[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26737-26753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me tell you where we are right now, because the 
pending amendment is the Mikulski-Hutchison-Shelby-Nelson, et al. 
amendment on expanding funding for NASA. We also understand the Senator 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, intends to come over rather shortly to offer 
his amendment. We have had a lot of talk, a little bit in morning 
business, but we are making great progress. We invite all who might 
either want to speak on our amendment or in opposition to the NASA 
amendment, please come to the floor now because we will be moving 
toward a vote. We are also waiting for the Senator from Oklahoma to 
come.
  I know a lot of time has been used with morning business, but at the 
same time we are making a great deal of progress behind the scenes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a few minutes 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Free Trade

  Mr. SANDERS. Let me congratulate Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, and 
Senator Isakson for their very important work on this asbestos issue.
  What I wish to focus on is a front-page story that appeared in the 
Wall Street Journal. The headline reads: ``Republicans Grow Skeptical 
on Free Trade.'' What it says is:

       The new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll posed two statements 
     to voters. The first was, ``Foreign trade has been good for 
     the U.S. economy because demand for U.S. products abroad has 
     resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at 
     home and provided more choices for consumers.''
       The second statement was, ``Foreign trade has been bad for 
     the U.S. economy because imports from abroad have reduced 
     demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and 
     produced potentially unsafe products.''
       Asked which statement came closer to their own view, 59 
     percent of Republicans named the second statement, while 32 
     percent pointed to the first.

  Back to the headline, ``Republicans Grow Skeptical On Free Trade.'' 
That is the Republicans.
  In terms of the Democrats, earlier in the article:

       Other leading Democrats have been harshly critical of trade 
     expansion, pleasing their party's labor union backers. In a 
     March 2007 WSJ/NBC poll, before recent scandals involving 
     tainted imports, 54 percent of Democratic voters said free-
     trade agreements have hurt the U.S., compared with 21 percent 
     who said they have helped.

  So what do we have? We have the overwhelming percentage of 
Republicans who are now telling us that unfettered free trade is not 
working for American workers.
  We have the overwhelming percentage of Democratic supporters telling 
us free trade has not been working for the American people. Yet despite 
those numbers, and a growing consensus among working families in this 
country, what we continue to see is people in the White House, people 
in the Senate and the House who keep telling us how great free trade 
is.
  Well, let me be very clear. Free trade is very good for the large 
multinational corporations who can throw American workers out on the 
street, move abroad to China and other low-wage countries, hire people 
there for pennies an hour, and bring their products back into this 
country. For those people, we concede--for the CEOs of large 
corporations--unfettered free trade has been a very good thing. But for 
the middle-class and working families of this country, for working 
families and poor people in Mexico and in other low-wage countries, 
unfettered free trade has been an unmitigated disaster.
  Now, there are a lot of reasons the middle class in America is 
shrinking. There are a lot of reasons nearly 5 million Americans have 
slipped into poverty since George Bush has become President. There are 
a number of reasons. Certainly, one of the processes by which we as a 
Nation are engaged in a race to the bottom has been the unfettered 
free-trade agreements negotiated by the President of the United States 
and passed by the Congress. And by that I mean NAFTA. I mean permanent 
normal trade relations with China.
  The reality of those trade agreements, plus other economic decisions 
being made by the U.S. Government, is not just that poverty is 
increasing, it is that median income for working-age families has 
declined by about $2,400 since the year 2000. It is that personal 
savings rates in this country are below zero, and have been below zero 
for eight consecutive quarters--something that has not happened since 
the Great Depression.
  Unfettered free trade has a lot to do with the fact that over 8 
million Americans have lost their health insurance since 2000, and we 
are now up to 47 million Americans without any health insurance.
  Hunger in America is growing. The cost of college education is 
becoming harder and harder for middle-class families to afford. It is 
interesting to note that a few months ago, in a poll done by, again, 
the Wall Street Journal, more than two-thirds of the American people 
believe the U.S. economy is either in a recession now or will be in a 
recession next year. That is a poll from August done by Wall Street 
Journal/NBC News.
  In my view, it is imperative that our country trade. Nobody I know of 
believes we should place a wall around this country. Trade is a good 
thing. But what we must begin doing is negotiating fair trade 
agreements that reflect the interests of working families in America, 
working families in other countries, and not just large multinational 
corporations and the CEOs who help write these trade agreements.
  I just returned the weekend before last from a trip to Costa Rica, 
where I witnessed something that was really quite extraordinary. Costa 
Rica will be the first country in the entire world to actually have a 
referendum to vote up or down whether they want to enter these CAFTA 
agreements. I have no idea who is going to win that referendum. It 
looks as if it is going to be very close.
  But on one side you have all of the moneyed interests. What I heard 
is, the ``yeses,'' the people who want that free-trade agreement, 
CAFTA, are spending 100 times more than the people who are in 
opposition. You have a media which is almost universally supportive in 
Costa Rica of this CAFTA agreement.
  On the other side you have students, you have environmentalists, you 
have trade unionists, you have environmentalists, you have an 
extraordinary grassroots movement such that in a nation of fewer than 4 
million people, a week ago, 150,000 people came out in a rally--150,000 
in a nation of less than 4 million people--to express their opposition 
to the CAFTA agreement.

[[Page 26738]]

  We have--especially with the fact that fast track is no longer in 
existence--the opportunity as a Congress to begin rethinking our trade 
policies, to create trade policies which create good jobs in the United 
States and good jobs in the countries of our trading partners, policies 
which benefit all of the people and not just the people on top.
  So I conclude by saying, if some of my Republican friends think it is 
just progressives or people who are concerned about the needs of 
working people on this side who are concerned about trade, I suggest 
you go to the Wall Street Journal today, and what you will find is the 
vast majority of Republicans now have serious concerns about our 
current trade policies because they see those trade policies as being 
harmful to the middle class and working families of this country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the poll from the Wall 
Street Journal be printed in its entirety.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 4, 2007]

                Republicans Grow Skeptical on Free Trade

                           (By John Harwood)

       Washington.--By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican 
     voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a 
     shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests 
     trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.
       The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in 
     a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying 
     of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of 
     respondents said they want the next president and Congress to 
     continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax 
     increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget 
     deficit and pay for health care.
       Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement 
     that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would 
     agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher 
     regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a 
     challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. 
     Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a 
     substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.
       ``It's a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to 
     Republicans,'' said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who 
     conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart 
     Peter Hart. The poll comes ahead of the Oct. 9 Republican 
     presidential debate in Michigan sponsored by the Journal and 
     the CNBC and MSNBC television networks.
       The leading Republican candidates are still trying to 
     promote free trade. ``Our philosophy has to be not how many 
     protectionist measures can we put in place, but how do we 
     invent new things to sell'' abroad, former New York City 
     Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview. ``That's the 
     view of the future. What [protectionists] are trying to do is 
     lock in the inadequacies of the past.''
       Such a stance is sure to face a challenge in the 2008 
     general election. Though President Bill Clinton famously 
     steered the Democratic Party toward a less-protectionist bent 
     and promoted the North American Free Trade Agreement, his 
     wife and the current Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton, has adopted more skeptical rhetoric. Mrs. Clinton 
     has come out against a U.S. trade deal with South Korea.
       Other leading Democrats have been harshly critical of trade 
     expansion, pleasing their party's labor union backers. In a 
     March 2007 WSJ/NBC poll, before recent scandals involving 
     tainted imports, 54% of Democratic voters said free-trade 
     agreements have hurt the U.S., compared with 21% who said 
     they have helped.
       While rank-and-file Democrats have long blasted the impact 
     of trade on American jobs, slipping support among Republicans 
     represents a fresh warning sign for freemarket conservatives 
     and American companies such as manufacturers and financial 
     firms that benefit from markets opening abroad.
       With voters provoked for years by such figures as Pat 
     Buchanan and Ross Perot, ``there's been a steady erosion in 
     Republican support for free trade,'' says former Rep. Vin 
     Weber, now an adviser to Republican presidential candidate 
     Mitt Romney.
       One fresh indication of the party's ideological crosswinds: 
     Presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas, who opposes the 
     Iraq war and calls free-trade deals ``a threat to our 
     independence as a nation,'' announced yesterday that he 
     raised $5 million in third-quarter donations. That nearly 
     matches what one-time front-runner John McCain is expected to 
     report.
       In a December 1999 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 37% of 
     Republicans said trade deals had helped the U.S. and 31% said 
     they had hurt, while 26% said they made no difference.
       The new poll asked a broader but similar question. It posed 
     two statements to voters. The first was, ``Foreign trade has 
     been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. 
     products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for 
     Americans here at home and provided more choices for 
     consumers.''
       The second was, ``Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. 
     economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for 
     American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced 
     potentially unsafe products.''
       Asked which statement came closer to their own view, 59% of 
     Republicans named the second statement, while 32% pointed to 
     the first.


                             Rocky Outlook

       Such sentiment suggests a rocky outlook for trade 
     expansion. Early in his term, Mr. Bush successfully promoted 
     a number of new free-trade pacts, but the efforts have 
     stalled, particularly after Democrats took control of 
     Congress last November.
       Even relatively small deals are facing resistance. While 
     trade pacts with Peru and Panama have a strong chance of 
     passing in the current congressional term, deals with South 
     Korea and Colombia are in serious jeopardy. Some legislators 
     believe South Korea isn't opening its market wide enough to 
     American beef and autos.


                              `Fast Track'

       Presidential ``fast track'' trade negotiating authority has 
     lapsed. Without such authority, which requires Congress to 
     take a single up-or-down vote on trade deals, the next 
     president would have trouble pursuing large trade agreements, 
     particularly the stalled global Doha Round.
       Julie Kowal, 40 years old, who works in a medical lab and 
     is raising five children in Omaha, Neb., said she worries 
     that Midwestern producers face obstacles selling beef and 
     autos abroad. ``We give a lot more than we get,'' she said. 
     ``There's got to be a point where we say, `Wait a minute.' ''
       Beyond trade, Republicans appear to be seeking a move away 
     from the president. Asked in general terms, a 48% plurality 
     of Republicans said the next president should ``take a 
     different approach'' from Mr. Bush, while 38% wanted to 
     continue on his path.
       In the poll, Mr. Giuliani maintained his lead in the 
     Republican field with support from 30% of respondents. Former 
     Sen. Fred Thompson drew 23% in the survey, to 15% for Sen. 
     John McCain, 10% for Mr. Romney and 4% for former Arkansas 
     Gov. Mike Huckabee. The telephone survey of 606 Republican 
     voters, conducted Sept. 28-30, has a margin of error of four 
     percentage points.
       A clear majority of Republicans want more tax cuts, but 
     among Republicans who identify themselves as moderate or 
     liberal--about one-third of the party's primary voters--a 48% 
     plurality favored some tax increase to fund health care and 
     other priorities.
       In part, the concern about trade reflected in the survey 
     reflects the changing composition of the Republican 
     electorate as social conservatives have grown in influence. 
     In questions about a series of candidate stances, the only 
     one drawing strong agreement from a majority of Republicans 
     was opposition to abortion rights.
       Post-911 security concerns have also displaced some of the 
     traditional economic concerns of the Republican Party that 
     Ronald Reagan reshaped a generation ago. Asked which issues 
     will be most important in determining their vote, a 32% 
     plurality cited national defense, while 25% cited domestic 
     issues such as education and health care, and 23% cited moral 
     issues. Ranking last, identified by just 17%, were economic 
     issues such as taxes and trade.
       John Pirtle, a 40-year-old Defense Department employee in 
     Grand Rapids, Mich., said he drifted toward the Republican 
     Party in large part because of his opposition to abortion, 
     but doesn't agree with the free-trade views of leading 
     candidates.
       ``We're seeing a lot of jobs farmed out,'' said Mr. Pirtle, 
     whose father works for General Motors Corp. Rankled by 
     reports of safety problems with Chinese imports, he added, 
     ``The stuff we are getting, looking at all the recalls, to be 
     quite honest, it's junk.''


                              Bush's Veto

       Mr. Bush lately has sought to elevate the importance of 
     economic issues. Yesterday he vetoed a bill passed by 
     Congress that would expand funding for a children's-health 
     program by $35 billion over five years. He slammed what he 
     described as the Democrats' tax-and-spend approach during a 
     speech in Lancaster, Pa.
       Economic advisers to Republican presidential hopefuls 
     acknowledge the safety scandals have made defending free 
     trade more difficult. ``Americans are right to be angered at 
     companies that take shortcuts'' in importing goods, said 
     Larry Lindsey, once the top economic aide in the Bush White 
     House and now an adviser to Mr. Thompson's presidential bid. 
     ``The next president has to promote free trade by playing 
     hardball, and to be seen doing so.''
       In the Republican campaign so far, elevating populist trade 
     concerns has been left to the long shots. ``The most 
     important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear 
     that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped 
     overseas. . . . and then watch as

[[Page 26739]]

     a CEO takes a $100 million bonus,'' Mr. Huckabee said at a 
     debate earlier this year. ``If Republicans don't stop it, we 
     don't deserve to win in 2008.''

  Mr. SANDERS. 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. 3250

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to those who might be watching the 
actions of the Senate in either the gallery or on C-SPAN--because we do 
function in an open and transparent way--they might wonder: What is 
going on there? Well, I will tell you what is going on. We are debating 
the appropriations subcommittee report that funds all of the Commerce, 
all Justice, and good, significant aspects of America's science 
programs--the National Science Foundation, the space agency, the agency 
that does research on oceans.
  In the course of debating this appropriations bill, there have been 
others who have asked to speak on other matters. When you see the 
Chamber is empty, what we are doing is clearing amendments offered by 
our colleagues. We are waiting for another colleague to come to offer 
an appropriations amendment. For us, we are trying to make sure America 
remains premier in space.
  I will reiterate, the Mikulski-Shelby-Hutchinson-Bill Nelson-Mel 
Martinez bipartisan amendment is to restore the funding that it took 
when the Columbia accident occurred to return our astronauts to space 
safely and swiftly.
  I will elaborate on that later, but I note the Senator from Rhode 
Island is here, who also wishes to speak on the amendment, as does the 
Senator from Louisiana.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am here today to speak on the Commerce, 
Justice, and Science appropriations bill, and I begin by thanking the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Mikulski, and the ranking member, 
Senator Shelby, for an extraordinarily well-crafted appropriations bill 
which responds to the needs of the country and responds particularly to 
those areas which were neglected in the initial submission by the 
President.
  This bill will protect our citizens and support law enforcement, 
which is a critical aspect of our engagement to provide security and 
safety for all of our citizens. It will strengthen America's 
competitiveness in the global economy. And it will also go a long way 
to begin to properly husband and conserve our oceans and coastal 
communities.
  Once again, let me commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for a 
job well done. I hope as we go forward the President will work with the 
Senate and the House to enact this legislation, to sign it, to fund it 
appropriately, and to continue to strengthen our country in so many 
different ways.
  This bill will restore $1.5 billion in funding cuts to State and 
local law enforcement programs. We have seen, shockingly in my mind, an 
increase in the statistics of violent crime in this country. That tears 
at the fabric of every community in America. We need these funds. I am 
pleased to see the chairman and ranking member respond to that need by 
providing additional resources.
  Since 2001, budgets for these law enforcement programs have been 
decimated, and many in law enforcement believe these cuts have 
contributed to this very rise in violent crime. To reverse this 
troubling trend, the bill provides $2.66 billion in funding for the 
Office of Justice programs, which includes Justice assistance, State 
and local law enforcement assistance, community-oriented policing 
services, and juvenile justice programs.
  The $550 million for the COPS Program will help local law enforcement 
agencies combat crime and respond to terrorist threats. There is 
another dimension. When we enacted the COPS Program years ago, we were 
thinking of law enforcement at the local level simply being an agent to 
stop those perpetrators of crime. Now we have to deal, and they have to 
deal, with terrorists, and they have to be prepared to do that.
  In Rhode Island, the COPS Program has provided nearly $30 million in 
Federal funding and helped over 395 police officers--it has helped that 
many--since its inception. We would have literally hundreds of police 
officers absent from their place on the streets of Rhode Island if this 
program had not been adopted, and if this bill does not continue to 
support it. I have been pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Biden's 
amendment, which I think was one of the foundations of the proposal we 
see today in the appropriations bill.
  This bill also provides $7.35 billion for the Department of Commerce. 
This is a diverse agency. It has a significant impact in Rhode Island. 
It supports, in Rhode Island, ocean exploration. We have the University 
of Rhode Island School of Oceanography, which is one of the best in the 
country, and it depends significantly on support from NOAA and the 
Department of Commerce. Coastal protection: We are the ``Ocean State.'' 
We have, per area, the longest coastline of any State in the country. 
We have a fisheries program. We are an active fishing state, and we 
need that help and support.
  I am excited about the opportunities, particularly for increased 
research with respect to our oceans. Oceans, through fishing, through 
transport, through recreation, contribute an estimated $120 billion a 
year to our economy, and they support over 2 million jobs. Yet we do 
very little to research the ocean. We do little to stimulate 
aquaculture, commercial fishing, tourism--all of these things which are 
huge economic drivers to our economy in Rhode Island and in many parts 
of the country. This bill will begin to pick up the pace when it comes 
to supporting these important endeavors.
  There is a Joint Oceans Commission that has been charged with looking 
at oceans policy, and they have given our country a grade. In 2006, it 
was a C-minus. It was a little bit better than 2005--that was a D-
plus--but we want to get A's when it comes to ocean policy. That means 
supporting this legislation and putting the money in to help NOAA 
particularly. This bill provides $4.2 billion for the National Ocean 
and Atmospheric Administration, including $795 million to fund the 
Joint Ocean Commission's recommendations for ocean research, education, 
observation, and exploration.
  Let me commend again Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for making 
this a part of this important legislation. The world is basically 
covered by ocean. We spend a very small fraction on ocean research 
relative to major research programs for the atmosphere, for space. We 
have to start looking within the oceans, not only for scientific 
answers but for commercial opportunity.
  The bill also strengthens U.S. innovation and competitiveness. 
Following the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's 
report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' the bill invests in 
research and technology that will pay dividends for our future. 
Specifically, the bill provides over $5.1 billion for basic research 
through the National Science Foundation, including $117.5 million for 
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research--the EPSCoR 
Program. This EPSCoR Program has been very critical in my home State of 
Rhode Island. It has provided a partnership between the Federal 
Government, academic agencies, schools, universities, and State 
government to stimulate research. It is a valuable catalyst for 
research going forward.
  Now, with more than 50 percent of NSF's funding going to seven 
States, this EPSCoR Program makes sure that the other States--the other 
43 States--get a little attention and a little cooperation and a little 
support. It is incredibly important to Rhode Island, and I particularly 
thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support.
  Let me mention something else about NSF funding, something else

[[Page 26740]]

about research funding. It is not just the foregone experiment, the 
foregone program research; without robust funding for the National 
Science Foundation and other areas of academic endeavor, we are losing 
a whole generation of researchers, of academics.
  I went to the laboratory at Brown University, the neuroscience lab--
terribly sophisticated, doing remarkably good work. I talked to a young 
researcher, a Ph.D., a woman in her early thirties. She said not only 
did she need additional support, but she looked back at her class of 
Yale graduates, Ph.D. scientists, and she is the only one of about 
seven of those Ph.D.s from Yale who has the money to do the research. 
She pointed out that if you don't get that money at 30 years old to do 
this fundamental research and establish yourself, you will not get 
tenured at 39, and as a result, you quickly decide you are leaving the 
field. You can go to a pharmaceutical company; you can go to an 
investment bank and use your skills in terms of analyzing portfolios 
and investments. You won't be doing basic research, expanding the 
knowledge, teaching other scientists and other young students. That is 
what is so critical about this, in addition to simply making sure we 
continue to do the research, and I thank my colleagues for their 
support.
  Let me also mention another program, and that is the manufacturing 
extension program. All of my colleagues, without exception--and I 
include myself--come to the floor and talk about the decline of 
American manufacturing, the fact that we used to have, particularly up 
my way in the Northeast, communities that revolved around manufacturing 
plants at every corner. Growing up in Rhode Island, when you drove 
through communities such as Pawtucket in the 1950s on a Saturday, all 
you could hear was click, click, click. Those machines were working 
overtime. There was no air-conditioning; the windows were open until 11 
o'clock at night. It is silent there now. We are losing manufacturing.
  This manufacturing extension program is the only real money we put in 
to directly aid manufacturing. It gives them new techniques, new 
technology. It gives them suggestions about how they can be competitive 
on a global basis. It helps the small manufacturer. It is critical. It 
is the last support for many of these individual companies, the last 
support they get to face a very competitive world. I again appreciate 
so much how this money has been included in this appropriation.
  This bill also provided $283 million to the Economic Development 
Administration. EDA is one of those critical agencies of the Federal 
Government that will allow local communities to fulfill their plans for 
local economic development. We have used this program repeatedly to 
jump-start progress at the local level. They have gone in and they have 
funded, and they have a rather wide mandate that they can justify as 
economic development, but they have funded programs that have allowed 
investments by States and cities and private entities to really give us 
a leg up in terms of providing employment, providing new economic 
oppor-
tunities for my communities in Rhode
Island. Again, it is a very valuable 
agency.
  Of this funding, $15 million is for trade adjustment assistance for 
firms, and this is targeted to medium-sized manufacturers and 
agricultural companies that experienced loss from foreign imports.
  Again, related to the struggle of our manufacturing companies, we are 
seeing so much that used to be produced in America is now imported, and 
what is lost in the balance is many jobs, and this money will help, at 
least a bit, to ease that transition. It allows people really to retool 
themselves for a new economy. It gets them off the unemployment rolls 
more quickly than otherwise and gives them something more important 
than just a check; it gives them new hope. For many of my constituents, 
it is particularly distressing when you reach midlife, you have worked 
very hard, you got out of high school in the 1960s and thought you 
could have a whole career based on a high school diploma, and guess 
what. Now the company is gone. You have to have new skills. Where are 
you going to turn? This helps these individuals, not just with the 
monetary compensation, not just with a little bit of assistance, but 
with a new hope that they can get on with their lives. It is very 
important.
  So much of this bill is commendable, and it is the work of not only 
the hands but the hearts of both Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby 
that have made this such a worthwhile piece of legislation. I am proud 
to support it. I hope we can move it forward quickly, and I hope the 
President will sign it. I believe it will be a victory for all 
Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks 
of my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island. He has raised several 
important initiatives: the ocean initiative, basic research and 
development, the disparity between some of our research dollars to a 
few universities and leaving out so many other good and fine 
universities, and many of those universities in the South. It has been 
a program where I have supported more equitable funding. We are proud 
of our southern universities. I know the Senator from Alabama most 
certainly is. That is one way his bill, along with the Senator from 
Maryland, is helping many of our universities.
  I rise today to give support to the amendment that is under 
consideration now, the $1 billion amendment to add funding to the NASA 
budget. When people think about New Orleans and Louisiana, they think 
about good food and Mardi Gras and fishing and maybe even wetlands and 
other things, but they might not think of space and space programs and 
high tech, but we are all of the above.
  In New Orleans east, particularly, there is a great national asset 
called Michoud, which has been there since 1961, which has done some of 
the basic research and manufacturing for the space program, which also 
has parts, of course, in Texas and in Houston, in Huntsville, AL, where 
I have had the pleasure of visiting, in parts of Florida and along the 
gulf coast of Mississippi. Senator Mikulski honored me and honored our 
State by coming to visit the Michoud facility several years ago and 
walked through--actually, I think we might have skated or rode carts 
through.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will yield, I have been on thin ice, but 
I didn't skate.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator was not on skates--strike it from the 
record--but we were on carts, and some people were on bicycles because 
this facility is so large. It is 43 acres under roof, air-conditioned, 
employing 4,000 people, committed to our space program.
  Right down the road in our neighboring State of Mississippi, there 
are another 4,000 people employed at the Stennis Space Center--of 
course, named after our former colleague, Senator Stennis himself.
  But the reason I bring this up is not only because this is important 
to Louisiana and to the gulf coast area of Mississippi and to the State 
of Alabama, our sister States, but it is important to the Nation. When 
the Columbia accident happened, as the leaders have so eloquently said, 
NASA had to scramble and take a lot of money from other parts of its 
budget to cover the battle back to space, to support back-to-flight 
missions. We have not ever reimbursed them appropriately for that. 
Their program is quite challenged because of it. So that is why this 
amendment is so important. It is a great boost to the rebuilding of our 
region.
  Let me say, for the employees at Michoud, they have been back at work 
even though they had no houses in which to live. They were back at work 
building levees around this facility even though there was water all 
around. They kept this program and this building open and operating, 
and there was not a stop, even during some of the worst parts of this 
storm. That is how committed this workforce is to this program.

[[Page 26741]]

  So I want to support this amendment. I thank the Senator for her 
leadership, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the $1 billion 
amendment to add much needed revenue to the NASA budget. Again, I am 
very proud of this work in New Orleans Parish, in St. Tammany Parish, 
as well as along the gulf coast of Mississippi.
  If I might, before I yield the floor, also thank the leaders of this 
committee for already approving an amendment I offered, and it has been 
accepted by voice earlier today. It is a small amendment, but I 
actually think it can help in a very timely situation in the country 
right now.
  As my colleagues are aware, we have had a terrible series of events 
in Louisiana commonly referred to as the Jena 6. There have been many 
allegations made on all sides about events that occurred on and off the 
school grounds in Jena, LA, a small town I represent.
  Looking into the situation and talking with many people involved, it 
came to my attention that there were really very little resources that 
the Federal Government had to bring to bear early on that could have 
potentially avoided some of the conflict that occurred, some of the 
attention that rose up about these incidents.
  The more I looked into it, the more I became concerned because I 
found out that the Community Relations Service does exist within the 
Department of Justice. The service's mission, when appropriate, is to 
serve as a mediator during and after periods of racial tension in our 
country. This was created some years ago. I read its mission and its 
statement, and it seems as if that would be a very good way for us to 
spend a very small portion of money that is allocated to help because, 
of course, the American dream is for all of us from different races to 
be able to live and work together and to prosper. It has not really 
been done in any other country as well as it is being done here in the 
course of human history, so it is something we should be proud of, 
although we do have problems. But we need all parts of our Government 
coming forward and committing to making this happen.
  It occurred to me--and I learned--that this is a very excellent 
service. The problem was, there were only three people employed in the 
service for the 31 million people who live in New Mexico, Texas, 
Louisiana, and the 2 other States in our region. So it occurred to me 
that it might be a good use of taxpayer money to add some money to this 
Community Relations Service, specifically directing some of the new 
hires to this region, to keep money in the field--not here in 
Washington but pushed out into the field so when these incidents 
happen, maybe a well, trained mediator from the field could show up, 
work with the community leaders, work with the attorneys general, maybe 
work with some local elected officials, and prevent some of the harsh 
things that were said and done over the course of this time.
  This is in no way saying who was right and who was wrong. I think it 
is a very good service that our Justice Department could do. I was 
pleased to offer this amendment. I understand it has been accepted. It 
will be most certainly a help to us as we try to reconcile and heal 
this community, Jena and LaSalle Parish in Louisiana, and bring the 
community back together after a series of very unfortunate events.
  Finally, let me say I thank the Chair, and I can either call up now--
or it can be accepted later--another amendment regarding the COPS 
Program, which will help some of the disaster areas that are still 
struggling with law enforcement challenges. If it is appropriate, I 
think both sides have cleared this amendment No. 3223.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there is no objection to this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3223

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3223 and 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 3223.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 waive certain matching requirements for counties and 
 parishes in which the President declared a major disaster in response 
        to Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005)

       On page 57, line 23, after ``Office:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That the Attorney General 
     shall waive in whole the matching requirement under section 
     1701(g) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(g)) for any grant recipient located in 
     a county or parish in which the President declared a major 
     disaster (as that term is defined in section 102 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) in response to Hurricane Katrina of 
     2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005:''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. There is no objection to the Senator's amendment on 
either side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3223) was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the leaders for their work on 
this bill and for continuing to support NASA, as we clean up our 
criminal justice system and bring some reconciliation to Jena and 
LaSalle Parish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for the cooperative 
way in which they have worked with us. I also wish to comment on 
Senator Landrieu's amendment that was accepted, which eliminated a 
copay for a matching portion for the COPS Program in areas that don't 
have the money to match. It is a smart thing that we are doing. It is 
right. It will come to an end at some time, but until they get back on 
their feet, we ought to do it.
  I wished to spend a few minutes talking about the bill overall. I 
think even though the chairwoman and ranking member have done a great 
job with the bill in terms of priorities, I am concerned at the overall 
spending level, and I think the administration probably will be too. 
Inflation, last year, was less than 3 percent. In title I, the Commerce 
portion of the bill, it grows by 13.88 percent, which is 4\1/2\ times 
the rate of inflation. In title II, the Justice portion, it grows 6.1 
percent, which is over two times the rate of inflation. In title III of 
the bill, in the Science portion, it grows by 8.1 percent over last 
year's actual appropriation, which is almost three times what the rate 
of inflation was.
  That probably would not be a problem if we didn't borrow $454 billion 
from our kids last year. It would not be a problem if everybody else 
had an 18-percent or 13-percent or a 10-percent increase. But the fact 
that this bill has grown this much says we are going to go down the 
road again of borrowing additional money.
  This is a rationalization, and I admit it. What we are doing is 
funding this increase this year on the backs of our grandchildren, 
because if it goes through this way and coming out of conference, and 
if the President signs it, the increase in spending for the Commerce, 
Justice, and State Departments will come on the back of future payments 
of debt for our kids.
  The contrast I wish to show is that the average family's income rose 
less than 4 percent last year. Their taxes aren't going to rise much 
more than 4 percent, but the taxes on their grandkids are going to rise 
disproportionately more than that, probably 12 or 13 percent, because 
we cannot get hold of this Government. That is no reflection on the 
leaders of this committee. They are given a number, and they have 
requests out the kazoo from individual members. They have programs that 
need to be funded, which is very different than the administration. I 
didn't compare it to the administration's request. I compared it to 
what we approved last year.
  I think it behooves us to look at the overall growth in this bill, 
and if you

[[Page 26742]]

applied it to the rest of Government, we grew the Government by about 
$700 billion this year. We cannot do that. We cannot do it. So I have 
asked for a recorded vote on the bill because I want to be recorded as 
voting against this appropriations bill--not because it is not 
important to fund these items but because we cannot continue to have 
these kinds of increases in funding when we have grown the Government 
by 62 percent over the last 7\1/2\ years. That does not count Medicare 
and Medicaid spending. So I wanted to make that point.
  I have a couple of amendments, again, which are directed at directed 
spending--what we call earmarks. The programs are not bad programs--the 
very things I am going to outline that I think we ought to transfer 
money from to something else. But I think people will have a tough time 
justifying spending on these programs, these directed earmarks, when we 
should not be spending as much as we are and could be spending it on 
something that would give us better value for the dollars we spend.
  I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 3243 and make it 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I said 
to the Senator, the Senator has every right to bring that amendment up. 
We are looking at it and trying to come up with a UC. Maybe we can get 
to your two amendments and we can vote back to back.
  Mr. COBURN. I am absolutely fine with that. I will take no more than 
probably 25 minutes on both of these amendments. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be given 25 minutes to cover both of the amendments, 
reserving the remainder of the time if I don't use it, and allowing any 
opposition the same amount of time, and I will probably not consume 
that amount of time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will withhold, I am still reserving the 
right to object while I get clarification. Rather than doing it this 
way and knowing we are in alignment, can we have a quorum call?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes. 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. COBURN. 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. 3243

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment number 3243.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3243.

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

 (Purpose: To provide $1,680,000 to investigate and prosecute unsolved 
 civil rights crimes in a fiscally responsible manner by prioritizing 
                               spending)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) In February 2006, the United States Attorney General 
     and the FBI director announced a partnership with the NAACP, 
     the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Urban 
     League to investigate unsolved crimes from the civil rights 
     era.
       (2) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has pledged that 
     ``The Justice Department is committed to investigating and 
     prosecuting civil-rights era homicides for as long as it 
     takes and as far as the law allows--because there is no 
     statute of limitations on human dignity and justice.''.
       (3) In February 2006, the FBI enacted an initiative to 
     identify hate crimes that occurred prior to December 1969, 
     and resulted in death.
       (4) The Bureau's 56 field offices have been directed to 
     reexamine their unsolved civil rights cases and determine 
     which ones could still be viable for prosecution.
       (5) The FBI has partnered with a number of State and local 
     authorities, civic organizations, and community leaders to 
     reexamine old files.
       (6) Since the initiative began, the FBI has received nearly 
     100 such referrals.
       (7) The FBI is continuing to assess each referral for its 
     investigative and legal viability and, given the updated 
     investigative and forensic tools, move forward in 
     investigating these cases.
       (8) The United States national debt is nearly 
     $9,000,000,000,000.
       (9) Rather than adding to this debt, Congress should offset 
     any new spending from lower priority spending.
       (10) Bringing justice to those who have committed ghastly 
     civil rights crimes in a fiscally responsible manner that 
     does not add to the United States national debt should be a 
     higher priority for Congress than funding parochial pork 
     barrel projects.
       (b) Increased Appropriations.--Amounts provided in this Act 
     for the Civil Rights Division within the Department of 
     Justice are increased by $1,680,000 for the prosecution of 
     civil rights crimes.
       (c) Decreased Appropriations.--Appropriations in this Act 
     for the following accounts are decreased by the amount 
     indicated:
       (1) Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes research by $450,000.
       (2) Ocean and Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, 
     by $500,000.
       (3) Local Warnings and Forecasts, National Weather Service, 
     by $300,000.
       (4) National Aeronautics and Space Administration by 
     $800,000.
       (5) Education Program, NOAA, by $500,000.
       (d) Prohibition on Funding.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, there shall be no funding for fiscal 
     year 2008 for the following:
       (1) Advanced Undersea Vehicle, Mystic Aquarium-Institute 
     for Exploration, Mystic, Connecticut.
       (2) Maritime Museum, City of Mobile, Alabama.
       (3) Eye-On-The-Sky, Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, St. 
     Johnsbury, Vermont.
       (4) Adler Planetarium, Chicago, Illinois.
       (5) U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama, for 
     an update for the museum and exhibits.
       (6) John Smith Water Trail, installation of buoys marking 
     the John Smith National Water Trail on the Chesapeake Bay, 
     the Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. There 
is a bill in the Senate that I am presently blocking from a unanimous 
consent request, which means I am not necessarily opposed to it; but I 
don't think the bill ought to come to the floor without being voted on 
or amended. It is the Emmett Till civil rights bill. This bill is 
designed to increase the emphasis on unsolved civil rights cases.
  A year and a half ago, the Department of Justice initiated a new 
program for that exact purpose. They put staff on it, funded it, and 
have since gotten 100 referrals from 42 different offices on unsolved 
civil rights cases that are 50 years old and older. It is something we 
should be doing and the Justice Department is doing. I don't think we 
need another piece of legislation and another law to make us do that. 
The Justice Department has actually shown they didn't need a law. They 
were actually doing it.
  What this amendment does is transfers from six directed spending 
items--earmarks--to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 
$1.680 million to augment that process. What it will do is allow them 
to hire additional people to further define and further investigate 
these older civil rights cases.
  This bill has 600 earmarks in it. This relates to only six earmarks. 
The total for the earmarks is $458 million. Many of the earmarks in 
this bill don't do anything to advance the priorities or the mission 
statements of the three agencies we are funding. What are they? A 
maritime museum in Mobile, AL; Eye on the Sky Fairbanks Museum and 
Planetarium in St. Johnsbury, VT; Adler Planetarium in Chicago, IL; 
U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. I have been there; it 
is a tremendous place. Lastly, the installation of buoys marking the 
John Smith National Water Trail on the Chesapeake; undersea vehicle for 
the Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration in Connecticut.
  Let's start with the first one. There is $500,000 in this to 
construct a maritime museum in Mobile, AL. It is probably a great idea, 
although there are two other maritime museums right now in Mobile. 
Should we spend $500,000 now, when we are borrowing the kind of money 
that we are borrowing from our grandchildren, when we are fighting a 
war we are not paying for and

[[Page 26743]]

charging to our grandchildren? Should we spend that money now or should 
we spend the money upholding the law and going after people who 
violated other people's civil rights? Which is a better value? Which is 
a better purpose? Which is a better core principle?
  I will not go into the details, although I am prepared to do it in 
rebuttal. There are now 35 maritime museums in the gulf coast region, 
including two in Mobile. There are funds for this earmark through the 
competitive grant system. So it is not that this may not even get 
funded, because it might have to compete with the rest of the museums 
in the country. Instead, we have directed it.
  Earmark offset 2 is for the Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium in 
Vermont for the Eye on the Sky Program. It is a $300,000 earmark. It is 
probably a great idea. But is it a priority when we are borrowing money 
from our grandchildren? Again, this is another program. There is grant 
money out there for museums. You would have to compete based on the 
priorities. There is oversight on the grants. On these earmarks, there 
is no oversight. It can still be funded, on a competitive basis, 
without an earmark.
  The Adler Planetarium in Chicago has net assets right now in excess 
of $34 million, and we are going to send them $300,000. They have 
revenues every year in excess of $11 million. There is no reason for us 
to send that money there now if we are borrowing it from our grandkids. 
I will limit my debate on that.
  One of the things I will tell you--and I will put up a chart. Here is 
what the Administrator of NASA said about directed spending for 
earmarks:

       The growth of these Congressional directives is eroding 
     NASA's ability to carry out its mission of space exploration 
     and peer-reviewed scientific discovery.

  We are taking away the core mission of one of our premier scientific 
inquiries in this country when we send money. The redirections as a 
result of congressional earmarks included half of NASA's education 
budget, one-twentieth of the exploration budget, and one-twenty-fourth 
of their science budget. So it is not a small amount with which we are 
impacting NASA.
  The fourth earmark: Spies and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. We 
should know that the State of Alabama is going to have in excess of a 
$2 billion surplus this year. Let me say that again. The State of 
Alabama is going to have in excess of a $2 billion surplus this year. 
They had a $1.7 billion surplus last year. I would think that maybe 
they ought to fund this instead of our grandchildren.
  This is a $500,000 earmark for the Space and Rocket Museum. I have 
been there. It is a great thing. You ought to go see it. It is well 
worth your time. But it is something I believe should not be in the 
priority when we are borrowing the money.
  There is $500,000 for an interpretive buoy system. It is a great idea 
with great historical significance but probably not right now. Should 
we be spending this money if we are borrowing it against our grandkids? 
Should we be spending this money when we are growing the budget, this 
appropriations bill by 11 percent? I don't think so.
  Finally, $450,000 for an undersea vehicle in Mystic, CT. This is part 
of the Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, CT. They could apply for a 
competitive grant with all the rest of the States and probably get it. 
It is not a bad idea. It is probably a good idea. It probably promotes 
tourism, probably enhances the experience at that museum. But, again, 
is it a priority when we are not funding the war and we are not paying 
for our excesses and, in fact, probably the greatest moral issue of our 
day is stealing the future from our grandkids? It is not any of the 
other social issues. They wane in comparison to taking opportunities 
from our next generation.
  I also advise that the State of Connecticut, according to 
Connecticut's Comptroller, Nancy Wyman, has a $350 million surplus. So 
they are not running a deficit; they have a surplus. They could easily 
grant $500,000 for this museum.
  The point of this amendment is let's put dollars where they ought to 
go and let's stop spending money on lower priorities. It is about 
priorities. It is not about what is a good program and what is a bad 
program. It is about what is the greatest priority.
  The greatest priority is to ensure people of their civil rights. It 
has to be greater than these. There cannot be a greater priority than 
securing the future for the next generations, except we are not going 
to do that with this bill.
  I reserve the remainder of the time I have under the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I 
admire his tenacity and consistency in being a steward of the 
taxpayers' purse, as well as being concerned about future generations. 
Also, he has often raised issues from which I have benefited. I assure 
him that both my colleague from Alabama and I have stood squarely on 
the side of reform as well.
  When we did our opening statements today, we said that we were for 
security, which is helping our law enforcement, innovation, and 
competitiveness, as well as accountability. We had 2 reform 
amendments--one on the NOAA satellite programs that are already running 
$4 billion in overruns--that is ``B'' as in Barb, not ``M'' as in 
Mikulski. So we are instituting reforms and actually bringing to the 
civilian side a Nunn-McCurdy framework for early warnings. So that was 
one.
  The other, as the junior Senator from Oklahoma is aware, the IG at 
the Department of Justice said we have had some conferences, what we 
call the ``lavish conference situation.'' One conference had meatballs 
at $4 a meatball, lobster rolls, limousines. That is not about the kind 
of training that is supposed to go on at law enforcement conferences. 
We have had 2 of those amendments.
  Then when we come to Congress--so we have come up with some reforms, 
and there are others in the bill, but those are 2 big ones. There are 
others in the bill related to congressionally designated projects.
  I say to my colleague also that we, meaning Senator Shelby and 
myself, said that any congressionally designated project must meet 
criteria to even be considered. We were not going to have a bridge to 
nowhere. We were going to, if you will, have bridges to somewhere. They 
had to be not only for the political benefit, but they had to be tied 
to mission. They had to have mission and merit and matching funds, the 
M&Ms: mission, merit, and matching funds.
  Let's take the Department of Justice. We would not even think about a 
congressionally designated project unless it was for prevention, law 
enforcement or prosecution. There had to be local funds or nonprofits 
and no construction money.
  In the area of Commerce, we said it had to be related to coastal and 
marine resources. It had to foster understanding of the Earth's 
environment. It had to create jobs or keep jobs in America. Or it had 
to enhance the America COMPETES Act, which means science, technology or 
education.
  I could also go through the NASA criteria which, again, was science 
and research, education to promote the engagement of science and 
engineering, as well as aeronautics research, and, again, no private 
facility construction.
  I will not go through justification of each and every one of those 
projects. I know the Senator from Connecticut will speak to his. I will 
speak to mine in a moment.
  We have buoys--not like boys and girls, but buoys, such as b-u-o-y-s, 
buoys on the Chesapeake Bay. They are NOAA buoys. We have to have them 
anyway, and they give important navigation information, as well as 
readings on temperature, tides, and so on, that is so important to keep 
our commercial shipping lanes open and are great aids to the commercial 
and sports fishing industry.
  We had the commemoration of Jamestown, and in the commemoration of 
Jamestown, they celebrated CAPT John Smith's voyage on the Chesapeake 
Bay by mapping it. What we did, working with the National Geographic

[[Page 26744]]

Society that actually raised the money for this project, was add items 
to these buoys that would also tell the history, when you got up close 
to it, of what occurred in that geographic area. These buoys provide 
important navigation, and now they add value to history.
  Why is that important? It is important, first of all, for navigation 
reasons. It is important to also help us for weather reasons because if 
we know our tides and temperatures, it will help.
  I will tell my colleagues what gets people interested in science and 
engineering in my State. It is kids working hands on in science, not 
reading books about science but hands on, doing the science. That is 
why they love to come to our aquarium or to our Maryland Science 
Center. Teachers all over the Delmarva, including the great State of 
John Warner, whom we salute today and wish him well, they get into 
science, and that is what promotes their interest in wanting to be 
scientists and engineers. If they don't want to be scientists or 
engineers, maybe they want to be doctors, nurses or lab techs. There 
are so many ways people now come into science in addition to 
engineering and Ph.D.s, and we need them.
  Many of these projects that are listed here--and we know we will hear 
about planetariums, we will hear about the grand and spectacular work 
of Dr. Ballard that is exciting so many people, and we salute him 
because Captain Ballard found the Titanic. We have to make sure science 
and education is not a sinking ship hit by the iceberg of chilling cuts 
in our programs.
  I know my metaphors are going too far, but what I want my colleagues 
to know that we were not cavalier and said: Just give us any request 
and we will fund it. We screened them. We scrutinized them. They had to 
be mission and merit and have matching funds. We believe we have met 
this criteria. That is on the earmark reform.
  On the issue of civil rights, I salute, again, our colleague from 
Oklahoma on the issue of wanting to investigate these cold cases but 
assure him that throughout our bill, we have a vigorous civil rights 
enforcement. I thank my colleague from Alabama for being such a 
stalwart ally on this issue.
  First of all, we actually have money in the bill, close to $378 
million for the EEOC. While we are not only looking at cold cases, we 
are looking at hot cases right here and now and dealing with a terrible 
backlog.
  We also funded $9 million for the Commission on Civil Rights. But 
along with that, $116 million went to the Civil Rights Division at 
Justice to pay for 760 attorneys and support staff. Also, money went to 
the U.S. attorney to investigate crimes, including hate crimes and 
civil rights violations.
  We also put in $370 million for the FBI for over 270 agents to 
investigate civil rights violations, those that have occurred now and 
also those very sad cold cases. So $370 million, $116 million, and it 
goes on and on. The totals, actually when we count what we fund for 
U.S. attorneys, my staff tells me it is $3 billion. Those U.S. 
attorneys do other things as well.
  We think we did a good job dealing with the backlog at EEOC, 
reforming them, getting them refocused, funding the FBI, funding the 
Civil Rights Division, funding the Commission on Civil Rights, funding 
the Legal Aid Corporation, and so on. We funded those enforcement and 
prosecution issues related to cold cases but also current cases where 
we want to see justice done.
  I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, first, I say to Senator Mikulski, she 
should be unrestrained in her metaphorical employments. I thought they 
were both creative and inspirational, as is the bill she brings before 
the Chamber, with Senator Shelby as well.
  I rise to speak against the Coburn amendment. I will file some 
statements in the Record, but I say to Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby, I thank them, before I get to the amendment, for the 
extraordinary work they have done and particularly on matters of local 
law enforcement which are so critical to the safety and well-being of 
our communities and our people. They stood up together in a bipartisan 
way. These programs have worked to reduce crime in our neighborhoods. I 
wanted to take this opportunity to thank them.
  Why do I oppose the Coburn amendment? Because the amendment would 
prohibit any funding of a program that happens to be located in 
Connecticut, in Mystic, CT, but is a program of real national 
significance run by Dr. Bob Ballard, who is a national asset. He is an 
extraordinary visionary, explorer, scientist, public servant, really an 
American patriot in the best sense of the term.
  Generally speaking, when I sought reelection last year and my 
opponent attacked me about earmarks, I said there are good earmarks and 
there are bad earmarks. A lot of what we do here has to do with 
earmarking, to either add or subtract to the budget or to authorization 
bills, and I think people understand that.
  I rise to say that it would be a terrible result if, in pursuit of 
this amendment, which I know the Senator from Oklahoma offers for 
reasons that are fiscal, he eliminated the funding of the advanced 
undersea vehicle at the Institute for Exploration, which happens to be 
located at the Mystic Aquarium.
  Now, the first thing I want to say is that the Institute for 
Exploration is run by Dr. Bob Ballard, who, as Senator Mikulski said, 
is not only nationally famous but probably world famous as the man who 
discovered the Titanic and who went on to discover the Bismarck in 1989 
and the USS Yorktown in 1998. These are remarkable historic 
achievements. He is a kind of ocean archeological explorer. I am sure 
most people hearing my voice have seen Dr. Bob in one or another TV 
program describing his extraordinary work, but let me first say it 
happens to be located at the Mystic Aquarium. It was a major 
achievement when we convinced Dr. Ballard to locate there--the State 
did. How do I compare it? In this time of baseball playoffs, without 
demeaning either side here, it would be like the Yankees acquiring A-
Rod or the Red Sox getting Josh Beckett. When Dr. Bob Ballard agreed to 
bring his Institute for Exploration to Mystic, CT, we were thrilled. 
And I do want to stress that it is a separate institute that happens to 
be located alongside and at the aquarium site. Tourists have some 
access to part of its educational aspects, but it is separate. It is 
not just part of the aquarium.
  This $450,000 is not a lot of money in a budget the size of our 
budget, but it is going to be used to improve the sonar on the unmanned 
technology for undersea mapping. In other words, there is an advanced 
undersea vehicle that Dr. Ballard and his team use for undersea 
mapping, and this money will help him upgrade the sonar to chart 
currently unexplored regions of the world's oceans.
  Dr. Ballard does this out of his general sense of inquiry, of 
scientific inquiry, to use the extraordinary tools of modern technology 
to teach us things about most of the globe that is underwater that we 
have never known much about. But he does it also in the aftermath of a 
career in the U.S. Navy, 30 years both Active and in the Reserve as an 
oceanographer and a naval intelligence officer. During his long career, 
he has been called upon to use his advanced underwater systems to carry 
out a number of highly classified missions for the U.S. military.
  The sonar mapping technology that this $450,000 will help facilitate 
is very important to the Navy, and its development has been supported 
by the Office of Naval Research because of its military applications in 
support of submarine warfare and countermine measures. The money is in 
this bill because it is strongly supported also by the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the Department of 
Commerce, part of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, and NOAA supports it because of its enormous 
potential to explore the uncharted regions of the oceans for many 
reasons, including in search of precious natural resources.

[[Page 26745]]

  So what I am saying is the project, to our great pride, has a 
Connecticut address, but it is a technology that is critical for 
national security and even international scientific research.
  I wish to go one step further here about a bonus. I have been to 
visit this institute of Dr. Ballard's in Mystic several times. It is a 
remarkable place. I would urge anybody who is in Connecticut to go see 
it. But one of the things he has done, because he is a real educator, 
he has set up a system, an educational program where he can actually 
bring his scientific work to students around the country. It is called 
Immersion Presents--an afterschool program. He actually has the 
capability to project his expeditions, including the mapping 
expeditions that would be improved by this $450,000, via the Internet 
to over 140 Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs across the country. For 7 
consecutive days, Dr. Ballard's research mission has broadcast live to 
thousands of students. So he will use the money for this, as he has in 
10 previous expeditions, to continue this Immersion Presents Program. 
This is a tremendous educational device. If you want to excite American 
kids about going into science, what a thrilling way to do it.
  So with all respect to my colleague, and I respect what he is trying 
to do, I think he has hit something here that ought not to be hit. If 
it loses its funding, it will not just be a loss for the institute or 
Dr. Ballard or the State of Connecticut, it will really be a loss for 
our Nation, both in terms of scientific inquiry for our Nation and 
also, I would suggest, national security. So I thank Chairman Mikulski 
and Senator Shelby for including this in their recommendation to the 
Senate, and for that reason I would urge the rejection of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I would concede the value of 
what Dr. Ballard has done. But the question isn't whether this should 
get funded; the question is, Who should fund it?
  National Geographic made $15 million last year. They are a nonprofit 
organization. They had revenues of over $1 billion. The State of 
Connecticut is going to have over a $300 million surplus. I don't doubt 
that this is a very worthy cause. The question is and what the American 
people are asking this body to do is to start making priorities out of 
priorities.
  I think this is a very valid project. He is one of 11 resident 
scholars for National Geographic. I have studied the issue. It is not 
about whether it is a priority for them. The question is, Who ought to 
be paying for it? In a time when we don't have any money, when the 
dollar is sinking, when we are spending more and we are already funding 
a war and charging the war to our kids, what we are setting up is we 
are going to continue to do things that don't have to be done by us 
when somebody else could do it. Consequently, we are going to borrow 
the money.
  There is half a billion dollars worth of earmarks in here, I would 
say to my friend from Connecticut, and all of them have some merit. The 
question is, Who should be paying for some of these? There are 
competitive grants on museums that are run well by this Government. 
They are very competitive. They can get the $450,000 through a 
competitive grant. They can apply for that. There is oversight on that. 
There is a competition among priorities when we do that and run it. 
When we put it in directly, we, No. 1, consign our kids to paying for 
it, and No. 2, we don't put the responsibility on anybody else.
  Now, if this is really necessary, National Geographic will stand up 
and put the $450,000 into it, or if it is important to the education 
and instruction in the State of Connecticut, with a $300 million 
surplus, they can put in the $450,000. But our choice here today is, we 
are just going to charge it to our grandkids.
  We don't have this money. This bill has grown by almost 10 percent 
over what we funded last year. If you took all the directed earmarks 
out of it, we would be growing by about 4\1/2\ percent. So it is 
important for the American public to see the impact when we direct 
spending.
  The purpose of this exercise--and I will continue to do this as long 
as I am in the Senate--is to try to force us into making the hard 
choices we really don't want to have to make. I believe this committee 
did a good job of setting the parameters and trying, but there is a new 
standard, and the standard has to be, would you put in your own money? 
That is the standard we ought to go by because what we are really doing 
is transferring the cost of all these things to two generations, and it 
goes completely opposite of the heritage of this country.
  D-day starts January 1, 2008. You know what D-day is? It is the first 
year of the baby boomers. It is the first year we start going down the 
tubes on Medicare and Social Security. And we can't even bring a bill 
to the floor that constrains spending to 4 percent or 5 percent--1\1/2\ 
times inflation. The American public doesn't have that option with 
their budgets because they do not have an unlimited credit card. We 
just increased the debt limit on this country by $950 billion. Five 
times since 1997 have we done that. When a child is born today, not 
counting that debt, which is $30,000 per man, woman, and child, there 
is $400,000 worth of unfunded liabilities lying on each of those 
children.
  My point is, and I will quit talking about it--and I am not going to 
offer the second amendment--we need to wake up and see that we can't do 
everything we would like to do. We ought to be doing what is absolutely 
necessary and we ought to be paying for this war. We ought to be making 
the hard choices and paying for the war.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to my friend 
from Oklahoma.
  I respect what he is about. I think we all understand we have to 
bring spending under control. In fact, earmarks are down generally in 
the appropriations process this year. But, again, there are good 
earmarks and bad earmarks. It is part of what the people elect us to 
do, and I came to the floor to defend this earmark.
  I do want to say to my friend from Oklahoma that I am pretty sure, 
though I haven't had a chance to check it exactly, that the State of 
Connecticut is supporting some of Dr. Ballard's programs. I hadn't 
thought about National Geographic. Maybe you and I should go to Dr. 
Ballard and try to get some money from him for what----
  Mr. COBURN. I will be on the next airplane with you.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. --for what he is doing. But I do want to say this is 
not the Mystic Aquarium; this is the Institute of Exploration, which 
happens to be at the Mystic Aquarium. This really does serve a national 
purpose and really an international purpose but a great one for 
America--mapping the ocean floor for the use and the potential 
development of precious natural resources, and it is supported by the 
Navy because it is of direct use to the Navy.
  Now, I know my friend from Oklahoma is very principled in his fight, 
so what I am about to say will not affect him. But my staff just told 
him there are a bunch of students in Oklahoma who get to watch Dr. 
Ballard--I know, you love him--and his undersea immersion work, and 
this $450,000 will make that even better than it already is.
  There are times when I will support the Senator from Oklahoma in some 
of his efforts because overall they are right. I think all of us know 
there is a larger problem beyond earmarks in dealing with our fiscal 
imbalances. But today, because I think he has struck some targets here 
that don't deserve to be struck, I respectfully urge rejection of his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the underlying 
bill, and I will just take a few minutes to do so.

[[Page 26746]]

  Today, the Senate is debating a bill that ensures our homes and 
communities are safe, it keeps us a world leader in scientific 
research, it promotes economic development across the Nation, and it 
funds our national census. I am here today because I strongly support 
the bill and I wanted to commend Chairman Mikulski for her work, as 
well as the ranking member.
  It reflects many of our Nation's top domestic priorities: putting 
more police on our streets through the COPS program, ensuring the FBI 
has the tools it needs to fight domestic terrorism, providing the DEA 
with resources to win the war on drugs, and protecting our children 
from sexual predators. I am proud to say there is much in this bill to 
celebrate. And it comes not a day too soon.
  Last week the FBI released its latest report on crime in America. The 
news was not good: crime is up for the second year in a row.
  It is no coincidence that this rise in crime follows years of 
repeated cuts to the COPS program by the Bush administration and the 
Republican Congress.
  In 1994, COPS put more than 100,000 new officers on the streets. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, every dollar spent 
on COPS stopped 30 crimes from happening--every dollar stopped 30 of 
our neighbors, friends and family from being victimized. In my opinion, 
that is a dollar very well spent.
  Take a look at this chart. The red line indicates the number of 
homicides per 100,000 citizens. The blue line indicates the number of 
police officers. Every time the number of police officers on patrol 
decreased, the number of homicides increased. This is simple 
commonsense: More police means less crime. Yet the Bush administration 
chose to kill funding for the very program that is responsible for 
hiring more police officers to protect our communities. And 
predictably, as this chart clearly illustrates, the results have been 
disastrous.
  It is time to reverse that course. This bill provides $2.7 billion 
for State and local law enforcement--$1.6 billion more than the 
President's request. With this money, our police will be able to 
prevent gang violence, to combat drug crimes, and to catch child 
predators. This bill also adds 100 FBI agents whose specific purpose is 
fighting the rising threat of violent crime. It lifts a hiring freeze 
on DEA agents and puts 200 new agents on the beat.
  But, while this bill does a lot to ensure the safety of our 
communities, there is still work to be done. That is why I am pleased 
that Chairman Mikulski and the ranking member supported our amendment, 
an amendment that doubles the funding for juvenile mentoring programs. 
They care about that effort.
  It is no secret that juvenile crime--particularly juvenile gang 
activity--is a serious problem in this country. That is why Senator 
Feinstein and I worked so hard to pass the Gang Abatement and 
Prevention Act of 2007. One of the biggest problems contributing to 
gang activity and gang crime is a lack of direction and lack of 
supervision in the lives of teens.
  Nor is it a secret that providing good role models and more structure 
in the lives of teens has a significant impact in reducing gang 
activity and violence. That is why we need to beef up our juvenile 
mentoring programs.
  The Juvenile Mentoring Program was established in 1992 with the 
specific goals of reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation, 
improving academic performance and reducing school drop out rates. 
Programs funded under the Juvenile Mentoring Program initiative link 
at-risk children, particularly those living in high-crime areas and 
those struggling in school, with responsible, working adults. These 
children receive the structure and support that is otherwise missing in 
their lives. They learn about the dangers of drug use, the perils of 
gang involvement, and the importance of staying in school. In other 
words, programs like these provide children with the tools they need to 
avoid the pitfalls of gangs and violence, to rise above the situation 
they were born into, and to make a better life. I can think of no other 
program more deserving of increased funds and commend my colleagues for 
recognizing this need and passing my amendment.
  I want to mention the one difference I have with this bill, one that 
has to do with a policy known around here as the Tiahrt Amendment.
  No matter how many great programs we fund in this bill, no matter 
that we doubled funding for the Juvenile Mentoring Program, we will 
never successfully stop violence unless we work to combat the illegal 
use of guns. Gun violence is one of the most serious problems facing 
our Nation. Every day on average, 81 more Americans will be shot dead--
many of them innocent victims, including children. This is 
unacceptable. But, it is even more unacceptable for us, as legislators, 
to allow it to continue.
  But that is exactly what a provision in this bill does with its 
Tiahrt provision. This provision could prevent the sharing of gun trace 
data among law enforcement agencies. It will prevent the ATF from 
providing trustworthy national data about the flow of crime guns. It 
will make it harder to figure out where illegal gun activity is most 
prevalent and what we can do to stop it. Without this data, our state 
and local law enforcement will have a much harder time combating 
violence in our communities and making us safe.
  It should be a priority for all of us to better understand gun crime, 
so we can better prevent it. But with the Tiahrt provision, data that 
is essential to understanding gun trafficking and violence will be 
concealed from law enforcement, concealed from lawmakers, and concealed 
from the public. There is simply no way to make good policy without 
having good information, good data to base it on.
  When convicts get released from prison, we keep their fingerprints on 
file. But when a gun gets confiscated, information about it gets 
treated like a State secret. Police can share fingerprint data across 
state lines, because criminals move across State lines. But under this 
bill, gun data has to be kept within a small geographic area.
  I am very disappointed that this language has been included in the 
bill. But, it is a battle I will seek to fight with others on another 
day. And, be assured, I will.
  As I said before, there is much for us to celebrate in this bill. And 
there is more to celebrate having accepted my amendment to double the 
funding for Juvenile Mentoring programs.
  I look forward to supporting the Appropriations bill and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the junior Senator from Oklahoma. One of the items he seeks 
to eliminate funding for is the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy 
System. This system has support from both the President and the 
Congress. To develop the system, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office 
partnered with the National Park Service, National Geographic Society, 
Conservation Fund, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Sultana, Verizon, and 
others to determine the requirements for the interpretive buoy system.
  These requirements defined needs for a new type of buoy, capable of 
collecting environmental data--winds, waves, and currents--for users; 
water quality data for monitoring the health of the bay; and a system 
for communicating historical and cultural information through cell 
phone technology and shore-based computer networks to the public and 
into the classroom.
  These buoys are an innovative component of the U.S. Integrated Ocean 
Observing System, IOOS, a NOAA priority, which supports safety and 
efficiency of marine operations, public safety, studies of climate 
change and variability, and protection and restoration of healthy 
marine ecosystems. In addition to providing interpretive information--
environmental, geographical, historical--to citizens of the watershed, 
this system is part of the NOAA Education Program, developing and 
delivering new science curriculum based on real-time environmental 
observations to Chesapeake Bay classrooms, thus serving as a pilot for 
similar national programs.
  The interpretive buoy system is a part of IOOS. IOOS is a priority 
both in

[[Page 26747]]

the President's Ocean Action Plan and for NOAA. CBIBS is a component of 
the Chesapeake Bay Observing System, part of IOOS, providing water 
quality measurements such as dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, 
clarity, and chlorophyll content; wind speed and direction, wave height 
and direction, air temperature, barometric pressure, and relative 
humidity; and current velocity and direction from the surface to the 
bottom.
  The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States, being 
200 miles long. The width of the bay varies from 3.4 miles across to 35 
miles across, near the mouth of the Potomac River. The shoreline of the 
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries, including all tidal wetlands 
and islands, is over 11,600 miles. Until these buoys were deployed, 
NOAA weather forecasters only had 1 platform, Thomas Point Light, 
providing measurements for daily forecasts for the bay. With these 
additional real-time data sets, forecasters can better predict weather 
and water conditions on the bay supporting safety and efficiency of 
marine operations, public safety, and marine navigation.
  This congressionally designated project is not just a merit-based 
program. It is an especially economical one. We get multiple benefits 
from this single science platform in the bay. It is a worthwhile 
program and warrants our strong support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 3243 and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the 
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. 
Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 363 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Smith
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Clinton
     Craig
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Hagel
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 3240

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to offer an amendment. I have 
spoken at some length with the managers, and I will withdraw the 
amendment, but I want to offer the amendment and talk about it because 
I have received from them assurances of cooperation on this issue. It 
is a very important issue. What I would like to do is ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I might offer 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I call up amendment No. 3240 which is at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Tester, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. 
     Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 3240.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 funding for crime control and methamphetamine 
              abuse projects for Indians, with an offset)

         On page 27, line 8, strike ``$104,777,000'' and insert 
     ``$84,777,000''.
         On page 54, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
         (A) $25,000,000 shall be available for grants under 
     section 20109(b) of the 1994 Act (42 U.S.C. 13709(b));
         On page 54, strike lines 20 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
         (C) $10,000,000 shall be available for demonstration 
     projects relating to alcohol and crime in Indian Country, of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be used to address the problem of 
     methamphetamine abuse in Indian Country;
         On page 59, line 11, strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$40,000,000''.

  Mr. DORGAN. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators 
Bingaman, Tester, Baucus, Cantwell, and Thune. This amendment deals 
with the issue of the criminal justice systems on Indian reservations. 
Before I talk about the amendment itself, I thank Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Shelby for the bill they have put together. The legislation 
they bring to the floor from the Appropriations Subcommittee is an 
important and marked improvement on what the President has requested.
  Let me describe what the President requested with respect to law 
enforcement activities on Indian reservations. Why is this important? 
Because we have a trust responsibility on Indian reservations, and we 
are not meeting it. For the tribal jails discretionary grants program 
in the year 2000, there was $34 million; the President requested zero 
this year. My colleagues, Senators Mikulski and Shelby appropriated $15 
million. Tribal courts assistance, the same thing; tribal COPS, $40 
million in the year 2000, zero in the Administration's 2008 request. 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby restored that to $35 million. The 
list goes on.
  The question is this: Do we or do we not have a responsibility to 
fund these law enforcement responsibilities that we have on Indian 
reservations? Last week my committee, the Indian Affairs Committee, 
heard testimony. Let me describe a bit of that testimony. A recent 
report shows that 34 percent of Indian women will be raped or sexually 
assaulted during their lifetimes. One-third of Indian women will be 
raped or assaulted during their lifetimes. We heard from one retired 
Bureau of Indian Affairs police officer who worked on one of the Indian 
reservations: ``We all knew they would only take cases with a 
confession. We were just too loaded down. We were forced to triage our 
cases.''
  When this type of violence becomes commonplace, so commonplace that 
the police have to triage rape cases, something is wrong. Somebody 
needs to take action.
  We had other testimony that the call to the police in an emergency, 
in a circumstance where there is a violent

[[Page 26748]]

crime being committed or just was committed, in some cases it takes an 
hour or an hour and a quarter to receive a response from a law 
enforcement official.
  There are fewer than 2,000 Federal and tribal law enforcement 
officers who patrol more than 53 million acres of land. In North and 
South Dakota we have four police officers patrolling the 2.3 million 
acres of Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. Survivors of violent 
crimes report waiting hours--in some cases days--for the police to 
respond to their urgent calls.
  The other issue is the lack of jail space, the lack of places to 
incarcerate violent criminals. Tribal jails face a $400 million backlog 
in funding. I have been to tribal jails. I have seen young kids lying 
on the floors of these jails. The detention centers are unbelievably 
deplorable, in many cases. One Federal official said that the lack of 
detention facilities means that this whole system is a catch-and-
release jail system. The law enforcement officials of the tribe catch 
the criminals, and they are forced to release many of them right back 
into the community to commit another crime.
  We also heard testimony last week about the Indian reservations 
becoming soft targets for criminal organizations because of this 
neglect. That is not the choice of the Indian tribes. The fact is, they 
don't want this happening on the reservations. In May 2006, Federal 
officials seized a methamphetamine business plan. It outlined how the 
organization wanted to replace alcohol abuse with meth abuse on the 
Indian reservation because these are the most vulnerable citizens. It 
outlined how non-American Indians should handle the drugs, and it 
explained that tribal police couldn't arrest them while they are on the 
reservation. These stories are unbelievable. Again, a report that says 
one-third of Indian women during their lifetime will be raped or 
sexually assaulted, and we don't have adequate law enforcement 
protection.
  We have a couple million American Indians living on reservations. The 
system that was established over a century ago was that the Federal 
Government was going to have the basic law enforcement responsibility, 
and we have not met it. We have not met our responsibilities in health 
care, in education, in housing, and we have not met them in law 
enforcement.
  I have described on this floor ad nauseum the situation with health 
care. We have responsibilities for two groups of people for health 
care. We have responsibility for every one we throw into a Federal 
penitentiary. They are our prisoners. We provide for their health care. 
We have a trust responsibility for medical care for American Indians. 
That is because that is a decision our country made a long time ago. We 
spend twice as much per person providing health care for Federal 
prisoners than we do to meet our obligation to provide health care for 
Indians. Many of these kids, many of the elders go wanting for health 
care in a country like ours.
  I am talking now not about health care or housing or education where 
we have a full-blown crisis. I am talking about law enforcement, the 
basics. If your life is not free from violence, you are always afraid. 
The fact is, we have circumstances where we have inadequate jail space. 
We have in many cases circumstances where violent crimes are committed, 
and yet they must be investigated by the FBI. They must be investigated 
by the U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's 
Office. The fact is, resources do not exist. That is the problem.
  My proposal is simple. My amendment was to increase the funding in 
this legislation in two areas: One dealing with detention centers, and 
that is an urgent situation that is in need of a response. In the 
second area we provide a grant program to be increased, as it properly 
should, to deal with the issue of alcohol and methamphetamine. 
Methamphetamine is a scourge on Indian reservations. They are being 
targeted by gangs and by organized crime. They are being targeted by 
non-Indians. They don't have the law enforcement capability to take 
care of it. The question is, are we going to do that?


                     Amendment No. 3240, Withdrawn

  My colleagues from Maryland and Alabama have been very helpful in 
saying they are willing to work with me to increase these accounts and 
find ways to fund these things. As a result, I will ask that my 
amendment be withdrawn because we have made progress in commitments 
from those 2 legislators. I thank them. I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I look forward to working with them. In the next 5 or 6 
months we are going to make some real progress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from North Dakota. 
I have found his comments about those women being raped to be 
devastating, and I know we are going to continue to work with him.


                           Amendment No. 3250

  I now ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3250 be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3250) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby for the work they have done on the amendment that just passed. 
This is a major step in the right direction to assure that America 
stays in the forefront of space technology, of the research, of the 
quality of life that we have gained from being the first in space. I 
commend Senator Mikulski--I have so enjoyed working with her--and 
Senator Shelby for working with us in support of the amendment that was 
just added to the bill.


                    Amendment No. 3233, as Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
adoption of amendment No. 3233, it be modified with changes at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 217.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title--
       (1) the amount appropriated in this title under the heading 
     ``General Administration'' is reduced by $10,000,000;
       (2) the amount appropriated in this title under the heading 
     ``violence against women prevention and prosecution 
     programs'' under the heading ``Office on Violence Against 
     Women'' is increased by $10,000,000; and
       (3) of the amount appropriated in this title under the 
     heading ``violence against women prevention and prosecution 
     programs'' under the heading ``Office on Violence Against 
     Women''--
       (A) $5,000,000 is for grants to encourage arrest policies, 
     as authorized by part U of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh et seq.);
       (B) $4,000,000 is for engaging men and youth in prevention 
     programs, as authorized by section 41305 of the Violence 
     Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043d-4); and
       (C) $1,000,000 is for the National Resource Center on 
     Workplace Responses to assist victims of domestic violence, 
     as authorized by section 41501 of the Violence Against Women 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043f).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all first-degree 
amendments to H.R. 3093 must be filed at the desk by 2:30 p.m. Monday, 
October 15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to say thank you to my 
colleagues. I am so grateful. We have worked this thing pretty hard. It 
is right that NASA be given some of these funds they had to expend on 
an emergency basis for the recovery to flight of the Space Shuttle 
Columbia. I

[[Page 26749]]

want the chairman and the ranking member to know how profoundly 
grateful I am for their leadership in making this happen.
  Now we have the challenge of going to the conference committee to 
make it stick. I am so grateful for your leadership.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania. We had this pressing amendment we needed to get 
done, but the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Ohio have 
been very patient. I will now yield such time as he may consume to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank you and commend the work of our 
senior Senator from Maryland on this bill and so many others. I 
appreciate her hard work on this bill and giving us this time.


                           Amendment No. 3256

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3256 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey], for Mr. Biden, 
     for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Boxer, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Casey, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cardin, 
     Mr. Reed, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3256.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $110,000,000 for community 
   oriented policing services and to provide a full offset for such 
                                amount)

       On page 57, line 7, strike ``$550,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$660,000,000''.
       On page 60, line 2, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``Funds'' on line 3, and insert the following:
       (12) $110,000,000 is for grants under section 1701 of title 
     I of the 1968 Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) for the hiring and 
     rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers under 
     part Q of such title, notwithstanding subsection (i) of such 
     section; and
       (13)
       On page 97, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       Of the unobligated balances made available for the 
     Department of Justice in prior fiscal years, $110,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senator Biden, who 
cannot be here today, and I join him in offering an amendment to 
provide funding for hiring more officers for the Community Oriented 
Policing Services Program, or what is known popularly as the COPS 
Program.
  Joining us on this amendment are Senators Mikulski, Kohl, Bingaman, 
Clinton, Kerry, Levin, Kennedy, Bayh, Cantwell, Boxer, Schumer, Dodd, 
Collins, Cardin, Reed of Rhode Island, and Nelson of Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Lautenberg 
and Klobuchar be added as cosponsors, as well as Senator Whitehouse 
from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CASEY. I will.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like the Senator from Vermont to 
also be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the COPS Program was created in 1994, known 
then as the Biden crime bill, in response to historically high rates of 
crime. Over 100,000 community policing officers were hired to work the 
streets of communities across America.
  This successful program not only increases the number of police 
officers on the street to fight crime but also emphasizes building 
collaboration and partnership between the community and law enforcement 
so we can prevent crime in addition to fighting crime. Crime was driven 
down from all-time highs to historic lows. It stayed low until about 2 
years ago, when budgetary cuts by this administration began to show up 
in rising crime statistics.
  Data released this week from the FBI shows that violent crime has 
increased again for the second year in a row. Philadelphia is one of 
several cities that is experiencing severe problems with violence. 
Although the crime increases of the past 2 years may be characterized 
by some as minor, they are alarming because they follow a steady 10-
year decline in crime rates across the country.
  Why is this alarming increase in effect? Well, some researchers and 
experts predict that the uptick in crime rates are in part due to the 
administration's budget cuts. In recent years, billions in Federal 
funding for State and local law enforcement have been cut--including 
the near complete elimination of the COPS hiring program.
  As a result, once again crime is rising across the Nation. The latest 
FBI crime reports showed a 1.9-percent increase in violent crime. This 
is the first 2-year increase in crime rates since the COPS Program was 
first created and hiring was funded. It is no coincidence that when 
Congress funded COPS, crime went down, but when the administration 
eliminated the COPS hiring program, crime began to rise.
  I would argue that if the President of the United States can find 
billions for tax breaks for wealthy Americans, he should be able to 
find funds for putting police on the streets of America.
  Independent studies have verified the effectiveness of the COPS 
Program. The GAO found a statistical link between the COPS Program 
grants and reductions in violent crime. The Brookings Institute 
reported that COPS is one of the most cost-effective options for 
fighting crime. They found it saves lives and saves money.
  So it is critical that Congress funds not only priorities overseas 
but here at home. Rising crime is an alarming and complex problem. 
There is no one solution, but having more cops on the street is part of 
the solution.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and our numerous 
cosponsors in increasing funding for this critical program that will 
provide us with more law enforcement on the streets and greater safety 
in our communities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 3218

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3218 by Senator 
Murray and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendments?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mrs. Murray, 
     for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. 
     Crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 3218.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 funds for the Northern Border Prosecutor 
                              Initiative)

       On page 53, line 11, after ``officers'' insert ``and of 
     which $20,000,000 shall be for the Northern Border Prosecutor 
     Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or 
     municipal governments only for costs associated with the 
     prosecution of criminal cases declined by local United States 
     Attorneys offices, subject to section 505 of this Act''.


                    Amendment No. 3218, as Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 53, line 3, strike ``400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$420,000,000''.
       On page 53, line 11, strike the semicolon, add a comma and 
     add ``and of which $20,000,000 for a Northern Border 
     Prosecutor

[[Page 26750]]

     Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or 
     municipal governments only for costs associated with the 
     prosecution of criminal cases declined by local United States 
     Attorneys offices, subject to Section 505 of this Act;''.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``the amount appropriated in this title under the heading 
     ``GENERAL ADMINISTRATION'' is reduced by $20,000,000;''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been 
cleared on both sides of the aisle and I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3218), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3225

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 3225 by 
Senator Reid of Nevada and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3225.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 an analysis of the methods for collecting data 
 regarding the status of the United States economy and a determination 
   of whether the current data results in an overstatement of United 
      States economic growth, domestic manufacturing output, and 
                             productivity)

       On page 26, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 114. United States Economic Data. (a) Of the funds 
     provided in this title for Economic and Information 
     Infrastructure under the heading ``economic and statistic 
     analysis'', $950,000 shall be used to carry out the study and 
     report required under this section.
       (b) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     study and report on whether the import price data published 
     by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other economic data 
     collected by the United States accurately reflect the 
     economic condition of the United States.
       (c)(1) The report required by subsection (b) shall include 
     an analysis of the methods used to determine the condition of 
     the United States economy and shall address--
       (A) whether the statistical measure of the United States 
     economy correctly interprets the impact of imports and 
     outsourced production;
       (B) whether the statistical measures of the United States 
     economy result in an accurate report of United States gross 
     domestic product (GDP), productivity, and other aspects of 
     economic performance;
       (C) whether the impact of imports on United States 
     manufacturing levels and competitiveness is accurately 
     reported; and
       (D) whether other countries are accounting for import 
     prices more accurately or frequently than the United States.
       (2) If the findings of the report indicate that the methods 
     used for accounting for imported goods and United States 
     wages result in overstating economic growth, domestic 
     manufacturing output, and productivity growth, the report 
     shall include recommendations with respect to--
       (A) what actions should be taken to produce more accurate 
     import price indices on a regular basis; and
       (B) what other measures of economic analysis should be used 
     to accurately reflect the globalization of economic activity 
     and offshoring of domestic production.
       (d) The report required by subsection (b) shall be 
     completed and submitted to Congress not later than 18 months 
     after the date of the contract described in subsection (b).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is cleared on both sides 
of the aisle and I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3225) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3268

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my last request is, I send an amendment 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3268.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 funds for science, engineering, technology, and 
                    mathematics related activities)

       On page 97, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 528.  Funds for Teach for America.--Of the funds 
     provided in this Act for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, under the heading ``science, aeronautics, and 
     exploration'', $3,000,000 may be for Teach for America for 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics related 
     activities.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment provides funds for 
science, engineering, technology, and mathematics-related activities at 
NASA. It has been cleared on both sides and I urge its immediate 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3268) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Ohio has been 
waiting. He has been very cooperative and patient, and I appreciate it. 
I know he wants to speak on an important issue that has been on his 
mind and should be on the Senate floor as it relates to trade.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 3260

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 3260.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown], for himself, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3260.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of any funds made available in this Act 
  in a manner that is inconsistent with the trade remedy laws of the 
                 United States, and for other purposes)

       On page 97, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 528. Limitation on Negotiating Trade Agreements.--None 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
     Act may be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the 
     principal negotiating objective of the United States with 
     respect to trade remedy laws to preserve the ability of the 
     United States--
       (1) to enforce vigorously its trade laws, including 
     antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws;
       (2) to avoid agreements that--
       (A) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
     disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping and 
     subsidies; or
       (B) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
     safeguard provisions, in order to ensure that United States 
     workers, agricultural producers, and firms can compete fully 
     on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of reciprocal trade 
     concessions; and

[[Page 26751]]

       (3) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market-access barriers.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the senior Senator 
from Maryland for her work, especially today, on much of what she has 
done, but especially for what she did on NASA earlier today that will 
matter to northern Ohio, my whole State, and to much of the rest of 
this country.
  I rise, quickly, to offer an amendment that will help America's 
manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers.
  American manufacturing, for generations, has been a tremendous source 
of pride for our country and a ladder to the middle class for our 
working families.
  American manufacturing fuels our economy and supplies our national 
defense infrastructure. It would be dangerous, on many levels, for our 
country to ignore the anticompetitive forces that are buffeting our 
manufacturing sector. It would be, and it is.
  Over the last several years, American manufacturing has faltered and 
millions of jobs have been lost. In my home State of Ohio, well over 
200,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the last half decade or 
so--from Steubenville to Lima and from Cleveland to Dayton.
  Workers and manufacturers in all our States find it increasingly 
difficult to compete in today's global markets, where the odds are 
stacked against them because of unfair trade practices.
  American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it is a 
fair fight.
  Our international trade laws are intended to secure a level playing 
field, but, unfortunately, some of our trading partners have repeatedly 
found ways to circumvent these laws to gain an unfair advantage against 
workers in the United States. This has led to recordbreaking trade 
deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and 
massive job losses, which have wreaked havoc on the middle class.
  Some foreign governments, for example, have unfairly and illegally 
doled out massive subsidies to their own companies and others willing 
to reestablish offshore, contributing to the migration of manufacturing 
jobs overseas and artificial price advantages for imported products.
  Despite evidence that something is very wrong, you can look at job 
loss figures, deficit figures, outsourcing figures or offshoring 
figures. Our Government has chosen not to aggressively enforce U.S. 
trade remedy laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. 
interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting.
  The WTO has issued a series of decisions striking down the practice 
known as zeroing in U.S. antidumping proceedings. Zeroing is a 
methodology employed for measuring and remedying unfair foreign 
dumping--the practice of selling products in the United States at below 
``fair value,'' which corrupts free market competition and undermines 
U.S. industries.
  Zeroing, a practice our Government has used for more than 80 years, 
has been upheld by U.S. courts and the GATT and is recognized as good 
policy because it combats unfair dumping.
  The WTO's decisions threaten to create an enormous loophole in trade 
law enforcement. This affects industries and local economies throughout 
our country--not just steel, not just paper, so many things. The WTO 
decisions on issues such as zeroing is an overreach.
  The USTR must work harder to overturn the recent European and 
Japanese zeroing decisions in negotiations and delay full 
implementation of the Japanese decision until, at a minimum, other 
methodologies are in place to capture 100 percent of dumping.
  If the WTO continues to target U.S. trade remedy laws, we need to 
fight back. The administration's lack of backbone is unacceptable. This 
amendment is a modest reminder to the administration that we need to 
vigorously enforce our trade laws.
  I urge my colleagues to give it their support.


                          Aeronautics Research

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, in a colloquy about the importance of 
aeronautics funding. The chairwoman is aware that both Senator Warner 
and I have serious concerns about decreased funding for aeronautics. 
Together we look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee 
to ensure adequate funding for important aeronautics research programs 
in Virginia.
  Aeronautics research programs have been essential to our economic and 
military security for decades. Think about the millions of people who 
fly every year and the countless jobs and communities that have been 
affected by this research. From the days of the first flight of the 
Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, NC, to the modern-day aviation industry 
today that represents millions of jobs and contributes billions of 
dollars to our economy, our country has been served well by the 
investments we have made in aeronautics research. That history, 
however, and our present are at a crossroads.
  The advances made possible by Government-funded research in emerging 
aeronautics technologies have enabled long-standing military air 
superiority for the United States in recent decades. The vast majority 
of military aircraft design the U.S. military currently flies 
incorporate advanced technologies developed at NASA Research Centers. 
As a result, it is important for NASA's cooperative research efforts 
with the Department of Defense regarding military aviation technologies 
are maintained at a healthy funding level. A national effort is needed 
to ensure that NASA can meet the civil and military needs in the 
future.
  This issue came up when the Senate debated the budget for the 2008 
fiscal year. In 2007, Congress provided $717 million for aeronautics 
research, in cost-adjusted numbers. I know Senator Warner and I are 
very thankful that the Appropriations Committee was able to provide 
this funding. Yet the administration proposed, in their fiscal year 
2008 budget, only $554 million for aeronautics. In an age of increased 
global competition from Europe, China, and other nations, this decision 
is alarming.
  We appreciate the demands faced by Chairman Mikulski and Ranking 
Member Shelby on funding all the programs under their subcommittee's 
purview. However, as I noted in March during the budget debate, and I 
repeat that message today, aeronautics research is essential for the 
United States to maintain its advantage in aeronautics technologies and 
air superiority within the military. It is essential to inspiring a new 
generation of children who one day might make a career in aviation, 
engineering, computer modeling and simulation.
  It is also important that Congress supports NASA Administrator's 
objective of 10 Healthy Centers, especially ensuring the well-being of 
its four research centers, which are scheduled to face significant 
budget decreases in the outyears. These research centers have cutting-
edge facilities that are operated and maintained by highly respected 
scientists. Over the years, they have produced outstanding basic 
research, especially in aeronautics, which is then utilized by the 
private sector to make significant advancements in the space and 
aeronautics industries.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The committee recognizes the importance of aeronautics 
research and NASA's 10 Healthy Centers effort. We share your concern 
about the steady decline in budget requests for aeronautics research. 
We will work with you to ensure this critical and historical strength 
of NASA is funded at a level sufficient to maintain our country's 
competitive edge in aeronautics.


                     Plant Genome Research Program

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the distinguished chair of the subcommittee 
and I have long been strong supporters of plant genomics in general and 
the Plant Genome Research Program undertaken at the NSF in particular. 
The Plant Genome Research Program produces basic scientific research by 
providing for peer-reviewed competitive research grants to qualified 
institutions. Maintaining significant support

[[Page 26752]]

for fundamental research in crop systems is more important than ever as 
agriculture is trying to meet the demands of consumers worldwide by 
providing a safe and secure supply of resources for human and animal 
nutrition, fiber, green products, bioenergy, and plant-based 
nutraceuticals and other leading edge applications. This initiative has 
had strong backing over the years from the broad-based science 
community in conjunction with farmers and those up the food supply 
chain.
  Together, as leaders of the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies 
Subcommittee, we began this initiative in 1997. It remains critical 
that we protect the integrity of the program and ensure its remains a 
priority at the NSF.
  Is it the expectation of the subcommittee that the Plant Genome 
Research Program is funded at no less than $100 million?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. BOND. Further, is it the expectation of the subcommittee that 
funding for the Arabadopsis 2010 program continue to be financed 
through the BIO directorate, yet separate from funds provided for the 
plant genome project as it has in the past?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that is my expectation. I appreciate 
your long standing support of plant genomics and will work to see that 
these important programs continue to receive support as they have in 
the past.


                         Electronic Prescribing

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and 
Science Appropriations, Ms. Mikulski, in a colloquy concerning the e-
prescribing of controlled substances. Would the chairman and manager of 
the bill entertain a question?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would be happy to.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. As she knows, I 
am a profound believer in the potential of health information 
technology to revolutionize the way we deliver health care in this 
country. The potential for better coordinated care, reduced medical 
errors, increased patient satisfaction, and enhanced patient peace of 
mind is enormous. It is also worth noting that several well-respected 
organizations estimate annual savings near $80 billion.
  Unfortunately, we have been unable, as a nation, to develop an 
interoperable, integrated health information infrastructure the way we 
were able to do with our highway system or our railroad tracks. This is 
the result of a variety of barriers that we, as legislators, have a 
responsibility to tackle if we are going to take this necessary step to 
improve health care in this Nation. One of those barriers is the 
current prohibition by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, on the 
electronic prescribing of controlled substances.
  This ban requires physicians who e-prescribe to maintain two separate 
systems: an electronic system for noncontrolled substances and a paper 
system for controlled substances. This is an excessive encumbrance for 
doctors who are trying to do the right thing for their patients--an 
encumbrance that has unfortunately led many overburdened doctors to 
give up electronic prescribing altogether. This is a travesty.
  As a former attorney general and a former U.S. attorney, I am 
sensitive to the prosecutorial concerns of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration. But CMS has been working without success for years with 
the DEA to resolve their differences on this issue. Apparently, the DEA 
refuses to budge. I would like to know why. Billion-dollar transactions 
are done electronically; highly classified national security 
information travels electronically; military attack aircraft are 
targeted electronically. I would say to the DEA: Please do not tell me 
we cannot figure out a way for a doctor to prescribe Vicodin 
electronically. I think we need to demand a joint report from CMS and 
the DEA laying out a way, or ways, to overcome this hurdle, to be 
completed at the earliest practicable date but no later than 1 month 
after the date of enactment. In the absence of the DEA changing the 
rules, we must seek a statutory solution to this problem. Considering 
the extraordinary potential of e-prescribing, we have to break this 
logjam.
  Mr. President, I would ask the chairman if she would work with me to 
ensure that CMS and the DEA will work together to propose a reasonable 
approach soon to allow the electronic prescribing of controlled 
substances?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Rhode 
Island that it is my intention to do just that. I agree that a joint 
report between the DEA and CMS will help us move forward in this 
crucial area of health information technology and bring down a serious 
barrier to improved patient care.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend the leadership of Senator 
Mikulski in ensuring appropriate funding for the many critical 
activities under the auspices of the Commerce, Justice, and Science 
spending bill.
  I also commend my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Kennedy, for 
their leadership in the critically important arena of health 
information technology, IT. Without their diligent work, the promises 
of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care would be very 
distant indeed.
  Even with their dedication and that of many other colleagues, we have 
our work set out for us as we seek to accelerate the adoption of health 
IT. The Democratic steering committee heard yesterday from leaders on 
all aspects of health information technology--representing consumers, 
health care providers, business, insurers, labor, and others. All share 
an appreciation for what health IT can do to manage costs and ensure 
that patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the 
best setting.
  Yet they also expressed a shared sense of the need for Federal 
leadership and legislation to remove barriers to the adoption of health 
IT. These barriers include a misalignment of incentives and inadequate 
funding, the lack of standards adoption, and privacy and security 
concerns. Some of these barriers are large and will take all of us 
working together to find solutions. I am committed to doing so and look 
forward to working with my colleagues this Congress toward that goal.
  There are also some barriers that should be easy to remove, and we 
must do so this year. One of those is the current U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Administration, DEA, prohibition on the electronic transmission of 
prescriptions for controlled substances, schedules II-V.
  We know that e-prescribing saves lives, prevents injury, improves 
patient care outcomes, is more efficient, and saves health care 
dollars. One amazing statistic: According to the Center for Information 
Technology Leadership, CITL, e-prescribing systems with a network 
connection to pharmacy and advanced decision support capabilities can 
help avoid more than 2 million adverse drug events, ADEs, annually--
130,000 of which are life-threatening.
  It is important to note that some of the most dangerous drug 
interactions can occur with and between controlled substances. 
Preventing them from being processed electronically also prevents a 
physician's ability to do a computer drug interaction check to avoid 
what could be a fatal interaction.
  Additionally, although the schedule II-V drugs account for only 12 to 
15 percent of all prescriptions, the prohibition affects a much larger 
percentage of prescriptions for a very simple reason: of the relatively 
small number of physicians who have tried to move to electronic 
prescribing, some are giving it up entirely because they are prohibited 
from using it for all drugs. Physicians need to be able to use one 
means to write all prescriptions. If they must shift from electronic to 
paper depending on the patient or depending on which drug a particular 
patient needs, the confusion and extra time become too large a barrier 
to electronic prescribing. The result is a return to paper prescribing, 
and increased costs, increased errors, and worse health outcomes.
  The prohibition on e-prescribing of controlled substances not only 
has a ripple effect in that it deters e-prescribing of all medicines, 
but it may

[[Page 26753]]

deter adoption of electronic medical records in general. Electronic 
prescribing is the first step to adoption of full electronic medical 
records; if doctors can't efficiently adopt the process of writing 
prescriptions electronically, they are less likely to adopt electronic 
medical records.
  The widespread adoption of electronic medical records could save up 
to $100 billion annually. Given the fact that health care will soon 
consume 20 percent of our country's gross domestic product, and yet we 
have 47 million uninsured Americans and the highest infant mortality 
and lowest life expectancy of any other industrialized nation, we must 
do whatever we can to encourage adoption of electronic prescribing and 
electronic medical records, not keep in place policies that deter 
adoption.
  I understand and appreciate that the DEA has a very important law 
enforcement function and needs to have the tools to enforce the laws 
and prosecute law breakers. However, electronic prescribing is not a 
barrier to that. The systems that have been used for years to transmit 
prescriptions electronically are secure and auditable. In fact, 
electronic prescribing will not only help enforcement but will create 
new opportunities to prevent abuse of controlled substances. Existing 
e-prescribing processes are actually more secure than written 
prescriptions. Banking transactions have been conducted for years 
electronically, and authorities have been able to prosecute people who 
misuse the technology. I am confident we can do the same with respect 
to any misuse regarding controlled substances.
  I know that the DEA has acknowledged that e-prescribing offers many 
benefits and has considered ways to allow the electronic transmission 
of controlled substance prescriptions. And I know that DEA and Health 
and Human Services held a public meeting last year to begin to address 
this issue. That was a great first step, but progress has been very 
slow and now we need to solve this problem in a way that realizes the 
benefits of health IT, is secure, scalable within the industry, and 
that protects the DEA's interests.
  One relatively easy fix may be to simply amend the Controlled 
Substances Act to permit electronic prescribing. There may be other 
ways to address the problem, and I am open to discussing those. What is 
critical is that we find a way to allow e-prescribing for all 
medications soon--every day we delay, the cost in dollars and lives 
grows. We need incentives to encourage adoption of e-prescribing, not 
roadblocks to adoption. Increased use of electronic prescribing will 
increase patient compliance, improve health outcomes, reduce medication 
errors, and reduce health care costs.
  It is my sense that DEA should not invest additional resources in 
pursuing plans to allow e-prescribing of controlled substances through 
measures that are unnecessarily high in cost and complexity.
  I join my colleagues in urging DEA to quickly adopt rules allowing 
electronic prescribing of controlled substances that rely on the high 
level of security built into the existing e-prescribing infrastructure 
and are deemed workable by all stakeholders.
  Absent a timely adoption of such DEA rules, I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to find a solution to the prohibition on electronic 
prescribing of certain medicines this year.
  Mr. President, I see the chairman of the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions is here, and I would appreciate his 
comments on this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
drawing our attention to this barrier in the advancement of electronic 
prescribing. The use of electronic prescribing technologies offers an 
opportunity to improve health care outcomes by reducing medication 
errors and improving patient compliance with physician orders and 
screening for dangerous drug-drug interactions. Physicians and 
pharmacies in Massachusetts have begun to adopt e-prescribing and 
patients are benefiting. Massachusetts was recently recognized as the 
State with the highest volume of electronic prescriptions per capita. 
Electronic prescribing systems offer security advantages beyond those 
available through a paper-based system by requiring user authentication 
and generating an audit trail of prescriptions submitted to pharmacies. 
Creating a method by which controlled substances can be safely and 
securely prescribed electronically will encourage physicians' adoption 
of the technology. I support the Senator from Rhode Island's proposal 
for a joint report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the 
Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate how electronic 
prescribing of controlled substances can be safely achieved. I also 
urge the Drug Enforcement Agency to adopt rules allowing controlled 
substances to be electronically prescribed and in the absence of such 
rules look forward to working with my colleagues to address the issue 
legislatively.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I am committed to working with the Senator from Rhode 
Island, the Senator from Michigan, and the chairman of the HELP 
Committee to solve this problem.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and all my 
colleagues for their help on this issue.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted to table an amendment offered 
by Senator Coburn to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008, which would have shifted 
funding to the Civil Rights Division within the U.S. Department of 
Justice for the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights 
cases.
  I share Senator Coburn's fervent and sincere desire to solve these 
ghastly crimes. However, I do not believe that his amendment would 
achieve this important task. Instead, the Senate should consider and 
pass S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I am a 
cosponsor of this bill, which would commit the resources of the U.S. 
Government to investigating and prosecuting racially motivated murders 
that occurred on or before December 31, 1969. The bill designates an 
official within the U.S. Department of Justice, and another within the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate, prosecute, and 
coordinate the investigations of civil rights violations that occurred 
prior to 1970 and resulted in a death.
  There is an urgent need for the Congress to enact this measure. Given 
the advanced age of defendants and potential witnesses, there remains 
only a small window of opportunity in which to solve these cases. 
Ultimately, the purpose of this bill is to provide justice to the 
families of those who were murdered for racially motivated reasons 
prior to 1970. The bill expresses the sense of Congress that all 
authorities with jurisdiction, including the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and other entities within the U.S. Department of Justice, 
should expeditiously investigate unsolved civil rights murders, and 
provide the resources necessary to ensure timely and thorough 
investigations in the cases involved.
  The families of the victims of these heinous crimes deserve no less. 
It is my hope that this bill, which has been approved by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, will soon be voted upon and passed by the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________