of every Federal agency, and 
this is a good start in the Department of Homeland Security.
  The other amendment I have is troubling. In fact, it is scary. After 
the hurricanes in 2005, there were a number of trailers that were 
distributed to the victims of Katrina and Rita. Less than a year later, 
there was a complaint regarding the condition of these trailers, and it 
related to the health of the people in the trailers. There was testing 
done, one test, by FEMA. It found dangerously toxic levels of 
formaldehyde. What happened after those test results, and test results 
also done by independent organizations? Nothing. Toxic levels of 
formaldehyde in trailers the Government provided to victims of a 
hurricane.
  Here is the scary part. The scary part is the General Counsel's 
Office within FEMA was advising the department: Let's keep this quiet. 
We don't want to own this issue.
  I am quoting now from things written by the lawyers in FEMA. A man 
actually died in a trailer. There was a conference call. As a result of 
the call, the General Counsel's Office put out a directive: We are in 
litigation on this issue. We must be on every conference call. Nothing 
should be done on this without going through us. We don't want to own 
this issue.
  All of these kinds of messages were sent throughout FEMA. Now we have 
a problem; we have a safety issue for American citizens living in 
trailers that we have given them.
  FEMA finally goes out and does some testing. They open all the 
windows and turn on the exhaust fans and then say: We don't think the 
problem is that serious. We better notify people. We want to notify 
people, but don't put our phone number on it. Tell them there might be 
a problem. In other words, let's see if we can't avoid being held 
responsible by giving out information. But for gosh sakes don't let 
them ask a question about what they do to get out of the trailer, how 
they get a new trailer, how they can find out how the problem is being 
addressed.
  We can take two attitudes in Government. We can take the attitude 
that we want to try to ``CYA'' and look good or we can take the 
attitude we are here to serve the public. Those people in FEMA were 
using Federal tax dollars, and their goal was to help people in times 
of need and make sure they stayed safe.
  This Congress has a solemn obligation to make sure we get to the 
bottom of this. My amendment will require the inspector general to do 
an immediate and thorough report as to everything that happened in this 
incident and, within 15 days of enactment of this law, FEMA must report 
to Congress what action they have taken in response to this issue.
  When, finally, this all came to light in a very well run House 
hearing in July of 2007, they promised swift action. We need to know 
what is ``swift action.'' We have to have the indoor quality testing 
and the root cause determination. We must make available alternative 
safe housing, and we obviously have to make sure the Office of General 
Counsel is held accountable for an attitude that is all about covering 
our risk instead of protecting American citizens.
  Senator Obama and Senator Pryor are working with me on this 
amendment. I anticipate it will have bipartisan support and many other 
Senators will join us.
  There is a lot of talk around right now about whether Congress is 
doing its job, whether we are asserting ourselves in terms of a branch 
of Government that is supposed to provide oversight and accountability. 
I am confused as to why this did not reach the public's attention prior 
to January of this year. I am proud that it has now. I am proud that 
these kinds of hearings are going on and that we are providing the kind 
of oversight and accountability of the executive branch that protects 
the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can make sure 
our job is to protect the people we serve and not to protect Government 
officials.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I want to talk about the pending amendment to 
the bill. This amendment is called the Graham-Gregg-Kyl-Sessions, et 
al., amendment. I wanted to make a couple of quick comments about it.
  Because the immigration bill failed on the floor of the Senate, a 
variety of States have begun to pass their own

[[Page 20374]]

laws to enforce certain elements of immigration policy, including 
determining employment eligibility. My State of Arizona is one of those 
States.
  What I noticed that at least a couple of them have done, including 
Arizona, is to require that employers check with the Department of 
Homeland Security, and the basic pilot program we have established as a 
pilot program, to determine the validity of the Social Security status 
of the prospective employee. It may well be that as States fill the gap 
created because the Federal Government has not adopted immigration 
reform legislation, especially dealing with that subject, that the 
Department of Homeland Security and Social Security will be 
increasingly called upon to provide information to the States. Because 
of that, they are probably going to need to be able to improve their 
systems; not to change what they do or create a Federal program but at 
least to be able to respond to those State inquiries.
  My understanding from the Department of Homeland Security is that 
they have the capacity to deal with additional inquiries now, but they 
wish to improve their capabilities and make sure the accuracy level is 
high of the information passed back to the States and to the employers 
requesting information, and perhaps even to expand what it is they can 
provide by way of verification of the validity of the Social Security 
numbers. So as this process unfolds, we are going to have to make sure 
all of our Government agencies--primarily the Department of Homeland 
Security--have what they need to respond to these requests.
  To that end, one of the elements of the amendment that has been 
offered here authorizes the expenditure of funds for the specific 
purpose of improving the reliability of the basic pilot program and 
associated programs of the Federal Government that would respond to 
State inquiries. Obviously, my preference is that the Federal 
Government undertake that ourselves. Our responsibility is to form the 
immigration laws and secure the border. Having failed to pass 
legislation, they can help our citizens around the country by having 
the most robust database possible that is easy to access and, 
therefore, States and employers throughout the States can take 
advantage of.
  The only other thing is that I support this amendment because it 
includes many of the features that were part of the immigration bill 
that almost everybody agreed with. What you heard in the debate was 
that we all agree we need to secure the border, enforce the laws, 
return to the rule of law, but--there was always a ``but'' and 
different people had different reasons they didn't want to support the 
bill. But the bottom line was that almost everybody here supported the 
essential enforcement features.
  The Department of Homeland Security appropriation bill, therefore, is 
the appropriate place to include funding for the execution of the laws 
that currently exist and, almost without exception, this amendment does 
not add new authority or programs for enforcement but rather identifies 
areas in which enforcing existing law would be enhanced through greater 
capability achieved through the expenditure of funds that could, among 
other things, hire more personnel or in other ways make the system more 
robust.
  Here is one specific example: Most folks like to refer to securing 
the border, and the symbol of that is the hiring of more Border Patrol. 
That is fine; we need them. But we also know that 40 percent of illegal 
immigrants in the United States didn't cross the border illegally. They 
came here on visas and then overstayed their visas illegally. The 
question is, what can we do to enforce our visa policy, as well as what 
can we do to secure the border?
  This bill focuses on that visa overstayer problem and provides 
funding for the kind of particular investigators and agents for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement that would ordinarily be looking at 
that problem. In addition, it explores ways in which the entry-exit 
system can be implemented and we can understand who has overstayed 
their visas so that can be enforced.
  There is much else in this amendment that is good policy and that 
backs up that policy by the expenditure of funds. The $3 billion figure 
in here is, very roughly, an approximation of what the immigration bill 
that we debated provided for, minus the implementation of a couple of 
programs, the biggest one of which was the employee verification 
system. That system obviously failed along with the rest of the 
immigration bill. That was a pretty expensive item.
  You will recall that we had mandatory spending of $4.4 billion--money 
that would have been collected from fines and fees. The $3 billion here 
represents the bulk of what that money would have been spent on, minus 
the employee verification system and a few other odds and ends.
  That is the explanation for the particular amount of funding in the 
bill. I hope our colleagues will think carefully about this amendment. 
Its purpose is good. I think its execution is good. It is on the right 
bill. What it does that is a bit troublesome to some Members is provide 
some authorization, though that is not the primary element; it would 
not be the first time we provided authorization on an appropriations 
bill, but I can see there is some of that in here. The other aspect is 
the emergency funding nature. One way or another, we are going to have 
to get the funding to do the things the American people have insisted 
on. I have no objection to doing this as emergency funding. If we can 
fund $100 billion for the Iraq war, for example, I think we can fund $3 
billion to secure our own border. If the loss of the immigration bill a 
month ago taught me anything, it was that the American people are very 
skeptical that we are committed to enforcing the law. I believe until 
we demonstrate to them a seriousness of purpose by actions rather than 
words, by the appropriation of money and by the expenditure of that 
money on things that they can see make a difference in enforcing 
immigration policy, they are not going to give us the green light to 
adopt a more comprehensive immigration reform bill. That is why I am 
supportive of this amendment as the next step toward solving the 
problem. I think we want to solve it. I think this is a step in that 
direction and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I filed earlier a number of amendments. 
I want to talk about some of those and why I think that they are 
important. I am pleased to say many of them have been included, all or 
in part, in the Graham-Gregg-Kyl-McConnell amendment that I have 
cosponsored. I think, in effect, it represents a positive step to 
creating a lawful system of immigration, which I believe we owe to the 
American people. They expect that.
  What good is it for us to pass new ideas, new laws, and new 
provisions concerning immigration if they will not be enforced any 
better than those we have had before? That is the real rub, the real 
problem we have. That was my fundamental concern and objection to the 
comprehensive bill that failed to pass a few weeks ago. It would not 
have done the job, it would not have been effective, and it did not 
accomplish what we need to accomplish.
  I want to share some ideas about the amendments that I have offered 
and why they are important. I believe Senator Kyl said that we have 
broad bipartisan support for this. There was some belief that if 
enforcement amendments are passed, then some people would never 
confront the other aspects of immigration that others believe need to 
be confronted. I think the truth is that people tried to hold hostage 
enforcement in order to gain support for a new idea of immigration, and 
an amnesty, or a legalization process that the American people didn't 
agree

[[Page 20375]]

to. It didn't work. So let me share a few thoughts that I think are 
important with regard to having a good legal system for our borders.
  First, we have to have more barriers, more fencing. The funding for 
the fencing that we asked for--the 700 miles of fencing--would be 
included in the amendment that has been proposed, offered, and called 
up. That is a good step in the right direction. I will offer separately 
an amendment asking the GAO--our Government Accountability Office--to 
analyze the cost. The cost factor that I have heard is about $3.2 
million per mile for the fence. That exceeds my best judgment of how 
much that I think it ought to cost to build a fence based on my 
experience of building a fence in the country in the past. Fences 
usually do not cost millions of dollars but, this fence on the border 
is going to cost a lot of money. Yes, we need a lot of fencing on the 
border, and maybe double and triple fencing in some areas. We need 
high-tech cameras, and that will run the cost up. But sometimes you get 
the impression that the people who don't believe in fencing are running 
the cost up so high that maybe the American people will change their 
mind about the fence. We know the fence at San Diego was a great 
success. People on both sides of the border appreciate it. What was a 
rundown, crime-prone area on both sides of the border in San Diego is 
now making economic progress, and illegal immigration and crime in that 
sector is way down. Putting up a strong fence is the right thing for us 
to do and we must do it if we are serious about enforcement.
  I ask for commonsense purposes, tell me how we can have enough border 
agents to cover 1,700 miles for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Are they 
just going to stand out there all day and all night? We need barriers 
that will multiply the Border Patrol officer's capability to respond in 
an effective way to apprehend those who break into the country.
  Through a combination of these efforts, we can get to the point where 
we go from an open border to a border that people understand to be 
closed, and, as a result, we could see a reduction in the number of 
people who attempt to come into our country illegally.
  I am pleased that a good part of the State and local law enforcement 
provisions I have provided for will be included in the amendment. I am 
pleased that a good part of the National Guard provisions I have 
offered, including continuing Operation Jump Start, will be included, 
and the criminal alien provisions dealing with removing those aliens 
who have been convicted of crimes are deported.
  I am pleased that we are moving towards ensuring that illegal 
entrants will be prosecuted when they come into the country illegally. 
This can be done by expanding the Del Rio, TX, zero-tolerance policy to 
other areas of our border so that illegal aliens who come across the 
border are not just met and greeted, given free meals, and taken back 
home, but actually are convicted of the crime that they committed when 
they came across the border illegally. We have seen good results from 
that program. And there are some other provisions that are important.
  I have filed three amendments dealing with the fence. The first deals 
with a GAO study of the cost of the fencing. We need to know how much 
money has been spent thus far--there is a lot of confusion out there--
how much fencing is now in place after all the money we have spent, how 
much it is costing and will cost the American taxpayers in the future, 
and whether there are better techniques and procedures by which we can 
build more fencing for less cost faster without significantly 
sacrificing quality. That is what that study would include. The 
Government Accountability Office regularly evaluates those kinds of 
issues, and I believe they will give us a valuable report that will 
help us in the future.
  A second amendment calls for full funding of the fencing.
  The Secure Fence Act of 2006 that I offered, which was signed into 
law, requires 700 miles of fencing. This amendment which I offered 
would fully fund the 700 linear miles of southern border fencing 
required by providing $1.548 billion to be used for the construction of 
topographical mile 371 through 700. That is what the law requires.
  The Congressional Research Service and the Department of Homeland 
Security have told us that 700 linear miles in the act will actually 
require more miles topographically; so the 700 linear miles becomes 
close to 854 topographical miles. So my amendment will fund the 
remaining 484 topographical miles of fencing not currently funded for 
construction by December 31, 2009.
  I have drafted this amendment in two ways. One is to be paid for with 
an across-the-board cut, and the other is designated as emergency 
spending.
  If we are able to adopt the amendment offered earlier today by 
Senator Graham and others, perhaps that will go a long way to solving 
the problems I have raised, but, in fact, we could go further and 
should go further.
  My next set of amendments addresses State and local law enforcement's 
ability to assist Federal law enforcement. My amendment allows for some 
of the grant moneys appropriated by the bill to go for State and local 
training exercises, technical assistance, and other programs under the 
law. This would be a pot of up to $294 million to be used to reimburse 
State and local expenses related to the implementation of the INA 
section 287(G) agreements.
  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, State and local 
governments can sign memorandums of understanding--they are referred to 
as MOUs in the Government. When two foreign nations do it, they call 
them treaties. It is about as complex. MOUs are important--with the 
Department of Homeland Security to have their law enforcement officers 
trained to work with DHS and to enforce immigration law. That is how 
State and local people work together. My amendment encourages State and 
local governments to seek out these agreements and participate in them. 
The Federal Government needs to welcome State and local law 
enforcement's assistance at every opportunity, not discourage it.
  Alabama was the second State, I am pleased to say, in the Nation to 
sign such an agreement. We have trained 3 classes of approximately 20 
State troopers each for a total of 60 State troopers who are now 
``cross-designated'' to work with the immigration agency, ICE. Each 
class cost the State of Alabama about $40,000. The State of Alabama had 
to pay to train their officers in this fashion so they could 
participate with the Federal Government. They have spent about $120,000 
to date to help the Federal Government enforce Federal immigration 
laws. I think we can do better. We should encourage State law 
enforcement officers, and we should help fund this partnership program. 
I have no doubt in my mind that is the right way.
  Then I have an amendment that affirms State and local authority and 
expands of the immigration violators files in the National Crime 
Information Center, that is not in the Gregg amendment. My amendment 
would reaffirm the inherent authority of State and local law 
enforcement to assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of 
immigration laws.
  Confusion among the circuit courts, particularly dicta in a Ninth 
Circuit decision that appears to be somewhat contradictory to the Fifth 
and Tenth Circuits, is involved. That has led to a Department of 
Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion that questioned some powers of 
State and local law enforcement. And then the Department of Justice 
withdrew that opinion. So there is uncertainty--the Presiding Officer 
knows how uncertain it can get involving the prosecution of cases in 
multiple jurisdictions--about what the power of local law enforcement 
is to participate in helping to enforce immigration laws.
  The issue is very real. Just today in the Washington Times, there is 
an article about it. The article is entitled ``Virginia eyes plan to 
deport illegals. Panel suggests a statewide policy.'' It is being 
discussed all over the country. They say in that article:

       Other areas, such as the role of local and State police 
     officers in enforcing immigration law, are more ambiguous. It 
     is not clear

[[Page 20376]]

     what the State's role is in enforcing immigration law, Mr. 
     Cleator said.

  He is senior staff lawyer for the Virginia State Crime Commission. He 
said it is not clear what the State role is, and there is some 
ambiguity, less than most people understand, but there is a perception 
of ambiguity, and there is some ambiguity. That is why my amendment is 
needed and important.
  My amendment will place additional information in the National Crime 
Information Center's immigration violators file so that critical 
information on final orders of removal, revocation of visas, and 
expired voluntary departure agreements can be readily available to 
State and local law enforcement officers. They need that information so 
they can make the right decisions when they apprehend somebody going 
about their normal business on matters such as speeding and the like.
  The National Crime Information Center is the bread-and-butter 
database of local law enforcement, and they need this information 
properly inputted into that computer center because the State law 
officers will be the ones routinely coming into contact with unlawful 
and deported aliens during the course of their normal duties, such as a 
DUI charge. They want to know something about them, and the information 
is not being readily placed in that computer.
  Everybody knows that virtually every law enforcement officer in 
America who stops somebody for an offense--such as DUI, theft, 
burglary, robbery--runs the suspect's name in the National Crime 
Information Center, and this is done to determine whether there are 
pending charges against the suspect, whether the suspect had been 
convicted of other crimes or if other charges will require that the 
suspect be held in addition to the charge for the original stop. This 
is done every day through tens of thousands of inquiries to NCIC. I 
have discovered that they are not putting a sufficient amount of the 
immigration violation information in NCIC. We have to do that if we 
want that a lawful system of immigration to work. If someone doesn't 
want lawful immigration to work then they will not put that immigration 
violators' information in NCIC.
  Another issue I have raised is Operation Jump Start. This deals with 
National Guard funding through the end of the year 2008 and improvement 
in the rules of engagement. There is funding in the Gregg amendment for 
this matter, but it did not include rules of engagement language.
  My amendment, and a similar amendment filed by Senator Kyl for 
another bill, provides the funding, which is $400 million, needed to 
keep the current National Guard presence of 6,000 guardsmen on the 
southern border through the end of 2008. The administration's plan is 
to reduce those forces by half--down to 3,000--by September 2007. So by 
next summer, they want to have those numbers in half. The National 
Guard is working to deter illegal border crossings. They are big making 
a difference there. They are also helping us create the impression that 
our border is no longer open, that it is closed and it is not a good 
thing for someone to try to come across it illegally. Removing the 
National Guard members when they have been so successful would be 
premature.
  If we take all these actions and keep the National Guard at the 
border, we can help reach that tipping point that I referred to 
earlier.
  In addition, my amendment will allow the National Guard members to 
have a greater role in stopping illegal aliens along the border. 
National Guard members should be permitted to aid in the apprehension 
of illegal aliens crossing the border, at least until a Border Patrol 
agent comes on the scene. Today, they are only permitted to use 
nondeadly force for self-defense or the defense of others. So they 
cannot apprehend illegal aliens that they see crossing the border 
because they cannot use force unless it is to defend themselves or 
others. The rules of engagement prevent them from effectively 
apprehending illegal aliens. My amendment will allow those brave and 
effective National Guard members to apprehend illegal border crossers 
until the Border Patrol officer can come to their location.
  Another big deal is that we want to make sure criminal aliens are 
deported. In effect, this language in the amendment I will offer and 
filed is included in the Gregg amendment. It deals with this problem. 
The American people understand the need to deport aliens, legal and 
illegal, who have committed crimes in the United States, crimes that 
make them deportable. We have laws that say that if you are here in a 
nonpermanent status and you commit a crime, then you are to be 
deported; nonpermanent status means that you do not have legal 
permanent status or citizenship in America. And one of the conditions 
of that admission is that you don't commit crimes. That is not too much 
to ask. That is our standard. Most countries have a similar standard.
  And criminal aliens should be deported, as a matter of policy, at the 
end of their State or local criminal sentences. They should not be 
allowed to slip through the cracks and be released back into society. 
That is not what our laws call for, but it is happening every day.
  Additionally, State court judges should not be allowed to vacate 
convictions or to remit sentences for the purpose of allowing the alien 
to escape the immigration consequences of their crimes. Those events 
that criminal aliens are not being deported and that some criminal 
aliens are avoiding the immigration consequences of their crimes are of 
great concern to the American people and Border Patrol agents who are 
out there working their hearts out.
  So my amendment will double the funding--$300 million--that DHS has 
for the institutional removal program, a program that allows DHS to 
identify criminal aliens while they are in jail serving State and local 
sentences. Once they have been identified, they go through the 
paperwork, and the administrative removal process can be completed 
while they are in jail. This allows the criminal alien to be put 
directly into the Department of Homeland Security's custody at the end 
of their prison term, so that they can be quickly deported.
  My amendment expands the criminal alien program by directing that the 
Secretary of DHS implement a pilot project to evaluate technology to 
automatically identify incarcerated illegal aliens before they are 
released. Manpower alone won't get this job done. But if we start 
correctly with technology, we can make great progress. It can be a big 
improvement in our current system.
  In addition, my amendment ensures that when a criminal alien commits 
a crime, then the original conviction and sentencing will stand when 
DHS has determined whether the alien is deportable based on their 
crimes. This ensures that the trial judge's decision to change the 
sentence or the judgment of conviction won't be able to undermine the 
immigration impact of the original judgment.
  Madam President, we have a real problem. We have a situation in which 
27 percent of the persons in the Federal and State penitentiaries are 
foreign born--this is an amazing number to me--and they are there for 
crimes other than immigration--for drugs, fraud, sexual abuse, violent 
crimes. Large numbers of them--the majority of them--are persons who 
are not citizens. They have been involved in crimes of a serious 
nature, and they should be deported when they complete serving their 
sentence for those crimes. That is what is not occurring.
  In fact, we have at this moment, we believe, some 600,000 absconders. 
These are people who have been apprehended and ordered deported, who 
are told to report for deportation, or similar orders, and have just 
simply absconded into the country and never shown up. That is a huge 
number of illegal aliens that we could eliminate, or reduce, if we 
could handle this process of taking care of their deportation as soon 
as they have finished their criminal time in jail.
  Currently, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
Justice have implemented a zero tolerance policy at the Del Rio sector 
of the

[[Page 20377]]

border. This policy makes sure that every illegal alien is prosecuted 
for their illegal entry into the United States. It is a misdemeanor for 
the first offense. It is a criminal offense, but it is a misdemeanor 
for the first offense of coming into our country illegally. This policy 
has decreased illegal entry into the Del Rio sector by 58 percent.
  Now, when you consider that last year we arrested 1 million people 
attempting to enter our country illegally, you get an understanding of 
what a 58-percent reduction in illegal entries means when that kind of 
policy is enacted. Though there are nine border sectors, Del Rio is the 
only one that has such a policy. My amendment would expand the success 
of the Del Rio project to the two border sectors with the highest 
crossing rates--Tucson, AZ, and San Diego, CA.
  My amendment also requires that until a zero tolerance policy is 
fully in place, the Department of Homeland Security must refer all 
illegal entries along the Tucson-San Diego sector to the respective 
U.S. Attorneys' Offices for prosecution. The U.S. Attorneys' Offices 
must then provide a formal acceptance or declaration of that 
prosecution request, which would then allow a record so that Congress 
can know what all is happening--whether additional resources are needed 
to fully implement this highly effective policy along the entire 
border. I think that is a good step in the right direction.
  Also, Madam President, we have the question of affidavits of support 
and their lack of use and my amendment deals with that. Since 1997, 
most family-based and some employment-based immigrants have to have, 
and do have, a sponsor that guarantees the immigrant will not become a 
public charge. In other words, they are admitted into the country, but 
only on the condition that if they have financial needs, this sponsor 
will take care of that, not the taxpayers of the United States. That is 
a legitimate condition, I submit, to place on entrance into the United 
States.
  So the sponsor would enter into a contract with the Federal 
Government, promising to pay back any means-tested public benefits the 
immigrant would receive. There are some exceptions--medical assistance, 
school lunch, Federal disaster relief.
  To my knowledge, the Federal Government has never gone after sponsors 
to ensure they follow through on the commitment they have made. My 
amendment will require a study to be done by the Government 
Accountability Office to determine the number of immigrants with signed 
affidavits of support that are receiving or have received Federal, 
State, and local benefits when those immigrants really are not eligible 
and should have turned to their sponsors for support. A GAO study is 
needed to determine how much revenue the Federal Government could 
collect if they enforced these contracts and insisted that the 
individual who sponsored the person into the country actually pays what 
they are supposed to pay.
  We need to preserve means-tested public benefits for those who are 
truly needy. We don't have enough money to take care of all the people 
in our country and shouldn't have to take care of people when they have 
a sponsor who promised to take care of them and promised that the 
sponsors would pay back the money for any benefits that the immigrants 
received.
  So those are some of the amendments I offered. There is much that we 
can do to make our system of immigration at the border more effective. 
I would just cite that it is a matter of national security. We 
absolutely know that we have many people who simply want to come to 
America to work and don't want to cause any attack on the United 
States, and they are good people. They simply would like to make more 
money, which is available in the United States, than if they stay in 
their home country. But we also know that since we are not able to 
accept everyone who would like to come to America, we have to have 
rules about who can come and who cannot come and those we let come have 
to obey our laws.
  One of the first and toughest rules should be that we don't allow 
people to come here who are terrorists, or have terrorist connections 
that could threaten our country.
  Next, we need to ask ourselves how many persons should come in 
legally, and under what conditions, what kind of skills and abilities 
and education level and language skills they should have. That should 
be part of a good and effective immigration policy.
  I will just say, however, that any such rules are absolutely 
worthless if we have a wide open system where people come across 
illegally on a regular basis and they know they have a high probability 
for success to come here illegally. Indeed, we know they do because we 
have about 12 million people here illegally.
  So those are some steps I suggest we can take that will improve our 
legal system. I am pleased that a number of those will be included in 
the Gregg-Graham amendment and will not require a separate vote.
  I hope we will take this responsibility seriously. I see no reason we 
should not undertake the actions that I have suggested, which have 
bipartisan support in the Congress. I hope they will not become part of 
some grand agreement that everything else that we can't agree on has to 
be a part of it. In other words, these provisions, which I think would 
have broad bipartisan and public support, these provisions should not 
be used as a vehicle to try to drag on things that people don't agree 
with--certainly not at this time.
  So I support these amendments. I am glad we do have the Graham-Gregg-
McConnell-Kyl amendment on the floor, and I support that. And I would 
ask these amendments be considered in due course.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, before the Senate, I understand, is a 
Graham amendment dealing with border security. Then there is a second-
degree amendment that has been offered on top of that which effectively 
is where we are at the present time. I would like to make a few 
comments about this whole issue that has been brought up by Senator 
Graham in terms of the security aspects at the border.
  Those of us who supported a comprehensive program on immigration 
reform supported strong border enforcement because we know there are 
400,000 or 500,00 people who have come across the border, minimally, a 
year. We don't know their names. We don't know where they go. They 
disappear into American society. There is no question, on a matter 
dealing with homeland security, we have to be serious about dealing 
with our borders. We understand that.
  That is why it is so interesting to me, when I saw we had that 
opportunity 2 years ago, we had a great deal of fuss on the other side 
about building a fence along the border and then, after they got their 
vote, the Republicans never funded that particular program.
  When we had a chance a few weeks ago to do something on comprehensive 
border control, again the Republicans, the other side, voted no; they 
voted it down. Now we have the proposal to try to, I guess, make them 
politically OK among the voters. We know this issue of undocumented and 
illegal immigration is a complex one, is a difficult one.
  We know the primary reason people come across the border down in the 
Southwest is because of the magnet of jobs in the United States. This 
amendment does nothing about the magnet of jobs. We should not delude 
ourselves, if we say we are going to support this particular proposal 
and then not deal with what is the basic cause of the hundreds of 
thousands of people who come here, and that is the magnet of jobs. This 
amendment doesn't deal with the magnet of jobs. Maybe it has

[[Page 20378]]

a good political ring to it out there on the hustings, that we are 
doing something, but as we have seen time and time again, as long as we 
are not going to deal with the magnet of jobs, the efforts we have on 
the border--we can build the fences, people have ladders to go over 
them; or you can build fences and people will burrow and go underneath 
them--as long as you have the powerful magnet of jobs, the efforts will 
fail.
  We are going to have a vote on this issue, although I, for one, 
believe having strong border security is a key aspect of having 
comprehensive reform. That is why a number of us are going to support 
an alternative to the Graham amendment, an alternative that recognizes, 
No. 1, this is a complex problem--we are for border security and 
control, to the extent we can--but, No. 2, that we have a situation 
affecting millions of Americans in agriculture and that is, if we are 
going to have border control we are going to have to be able to provide 
agricultural workers. That is why I hope the Senate will consider an 
amendment which will have the border control provisions but also have 
what is called the AgJOBS provisions that will address what is the need 
in agricultural America.
  Without it, as we have heard so eloquently from Senator Feinstein, as 
we heard from Senator Larry Craig, we are going to have devastation in 
major parts of our country.
  If you are going to have border security, you are going to have to 
have some way for these workers to get in. The AgJOBS bill is the bill 
that has had over 60 Members of the Senate who have been supporters of 
that program. That seems to me to begin to make a good deal of sense.
  Recognize, in dealing with this whole issue in a comprehensive way, 
the most vulnerable people inside our borders, those individuals who 
are here and are undocumented in so many instances are young people, 
brought here through no fault of their own because their parents 
brought them here when they were under 16 years of age, who are here 
for more than 5 years, serving 2 years in the military, graduating from 
the high schools of this country--it is called the DREAM Act.
  I see my friend and the principal spokesperson and sponsor of that, 
the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, on the floor. He speaks so 
well to this issue. When we have the amendment before the Senate, I 
will review some of the great, important successes of many young 
individuals who came here undocumented and have worked long and hard 
and have graduated from high school, which is no mean feat when you 
have more than a 50-percent dropout rate among the Hispanic community. 
The fact that these individuals are here, want to be part of the 
American dream, want to contribute to our Nation--the DREAM Act gives 
them the hope and opportunity for the future, which so many who have 
come here as immigrants and as children, who want to be a part of the 
American dream, have felt.
  This will be a proposal I hope we will have a chance to vote on. It 
will have the border security aspects included in the Graham proposal. 
It will recognize, if you are going to try to close the border, you are 
still going to have the great agribusiness in our country that is going 
to demand workers. We have a way of responding to that, a way about 
which Senator Feinstein and Senator Larry Craig have spoken to this 
body, a familiar path that makes a great deal of sense. That will be 
part of the proposal. Then we say to some of the most vulnerable 
individuals here, we recognize the challenges you are facing.
  The proposal we are going to offer is a downpayment on a day where we 
might be able to come to a more comprehensive approach, which will be 
clearly in the interests of the Nation and in the interests of those 
who have come here and hopefully are looking forward to being a part of 
the American dream--pay their fines, pay their dues but be a part of 
the American dream.
  I also mention I was somewhat troubled by the provisions of the 
Graham amendment, which effectively will say, for those who have 
overstayed their visa--and we know that is about 46 percent of all the 
undocumented. You can't deal with the problem of the undocumented here 
in the United States and just close the border because almost half of 
those who are undocumented here come from overstays. So let's not 
confuse the American people and beat our chests and say we have taken a 
strong security position by dealing with the border and not dealing 
with the undocumented.
  We have 12.5 million undocumented here. We simply do not have enough 
detention centers in which to detain them.
  We want to deal with the terrorists. We want to deal with the drug 
smugglers. We want to deal with the hardened criminals. Rather than 
focusing our attention on those goals, we would divert precious 
resources to what? Jailing women and children, taking the overstays and 
putting them into detention? We have an undocumented problem and what 
are we going to do? This is not the solution. This whole scenario 
sounds like another plan like we had in Iraq: Al-Qaida in Afghanistan 
was the organization who attacked the United States and what did we do? 
We went into Iraq, wasting our resources. This amendment is focused on 
roundups and mass detention, rather than target the real threats which 
are terrorism and crimes. This amendment on the Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill is not the answer.
  It seems to me an alternative approach makes a great deal of sense. 
This is a modest program. It is a well-thought-out program. It is a 
tried and tested program. It is a program where they have had hearings 
and the Senate is familiar with it. Let's do what is necessary at the 
border. Let's do what is necessary to ensure that agriculture and those 
workers who have worked in the fields are going to have the respect and 
dignity they should have. That has bipartisan support. Let's insist we 
are going to include the DREAM Act, which has strong bipartisan support 
as well.
  Let's move on and accept that concept. That includes the basic thrust 
of the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. Then let's move 
ahead with the Homeland Security bill.
  I know my friend from Connecticut wishes to address the Senate.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield briefly, without losing my right to the 
floor, yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand the Senator is essentially embracing the 
concept of moving forward independently with the DREAM Act, 
essentially; is that the position of the Senator?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We would have an amendment that would have border 
security and AgJOBS and the DREAM Act together, put in together, so we 
will deal with border issues but also recognize, if you are going to 
have a strong border, if we are going to keep out agricultural workers, 
that we have a major agricultural industry here, and we ought to accept 
AgJOBS which, I think at last count, has 66 cosponsors, Republicans and 
Democrats. Also, we have an emergency with that particular proposal. 
Also, look at those who are the most vulnerable people in this country, 
and those are the children who have been brought here through no fault 
of their own, trying to be a part of our system. Many of them are in 
the Armed Forces of our country. It is called the DREAM Act. The 
Senator from Illinois has been a prime sponsor.
  We think, with that combination, that will be much more responsive to 
the real challenges we are facing, both from a security point of view 
and from an economic point of view, an agricultural point of view and 
from a humane point of view.
  Mr. GREGG. If I could simply make the point in the form of a 
rhetorical question: I am not sure the DREAM Act, as viable as it may 
be, has a great deal to do with Homeland Security's job on the border. 
Of course the Lindsey Graham amendment, of which I was a sponsor, is 
focused at Homeland Security's responsibility on the border.
  But I appreciate the point of the Senator. I am not sure why he 
stopped there. Why doesn't he just reoffer the

[[Page 20379]]

entire comprehensive immigration bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. This, I believe, is the downpayment. I remind my friend, 
and then I will yield the floor:

       Enforcement alone will not do the job of securing our 
     borders. Enforcement at the border will only be successful in 
     the long term if it is coupled with a more sensible approach 
     to the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in the country today 
     and the many more who will attempt to migrate to the United 
     States for economic reasons.

  This is from the Coalition for Immigration Security. This is from a 
White House official charged with homeland security. This is a security 
issue, and we believe it is important.
  The final point I mention to my friend from New Hampshire is a key 
aspect of the DREAM Act is to encourage these young people to serve in 
the military. At a time when we have critical needs in the military, 
the opportunities for these young people to serve in the military will 
give a very important boost to the Armed Forces of the country, and 
that obviously is dealing with the security of the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment 
Senator Collins and I intend to introduce. I gather the parliamentary 
situation is such that there will not be a grant of unanimous consent 
to set aside the pending amendment, so we did want to take this 
opportunity to discuss an amendment which would add $100 million to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill for the purpose of funding 
efforts at the State and local level to make communications between our 
law enforcement personnel interoperable--they can talk to each other. 
This is a pressing need for homeland security, for disaster response.
  I know my friend and colleague from Maine cannot remain on the Senate 
floor for long. So I yield to her for some comments about our 
amendment. Then I will retake the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, let me thank the committee 
chairman, Senator Lieberman, for his graciousness in yielding to me.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Lieberman's amendment to 
add $100 million for an interoperability communications grant program. 
Last year, the Homeland Security Committee spent 8 months investigating 
the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina.
  It was very disappointing for the committee to learn that the same 
kinds of problems in the ability of emergency first responders to 
communicate with one another that were evident in the response on 9/11 
still existed that many years later and hampered the response to the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina.
  When the 9/11 Commission reviewed all that went up to the attacks on 
our country on 9/11 and evaluated the response, it identified the 
tragic truth that many firefighters, police officers, and other 
emergency responders lost their lives on 9/11 because their 
communications equipment was incompatible. The police could not talk to 
the firefighters, who could not, in turn, talk to the emergency medical 
personnel.
  We found exactly that same problem existing years later in the 
response to Hurricane Katrina. In fact, we found that within the same 
parish of New Orleans, police and firefighters often had incompatible 
communications equipment. It should be evident if our first responders 
cannot talk to one another in the midst of an emergency, the response 
is going to be greatly hampered, and in some cases that means 
additional loss of life. That is just unacceptable.
  State and local governments recognize their problems with emergency 
communications, which is why the Department of Homeland Security 
receives more requests for funding to upgrade and purchase compatible 
emergency communications equipment under the State Homeland Security 
Grant Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative than for any 
other allowable use.
  The experts tell us the only way we are ever going to get a handle on 
this problem is if we dedicate funding for this purpose. The Homeland 
Security bill that is about to emerge from conference would establish a 
multiyear program to achieve that goal. But we need to make a 
downpayment on that program through this appropriations bill.
  I know the leaders of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security have worked very hard, and there are many demands on the money 
that is available. But I would urge them to take a look at our 
proposal.
  Creating an interoperability emergency communications network is a 
complicated, expensive, and lengthy process. It is the type of 
multiyear project that requires States to know how much money they will 
be getting each year for several years in order to come up with the 
kind of regional plan that is needed to address this problem.
  Even the most effective preincident planning will prove ineffective 
if first responders are unable to communicate with each other 
effectively in real time, on demand, during an actual incident, and in 
the immediate aftermath.
  I would point out that Senator Lieberman and I also sponsored an 
amendment when the budget was on the Senate floor, which was adopted 
just 4 short months ago, that provided $400 million for this critical 
purpose. Yet, unfortunately, the appropriations bill before us contains 
no funding for interoperability communications grants.
  Now, we recognize the competing demands, and that is why the Senator 
from Connecticut and I are proposing a modest program of only $100 
million rather than the $400 million that was adopted during 
consideration of the budget resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lieberman and me in supporting 
funding for interoperability emergency communications. This is a high 
priority for our first responder community, for those who are on the 
front lines when disaster strikes.
  I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Maine for an 
excellent statement.
  First, I thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, for working as hard and 
effectively as they have to provide funds that are critical to securing 
our homeland.
  In fact, the committee added two and a quarter billion dollars for 
Homeland Security above the request of the President's budget. For 
that, they are to be thanked. That is exactly the right thing to do at 
a time when the threat of terrorism continues to be a clear and present 
danger for our American homeland.
  Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment because, as she 
said, we believe the committee has not provided anything for one of our 
Nation's highest priorities, and thus an adjustment is needed and I 
speak of interoperability of communications systems among law 
enforcement personnel, first responders, the very fundamental capacity 
in an emergency to pick up whatever means of communication they have 
and speak to the firefighters, police officers, and emergency 
responders wherever they may be.
  As Senator Collins indicated, just to build some history, in the 
Senate budget resolution conference report earlier this year adopted by 
the Senate, we provided for $400 million to be spent next year for this 
program in helping States and localities to allow their first 
responders to talk to each other in a crisis. That is the budget 
resolution. It is a first step, but it was an important step.
  Senator Collins also referred to the conference committee on the 9/11 
legislation that passed both Houses of the Congress. We have been in 
conference for some period of time. I am happy to say we concluded the 
conference successfully within the last 24 hours, and a report is now 
circulating among the members of the committee to have them sign it. I 
gather that a majority of members of the House committee have already 
signed, and Senators, in their wisdom, are taking a little longer

[[Page 20380]]

to read the report. But I am confident that before the end of the day 
we will have a majority there, too, as well.
  Well, the conference report on the 
9/11 legislation, which is before us, to implement as yet unimplemented 
parts of the 9/11 Commission Report, or those parts that have been 
inadequately implemented, and/or, frankly, ideas that the respective 
committees in the House and the Senate have had on our own initiative 
to strengthen our homeland security against the threat of terrorism, 
which as I said earlier is clear and present, as the most recent 
reports on al-Qaida and its intention to strike us make painfully 
clear, and to create the kind of apparatus that will protect the 
American people in the event of natural disasters because there is an 
obvious overlap in what those capabilities will do.
  So the 9/11 legislation conference report will be before the Senate 
soon. It does authorize a new interoperability emergency communications 
grant program. It should, hopefully, provide additional and much needed 
resources to help the Nation's first responders.
  Now, I used the word ``hopefully'' advisedly because this new grant 
program the 9/11 legislation creates will not help our first responders 
unless we put some money into it. That is what this bill and this 
amendment to this bill that Senator Collins and I are offering would 
do. It would provide $100 million for the program in fiscal year 2008. 
It is below the $400 million authorized in the budget resolution. But 
this $100 million is a good start and an opportunity to essentially put 
our money where our promise was in the 9/11 legislation.
  This actually is a very modest amount compared to the overall needs 
there are across the country. Yet it is a good beginning. 9/11 taught 
us many lessons about what we need to better protect our homeland, and 
one clearly was improve the ability of our first responders to talk to 
one another.
  I know none of us will ever forget 
9/11/01, that day we watched live on television as the extraordinarily 
brave New York City police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel 
raced into the doomed buildings trying to save lives, many of them not 
actually on duty but knowing a crisis had occurred, running to help 
their fellow citizens, to help their fellow first responders.
  But as we watched, we could not see what was happening inside the 
building where another tragedy was occurring. Inside the World Trade 
Center buildings, the uncommon heroism of the first responders was 
running into unnecessary chaos. The incredible bravery of those men and 
women was running into avoidable confusion, all of it caused by their 
inability to talk to one another on the communications systems they 
had.
  One fire chief told the 9/11 Commission:

       People watching on TV that day certainly had more knowledge 
     of what was happening 100 floors above us than we did in the 
     lobby of that building.

  The sad, tragic fact is we know that this failure of interoperability 
of communications cost lives, too many lives. There were other 
communications breakdowns that day that hampered the response efforts 
at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA. Then, as Senator Collins said, 
during Hurricane Katrina, and the gulf coast, we saw a problem of 
communications that went beyond interoperability; it was the failure to 
operate in that crisis.
  Phone lines, cell towers, and electrical systems were destroyed by 
the storms, making it nearly impossible at times for many first 
responders and government officials on the gulf coast to talk to each 
other, to get the public assistance, to rescue people in danger. This 
massive failure was so bad that some emergency officials on the gulf 
coast were forced to resort to runners to communicate with their first 
responders in the field.
  Think of that. Here we are in the 21st century, and this great 
American Nation that has spawned a revolution in global communications 
technologies, where in a catastrophic crisis, our first responders, 
whose duty it is to protect us, had to resort to communications 
techniques that we thought we had left behind on the battlefields of 
the Civil War, and that was to resort to runners.
  This amendment would provide the $100 million for this emergency 
grant program created in the 9/11 bill. The funding would come from a 
small, across-the-board cut in all other Department of Homeland 
Security programs. That is the only way we can think fairly to do it. 
It is real small, about a quarter of 1 percent of the DHS budget, to be 
exact 0.27 percent, a small amount to shift into a program that is 
necessary to save lives when disaster strikes.
  It is important to note that these funds will be provided to States 
only after the Office of Emergency Communications in the Department of 
Homeland Security has approved statewide interoperability 
communications plans so we are not just going to have city A or fire 
department B or ambulance company C apply and get their own grants. You 
have to be part of a plan in every State.
  I note again the $400 million in dedicated funding for this program 
that was provided for in the Senate-passed and House-passed budget 
resolution earlier this year in anticipation of this new program. 
Perhaps because the 9/11 bill that has just been completed in 
conference was not finished when the Appropriations Committee met to 
adopt this Homeland Security appropriations bill, the committee did not 
include any funding for interoperability communications.
  House appropriators did include $50 million to start the program. Now 
the Senate must do its part.
  We owe it to our first responders, the men and women whose duty it is 
to protect us and all the people they protect in cities and towns 
across the Nation, to help them create the kinds of communications 
systems that will enable them to talk to each other in crisis so they 
can react swiftly, efficiently, and effectively when the alarm bell 
rings and duty calls them to respond.
  At the appropriate moment, when it is possible to do so, Senator 
Collins and I will introduce an amendment to achieve the purposes I 
have stated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves 
the floor, I appreciate his leadership on the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations conference report and the bill generally and, of 
course, the work he has done on the other conference report, the only 
two we have had to speak of, on ethics and lobbying reform. He has been 
essential to moving these things along. We have approached these two 
measures on a very bipartisan basis which is, I am confident, the 
reason we were able to get them to the floor. The work of the Senator 
from Connecticut has been exemplary.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I wish a number of things. One of the things I wish is that 
we could legislate the way I remember the Senate legislating. There 
have been editorials written, there was a cartoon this morning in the 
Washington Post, about all the many filibusters led by Republicans. We 
came to our first appropriations bill. We have two individuals who are 
historic in their knowledge of the Senate, Senator Byrd and Senator 
Cochran. I have lamented with my friend from Mississippi on a number of 
occasions how we would like to follow regular order. We try to do that 
as much as we can.
  There are a number of ways to kill legislation. One is to get on the 
floor and talk forever. That is the old-fashioned filibuster. The other 
way is to do it by diversion, other ways. That is what we have before 
us today. We have here a bill dealing with Homeland Security. We all 
know border security is important, and we know the underlying bill is 
$2.3 billion more than the President requested, most of that money 
going directly to border security--3,000 new detention beds, 3,000 new 
Border Patrol agents. It is a good bill. But my friends who want to not 
have this bill have now done what would seem almost impossible: They 
want to relegislate immigration. We

[[Page 20381]]

have spent about a month on immigration this year, about a month last 
year, far more than any other issue.
  Now we have pending before us an amendment, the Graham amendment, 
that in effect relegislates immigration.
  Of course, there is a piece in there for border security. We all 
support that. But there are also pieces in that that take away basic 
rights people have, people who are American citizens. So it is 
unfortunate we are at this juncture.
  I have no alternative, and I have thought of everything I could think 
of to try to avoid this collision. It is my understanding the Graham 
amendment is pending; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Graham amendment is pending.
  Mr. REID. The Graham amendment is in violation of Senate rules. It is 
legislating on an appropriations bill. I raise that as a point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry initially: Is the second-degree 
amendment the pending amendment or is the Graham amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Both amendments are pending.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the majority leader's motion to both amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order goes to the underlying 
first-degree amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. It is a point of order that this is legislating, this is 
the rule XVI point of order; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I raise the defense of germaneness with respect to the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not aware of an arguably 
legislative provision in the House bill, H.R. 2638, to which amendment 
No. 2412, offered by the Senator from South Carolina, could conceivably 
be germane.
  Mr. GREGG. So the amendment is germane?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not believe that the defense of 
germaneness is appropriately placed at this time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I disagree with the ruling of the Chair 
and, therefore, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GREGG. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I know we are not in debate, but I wanted to inform 
Senators, there has been an evacuation order issued on the Hart and 
Dirksen buildings. We are going to go ahead and start the vote, but 
when the buildings allow the Senators to come, we will make sure they 
have an opportunity to vote. We are not going to cut anybody off 
because they are locked in a building someplace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like 3 minutes to quickly point out where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. When you finish, I won't need as much time as you. I will 
take 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. So our colleagues understand the lay of the land, because 
it is a fairly complicated parliamentary situation, the Graham 
amendment, which increases funding for Border Patrol by $3 billion, I 
would point out that the majority leader, I believe, misspoke when he 
said the extra $2.2 billion in this bill went to border security. The 
extra $2.2 billion in this bill, the majority of it exceeds the 
President's request in the area of first responders, and that is why we 
did not move that money out of the first responders to fund this. This 
is in addition to the funding in this bill to fully fund 23,000 Border 
Patrol agents, 45,000 detention beds, the virtual fence, the hard 
fence, and to make sure there are enough ICE enforcement officers. So 
it is a major initiative in the funding area.
  There is also authorizing language in here. It is the authorizing 
language which I guess the majority leader has the most concerns about. 
But that is the underlying bill. The question before the body is, as I 
understand it, the underlying bill, probably because the authorizing 
language may not be germane. This will be a vote basically on the 
issue, in my opinion, of whether you want to increase funding for 
border security by $3 billion, fully funding what is necessary in order 
to make the border secure, including undertaking specific authorizing 
language which we think is important in order to give the Border Patrol 
and ICE agents the necessary tools they need in order to remove people 
from this country who have come to this country illegally or have done 
illegal acts while they are here. This is essentially a vote on the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have expressed my affection for my friend 
from New Hampshire on many occasions. He is a wonderful Senator. I am 
very aware of his great record of public service--Congressman, 
Governor, Senator. But the statement he made is wrong. This is not a 
vote on immigration. This vote we are going to take today, if the Chair 
is overturned, will set a precedent for all future appropriations 
bills, all of them, lowering, if not eliminating, the legislation on 
appropriations threshold. So this will mean any appropriations bill 
that comes through here, you can put anything on it. Some of us will 
remember--I know Senator Cochran will remember--I raised a point of 
order against something that Senator Helms did, and it was one of the 
biggest mistakes I made because we overruled the Chair. It took years 
for us on a bipartisan basis to go back to where we were.
  On appropriations bills, you will be able to put in an appropriations 
bill anything you want. We will get back to the days of appropriations 
bills just putting anything you want in them. One of the good things 
about the appropriations process is you should not be able to legislate 
on an appropriations bill. That is what this is all about.
  I also say to my friend from New Hampshire and all those people who 
believe this is a way to vote on immigration, it is not. It will lower 
the standards here in the Senate significantly. I would say, the 
funding aspect, none of us have any problem with that. We agree. That 
is one of the things I said publicly, that I appreciated the President 
when we had our immigration debate. He provided money that was 
emergency, direct funding of $4.4 billion for the border. I supported 
that. It allowed us to pick up more votes. It was a very important 
thing. I applauded the President for having done that. I told the 
President after that legislation fell through how much I appreciated 
his leadership.
  But we need some leadership. This is going to lower the standards of 
the appropriations process and the Senate. We accept the funding 
measure. We would agree right now. Do it by unanimous consent. We agree 
to that. Then let's have the immigration debate some other time. We 
have spent 2 months on it already. Isn't that enough?
  Mr. President, I want all Senators to know, Democrats and 
Republicans, if the Chair is overturned, this will set a precedent for 
all future appropriations bills, lowering, most likely eliminating, the 
legislating on appropriations threshold. We should not go down that 
road. I want to pass some of these appropriations bills. We want to get 
things done. Is this the picture we are going to have?
  I will use leader time at this time. I came here this morning. I felt 
so good because we passed by unanimous consent the Wounded Warrior 
legislation. The distinguished Republican leader said: Well, why don't 
you add to that the pay raise for the troops? I said: It is OK, we will 
do that. I walked out of here--if I had some muscles, Mr. President, I 
would flex them because we really did well this morning. But the

[[Page 20382]]

fact is, this afternoon we are back in the bog trying to claw through 
legislation we should not have to.
  We have filed cloture 45 times this year. Why? For this bill we have 
now on the Senate floor, Homeland Security appropriations, we had to 
file cloture on a motion to proceed to it. That is hard to comprehend, 
but we did. We had to file cloture.
  I do not want to file cloture on this bill because the first thing 
that would happen is people would come and say: I have not had a chance 
to vote on an amendment.
  So I don't want to file cloture on this bill. I want people to have 
the opportunity to offer amendments and vote on them. But let's try to 
stay within the rules. This is legislating on an appropriations bill.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to overrule the 
Chair, that is really too bad and that will go into part of the writing 
where people will talk about how this Republican minority--I understand 
our majority is pretty thin: 50 to 49. Come September, it will be 51 to 
49. That is pretty close. So it is not an issue where we are bulling 
our way over and through everybody. Every vote we take here is close. 
But this is not the way to go.
  This may make everybody happy, but then there will be no 
appropriations bills. We will just do a big omnibus at the end of the 
year and do away with the appropriations process because now it does 
not matter what bill we bring up--we can bring up the Veterans' 
Administration, the VA, Military Construction appropriations bill, and 
with that, we can put anything in that we want that does not have 
anything to do with the purview and the scope of that bill. That is 
what people are getting into here. It is a shame.
  Mr. President, I ask the vote be started.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
judgment of the Senate?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Clinton
     Johnson
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the vote turning out the way it 
did. First of all, I want the record to clearly reflect that the author 
of this legislation, my friend from South Carolina, Lindsay Graham, 
offered it because he thought it was the right thing to do. He has very 
strong feelings about a lot of issues and he expresses them. One of 
those he feels strongly about is the issue of immigration. He offered 
this amendment in good faith, and I want everybody to know that is how 
I feel.
  Procedurally, though, sometimes here we get in the way of each other. 
In fact, that is what has happened. What I would like to do is ask 
unanimous consent that the money portion--the portion of the Graham 
amendment that funds border security for all the things he and Senator 
Gregg laid out--that we accept that by unanimous consent.
  My friend from New Hampshire wants to look at the legislation they 
have. I am hopeful that sometime tonight I can offer that in the form 
of a unanimous consent request. I wish to make sure everybody on both 
sides has the opportunity to look at the legislation. In effect, I 
again state simply it would give more money for border security. I will 
not harp on this, other than to say we in Nevada have a tremendous 
problem. We arrest illegals, and there is no place to put them. So they 
are let loose. This money would allow us to build more detention beds, 
hire more border security officers, and it will add the first part of 
the legislation that is absolutely necessary--that we do something 
about immigration. We always talk about border security wherever any of 
us go. But then there are other things that would not happen today with 
this legislation.
  Hopefully, within the next hour or so, when Senator Gregg has had a 
chance to look at that--and I will clear it with Senator Kennedy and 
others--we can, by unanimous consent, pass that portion of the bill 
dealing with financing border security.
  I yield the floor at this time and, again, express my appreciation 
for the bipartisan vote that we had.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are on the verge of an important 
bipartisan accomplishment to actually seriously begin to secure the 
border. I thank Senator Graham for his amendment. I thank the majority 
leader for his willingness to pass that portion of it that clearly is 
directed at border security.
  I think once we have had an opportunity to actually read the 
amendment, which Senator Gregg and his staff and Senator Graham and his 
staff are doing, we will have an opportunity to do something important 
for the country later tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am not sending this up in the form of an 
amendment. I want this to be placed in the Record to indicate what we 
would like to have accepted by unanimous consent. If there is an 
agreement on both sides, we will propose the amendment together. This 
is not an amendment, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate an additional $3,000,000,000 to improve border 
                               security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                  TITLE  BORDER SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS

       For an additional amount for ``U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, Salaries and Expenses'', $1,000,000,000, to hire, 
     train, support, and equip additional Border Patrol agents and 
     Customs and Border Protection Officers and for enforcement of 
     laws relating to border security, immigration, customs, and 
     agricultural inspections, and regulatory activities related 
     to plant and animal imports.
       For an additional amount for ``U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and 
     Technology,'' $1,000,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For an additional amount for ``U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, 
     Maintenance, and Procurement'', $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       For an additional amount for ``U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, Construction'',

[[Page 20383]]

     $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     construction related to additional Border Patrol personnel.
       For an additional amount for ``U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses'', $700,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to hire additional agents to 
     enforce immigration and customs laws, procure additional 
     detention beds, carry out detentions and removals, and 
     conduct investigations.
       For an additional amount for ``Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, Salaries and Expenses'', $25,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to train newly hired Border 
     Patrol agents and other immigration and customs personnel 
     funded in this amendment.
       For an additional amount for ``Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, Acquisitions, Construction, Improvement, and 
     Related Expenses'', $25,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to provide facilities to train the newly hired 
     Border Patrol agents and other immigration and customs 
     personnel funded in this amendment.
       These amounts are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I can ask the leader a question, as I 
understand it, we are going to try to work out an agreement on the 
funding and the language which is behind the funding that didn't 
authorize the language----
  Mr. REID. That is directed at border security, yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Is that the money that increases border agents from 23,000 
up to 30,000 and increases the number of beds to 45,000 and covers the 
fence, the virtual fence, and the number that funds ICE?
  Mr. REID. We will take a look at your language, and you can look at 
ours, but the answer to your question is yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think we are all concerned that we get 
border security right. The Graham amendment offered us that 
opportunity. It looks like we may get there tonight.
  Let the Senate understand there is a Catch-22 to what we are doing. 
While Americans want their border security--my guess is what the 
majority leader is proposing we adjust to will pass by the unanimous 
support of this Senate. The Catch-22 is that American agriculture is 
now in crisis, in part because we have failed to pass an immigration 
bill that addresses their guest worker need problem and the border 
closes and the human labor flow stops. We want it stopped. We want the 
illegal movement to stop, but we need a legal system tied to this to 
solve a problem.
  Last agricultural season, underemployed by 25 percent, $3 billion 
lost at the farm gate, the consumer picked up the bill. Then we 
struggled mightily to solve the problem, and we could not. Now we are 
heading into another harvest season, with 35 percent underemployment, 
with a projected $5 billion to $6 billion loss in American 
agriculture--fruit, vegetables, and nuts left hanging on the trees and 
oranges rotting in the orange groves.
  The Senator from California and I have said, please, help us a little 
bit and reinstate a guest worker program with border security; give us 
a 5-year pilot temporary program to solve a near disastrous problem for 
American agriculture. We fumble through and we cannot do it. So what 
are America's farmers doing--the ones who can afford to? They are 
taking their capital and equipment and they are moving to Mexico and 
Argentina and Brazil and Chile. America's investment will move south of 
the border.
  Here we are now, 60 percent dependent on foreign oil to fuel our 
cars. Are we going to become 60 or 70 percent dependent on foreign 
countries to produce our fruits and our vegetables? If this Senate 
cannot get it right within a decade, that is where we will be--maybe 
even less time than that.
  So while we debate border security--and while we are all for it, and 
while I have been aggressive in moving legislation with Senator Byrd, 
starting 2 years ago, to tighten our borders--always in my mind tied to 
that was reform of the guest worker program and getting a workforce for 
American agriculture that was legal, that was transparent, that came 
and worked and went home. But we can't do that. We would not do it. We 
refuse to do it because of grounds of political intimidation.
  Shame on us if we destroy American agriculture because we cannot get 
it right. So the Senator from California and I are left with no 
alternative. Do we object to unanimous consent to secure the border? Of 
course we would not. We cannot and we should not. But we will ask this 
Senate to vote time and time again and either say you are for American 
agriculture or you are against it.
  Therein lies the question this Senate has yet to answer, and they 
must answer if we are to supply America with its fresh fruits and 
vegetables and the kind of abundant food supply that we have grown use 
to--but more important that we expect.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I thank the Senator from Idaho for those 
comments. He is absolutely right in what is happening. It is happening 
to a great extent as well in California. Referring to this chart, I 
wish to show the Senate what has happened. Agriculture is moving to 
Baja, Mexicali, and the Nogales regions--more than 20,750 acres of 
agriculture have moved from the United States to this area here and 
more than 8,600 employees have moved to this area in Mexico. Over here, 
more than 25,350 acres have moved to the center of Mexico, with more 
than 2,460 employees.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator deserves to be heard.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague from California for this. I 
speak on her behalf as well. Agriculture is in crisis. We have a $34 
billion industry. Labor is down by as much as 30 percent. What is 
happening is farmers are renting land in Mexico. They don't want us to 
know that. It is difficult to get these figures, but we got them, and 
this is what is happening. Now, what will happen to the land in 
California, Idaho, Washington, and in other places? It will lie fallow. 
Farmers will soon decide they would rather farm in Mexico, with fewer 
restrictions on pesticides and lower phytosanitary standards. Their 
land will be sold for development and we will lose our farmland in this 
Nation.
  The catastrophe, the crisis, is now. The harvest system is coming up 
now. What Senator Boxer, Senator Craig, and many others ask is please 
pass this 5-year pilot program and enable people who have worked in 
agriculture, who will continue to work in agriculture, to be able to do 
so legally. Reform the H2-A program so it functions for the rest of us.
  The fact of the matter is, 90 percent of agriculture is undocumented 
labor. Why doesn't the Senate recognize that? Why doesn't the Senate 
recognize you cannot get Americans to do this work?
  Why do we want to drown American agriculture? Why do we want to send 
it over the border?
  What Senator Craig, Senator Boxer, and I are saying is, with this 
money, you take away our leverage to get this bill done, unless we can 
have some kind of commitment that we can do this bill as a stand-alone 
bill or move it on another bill. We ought to just face that right now, 
that Senator Craig and I would like to have a commitment that we can 
put this bill on another bill, or move it as a stand-alone bill without 
amendments, and hopefully get it passed so agriculture in America can 
harvest their crops this fall. We ought to have a discussion because 
this money we all would like to do, no question about it. We all want 
border security. We all want to fund border security.
  (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Feinstein. She and I have gone to the 
farms. We have seen what is happening. We have seen the fruit just fall 
from the trees and wither when people are hungry. This is a ridiculous 
situation.
  The question I have for my friend is--it is rather rhetorical, given 
the rules

[[Page 20384]]

of the Senate--all of us have worked so hard for so many years for the 
AgJOBS bill. Isn't it a fact that it has been years since Howard Berman 
in the House started this and we all got involved? And isn't it so that 
instead of being a contentious matter, AgJOBS has had strong support, 
not only in the Senate but all over the country? Isn't it true that 
AgJOBS is supported not only by the owners of the ranches and the farms 
but also supported by all the unions and the labor people? And isn't 
that a reason to pull together, to unite? Isn't it so that it pulls 
together Republicans and Democrats?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. It 
does. It pulls together all of us. We believe we have 60 votes in this 
body for AgJOBS because we believe there are 60 Senators at least who 
understand what the problem is, there is no question about it.
  Senator Boxer has been on this issue for at least 7 years. Senator 
Craig, the Senator from Idaho, was the original sponsor of AgJOBS, 
along with Senator Boxer and Senator Kennedy. That was 7 years ago. Is 
that not correct, I ask the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig?
  Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Seven years ago. This bill is known by everybody in 
this body, and everyone in this body should know there is a need. We 
believe we have the votes in the House to pass the bill as well if it 
is a stand-alone bill, a 5-year pilot that enables farmers to hire 
workers.
  Let me say one other thing. There is a myth out there that anybody 
can do agricultural labor. If you stand by a freeway and watch people 
pick lettuce, you will see precision movements, you will see an 
organized crew, you will see they are trained in how to do it, and you 
will also see it is backbreaking labor that Americans will not do.
  There is no industry in the United States that faces the crisis 
agriculture does right now, I say to Senator Boxer. She knows that. I 
know that. We know what is happening to our farms and growers. Whether 
they operate 50,000 acres or 50 acres, it is the same problem. It 
takes, in California, 40,000 workers to harvest grapes. They are grown 
in four counties. It takes 40,000 workers to harvest 1 crop.
  Does the Senator from Texas want me to yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. Madam President, I was going to ask if the 
Senator from California will yield because I do think there is a 
bipartisan consensus that we need to address AgJOBS. We need to have a 
temporary worker program going forward that fills the need for the 
economy of our country to continue to thrive.
  I know the Senator from California has worked for years on this 
issue, as has the Senator from Idaho. I hope we can have a freestanding 
bill that would encompass agricultural workers and other temporary 
workers, such as food processors.
  I was visited this week by a food processor who very much wanted 
comprehensive immigration reform and worked very hard for it. He is 
trying to do the right thing. But he is very concerned about the 
business being able to do the job it needs to do to get its product out 
on the market. I think we are going to have an employer crisis in this 
country if we don't have a legal way for people to hire workers for 
jobs that are otherwise going unfilled.
  I commend the Senator from California, the Senator from Idaho, and 
the Senator from Georgia who is on the floor as well who has worked for 
AgJOBS. We need a temporary worker program that, going forward, 
provides for our economic basis. I hope we can have a freestanding bill 
that will be amendable so that we can do that part of comprehensive 
reform.
  I believe 90 percent of the people in this body want border security, 
which we may be able to achieve tonight, and the majority leader and 
the minority leader have begun to get an agreement on that issue. Plus, 
I believe there is 90 percent agreement on a temporary worker program 
and taking care of the agricultural businesses. I hope those who are 
saying immigration reform is dead are wrong in that we can do certain 
parts of it where there is an overwhelming consensus in this body.
  I thank the Senator from California for bringing this issue up and 
sticking to it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Speaking through the Chair to the Senator from 
Texas--I see the majority leader is going to say something. Madam 
President, is he going to make us an offer?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I may say a few words so people know 
what the schedule is, first of all, this may surprise people, but we 
care about agricultural jobs in America. Where most people see the 
bright lights of Las Vegas and Reno, we specialize in garlic and white 
onions. We have tremendous need for agricultural workers, and they are 
hard to get in central Nevada. So I personally am in favor of the 
AgJOBS bill. It is something that I know I have spoken with the Senator 
from Idaho, Mr. Craig, about on many occasions and the Senator from 
California on more occasions than she and I could ever calculate.
  I am committed to doing something about AgJOBS. I hope we can do 
something soon. One of the bills we have to do in September is the farm 
bill. We have to do it. It has been 5 years. We have to renew it. Part 
of that has to be AgJOBS. If we can figure out a way to do it as 
freestanding legislation, I am willing to do that. I want all those who 
are concerned about AgJOBS to know that I am on their side. I will do 
whatever I can to help expedite this legislation.
  I will also say, getting back to the Homeland Security legislation, I 
have conferred with the managers of this bill, Senator Murray, Senator 
Cochran, and Senator Byrd. It seems to me it would be in everyone's 
best interest not to have any more votes tonight. If there is something 
the managers can work out by voice vote, then we should certainly do 
that.
  What I think we should do tonight is, if people have amendments to 
offer on this very important piece of legislation, do it. Tomorrow is 
Thursday. I remind everyone, we still have a lot to do. I spoke with 
Senator Inouye. I believe he was the last one to sign the conference 
report on the 9/11 recommendations. That will be done. We should have 
something on ethics and lobbying reform. SCHIP, we have to be on that 
legislation next week. We have to finish this bill.
  Even though there have been a lot of starts and stops today, we have 
had some progress.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. In 1 second, I will.
  Unless the two managers have some objection, I would hope we could 
have people offer amendments tonight. If their amendments requires 
votes, we will set those for as early in the morning as we can. It 
would be wonderful if we could finish this bill tomorrow. As I said 
early on, I don't want to file cloture on this bill. I don't want to. 
This is the first appropriations bill. We have to set an example of 
trying to move forward.
  I have just been notified that I am asked to go to the White House 
with the Speaker on Wednesday to talk about appropriations bills. This 
would be something really important to talk to him about on Wednesday, 
and we may be able to get one of them done.
  Unless somebody has an objection to my suggestion, I think we will 
have no more votes tonight.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I had the floor.
  Mr. REID. I didn't want to take the floor away from the Senator from 
California. I wanted to let people know what we were doing here.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, through the Chair to the majority leader, 
my interest was piqued in what the majority leader had to say. My 
question is, Would the majority leader be prepared to give Senator 
Boxer, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, and me a commitment that 
perhaps the majority leader and the minority leader could sit down and 
agree to allow a vote on AgJOBS as part of the farm bill without 
amendments, or some version of AgJOBS?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend, I am happy to make 
that commitment. I will do everything I can

[[Page 20385]]

to make sure it is part of the farm bill. I will do what I can. I will 
talk with Senator Harkin. I will talk with Senator Chambliss, who is on 
the floor. I am sure he is in favor. I ask through the Chair, is the 
Senator from Georgia in favor of the temporary worker program for 
agricultural workers?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I will respond this way: Obviously, I 
am in favor of a temporary worker program for agriculture. We have one 
now. Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, and I worked diligently to try 
to come to some accord on H-2A reform, but I have to tell the majority 
leader, we have never been able to reach that accord, and there are 
some issues that are going to require some major amending before we 
will be agreeable to bringing that bill up on the farm bill.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Georgia 
being so candid.
  I say to the Senator from California, Senator Chambliss obviously is 
not in agreement with her. I will make a commitment without any 
qualification that I will do whatever I can to make sure that is part 
of the farm bill. I will talk with Senator Harkin, that is sure, the 
chairman of the committee. It is important we do this, and the Senator 
from California has my commitment--all four Senators--to do whatever I 
can. If it is not impossible, we may try to work something else out. 
Rather than have it part of the farm bill, we may try to do something 
freestanding.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield further? I wish to tell my friends 
that I have discussed this with Senator Harkin. We had a meeting in my 
office about California priorities. I talked with him about how much 
Senator Feinstein and I would like this bill. I think he is very open. 
I am sorry the Senator from Georgia does not feel as we do about it, 
but I think we have a good chance of getting it in the farm bill, or at 
least getting a version of it and, if not, getting it done 
freestanding.
  It is at a crisis point. Senator Feinstein has shown us that we are 
losing our people, we are losing farms, we are losing workers, we are 
losing whole economies, and it is just the start. Seven years ago, we 
knew this was going to happen. It is time to act.
  I appreciate Senator Reid's commitments, and this is a man of his 
word. I hope we can all work with Senator Reid and also Senator 
McConnell to bypass some of the negativity we have heard tonight.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, also, Senator Chambliss is a reasonable 
man. You never know, he might wake up some morning and say maybe we 
should help those onion farmers out in Nevada.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the majority leader yield for a question? First 
of all, I would love to invite the majority leader to Georgia to eat 
some really good Vidalia onions, and I look forward to trying some of 
his.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I hope it doesn't violate any of the 
ethics rules, but somebody sent me a box of onions, and my wife and I 
ate all we could and we gave some to our daughter. They were really 
quite good.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. That was Senator Isakson. We are glad you enjoyed 
them. My friend from California knows we have been trying to resolve 
this issue not for weeks and months but for years. We have been working 
on this issue. We have some major differences, as we have discussed. We 
had hoped to have an immigration reform bill on which we could resolve 
this issue. We moved a long ways in that direction.
  Madam President, I would like to ask my friend from California a 
question.
  As you know, I agree with everything you said, everything Senator 
Craig said about the dire straits in agriculture. We have a huge labor 
problem, and we are in need, in California, in Idaho, in Georgia, and 
in every part of the country, for agricultural labor to harvest our 
crops as we move toward the harvest season. The problem with the AgJOBS 
bill has always been it has an amnesty provision in it. It is called 
earned adjustment. That has been the major issue.
  Does the Senator intend to include that earned adjustment provision 
in the 5-year pilot program that the Senator is talking about offering 
now?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, through the Chair to the Senator from 
Georgia, what we have said is, a version of the AgJOBS bill.
  The AgJOBS bill was negotiated over 7 years between the growers and 
the United Farm Workers Union and others. So it is a negotiated 
product. I actually thought that we had satisfied the Senator's 
concerns in many of our discussions. I am trying to recall, but I 
believe there were at least three areas where we made some changes 
specifically because of the Senator's concerns in the discussions that 
we had.
  So I thought we had agreement on the H-2A part of the bill, which I 
believe was your interest, in return for which, with respect to the 
earned adjustment part of the bill, I would be happy to discuss this 
with you more. But the bill is based on, if a worker has worked in 
agriculture, he or she can submit documentation to that effect, for so 
many hours over so many years, that individual can get what we call a 
blue card in the original bill and continue to work in agriculture for 
a substantial additional period. If they satisfied the hours, the 
filing, the taxes, and everything required of them, then they could 
apply after that period for a green card. That is as far as our bill 
went, the original bill.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, if I can again ask the Senator a 
question. That has been the problem area.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thought the problem area was citizenship.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is a pathway to citizenship, giving them priority 
on getting the green card.
  But let me say to the Senator from California, I think the fact that 
we all recognize there is a problem and that we all want to get to the 
end which is a viable program that will allow all our farmers access to 
a quality pool of people who are here in a legal capacity under a valid 
temporary worker program, as long as it is truly a temporary worker 
program, and that those individuals are required to go back home at the 
time their job is completed--then we don't have an argument.
  But as long as you continue to give them a pathway to citizenship, it 
is going to be a problem. We have just had that debate. So I would say 
this: I would hope between Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, myself, 
and others who are interested, that if we could come up with an AgJOBS-
like, that would truly be a like version of AgJOBS, then perhaps that 
is a way that we could work our way through this year. It is going to 
take some time to get that done, and we don't have much time. Time is 
getting short. Here we are at the end of July almost, and harvest 
season is upon us.
  If we could come up with some agreement to get us through this year, 
to give us time, maybe, to work out in the long run a more permanent 
program that does not include that pathway to citizenship, I would be 
in agreement with the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might, through the Chair to the Senator from 
Georgia, I would like to make one point.
  I understand your concern is with the H-2A part of the bill. The 
other part of the bill is for different States because what happens in 
my State is, these crews work different produce. They go from one 
harvest to another to another to another because the harvests are 
staged at different times. So the bill has two component parts to it.
  Of course, we are willing to talk. We are happy to sit down and talk. 
But we tried to do that with you, as you know, and I thought we had a 
product that we agreed to.
  My understanding is the Senator from Idaho would like to ask a 
question.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I would like, for a moment, to react to 
the Senator from Georgia. It is oftentimes confused that AgJOBS was two 
bills that were merged together--two problems solved. One was to create 
a new, modern, guest worker--or I should say flexible guest worker 
program that fits the needs of American agriculture. That was over 
here. We reformed the H-2A program. But over here was, what

[[Page 20386]]

do you do with 1.2 million illegals who are here and are now working in 
agriculture and have been here for 4 or 5 years? That was the other 
side of it.
  We said: If you stayed here and worked and became legal and met these 
qualifications, there would be something at the end of the road because 
we believe if you don't do that, if you say: Oh, yeah, you can stay and 
you can work, but you have to stay in agriculture to do so--specific to 
agriculture--you have created indentured servitude. You and I do not 
want that, nor do we want to be accused of that in any respect.
  So we have to look at the two realities. The two realities are an H-
2A program that does not meet the need of American agriculture today 
and a current workforce that is here and illegal.
  How you bring legality to that workforce that is here and is illegal 
remains the question on which we differ. I think we have come awfully 
close to agreeing on a new guest worker program. And in that, the 
Senator from Georgia is right: It is very clear: They come, they work, 
they go home. That is a true guest worker program. Now, that is not 
today, that is tomorrow. Today is how do you meet the needs and solve 
the illegality problem of those currently here? Therein lies our 
struggle.
  Somehow we have to be able to fix that and require compliance and not 
be accused or meet the test of not producing indentured servitude by 
saying the only way you can become legal is to stay in agriculture. 
That is not very fair either. So I guess they all have to go home. Some 
would like that, too.
  You and I will never escape the definition of amnesty because anytime 
we touch an illegal and give them anything, we will be accused by the 
anti-immigration forces in this country of having morphed a new form of 
amnesty. At the same time, they are forcing us to refuse dealing with 
the real problem and solving it, or at least they are forcing some to 
run for cover in search of something that is impossible, and that is 
zero amnesty. You can't get there. I don't believe it is possible.
  If you touch an illegal in any way, and in any way give them 
something that offers them some stability in the current environment, 
tomorrow morning Lou Dobbs will say: Amnesty. And it is a new creation 
he thought of overnight while in one of his 1932 labor dreams.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, let me finally say to the Senator 
from California, again, we agree there is a problem. I think at the end 
of the day we agree what we want to do is give your farmers, my 
farmers, Texas farmers, and all farmers and ranchers the ability to 
have that quality pool of labor. And if there is a way to get there 
that is truly a means by which those workers who are here are 
temporary, I think that is going to be the key. Hopefully, we will 
continue the dialogue to see if we can't work something out.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may respond through the Chair to the Senator 
from Georgia, we had hoped, I say to the Senator, that we had worked it 
out. We believe there are 60 votes for the bill. We are happy, all of 
us--those of us who have worked on this bill--to sit down with you and 
go over it again and hopefully have something for the September farm 
bill. I think it is important.
  The problem with waiting until September is part of the harvest is 
over, and we have lost a crop. I cannot tell you how much is going to 
be on the ground come September, but I can tell you in my State it is 
going to be a substantial amount. I worry about land lying fallow and 
then being sold by farmers for development and the loss of rich, great 
American farmland. I don't think that is what either one of us want.
  We will try to work with you, Senator Boxer, Senator Craig and I, 
and, hopefully, we will be able to come up with something by September.
  So I thank the Senator and the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 2468 to Amendment No. 2383

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2468.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To state the policy of the United States Government on the 
foremost objective of the United States in the Global War on Terror and 
in protecting the United States Homeland and to appropriate additional 
                         sums for that purpose)

       At the end, add the following:
       Sec. 536. (a) Policy of the United States.--It shall be the 
     policy of the United States Government that the foremost 
     objective of the United States in the Global War on Terror 
     and in protecting the United States Homeland is to capture or 
     kill Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and other members of 
     al Qaeda and to destroy the al Qaeda network.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) Additional amount for counterterrorist operations.--
     There is hereby appropriated for the Central Intelligence 
     Agency, $25,000,000.
       (2) Emergency requiremen6t.--The amount appropriated by 
     paragraph (1) is hereby designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 204 of S.Con.Res.21 (110th 
     Congress).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the underlying bill that Chairman Byrd 
and Ranking Member Cochran have put together is really good work. As a 
member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased to have worked on 
this bill. Senator Murray has provided some extraordinary leadership to 
add to this appropriations bill some resources to match the words that 
come out of this Capitol about securing our ports, securing our rail, 
and stepping up additional resources for our airports.
  This underlying bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, 
reflects this goal and objective. For the most part, it meets it in a 
substantial way. But I would like to remind all of us here, my 
colleagues, though it is hard to remember or to put in perspective, but 
a few years ago, just over 5, we didn't have a Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. Until Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida established a 
network and put 19-plus men on planes that took out buildings in New 
York, a section of the Pentagon here in Washington, and crashed into a 
field in Pennsylvania, this department didn't even exist.
  This department has been put together to try to help this country 
stand up against a great and growing threat--a great and growing 
threat. Unfortunately, according to the latest intelligence report--and 
I have the unclassified summary--this is not a diminishing threat. One 
would think that, after the money we have spent prosecuting the war, 
the diplomacy, and all the other things we are doing, this report would 
say that al-Qaida is weakened. But it doesn't say that. It says al-
Qaida is strengthening. Of course, we know that Osama bin Laden is 
still on the loose.
  So I come to the floor to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security 
bill to try to refocus our attention on how this whole thing got 
started. It all got started by a guy named Osama bin Laden and the al-
Qaida network. My amendment says it should be the policy of the United 
States to refocus our efforts to find him, to destroy him, and to focus 
on the al-Qaida network wherever it is found.
  There are pieces of it in Iraq, I am not going to debate that here. 
But there are pieces of al-Qaida that are still focused, according to 
this National Intelligence Estimate, right here in our homeland. So my 
amendment is substantive in the sense that it simply restates, or 
states for the first time but clearly, that it is the policy of the 
United States that the foremost objective of the global war on terror 
and protecting the homeland of the United States is to capture or kill 
Osama bin Laden and to destroy his network and other members of his 
network. I understand this is not just the work of one person. It adds 
$25 million

[[Page 20387]]

to the Central Intelligence Agency for that purpose. I know there are 
other amounts of money that are being spent, and resources, some 
readily obtainable and some that are classified. But there are 
additional resources that need to be brought to bear on this and, most 
importantly, a focus to help us remember how we got here in the first 
place and what this Homeland Security bill should be doing, by 
protecting our Nation and keeping focus on al-Qaida. That is the 
essence of my amendment.
  I thank the leader for allowing me to offer it tonight. Anytime the 
Senate feels we can vote on this in accordance with the schedule will 
be fine by me.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.
  Mr. DORGAN. I visited earlier with my colleague from Louisiana. I 
think this is an awfully good amendment. It establishes a priority 
which should have been established long ago.
  As you know, the President, when asked about Osama bin Laden, at one 
point said, I don't care about Osama bin Laden. I don't care about 
Osama bin Laden. Now we have the National Intelligence Estimate that 
says the greatest terrorist threat to this country is the leadership of 
al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. If that is the case, it ought to be job 
one to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. Eliminating the greatest 
terrorist threat to our country ought to be the most important goal. 
That is what the Senator states in her amendment.
  I spoke yesterday about this issue at some length, describing the 
kind of Byzantine position we are in with everyone telling us that here 
is the great threat to our country. Yet, on the other hand, we are 
going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war with our 
soldiers while there is what is called a safe harbor or secure haven 
apparently in Pakistan or Afghanistan or somewhere on the border.
  My point is there ought not be a square inch of safety anywhere, no 
safe harbor, no secure hideaway anywhere on this planet for the 
leadership of al-Qaida.
  I think this is a good amendment. I intend to offer the amendment 
that I offered on the Defense authorization bill as well tomorrow. It 
was passed unanimously and my hope is it will be accepted unanimously. 
Senator Conrad offered it, but the Defense authorization bill was 
pulled. I intend to offer that amendment tomorrow, but my hope is the 
Senate will approve the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana 
because I think it advances this country's interest in defeating 
terrorism, and that is a very important goal.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. He has been a 
leader in helping us to stay focused by increasing the reward. We have 
to remember--I wish I had my poster but I don't, but this is what a 
small version of it looked like. I know the Chair may have a hard time 
seeing it, but this is what Osama bin Laden looks like. It is important 
for us to continue to see his picture. He is on the FBI's ``Most 
Wanted'' list. This was before he organized the attack against our 
country that has killed over 3,000 innocent civilians and, as we know, 
now 4,000 of our soldiers, approximately, have lost their lives and 
38,000 to 40,000 wounded, trying to retaliate against this attack.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I intend to be a cosponsor of 
his amendment. It is complementary to this one. Again, I offer it as I 
think appropriate on this bill which lays out the resources to protect 
our homeland. Let's make sure those resources are used so there is a 
big target on the back of this man Osama bin Laden and his very 
dangerous network that is still alive, unfortunately well, and 
according to our own estimates growing as a threat.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, we have spent this time wanting to get the 
legislation passed dealing with border security. It would have been the 
Graham-Pryor amendment. We basically would have taken the amendment 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina, the first several pages of 
it, dealing with border security, the money part of it. My friend, the 
distinguished junior Senator from Texas, objects to that. That is 
unfortunate. He wants to add additional language to that. As I 
explained to him, we have had many Senators want to add language.
  But Senator Graham, he came to us after all the changes, the 
suggested changes in the legislation, and he said: You take our bill as 
it is written. Now it was not easy to get that approved on our side, 
but we did get it done. There is an objection now. I am sorry that 
there will not be the money for border security, but that is the way it 
is. I regret that. I am sorry to have taken so much of the Senate's 
time to do that. It is 7 o'clock at night. We are back to where we 
were.
  We will move forward. There are a number of amendments pending. My 
friend Senator Alexander has waited around for a long time to offer his 
amendment. My understanding is that Senator Vitter is here. Is he ready 
to go?
  I apologize. I hope other Senators will come and offer amendments. We 
will do our best to try to finish this bill tomorrow.
  Is there anything my friend from Texas wishes to say in addition to 
what I have said?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I disagree with the characterization of 
the distinguished majority leader. The objection to the proposed 
unanimous consent was to only a portion of the original Graham 
amendment of which I was a cosponsor. It completely overlooked and 
ignored 45 percent of the illegal immigration in this country caused by 
people who enter with a visa that is legal but then they overstay. My 
suggestion to the distinguished majority leader and other colleagues is 
that we not ignore that 45 percent but, rather, include that as an 
acceptable expenditure under current law for part of the $3 billion.
  He has explained to me that there is objection on his side to 
including that 45 percent of illegal immigration as part of the 
accepted expenditures for this $3 billion. I am sure he has accurately 
reported what his conference or caucus has said. But my concern is that 
we not spend money on the border security component and then pat 
ourselves on the back and claim success when, indeed, the proposal 
would have ignored 45 percent of the cause of illegal immigration. We 
need an approach that will deal both with border security as well as 
the interior enforcement caused by visa overstays.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could say to my friend, I also think 
this is a problem we should deal with. But I think the language as 
written in this legislation would allow that. I would be happy to join 
with my friend in a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security. I 
would be happy to meet with him when we get this done to tell him that 
this legislation, in my opinion, and hopefully in the opinion of a 
distinguished former member of the Texas Supreme Court, a great legal 
background, as we have propounded it would also allow this. We could 
make a very good case to the executive branch of Government that that 
is so. I hope my friend would take that as an offer of good faith to 
try to move this along.
  I am convinced that if we pass what has been suggested by Graham and 
Pryor--and the Senator from Texas knows this better than I do--this 
does cover the fact that the Department of Homeland Security certainly 
should use some of this money to make sure we know where people are. It 
is absolutely wrong that we have people here who come on study visas 
and we lose track of them. That is one example. I know a significant 
number of Senators would agree. I think Secretary Chertoff would think 
this is something he should do with part of that money.

[[Page 20388]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I welcome the opportunity always to work with the 
distinguished majority leader on legislation, including this 
legislation. But the fact is, the American people have lost confidence 
in the Federal Government when it comes to broken borders and our lack 
of enforcement of our immigration system. It is more appropriate that 
we contain the requirements in the amendment itself and not in letters 
he and I might write to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security. The fact is, the Department is not going to do anything 
unless we direct them to do so in legislation.
  I regret the distinguished majority leader has to object to my 
request to include, in addition to border security, provisions saying 
that the money could be spent for interior enforcement as well. If that 
is the way it is, that is where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. It seems sometimes people like to have the issue rather 
than solving the problem. This would have gone a long way toward easing 
the friction on both sides toward problems with immigration. It hasn't. 
My friend, I could say, will still have an issue to talk about. Maybe 
that is more important to him than solving this problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thought we were getting along well until 
that last comment by the majority leader. I want to solve this problem 
too. I think my record of involvement in the immigration and border 
security issue has demonstrated that. I am not interested in scoring 
political points; I am interested in solving the problem. But I am 
suggesting that the proposal by the majority leader will not solve the 
problem. It solves 55 percent of the problem, not the remaining 45 
percent.
  I assure the distinguished majority leader that I am interested in a 
solution. That is why I proposed that some of this money would be able 
to be allocated for interior enforcement, including the 632,000 
absconders, people under final orders of deportation who have simply 
gone underground or who have left the country and then reentered 
illegally, both of which are classified as felons under the Immigration 
and Naturalization Act. I would have thought that the majority leader 
would think that an appropriate use for some of this $3 billion in this 
amendment, to go after those felons, to make sure our laws are enforced 
according to the letter of the law as written by Congress. I regret he 
does not see it the way I do. I guess that is where we are.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I visited with the managers about 
speaking on some amendments.
  The first amendment I am going to reference, I will just speak about 
it because it is still in Legislative Counsel, but we will have it 
shortly. That probably means tomorrow. But I wish to alert people to a 
problem we have with Homeland Security that I would like to fix through 
amendment. The amendment would restrict the Department of Homeland 
Security from using any funds appropriated in this bill for the 
enforcement of interim final chemical security regulations relating to 
the stored quantity of propane gas between 7,500 pounds and 100,800 
pounds. I will put this in language that people, at least in rural 
America, can understand.
  We have a situation where you don't have natural gas, and that is on 
most farms, a lot of small businesses, and small towns. Homes are 
heated with propane, 500-gallon tanks that are somewhere on the 
property, usually behind the house or, in the case of a farm, out by 
the grain bins where you dry your corn or other grains using propane 
gas. Things of that nature are what I am talking about.
  Let me be very clear; my amendment is limited and narrowly tailored 
in that it only limits use of funds for enforcing one listed chemical. 
That one listed chemical is propane. Some people refer to it as LP gas, 
liquid propane gas--one and all the same.
  It would allow the Department to use funds to enforce the regulation 
for larger facilities, things that can honestly be said could be used 
for terrorist activity, but not the propane tank behind some farmhouse 
or by some grain bin. This amendment is necessary to ensure that these 
regulations truly protect our homeland but not burden farmers and small 
businesses and create a bigger problem with regard to propane security 
that I will mention in a minute.
  This final rule was published by the Department of Homeland Security 
on April 9, 2007, and became effective June 8 of this year. These 
regulations were required by Congress as part of the Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill of 2007 and are known as the 
chemical facility antiterrorism standards. The regulations include an 
appendix that lists chemicals of interest to the Department and the 
stored quantities that will trigger reporting and screening 
requirements for those who house the listed chemicals. Included in the 
list of chemicals of interest is propane stored in quantities greater 
than 7,500 pounds.
  Propane is used by virtually every arm of agriculture, from small 
family farms to large agribusinesses across the country. Propane is 
used to dry grain, to heat facilities for livestocks and poultry, and 
to heat thousands of rural homes across the country. This listed 
quantity of 7,500 pounds is roughly 1,785 gallons.
  For those who are not from rural America, the typical rural home has 
at least one thousand-gallon tank for heating and maybe has two or 
three of these tanks for home heating and cooking, depending upon the 
size of the home. Some family farms may have a home tank and multiple 
farm tanks. Under the current regulation and thresholds, these rural 
homes and farms would qualify as a chemical facility and would have to 
complete what is known as the ``top screen'' process to register the 
site as a chemical facility. These are not homes in large metropolitan 
areas; they are rural homes where the nearest neighbors could be miles 
away. But under the current regulation, counting all tanks on one 
property, they would be subject to the screening requirements and also 
subject to penalties if they failed to complete the screen.
  Most people listening to me are probably saying: So what. If the 
Department lists the chemicals, these folks should register. Well, in 
its own regulatory analysis--I am quoting from the Department now--the 
Department calculates that the average cost to complete the top screen 
process will be between $2,300 and $3,500 per screen. That is not a lot 
of money to some large chemical facility, but to John Q. Public who 
owns three tanks on his farm to heat his home as well as to heat his 
sheds and barns and maybe dry grain, $2,300 to $3,500 is very real 
money.
  Further, the top screen requires individuals to fill out a lengthy 
form that is highly detailed and may require help from attorneys to 
ensure that the forms are filled out properly. Once this is completed, 
the Department then makes a determination if the site will need to 
complete a security vulnerability assessment. If this assessment is 
necessary, the Department then determines if a site needs a site 
security plan for chemical security.
  The bottom line is that many rural homes, farms, and small businesses 
could be required to pay $2,300 to $3,500 as just a preliminary step to 
determine whether they are ``high risk'' for a terrorist attack. These 
lengthy forms, complex requirements, and high costs pose a harsh, undue 
burden upon rural America; hence my amendment and hence my begging for 
consideration of this from my colleagues.
  I also believe this regulation has a possibility of increasing 
threats to our country as opposed to making it safer. As written, this 
rule and the current quantities of propane may lead many homeowners, 
farmers, small businesspeople to limit how full they might keep their 
onsite storage tanks. For example, a home with multiple tanks may only 
fill a backup tank part of the way to stay under the threshold so they 
do not have to fill out the top screen.
  Now, as a result of that, that home, that small business, that farm 
may have to increase the number of times

[[Page 20389]]

its tanks are filled once or twice during the winter months. This 
increase in the number of tank fills--because they are only going to be 
partially filled--means the number of trips propane trucks make is very 
much increased, leading to more propane tankers per business and more 
propane tankers going down our highways.
  Now, I ask all of you to consider, what is a more vulnerable threat 
to America, John Q. Public's family home in rural Iowa--or in any other 
State--or an increase in hundreds, maybe thousands, of extra propane 
tankers on America's highways and roads?
  Now, I tried to solve this problem before this amendment. On June 25, 
2007, I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking him to consider the 
impact of including propane in quantities of 7,500 pounds in the 
regulations. I asked Secretary Chertoff to consider including an 
exemption for rural homes, farms, and small businesses that store and 
provide propane in excess of 7,500 pounds. To date, I have only 
received a response saying the Department is ``giving careful 
consideration'' to my letter.
  Now, I appreciate the careful consideration being given to my letter, 
but I wish to know what is being done to ensure there is no undue 
burden placed upon rural Americans and that these rules have the impact 
that is intended. We all want to ensure our homeland is as safe as 
possible, but we need to do so without overburdening rural Americans 
and threatening the growth of a small business.
  Further, as I pointed out, there is an additional possible safety 
concern that may be a consequence of the regulation. As such, I will 
offer an amendment that would prohibit the use of any funds to the 
Department to enforce the current regulations for propane when the site 
of that propane has more than 7,500 pounds but less than 1,800 pounds, 
until it amends these regulations to provide an exemption for rural 
homesteads, agricultural producers, and small business concerns.
  Again, this amendment is narrowly tailored only toward propane and 
does not impact enforcement of the regulations for other listed toxic 
chemicals. Additionally, this amendment includes safety provisions to 
ensure that if a threat is imminent to rural America, the Department 
can inform Congress of such threat and continue with its current 
regulations. This amendment is necessary to ensure that Government 
regulations meet a commonsense test and do not unduly burden rural 
America.


                Amendment No. 2444 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. President, I am now going to go to an amendment I do have written 
and would like to offer. I send amendment No. 2444 to the desk and ask 
for its consideration. Mr. Inhofe should be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself and Mr. 
     Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 2444 to amendment No. 
     2383.

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

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available under this 
Act may be expended until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies 
 to Congress that all new hires by the Department of Homeland Security 
 are verified through the basic pilot program authorized under section 
401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
  of 1996 or may be available to enter into a contract with a person, 
 employer, or other entity that does not participate in the such basic 
                             pilot program)

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be expended until the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     certifies to Congress that all new hires by the Department of 
     Homeland Security are verified through the basic pilot 
     program authorized under section 401 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).
       Sec. 537.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be available to enter into a contract with a person, 
     employer, or other entity that does not participate in the 
     basic pilot program authorized under section 401 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

  Mr. GRASSLEY. This amendment to this appropriations bill is to 
strengthen our efforts to verify if people in the United States are 
legal to work in this country.
  Without a doubt, we have an illegal immigration problem. People are 
crossing our borders each day to live and work in the United States. 
Some individuals may have innocent motives, some may not. Some may be 
living in the shadows and wish to do our country harm.
  We do not live in a pre-9/11 world anymore. We must do all we can to 
protect our country. That is why I am proposing this amendment. It 
would do two things very appropriate in the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. It would require the entire Department of 
Homeland Security to use the basic pilot program--also known as the 
electronic employment verification system.
  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for 
employers to knowingly hire and employ aliens not eligible to work. It 
required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents 
of all employees.
  The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of 
the 1986 bill. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can be 
obtained very cheaply.
  In response to the illegal hiring of immigrants, Congress created the 
basic pilot program in 1996. This program allows employers to check the 
status of their workers by checking one's Social Security number and 
alien identification number against Social Security Administration and 
Homeland Security databases.
  The immigration bill before the Senate last year and this year would 
have required all employers to use the basic pilot program over a 
period of time by phasing it in. Both the administration and Congress 
were poised to pass legislation mandating participation in this 
program. It has been argued that the employment verification system is 
crucial to enforcing the laws already on the books. Many say the system 
is a needed tool for employers to check the eligibility of their 
workers.
  Since 1996, the system has been updated, the system has been 
improved. It is a Web-based program, and employers can go online 
quickly and very easily when hiring an individual. Employers in all 50 
States can use the program, and it is voluntary for the private sector. 
Currently, over 18,000 employers use the basic pilot program.
  Under current law, however, the Federal Government is supposed to be 
using the employment verification system--emphasis upon ``current law'' 
and ``supposed to be using.'' We are talking about the Federal 
Government as an employer and whether we are setting a good example for 
the private sector on checking whether people are legally in this 
country if they are going to work for us. Of the 18,000 users I have 
mentioned, Homeland Security says 403 Federal agencies are using this 
pilot program. But my colleagues will be shocked to hear that very few 
of the 22 agencies at the Department--the Department of Homeland 
Security--are actually participating in this program.
  I asked Secretary Chertoff in January of this very year about 
requiring all agencies to use this system and extending the requirement 
to contractors who do business with the Federal Government.
  The Department of Homeland Security responded by saying these 403 
Federal agencies are participating in the basic pilot program. The 
Department said it was also on track to make sure all agencies were 
using this system by the end of the fiscal year.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record 
my letter to the Secretary and the Department's response.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 20390]]




                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 2007.
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Chertoff: Thank you for your time on Monday 
     to discuss the worksite enforcement actions against Swift & 
     Company. I appreciate the time you took to hear our concerns, 
     and discuss solutions to improve our efforts to reduce 
     identity theft by illegal aliens.
       As I stated in our meeting, our government agencies must do 
     a better job of communicating with each other. That is why I 
     authored an amendment last year to the immigration bill that 
     would give your department access to taxpayer information 
     maintained by the Social Security Administration. I look 
     forward to pushing this measure into law.
       Additionally, I want to reiterate my concerns about the 
     need for federal government agencies to use the basic pilot 
     program. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 included a provision requiring 
     select entities to participate in the program. The law states 
     that ``Each Department of the Federal Government shall elect 
     to participate in a pilot program and shall comply with the 
     terms and conditions of such an election.'' I would like to 
     know how this law is being enforced, and how your department 
     is working to ensure compliance by all federal agencies.
       Furthermore, I would like the Department's legal opinion 
     about the ability to require contractors and subcontractors 
     of the federal government to use the basic pilot program. 
     Last July, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
     arrested nearly 60 illegal immigrants at Fort Bragg in North 
     Carolina. Last week, ICE arrested nearly 40 illegal 
     immigrants hired by contractors working on three military 
     bases (Fort Benning, Creech Air Force Base, and Quantico 
     Marine Base), one of which was reportedly a member of the 
     dangerous MS-13 gang. There are many similar stories of 
     illegal aliens being hired by contractors who work at 
     critical infrastructure sites throughout the United States. 
     Requiring those who do business with the federal government 
     should be held to the same standard as our executive 
     department agencies. I encourage you to take steps to ensure 
     that contractors are using the tools that we have provided, 
     and are participating in the department's electronic 
     employment verification system.
       I appreciate your time and consideration of these views. I 
     look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles E. Grassley
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

         Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. 
           Department of Homeland Security,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: On behalf of Secretary Chertoff, 
     thank you for your letter regarding federal agencies and 
     government contractors using the Basic Pilot Employment 
     Verification Program (Basic Pilot).
       Currently, there are 403 federal agencies that are 
     participating in the Basic Pilot. The majority of the federal 
     Basic Pilot participants are member offices of the 
     legislative branch, although there are several key executive 
     branch participants, such as the U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services headquarters office and components of 
     the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services, which oversees the Basic Pilot, is exploring 
     several approaches this fiscal year to use Basic Pilot to 
     verify all executive branch new hires. Also under 
     consideration is whether the Office of Personnel Management 
     (OPM) could conduct the verifications through the Basic Pilot 
     on behalf of all executive branch new hires or whether each 
     agency should individually conduct the verifications for its 
     own new hires. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
     would be pleased to keep your staff apprised of the status of 
     this planning effort. DHS's goal is to ensure that all 
     executive branch new hires are verified through the Basic 
     Pilot by the end of FY 2007.
       With respect to whether or not departmental contractors use 
     the Basic Pilot program, DHS is exploring options to 
     encourage contractor participation in the program.
       I appreciate your interest in the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and I look forward to working with you on future 
     homeland security issues. If I may be of further assistance, 
     please contact the Office of Legislative and 
     Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 447-5890.
           Sincerely,
                                              Donald H. Kent, Jr.,
                                              Assistant Secretary.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Since receiving the letter from Secretary Chertoff, 
this is what I have found out: that this response--that 403 Federal 
agencies are using the program--was deliberately misleading. In fact, 
congressional offices make up to 99 percent of the Federal users. Of 
the 411 or more Federal Government users, 400 are congressional 
offices--136 in the Senate and 264 in the House.
  So I am taking issue with the Department for their response to me and 
feel this is deliberately misleading the Congress on the use of the 
basic pilot program--when I get back a letter that says 403 Federal 
agencies are using the program, and 99 percent of them are here on 
Capitol Hill, not downtown.
  According to staff at the Citizenship and Immigration Service, only 
11 executive branch agencies are using the program--only 11--and only 5 
of the 22 agencies at Homeland Security are using the program--only 5.
  The President visited a Dunkin' Donuts shop last year. The company 
announced all of its franchises would use the basic pilot program to 
verify their workers. If Dunkin' Donuts can use the system, so can the 
Federal Government, particularly the Departments with the mission of 
protecting the homeland.
  We ought to be setting an example, the Federal Government, for all 
employers. But within the Federal Government, the very department 
enforcing the law, suggesting it is being used, ought to set the 
example.
  I am ashamed to say the Department of Homeland Security--the most 
valuable component of the executive branch in securing our Nation from 
terrorism--then is setting a very bad example.
  Congress and the administration must be a model of good employment 
practices for the rest of the country. My amendment is needed to push 
executive branch participation in this program.
  Now, there is a second part to my amendment. It would extend this 
principle to contractors who do work for the Federal Government. 
Because the second part of the amendment would require all 
contractors--in just the Department of Homeland Security--to use the 
basic pilot program to check the eligibility of their workers.
  Now, I think it ought to go beyond contractors for the Department of 
Homeland Security, but we are working on the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill so I am limiting it to that. It is my opinion that 
those who do business with Homeland Security agencies should also be 
required to use the electronic employment verification system. They may 
be private-sector people, but they are working for the Federal 
Government and they are in place of Federal employees.
  There have been many examples of aliens illegally in the country 
working for Government contractors and being allowed to work in 
sensitive areas. I gave a number of examples last week during 
consideration of the Defense authorization bill when I tried to apply 
this same principle to that bill when it was up.
  But the Department of Defense, I want you to know, is not the only 
culprit. This week, a man from Houston was sentenced for harboring 
illegal aliens, some of whom had access to an Alexandria airbase and 
Louisiana National Guard facility under a Federal Emergency Management 
Agency construction contract.
  The company employed 30 to 40 workers, contracted with FEMA, and was 
able to send illegal aliens to a worksite where they had access to a 
National Guard facility and airbase.
  There were many news stories about undocumented individuals working 
in the construction industry in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
  Then there was ``Operation Tarmac,'' launched by Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement in 2002, to enhance security at our airports and 
remove undocumented immigrants from these critical facilities.
  The operation resulted in investigations of hundreds of thousands of 
people and more than 900 arrests of unauthorized workers. Aliens 
illegally in this country were working as janitors, baggage checkers, 
and luggage handlers.
  Whether it is FEMA or the Transportation Security Administration or 
Border Patrol or the Citizenship and Immigration Service, we must make 
sure those hired by the agencies are legally able to work in the United 
States.
  While Immigration and Customs Enforcement has taken some steps to 
find

[[Page 20391]]

unauthorized workers at secure sites, illegal aliens should not be 
hired in the first place. We cannot allow people illegally in our 
county to check our bags or process immigration benefits.
  One way to get at that problem, then, is to require Departments, 
particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to use the basic 
pilot program up front. There is no cost to employers. Instead, the 
American public will be more protected than it is today.
  Earlier this year, the Senate voted unanimously to debar employers 
from Government contracts if they are found to hire aliens illegally in 
the country. That vote signified an overwhelming opinion that our 
Government should only be doing business with those who take our 
immigration laws very seriously. Therefore, this part of my amendment 
should not be problematic.
  I hope my amendment can be considered this week. It is not overly 
expansive. It is to the Department we are appropriating money for. I 
don't believe it is overly burdensome because the Federal Government is 
preaching to the private sector. They are preaching to the other 
Government agencies that we ought to be doing it. We in Congress have 
adopted it more than anybody else in the Federal Government has. If we 
can do this in our hiring of people, surely other Government agencies 
can.
  I hope this amendment--I think a commonsense amendment--can be 
considered. I am happy to debate it, but I am finished presenting it. I 
have it before the Senate and I will let the managers of the bill take 
the course from that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa for his contribution to the debate and consideration of this 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside so that I may 
call up another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2405 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Tennessee, 
Mr. Alexander, I call up amendment No. 2405 and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Alexander, proposes an amendment numbered 2405 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

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

(Purpose: To make $300,000,000 available for grants to States to carry 
                      out the REAL ID Act of 2005)

       On page 40, after line 24, insert the following:


                        REAL ID GRANTS TO STATES

       Sec. __.  (a) For grants to States pursuant to section 
     204(a) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (division B of Public Law 
     109-13; 119 Stat. 302), $300,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended.
       (b) All discretionary amounts made available under this 
     Act, other than the amount appropriated under subsection (a), 
     shall be reduced a total of $300,000,000, on a pro rata 
     basis.
       (c) Not later than 15 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall report to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives on the accounts subject to pro rata 
     reductions pursuant to subsection (b) and the amount to be 
     reduced in each account.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will set this amendment aside and take 
it up in due course in the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer four amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Byrd, Senator Murray, 
and Senator Cochran for their leadership on this outstanding bill which 
will help make America safer and, of course, we in New York 
particularly care about homeland security. I want to commend the 
committee for putting together a bill that shows the Nation where our 
priorities lie. After years of shortchanging the Department of Homeland 
Security, the committee has now put forth a bill that will sufficiently 
fund the Department, in my judgment. In the next year, DHS will finally 
be equipped to do its job of making our Nation safer from harm.
  The bill will make America safer by investing in high priority 
projects--such as the kind of technology we need to keep us safe--while 
also protecting us at our borders, in our skies, at our ports of entry, 
and on our subways, rail, and mass transit systems.


                Amendment No. 2416 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2416.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2416 to amendment No. 2383.

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

(Purpose: To evaluate identification card technologies to determine the 
    most appropriate technology for ensuring the optimal security, 
            efficiency, privacy, and cost of passport cards)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INDEPENDENT PASSPORT CARD TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--Before issuing a final rule to implement 
     the passport card requirements described in section 
     7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note), the Secretary of 
     State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, using funds 
     appropriated by this Act, shall jointly conduct an 
     independent technology evaluation to test any card 
     technologies appropriate for secure and efficient border 
     crossing, including not fewer than 2 potential radio 
     frequency card technologies, in a side by side trial to 
     determine the most appropriate solution for any passport card 
     in the land and sea border crossing environment.
       (b) Evaluation Criteria.--The criteria to be evaluated in 
     the evaluation under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) the security of the technology, including its 
     resistance to tampering and fraud;
       (2) the efficiency of the use of the technology under 
     typical conditions at land and sea ports of entry;
       (3) ease of use by card holders;
       (4) reliability;
       (5) privacy protection for card holders; and
       (6) cost.
       (c) Selection.--The Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall jointly select the most appropriate 
     technology for the passport card based on the performance 
     observed in the evaluation under subsection (a).

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment that will 
require the Government to test an array of possible card technologies 
before creating new passport cards for land border crossings.
  Under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the Department of 
Homeland Security is moving toward new rules to require travelers to 
show a passport or an approved alternative document at land ports of 
entry. As we all saw from the record passport backlogs over the past 
few months, the Nation suffers when the administration makes big 
changes at the border without adequate preparation. Yet with the new 
passport cards, DHS and the State Department seem to be rushing forward 
blindly again. They have already issued a proposed rule on passport 
card technology, but when I questioned officials from DHS and the State 
Department, they admitted they had not done any on-the-ground testing 
of their proposed cards. This lack of testing is especially shocking 
because the administration is making a very unusual move in trying to 
use a type of technology that has weaker security capabilities than 
some of the other options that are out there. We don't know whether it 
would work on the border unless we test it.

[[Page 20392]]

  I think that with proper preparation and testing, we can have a 
border document that is both secure and efficient, that preserves both 
security and allows commerce to continue to flow freely across the 
border. That is what I want to see. But if we let the DHS push this 
forward, I am concerned that travelers will get the worst of both 
worlds.
  DHS in this case has it all backward. They need to do the testing 
before making a final choice of technology. We need to know that any 
new cards will be reliable, secure, efficient, and easy to use. If the 
administration won't do that testing on its own, then Congress must 
step in. My amendment says DHS and the State Department need to do a 
serious evaluation comparison of two or more card technologies before 
they issue a final regulation to start selling these cards to people. 
This is a smart and straightforward way to make sure the administration 
is spending money wisely. I can't see why anyone would object to it, 
and I hope we can certainly agree without much controversy to pass it 
into law.


                Amendment No. 2461 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and I call up amendment No. 2461.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2461 to amendment No. 2383.

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

    (Purpose: To increase the amount provided for aviation security 
                       direction and enforcement)

       On page 2, line 11, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$94,000,000''.
       On page 18, line 2, strike ``$5,039,559,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,045,559,000''.
       On page 18, line 10, strike ``$964,445,000'' and insert 
     ``$970,445,000''.
       On page 18, line 20, strike ``$2,329,334,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,335,344,000''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement 
Program reimburses local law enforcement for security services that TSA 
requires at all airports around the country. But due to a planned 
expansion, the program is not fully funded at the level needed to 
maintain the present level of service. Currently, 275 airports are part 
of the program, which is funded at $64 million. As the program moves 
from a reimbursement agreement model to a cooperative agreement model, 
TSA hopes to include 300 airports, but they will attempt to do this 
with the same level of funding used for 275 airports. Most of these 
airports are smaller, rural. They are not the kind of airports that can 
easily come up with the tens of thousands of dollars that might be 
required. So this is a smart and straightforward way to make sure the 
administration is spending money wisely. My amendment will make sure 
the level of security service provided at airports does not suffer as 
more airports become part of this important program.


                Amendment No. 2447 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and I call up amendment No. 2447.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2447 to amendment No. 2383.

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

 (Purpose: To reserve $40,000,000 of the amounts appropriated for the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to support the implementation of the 
     Securing the Cities initiative at the level requested in the 
                          President's budget)

       On page 49, line 22, strike the period at the end and all 
     that follows through ``2010:'' on page 50, line 2, and insert 
     the following: ``, of which $10,000,000 shall be available to 
     support the implementation of the Securing the Cities 
     initiative at the level requested in the President's budget.

                         ``systems acquisition

       ``For expenses for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
     acquisition and deployment of radiological detection systems 
     in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture, 
     $182,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010, 
     of which $30,000,000 shall be available to support the 
     implementation of the Securing the Cities initiative at the 
     level requested in the President's budget:''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am joined by my New York colleague 
Senator Clinton and my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg 
and Senator Menendez, in offering an amendment to fully fund the 
Securing the Cities initiative at the level of $40 million. This is 
what was requested by the President. Securing the Cities is an 
innovative partnership between the Federal Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office and local law enforcement to set up a ring of radiation 
detection devices around the perimeter of urban centers to stop dirty 
bombs or nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Detection Office chose the New 
York region as the first area to pilot this approach, and local 
authorities have been working together for months to plan and train. 
But the committee proposes to provide only three-quarters of the 
funding requested by the President.
  When it comes to protecting cities from nuclear or radiological 
attack, we can't stop halfway. Securing the Cities is a cutting-edge 
plan to safeguard the people and assets of our most threatened city 
centers. This program is moving ahead and it needs the full amount the 
President requested: $30 million to purchase equipment and $10 million 
for planning and research. I hope the relatively small amount of money 
here will be approved without much debate by my colleagues.


                Amendment No. 2448 to Amendment No. 2383

  Finally, Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside 
and I call up amendment No. 2448.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2448 to amendment No. 2383.

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

   (Purpose: To increase the domestic supply of nurses and physical 
                  therapists, and for other purposes)

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

     SEC. 536. INCREASING THE DOMESTIC SUPPLY OF NURSES AND 
                   PHYSICAL THERAPISTS THROUGH THE RECAPTURE OF 
                   UNUSED EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT VISAS.

       Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the 
     Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 
     U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``1996, 1997,'' after ``available in 
     fiscal year''; and
       (B) by inserting ``group I,'' after ``schedule A,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``1996, 1997, and'' 
     after ``available in fiscal years''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Petitions.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide a process for reviewing and acting upon petitions 
     with respect to immigrants described in schedule A not later 
     than 30 days after the date on which a completed petition has 
     been filed.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it should be a secret to no one that DHS 
is far behind in processing visas. One consequence of these lags is 
that thousands of visas go unused every year. This amendment takes 
approximately 61,000 of these unused visas from past years and 
allocates them for two professions that have been hit very hard by the 
visa crisis: nurses and physical therapists. Hospitals in New York, 
from the large ones in New York City to the small rural ones upstate, 
and hospitals around the country are feeling the crunch from the huge 
nursing

[[Page 20393]]

shortage. There are now more than 100,000 nurse vacancies nationwide, 
by some counts.
  This amendment doesn't do anything to change existing law, and 
doesn't--I repeat, doesn't--create a single new visa. It is a one-time 
fix that does one thing: It takes one small pool of existing visas that 
now isn't being used and sets it aside for two professions that 
desperately need the help.
  I look forward to working with the committee on these amendments, as 
I believe they are important additions to the great work the committee 
has already done. I will ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside in order for me to offer two 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2462 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2462, which is at 
the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2462 to amendment No. 2383.

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

   (Purpose: To require that not less than $5,400,000 of the amount 
 appropriated to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement be 
   used to facilitate agreements described in section 287(g) of the 
                    Immigration and Nationality Act)

       On page 16, line 1, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the underlying DHS appropriations bill 
makes available $5 million for facilitating 287(g) agreements. As the 
bill is currently written, the Secretary of DHS could ignore the will 
of Congress and refuse to use the money to facilitate 287(g) 
agreements. The current amendment would simply require that the 
Secretary use this funding for its intended purpose.
  I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be temporarily laid aside 
so that I may call up my second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2449 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I send to the desk my amendment No. 2449.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2449 to amendment No. 2383.

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

   (Purpose: To set aside $75,000,000 of the funds appropriated for 
training, exercise, technical assistance, and other programs under the 
 heading State and local programs for training consistent with section 
             287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)

       On page 39, line 21, insert ``, of which not less than 
     $75,000,000 shall be used for training, exercises, and 
     technical assistance consistent with section 287(g) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g))'' before 
     the semicolon at the end.

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the underlying bill provides over $51 
million for training to support implementation of 287(g) agreements. My 
amendment would make an additional $75 million available for this 
purpose by providing that a portion of the $294 million already 
appropriated under the bill for general State and local training grants 
be used specifically for 287(g) training.
  Mr. President, in recent months, I have heard from local law 
enforcement officials from every corner of my home State of North 
Carolina who, frankly, have had it. They are fed up. They are fed up 
because they are powerless to bring justice to illegal aliens who are 
committing crimes, such as drinking and driving and gang-related 
activity. They are fed up that Federal agents lack the manpower to help 
them process these criminals. They are fed up with the catch and 
release of dangerous individuals. Local law enforcement officers are 
fed up that when they try to solve these serious problems--that is, 
they seek authority under a program called 287(g) to process illegal 
aliens who committed crimes--they are put through the bureaucratic 
ringer and often turned away.
  Why would the Department of Homeland Security deny our local law 
enforcement agencies the tools that are readily available to them under 
current law that would help address major challenges in their 
communities? Most simply, the answer is funding. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, or ICE, does not have the money to train and 
provide assistance to these local entities that are textbook examples 
of places that desperately need 287(g) status.
  In the aftermath of the immigration debate, it is abundantly clear 
Americans have no confidence that their Government is taking the 
critical steps to secure our borders or enforce the laws on the books. 
The public will continue to distrust and rightly reject any so-called 
comprehensive immigration reform until they wholeheartedly believe 
these steps have been taken to keep their communities and families 
safe.
  The 287(g) program is an invaluable tool to achieving these goals, 
and it should be fully utilized. My amendments will help ensure that it 
is fully utilized, and without actually increasing the cost of the 
bill. I repeat, my amendments do not add any cost to this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support these measures, and I truly hope 
these commonsense amendments are fully considered.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid 
aside, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2476 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a moment ago, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley, was speaking and described an amendment to require the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish reasonable regulations 
relating to stored quantities of propane. On his behalf, I send that 
amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 2476 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

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

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish 
    reasonable regulations relating to stored quantities of propane)

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

     SEC. 536. CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds in this Act may be used to enforce the interim 
     final regulations relating to stored quantities of propane 
     issued under section 550(a) of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 note), 
     including the regulations relating to stored quantities of 
     propane in an amount more than 7,500 pounds under Appendix A 
     to part 27 of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, until the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security amends such regulations to 
     provide an exemption for agricultural producers, rural 
     homesteads, and small business concerns (as that term is 
     defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632)) that store propane in an amount more than 7,500 pounds 
     and not more than 100,800 pounds.
       (b) Exceptions.--

[[Page 20394]]

       (1) Immediate or imminent threat.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of Homeland Security submits a report 
     to Congress outlining an immediate or imminent threat against 
     such stored quantities of propane in rural locations.
       (2) Quantity.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any action 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the interim 
     final regulations described in that subsection relating to 
     stored quantities of propane, if the stored quantity of 
     propane is more than 100,800 pounds.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Except with respect to stored 
     quantities of propane, nothing in this section may be 
     construed to limit the application of the interim final 
     regulations issued under section 550(a) of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 
     note).

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside for consideration later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2386 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2386 on behalf of 
Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2386 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

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

  (Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to make technical 
      corrections to the new border tunnels and passages offense)

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

     SEC. __. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Redesignations.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by redesignating section 554 added by 
     section 551(a) of the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1389) 
     (relating to border tunnels and passages) as section 555.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 554, ``Border tunnels and 
     passages'', and inserting the following:

``555. Border tunnels and passages.''.

       (b) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(6)of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``554'' and 
     inserting ``555''.
       (c) Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission.--
     Section 551(d) of the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1390) 
     is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) by striking ``554'' 
     and inserting ``555''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared 
on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2386.
  The amendment (No. 2386) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2387, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2387 on behalf of 
Senator Feinstein and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2387, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 2383.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill:

     SEC. __. SEXUAL ABUSE.

       Sections 2241, 2242, 2243, and 2244 of title 18, United 
     States Code, are each amended by striking ``the Attorney 
     General'' each place that term appears and inserting ``the 
     head of any Federal department or agency''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared 
on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). If there is no further debate, 
the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2387, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2387), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2430 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2430 on behalf of 
Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Cornyn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2430 to amendment No. 2383.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for the control and management of Arundo donax, 
                  commonly known as ``Carrizo cane'')

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PLAN FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF ARUNDO 
                   DONAX.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Arundo donax.--The term ``Arundo donax'' means a tall 
     perennial reed commonly known as ``Carrizo cane'', ``Spanish 
     cane'', ``wild cane'', and ``giant cane''.
       (2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the plan for the control 
     and management of Arundo donax developed under subsection 
     (b).
       (3) River.--The term ``River'' means the Rio Grande River.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
       (b) Development of Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a plan for the 
     control and management of Arundo donax along the portion of 
     the River that serves as the international border between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       (2) Components.--In developing the plan, the Secretary 
     shall address--
       (A) information derived by the Secretary of Agriculture and 
     the Secretary of the Interior from ongoing efforts to 
     identify the most effective biological, mechanical, and 
     chemical means of controlling and managing Arundo donax;
       (B) past and current efforts to understand--
       (i) the ecological damages caused by Arundo donax; and
       (ii) the dangers Arundo donax poses to Federal and local 
     law enforcement;
       (C) any international agreements and treaties that need to 
     be completed to allow for the control and management of 
     Arundo donax on both sides of the River;
       (D) the long-term efforts that the Secretary considers to 
     be necessary to control and manage Arundo donax, including 
     the cost estimates for the implementation of the efforts; and
       (E) whether a waiver of applicable Federal environmental 
     laws (including regulations) is necessary.
       (3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary 
     of the Interior, the Secretary of State, the Chief of 
     Engineers, and any other Federal and State agencies that have 
     appropriate expertise regarding the control and management of 
     Arundo donax.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the plan 
     to--
       (1) the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment as well has been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2430.
  The amendment (No. 2430) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page 20395]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2425, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2425 on behalf of 
Senator McCaskill and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. 
     McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 2425, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 2383.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill:

     SEC. ___. REPORTING OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act--
       (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish and 
     maintain on the homepage of the website of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, a direct link to the website of the Office 
     of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security; 
     and
       (2) the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall establish and maintain on the homepage of the 
     website of the Office of Inspector General a direct link for 
     individuals to anonymously report waste, fraud, or abuse.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment as well has been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2425, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2425), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2390, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2390 on behalf of 
Senator Clinton and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. 
     Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 2390, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 2383.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       Sec. ___. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require 
     that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security 
     that provide award fees link such fees to successful 
     acquisition outcomes (which outcomes shall be specified in 
     terms of cost, schedule, and performance).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment as well has been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 2390, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2390), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have made some progress on the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill today. We just adopted some 
amendments and worked our way through several issues today. A number of 
Senators have offered amendments tonight. I hope that early tomorrow 
morning we can go to those amendments and get votes on them and begin 
to move this bill.
  The majority leader has made it very clear to all of us that he wants 
this bill completed this week, and we intend to do that. If any 
Senators have amendments they would like to offer, we encourage them to 
come as early as possible tomorrow to get them offered so we can work 
our way through them and finish this bill in a timely manner.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter 
from the Professional Services Council in support of my amendment to 
apply standard contracting laws to the Transportation Security 
Administration printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Professional Services Council,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 24, 2007.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kerry and Snowe: During the Senate's 
     consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, we understand that you will offer an 
     amendment to repeal the provision in the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (P.L 107-71) that the 
     Transportation Security Administration's procurements are to 
     be governed exclusively by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's Acquisition Management System (AMS) and are 
     specifically exempt from coverage of most of the Federal 
     procurement laws and the Federal Acquisition Regulations 
     (FAR). This amendment is identical to the provision you 
     offered and the Senate adopted by voice vote last year during 
     the Senate's consideration of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland 
     Security Act; regrettably the provision was not enacted into 
     law.
       As you know, the Professional Services Council (PSC) is the 
     principal national trade association for companies providing 
     services to virtually every agency of the Federal government. 
     Many of our member companies now do business with the 
     Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other 
     components of the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf 
     of the more than 220 member companies, thank you for the 
     invitation to provide our views on this amendment.
       On behalf of PSC, we support this amendment. Bringing TSA 
     at least under the common rules applicable to the Department 
     of Homeland Security and to the preponderance of the federal 
     agencies will increase competition, expand opportunities for 
     greater small business participation, provide greater 
     accountability and transparency in their procurement 
     processes, and provide greater options for addressing the 
     challenges of the department's acquisition workforce. Indeed, 
     there are clear advantages for all parties when agencies 
     operate under common rules and procedures. Moreover, as TSA 
     seeks to train its current workforce and further expand its 
     acquisition workforce, the degree of commonality between its 
     acquisition procedures and other federal agency practices 
     will have a real effect on the cost and efficiencies of 
     bringing in skilled professionals.
       We appreciate your leadership on this matter. If you have 
     any questions or need any additional information, please do 
     not hesitate to let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alan Chvotkin, Esq.,
                                Senior Vice President and Counsel.


                           amendment no. 2405

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
Senator Alexander as a cosponsor of his important amendment. I 
understand that Senator Collins and Senator Voinovich are also 
cosponsors.
  This amendment is simple. It provides funding--$300 million--for 
grants to the States for the continued development and implementation 
of the REAL ID program. This funding is fully offset by an across the 
board reduction of all discretionary amounts included in the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. President, the REAL ID program is critical for our national 
security.
  We know, from history, that the duplication and falsification of 
drivers' licenses is a reality, and this fact is a national security 
concern. As you may recall, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers obtained 
some form of U.S. identification--some by fraudulent means--which aided 
them in boarding commercial flights. We need confidence that the 
individual that displays this card is, in fact, the rightful owner of 
it. And this card, the REAL ID, will provide that confidence.
  The proposed regulation for the REAL ID program sets out common 
standards for the security and information on the card itself. These 
standards require: minimum data visible on the card, such as full 
names; verification of identity documents, such as birth certificates 
and Social Security numbers;

[[Page 20396]]

physical security features embedded in the card to protect privacy and 
make tampering more difficult; security of manufacturing facilities and 
background checks for employees handling these applications and cards.
  In my view, the Federal Government must be a good working partner 
with the States, and this amendment, which provides funding for the 
program, is a step in the right direction. We must proceed with this 
program on a partnership concept of States and the Federal Government 
working together. For that reason, I am pleased to learn that the 
National Governors Association supports this amendment. This program is 
an important step in achieving some type of identification that will 
help America feel more secure in our daily requirements to identify 
ourselves and to otherwise conduct our life here at home.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to offer my support 
for the amendment to be offered by Senator Casey with regard to 
homeland security grant timelines. This amendment would lengthen the 
amount of time available to obligate funds provided in fiscal year 2008 
under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Rail and 
Transit Security Grant Program from a maximum of 36 months to a maximum 
of 48 months.
  I am advised that several transit agencies have encountered problems 
obligating homeland security grant funding within the current 
timetable, particularly for large and complex projects such as 
installing underground emergency communications networks in subway 
tunnels.
  The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, SEPTA, in 
particular, has encountered problems which have thus far prevented it 
from being able to utilize federal homeland security grant dollars to 
install an emergency communications network in its 20-mile subway 
tunnel system which runs underneath portions of the city of 
Philadelphia. The absence of a communications system capable of 
functioning underground severely limits the ability of SEPTA and first 
responders to deal with a potential emergency in Philadelphia's subway 
tunnels and does not provide an adequate level of protection for the 
traveling public.
  Specifically, SEPTA claims that a 3-year period is not sufficient 
time to coordinate regional interoperability issues with the city of 
Philadelphia and the surrounding first responder agencies. It is my 
understanding that preliminary engineering requirements and the time 
associated with procuring the necessary technology further compound the 
problem. Finally, SEPTA claims that it does not receive enough homeland 
security grant funding in a 3-year period to complete such a complex 
project.
  This amendment will provide SEPTA and other transit agencies in 
similar predicaments with additional time to plan, coordinate, secure 
technology for and fund important and complex projects such as 
underground communications systems. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.

                          ____________________