[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27079-27097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3093, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Inouye amendment No. 3214, to establish a fact-finding 
     Commission to extend the study of a prior commission to 
     investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding 
     the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries 
     of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
     through February 1948 and the impact of those actions by the 
     United States and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for 
     other purposes.
       Casey (for Biden) amendment No. 3256, to appropriate an 
     additional $110,000,000 for community-oriented policing 
     services and to provide a full offset for such amount.
       Brown amendment No. 3260, 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski, the chair of the 
subcommittee, will be here at 4 o'clock. I know Senator Shelby is here, 
and I believe he will be out momentarily. I have agreed to be on the 
floor until Senator Mikulski returns.
  I did want to take a moment to talk about an amendment I was 
discussing when we were previously in session on this bill, dealing 
with law enforcement on Indian reservations. I did not actually offer 
the amendment. I had filed the amendment.
  The subcommittee itself restored some funds that the President had 
cut. I indicated to the subcommittee that I hoped we could work between 
now and next spring, when we begin the new fiscal year legislation, so 
we could add some funding for these critical areas. I want to make note 
that Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby already added funding to 
accounts the President had decided to zero out. These accounts are 
accounts dealing with law enforcement on Indian reservations.
  We just held a hearing on these issues in the Indian Affairs 
Committee here in the Senate. It is pretty stark, when you hear from 
folks who talk about the crisis on reservations with respect to law 
enforcement.
  The U.S. Government made a decision a long time ago, well over a 
century ago, that law enforcement on Indian reservations is a 
responsibility of the Federal Government. Our country has a legal 
obligation to be involved in preventing crime on Indian lands. That 
obligation is a result of treaty provisions and Federal laws that grant 
the United States the responsibility and the authority to investigate 
and prosecute major crimes on Indian reservations. That is not the 
choice of Indian tribes; that is a decision our Government made over a 
century ago. The tribal governments on our Indian reservations rely on 
the Federal Government--specifically, the FBI and the U.S. attorney's 
office--to investigate and prosecute violent crimes on Indian 
reservations.
  We had a hearing 2 weeks ago. There was testimony at that hearing 
from some research that had been done that 34 percent of Indian women 
will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime. One-third of 
the Indian women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their 
lifetime. That is the state of violent crime on Indian reservations.
  A retired BIA police officer who worked on the Standing Rock Sioux 
Reservation said we do not have the resources. ``We all knew they only 
take cases with a confession.'' If there wasn't a confession, there 
wasn't a case. ``We were forced to triage our cases,'' he said. When 
this violence becomes so commonplace that the police have to triage 
rape cases, there is something dreadfully wrong.
  One of the big factors in the rise of violent crime on Indian 
reservations is the lack of a police presence or law enforcement 
presence on Indian lands. There are little more than 2000 Federal and 
tribal law enforcement officers who patrol 56 million acres of Indian 
land. In North and South Dakota, we have two police officers who patrol 
the 2.3 million-acre Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. We have 
heard from people who called to report a violent crime as it was 
occurring, and they waited an hour and 15 minutes for the police to 
show up. In other cases, they wait days for the police to show up.
  The lack of tribal jails and bedspace also adds to the problem 
because there is no place to put criminals. I have been in tribal 
detention facilities. I have seen kids lying on cement floors in tribal 
detention facilities because there was not a juvenile facility and the 
other detention facilities did not have proper beds and didn't have 
enough space, so young children were lying on the floor of a detention 
facility.
  There is a $400 million backlog for construction for tribal jails. 
One Federal official said that there is what is called a catch-and-
release system--just

[[Page 27080]]

catch the criminals and release many of them back into the community 
because there is no space to put them. Because of that, the Indian 
reservations have become soft targets for organized crime and 
particularly for organized efforts dealing with methamphetamine.
  In May of last year, Federal officials seized a huge methamphetamine 
organization's business plan, and the business plan outlined how that 
organization wanted to replace alcohol abuse as it infiltrated Indian 
reservations with methamphetamine abuse on Indian reservations. The 
plan also outlined how the tribal police could not arrest them while on 
the reservation. They described in the business plan how they were 
going to introduce and use the reservations as the basis for their 
methamphetamine distribution to run their business.
  After creating a system in which we said law enforcement is the 
Federal Government's responsibility, the administration in its budget 
now wants to tell the tribes: We are too busy, so you are on your own.
  The statistics I have described are really sobering: crumbling jails. 
What does the administration propose to spend for detention facilities, 
Tribal Jails Discretionary Grants Program? Well, the administration 
proposes we spend nothing. Not a thing. Assistance to the tribal 
courts, what does the administration propose that we spend? Nothing.
  Those are all programs that have always been funded. These are 
programs for which the Federal Government has a responsibility by 
previous agreement. Tribal COPS Program, the President says let's fund 
it at zero. Tribal Youth Program, fund it at zero; Indian Alcohol and 
Crime Demonstration Program, zero.
  Every single one of those, all except the last, have always been 
funded. The President says: Not my responsibility, not this 
administration; we do not intend to provide funding.
  Now, let me thank Senator Mikulski and the ranking member as well, 
Senator Shelby, because they have provided some funding in this 
subcommittee mark. It is not as much as I would like. It is not as much 
as I am sure they wanted to do, but they should be complimented for 
rejecting the President's recommendation at a time when we have a 
serious problem, and at a time when that problem is our responsibility 
to deal with because we have made agreements and required that we will 
be responsible for dealing with it.
  The President says: Let's not do it. And Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby said: We reject that. We have a responsibility.
  I was intending to offer an amendment 2 weeks ago--I did not do 
that--to add even further because Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby 
indicated they want to work with me. But, first and foremost, I want to 
compliment them for rejecting the President's suggestion that we ignore 
our responsibility, and for Senators Mikulski and Shelby deciding these 
programs are exactly what we should be funding; it is our 
responsibility to do so.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 SCHIP

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate is just returning from a week 
home. I spent the week in my home State of Illinois traveling from far 
southern Illinois to Chicago and most points in between. It was a busy 
week. I met with a lot of people and continue to be amazed that there 
is such a disconnect between the real world of America and the world of 
Capitol Hill.
  In about 48 hours, the U.S. House of Representatives is going to have 
a historic vote. It is about children's health insurance. Here we are, 
the wealthiest Nation on Earth, with the best doctors, the best 
hospitals, the best technology, amazing medical research. Yet when it 
comes down to basic health care protection, America falls short. We 
spent more money per capita than any nation on Earth on health care, 
but our outcomes do not show it. Countries that spend a lot less get a 
lot more. Other countries around the world have made a dedicated effort 
to make sure every citizen in their nation has the protection of basic 
health care.
  But not America. Forty-seven million Americans have no health 
insurance. We tried to address that with the Children's Health 
Insurance Program 10 years ago. We looked at the 40 million uninsured 
Americans and said: 15 million are kids; let's start there. Let's cover 
these children. Let's make sure they have health insurance, not through 
a government plan but through private health insurance. We will take 
money, grants and money, send it to the States, work with the 
Governors, share the expense, and bring these kids under 
hospitalization coverage. In 10 years it worked. From 15 million 
uninsured, we were able to insure 6.6 million children in America; 
300,000 in my home State of Illinois.
  Well, with the new Congress and the expiration of this program, we 
took another look at it and said: Can we do better? Can we extend this 
beyond 6.6 million kids to more of the 15 million targeted group of 
children? We found a way to do it. We did it in a bipartisan way, a 
cooperative effort with the Republican side of the aisle, an effort 
that involves Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Senator Orrin Hatch of 
Utah, well-known, conservative Republicans who sat down with Senators 
Max Baucus and Ted Kennedy and hammered out the details--Thirty-five 
billion dollars more in spending over the next 5 years.
  Now, the first reaction, of course, is that most people say: Great, 
you dreamed up an expansion of a program that costs us $35 billion. 
Thanks a lot. Our kids will pay for it.
  Wrong. We insisted that it be paid for. How is it paid for? By 
increasing the Federal tax on tobacco products. That is it. I am not 
going to beat around the bush and tell you there is some secret way to 
do it. That is how we did it. We raised the Federal tax on tobacco 
products, cigarettes and cigars. You can sign me up, incidentally, any 
day of the week. I am one Senator. I am sure there are many like me who 
have lost a loved one to cancer brought on by tobacco. Most people in 
America have been touched by tobacco disease and illness.
  I believe one of the best things we can do is to keep tobacco 
products out of the hands of our kids. When you raise the price by 
raising the tax, children are discouraged from buying the product. 
Good. If kids do not get addicted early and stick around until they are 
about 18 to make the choice, they will decide it is a pretty dumb idea. 
But if they start smoking at 14, 15, 16, an addiction gets started. So 
we raised the tobacco tax to come up with the $35 billion. Over the 
next 5 years we will expand the health insurance coverage from 6.6 
million children to 10 million children in America--still not 15 but 
clearly moving in the right direction.
  We passed the bill over here with an amazing vote. In a time when we 
have these death-defying votes of 1 vote here, 1 vote here, 69 Senators 
voted for the bipartisan approach to expand children's health 
insurance.
  We sent the bill over to the House. They were disappointed because 
they wanted more. I want more. I would like to see all 15 million kids 
covered, to be honest with you. I would like to see all Americans 
covered. I will get to that point in a moment. But they passed it, and 
we sent it to President Bush.
  Now, President Bush is in his seventh year as President of the United 
States. He has used his veto pen four times--four times--once to veto a 
plan passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis to change the policy in 
Iraq and start

[[Page 27081]]

bringing our troops home; President Bush vetoed it; next, he had two 
opportunities and used his pen twice to veto the expansion of medical 
research using stem cells. You will recall the President stopped this 
research at the Federal level. States are now doing it, private 
companies are doing it, and foreign governments are doing it. But the 
Bush administration will not allow our National Institutes of Health, 
through Federal funding, to do this. Well, the President used his veto 
pen twice to stop this promising research to find cures for diseases 
and causes of death.
  His fourth use of the veto pen was to kill the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. What did they say about it? Why did the President 
veto this bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate and the House? 
Well, they said, first, it was socialized medicine--socialized 
medicine. You know that is a cliche that was probably born in the 
1960s, maybe before, on the notion that the Government would provide 
all the health insurance for America.
  Well, it did not work then. We created Medicare, and thank goodness 
we did, for millions of Americans who have had peace of mind at age 65 
because of it. Socialized medicine. What the President failed to say 
was if he gets sick tomorrow, God forbid, he will go to a military 
hospital. The doctors will be members of the military. The nurses who 
answer his call will be members of the military. He will be protected 
by Government health services as President of the United States.
  Is that socialism? I think I will leave it to the President to 
decide. But I think it is troublesome that we have reached a point that 
we dismiss a program of such value to so many children and call it 
socialized medicine. What was even more galling was someone in the 
White House along the way argued the point that this plan would cover 
individuals who make up to three times the poverty level in the United 
States.
  Let me translate that into terms Americans can understand. If you 
make up to $60,000, you get help under this plan. And the argument the 
White House made was, people making $60,000 a year--or ``well off'' in 
their terms--do not need this help.
  Really? Well, let's think about that for a second. Sixty thousand 
dollars a year is gross pay. Now, let's take about 40 percent of that 
for all of the taxes that are taken out and all of the deductions that 
are taken out. That leaves us somewhere in the range of $36,000 a year, 
about $3,000 a month in take-home pay.
  Now, go out and look for health insurance for a sick child. I will 
tell you what you will find. You will be lucky to get by with $1,000 a 
month for health insurance for your family if you have a sick child. If 
you have a healthy family, it may still cost $600 or $800.
  So out of a take-home pay of $3,000, they say you are well enough off 
that you do not need help to pay $1,000 a month for health insurance. 
Who is kidding whom? The reality is that families are crippled by these 
costs. Many of them cannot afford insurance, and they need the help of 
this program. It is a reasonable thing to do.
  Those people in the White House who just want to call this socialism, 
or whatever the word of the day may be, or dismiss families making 
$60,000 as not needing a helping hand with health insurance for 
children, they are so out of touch they do not understand the drama 
that these families go through every single month for lack of health 
insurance.
  There is a story closer to home for the Members of the Senate. It 
does not relate to the Children's Health Insurance Program, but I think 
it is a story worth telling. It is a story about a member of the Senate 
family, someone whom most of us have seen many times. Many may not know 
his name, but he is someone who has gone through a life-changing 
experience because of no health insurance in his family.
  Forty-seven million Americans have no health insurance. We who are 
privileged in the Senate probably do not lie awake at night worrying 
about it because a bad diagnosis is not going to lead to bankruptcy for 
us. We are lucky. We are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program. We have got the best coverage in America. Eight million 
Federal employees, Members of Congress, we get an open enrollment 
period every year. You do not like your company, change it. It is like 
shopping for a car. There are so many choices out there. You want a big 
plan, you pay more. You have more money taken out of your check. You 
want less coverage, pay less. You have less money taken out of your 
check. It has been around for decades.
  Members of Congress benefit from it, and we have a peace of mind that 
comes with it. But we do not have to look far to see families who are 
struggling and facing terrible decisions because of the high cost of 
health insurance. They are everywhere. They are in every town, every 
county, every State, all across our Nation, and they are right here in 
the family. There is a young man who works just a few feet away from 
where I am standing. He is an elevator operator. His name is Sergio 
Olaya. He has worked here off and on as an intern and has been an 
elevator operator since last May. He always has a big smile on his 
face, great young fellow, says hello, and most of us, of course, see 
him and greet him and head off on our business.
  He is 21 years old, a bright young man, happy disposition, a great 
future ahead of him. But a few months ago, Sergio, who works right 
outside this door, had a tragedy strike his family. His mother died of 
an aggressive form of brain cancer. She was 61 years old, a single mom. 
Sergio was her only child. Doctors think she may have had the tumor for 
a long time, but the symptoms didn't show up until 2 months ago, and 
then she died. Before that, she had suffered a stroke which left her 
paralyzed on her right side. She was an authority on health and 
nutrition and worked for organizations, including the Centers for 
Disease Control, USAID, UNICEF, and the Organization of American 
States, but she had been unemployed and uninsured for 5 months when she 
got sick. Even COBRA, which is the way to purchase health insurance 
when one is not working, was too expensive for someone with a limited 
income such as Sergio's mother. As a result, when she died from an 
aggressive form of brain cancer, she left $255,000 in unpaid hospital 
and doctor bills--a quarter of a million dollars.
  The hospital first threatened to sue her son for payment. A lawyer 
who is helping him pro bono negotiated the hospital charges down, first 
to $216,000, then to $95,000. With another $40,000 in doctors bills, 
Sergio, a member of the Senate staff, still owes $135,000 in medical 
bills for his mom. How is he dealing with this? He is selling his home 
in Bethesda where he and his mom have lived for the last 8 years. It is 
the only home they have ever owned. The proceeds will go for the 
payment of these medical bills.
  Sergio said when his mom got sick she had been waiting to hear about 
a possible new job with the Federal Government, and it would have had 
health insurance. When the job offer finally came, his mother had just 
suffered a stroke and couldn't get out of bed to answer the phone. Two 
months and $255,000 in medical bills later, she passed away at the age 
of 61. In another week or month, she might have had health coverage 
with a new job. In another 4 years, she would have been eligible for 
Medicare. Instead, she had the bad luck and bad timing to fall through 
one of the gaping holes in America's unravelling health care safety 
net. Now her only child, her son, is paying the price.
  I wonder how many Senators have been in the elevator with Sergio, 
talked to him, shared a smile with him, but had no idea of the terrible 
burden he and his mother were carrying as a result of the cost of 
health care and the cost of being uninsured in America today. How many 
more families will have to sell their homes? How many more bright, 
talented young people will have to drop out of college so their family 
can pay medical bills before we finally come up with a real plan to 
make health care more affordable for all Americans? The truth is, 
almost every family is at risk because of a fraying and failing health 
care safety net. Almost all of us could be one pink slip, one election, 
one bad diagnosis, or

[[Page 27082]]

one serious accident away from a health and economic disaster for our 
family.
  This affects Sergio, our Senate family. It affects all families. We 
need to deal with it. We need to find a way or a combination of ways to 
give every American access to affordable health coverage. We can't help 
Sergio pay these bills, but we can sure look to the possibility of 3.4 
million children across America and their moms and dads finally having 
the peace of mind of knowing that their kids are covered. It is a small 
step for a big nation, but isn't it the kind of step we want to take 
together in a bipartisan way? President Bush says no. He vetoed the 
bill. He sent it back to the House of Representatives, and on Wednesday 
they will take a vote. Fifteen Republican Congressmen who voted against 
the plan have to change their votes to override his veto. Overall, 62 
Republican Senators and Congressmen voted for this plan, so it is 
bipartisan. I hope the 15 who are thinking about it now will think 
about the vulnerability of a lot of people such as Sergio, people we 
don't know who every single day have to wrestle with this terrible 
challenge in our great Nation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Illinois has raised the issue of the 
override of the President's veto that will occur in the House this 
week. When the President vetoed the bipartisan legislation that would 
expand opportunities for health coverage for America's children--
another 3.8 million kids who don't have health coverage now would have 
it under that bill--the President referred to it as some kind of 
socialized medicine, some sort of big-government solution. Then he 
talked about the prospect of families with $83,000 in income.
  Isn't it the case that most States--my State included--receive a 
block grant and use the block grant to provide coverage by buying the 
coverage from BlueCross BlueShield? In other words, it is a block grant 
the States use to purchase coverage for children. Is that what the 
President was referring to as big government? If so, isn't the 
President misrepresenting what this bill does?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that is the case in almost every State. 
This isn't a matter of the State of Illinois health insurance plan; it 
is a matter of our State or the State of North Dakota taking the 
Federal funds and buying private health insurance, which is something 
these families currently cannot afford. It strikes me as reasonable for 
us to give them a helping hand. It is not socialism, whatever that 
definition may be. It is not a big-government plan.
  The President argued that he thought it was unfair to the health 
insurance industry. I don't understand that. If these 15 million 
children have not had health insurance for years, that industry has had 
plenty of chances to sell it. The fact is, it is too expensive for 
these families.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, the 
President, when vetoing the legislation, referred to some families with 
$83,000 who will be getting this largess so that their children can get 
subsidized health insurance coverage. My State, as an example, covers 
children at 140 percent of poverty, most States at around 200 percent 
of poverty, which I believe is around $44,000 gross income, and the 
$83,000 to which the President referred does not exist. It was a 
request from the State of New York which was not granted. In any event, 
all those requests that have been granted for above the 200 percent 
have been approved willingly and in a way that allowed this 
administration to boast that they had approved them. Now the President 
objects to the very thing they had approved.
  The other point is, didn't this President actually campaign in the 
year 2004 saying he supports expansion of this very program? I ask the 
question about the $83,000. That clearly must be a misrepresentation. 
Is that the judgment of the Senator from Illinois as well?
  Mr. DURBIN. The State of New York said: We want to cover families up 
to $83,000; it is more expensive to live in New York than it might be 
in some other State. But ultimately it was a decision to be made by the 
President. The President had to give them permission, and he denied it. 
Under this bill, the President still has that authority to deny States 
permission to go beyond $62,000 a year. So he still has that authority. 
Arguing $83,000 makes no sense. He turned it down. We didn't change 
that in this bill. The President still has the authority to stop any 
program that would expand in that direction.
  In my State and others, I concede, we have been trying to find every 
way we can to insure people. Our Governor, the general assembly, and 
other people have tried to find ways to work with the Federal 
Government to cover people who don't have health insurance.
  As a reminder--I know the Senator from North Dakota is well aware--
the poorest children in America are covered by Medicaid. The poorest 
children have health insurance. The children who are fortunate enough 
to have parents with health insurance aren't the ones we are talking 
about. We are talking about the group of children who belong to 
families who go to work every single day and have no health insurance. 
That is a lot of Americans and a lot of kids. I have had several press 
conferences during the break at hospitals with doctors and nurses. They 
tell the story of these children. These children don't have a regular 
physician, regular checkups, a regular place to go. So an earache turns 
into a substantial infection. Asthma at an early stage becomes a 
serious challenge. Diabetes goes undetected because these kids are not 
brought into our health care system until they have reached such a 
grievous situation that they end up in emergency rooms, and we all pay 
for it.
  This really is an ounce of prevention that we would have health 
insurance for more of these kids to be covered, the children of working 
families who go to work every single day and don't have health 
insurance. The President vetoed the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one additional question, 
the Senator from Illinois is on the Appropriations Committee with me. 
My understanding is the President is going to be sending down a second 
supplemental request within days. I understand the White House might 
not want to send it down before the override issue on the SCHIP 
program. But the SCHIP program would spend $7 billion a year for 5 
years. That is $35 billion. All of it is paid for. None of it is 
contributing one penny to the debt. The result of that spending? The 
3.8 million children who at this point have no health insurance 
coverage would now be fully covered with health insurance. The 
President seemed to, when he vetoed the legislation, be saying: I am 
going to be the guardian of the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers' 
checkbook. This is big-government bureaucracy--socialized medicine, in 
fact.
  This is fully paid for, $7 billion a year. Isn't it the case that the 
President has requested two things of us? One is already here, and the 
other will come next week. One is $145 billion in emergency funding for 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a penny of it paid for all this 
year, and on top of that, we believe another roughly $44 billion 
supplemental. So that will be a $189 billion emergency supplemental 
this year. In other words, $7 billion for kids is too much; $189 
billion, which will bring us somewhere close to two-thirds of a 
trillion dollars, the President has requested we spend, not a penny of 
it paid for. The implication of all that is, let's send soldiers to 
fight. When they come back, they can pay for the debt we have incurred 
because we don't intend to pay for any of it.
  Isn't it the case that the very same President who says $7 billion a 
year which is fully paid for and which will result in children's health 
insurance for 3.8 million children is the President who is sending us a 
$189 billion additional request for 1 year, none of it paid for?
  Mr. DURBIN. The math is right. This President has funded this war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan borrowing money from future generations. He has 
not

[[Page 27083]]

paid for a single day of this war by imposing a tax or cutting spending 
in some other area. He is the first President in the history of the 
United States, in the entire history of our Nation, to cut taxes in the 
midst of war.
  I am sure the Senator from North Dakota joined a lot of us in 
watching the Ken Burns documentary ``The War.'' It has been on for the 
last couple weeks on public television. One of our great friends and 
heroes in the Senate, Danny Inouye of Hawaii, was featured in it, as he 
should have been. A Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, he told the 
story of his life that led to his service to our country. You couldn't 
help but feel that America was at war. It wasn't just our soldiers and 
sailors and marines and airmen; America was at war. We were all 
involved.
  This war which has claimed 3,821 American lives, this war which has 
injured more than 30,000 of our fighting men and women, this war which 
has left 10,000 grievously injured with amputations and serious burns, 
this war has been waged in a much different way.
  When America was going to wage this war on terrorism, the President 
said: We are going to invade Iraq. And America, you can help: go 
shopping.
  That isn't what they said in World War II. They said: We can all 
pitch in together and get behind this effort.
  Then he said: We have to sacrifice. We have to give tax cuts to 
people at the wealthiest levels.
  So we end up with a debt, a debt that continues to grow because the 
President does not pay for a penny of this war. The Senator from North 
Dakota is right. It will be close to $750 billion by the end of next 
year. We are spending $12 to $15 billion a month on this war in Iraq, 
none of it is paid for, none of it is generated by taxes, and none of 
it is paid for by compensating cuts in other spending. It is added to 
our debt.
  The President who proclaims himself a fiscal conservative when it 
comes to vetoing a children's health insurance program within the next 
several days will send us a massive spending bill of $190 or $200 
billion for the next year of this war. The $7 billion for health 
insurance for children is paid for; the President says it is wasted 
Federal funds. But $200 billion for a war with no end in sight he 
considers to be appropriate. I don't understand this. I understand we 
have to stand behind our men and women in uniform. But a strong America 
begins at home. It begins with our families and our communities and our 
parishes and church groups and neighborhoods. It begins with the peace 
of mind of knowing that you have health insurance. For literally 3.8 
million children, the President's veto means no help to buy private 
health insurance so these families have a chance to have that peace of 
mind.
  I sincerely hope those who feel this is an important program will 
contact their Members of Congress--both House and Senate--in the next 
48 hours. This is a critical moment in our history. We have to decide 
once and for all whether we are going to start taking important steps 
forward to bring the peace of mind of health insurance to every family 
in America. That is a worthy American goal. President Bush's veto 
should not stand in its way. I certainly hope the House of 
Representatives, when it votes on Wednesday, will override this 
Presidential veto.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3233, as Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
3233, previously agreed to, be modified with the changes at the desk. 
My understanding is both sides have cleared this request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3233), 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) $60,000,000 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).


                    Amendment No. 3260, as Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 today 
the Senate resume consideration of the Brown amendment No. 3260, with 
the time until 5:45 p.m. equally divided and controlled between 
Senators Brown and Mikulski or their designees; that no amendment be in 
order to the amendment prior to the vote; and that at 5:45 the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that the amendment be 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3260), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 97, between lines 9 and 10, and insert the 
     following:
       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
       (3) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market-access barriers.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, while we are 
waiting for the ranking member, to speak as in morning business for 3 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Do Not Call List Legislation

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week I introduced some legislation in 
the Senate for which it is my hope my colleagues will join in. It deals 
with the issue of the Do Not Call List that is housed down at the 
Federal Trade Commission.
  I do not think there is much more irritating in life than to receive 
calls from telemarketers. Almost everybody has received bundles of 
calls from telemarketers--always during mealtime. They always wait 
until the family has been able to sit down to start a meal, and then 
the family gets a telephone call: Would you like to take our cable 
service? Would you like to take our cell phone service? Do you need new 
siding? We will have some people in your neighborhood tomorrow selling 
sheetrock or siding.
  So on and on and on, telemarketers are unbelievably annoying. So 
Congress passed a piece of legislation. It says: We are going to set up 
a list at the Federal Trade Commission called a Do Not Call List. You 
call in, put your name on that list, and it says to telemarketers: You 
may not call the names on that list.
  So the list has been very successful, except the Federal Trade 
Commission did one very inexplicable and dumb thing. I guess that is a 
gentle description. They said of the people who call

[[Page 27084]]

in and put their names on a Do Not Call List, the list will expire at a 
certain time, so you would have to call back in.
  So we have had 149 million people call in. Think of this: 149 million 
Americans picked up their phone and called their Federal Government and 
said: Put my name on a Do Not Call List. I am sick and tired of getting 
telephone calls from telemarketers. I want my name on a list.
  That is the biggest vote in American history, isn't it? They just 
voted by picking up the phone. Mr. President, 149 million people voted 
to say: I do not want those calls anymore. Stop it. So the Federal 
Trade Commission put their names on a list. Then the Federal Trade 
Commission said: Oh, by the way, your name goes off the list at the end 
of 5 years. And by the way, next October, on or about the first day or 
so of the month--or within a couple of days of that time--we will have 
about 50 million people whose names come off the list.
  That makes no sense to me. If you put your name on a list saying, ``I 
don't want people making annoying calls to my house,'' that name ought 
to stay on the list. You ought not have to pick up the phone and recall 
the Federal Trade Commission.
  I do not know who made the decision but what a dumb decision. Let's 
put a list together. If you call and get your name on the list and say, 
``I don't want irritating, annoying calls from telemarketers,'' your 
name ought to stay on the list until you decide to pull it off.
  So I have put in a piece of legislation that says if you put your 
name on a list, your name is going to stay on the list. You do not have 
to call in. There is not going to be an automatic expulsion. We did not 
provide for that in the Congress. The Federal Trade Commission came up 
with that goofy idea. So my legislation will say that idea is gone. If 
your name is on a list, it stays on the list. You deserve to have 
supper or dinner--or whatever you might call it at the end of the day--
without having your phone ringing by somebody wanting to sell siding or 
a new telephone service.
  My hope is every Member of the Senate might cosponsor the 
legislation--except for those Members of the Senate who love to get 
telemarketing calls. For those who do, I expect they would not sign on, 
and I will probably come and announce their names soon. But if we can 
get all of those to cosponsor it, we can get this passed quickly and 
solve a problem for all American families.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3225, as Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
3225, previously agreed to, be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3225), as modified, is as follows:

       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 may 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).

  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 SCHIP

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to bring our colleagues up to date, we 
are working on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations. Senator 
Shelby and I are working to clear amendments now. All amendments have 
been filed. We have 60 of them, but we hope some can be cleared. For 
those Senators who wish to have a vote on their amendment, I wish they 
would consider offering the amendment and debating it this evening. I 
certainly will be willing to stay for that.
  While we are working on clearing these amendments, I rise to stand up 
for my constituents, to stand up for a family in Baltimore who has been 
vilified by the rightwing bloggers because they dare to say that they 
benefited from and support a public program called the Children's 
Health Initiative.
  I don't know what is happening in America now, where instead of 
working to change policies, the right wing tries to change the subject, 
and they do it by attacking people rather than attacking the problem--
the problem of poverty, the problem that our children don't have health 
care, the problem that one of my constituents, a little boy named 
Deamante Driver, died in Prince George's County because he didn't have 
access to dental care and had a severe oral bacterial infection. My 
colleague Senator Cardin has taken up the cudgels on that issue, and I 
support him. It is our Children's Health Initiative, and I will help to 
override the veto.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happened. I am taking up for a family 
named Bonnie and Halsey Frost who live in Baltimore. A few weeks ago 
they stood here in the Congress to say that they benefitted from the 
SCHIP program. They told the story about how two of their children had 
been in a horrific accident.
  Graeme, the boy who gave the Democratic radio address, spoke about 
what he needed. He had a brain injury. He was treated at Johns Hopkins 
Hospital. So was his little sister. Graeme was in a coma for weeks. One 
of his vocal cords was paralyzed. One of his eyes continues to be 
damaged. Gemma, his little sister, has suffered permanent injuries, 
which I will not go through. The families had their business spread all 
over the right wing blogs. I will not spread it all over the Senate 
floor. But I want to take up for them, for the fact that when they 
stood up to talk about how they benefitted from this program, they were 
attacked because they

[[Page 27085]]

weren't seen as worthy. The Frosts have four children: Graeme, who is 
12; Max, Graeme's twin, who saw the accident; Gemma, who also was in 
the accident; and an older brother named Zeke.
  Bonnie and her children were in a car crash in 2004 when the SUV she 
was driving had an accident. The children had these terrible problems. 
Who is the Frost family? Well, the Frost family is a family of six. 
They live in Baltimore and they qualify under the Maryland SCHIP 
program, which says that if you have a family of this size and an 
income under $51,000 a year, you qualify. They qualified. What 
happened?
  Through other friends of theirs who were involved with health 
advocacy in the State, they were invited to come and tell their story 
to show why there is a compelling need for the Children's Health 
Initiative. Well, they did it. Then guess what happened. After young 
Graeme, who, along with his sister, had this terrible thing happen to 
them--after they then spoke up and Graeme gave the Democratic radio 
address, what followed was unbelievable. It was a firestorm against 
them that went across the right wing bloggers. It was vitriolic, 
volcanic, ugly, nasty, shredding their names and reputations. You ought 
to talk to them about what they went through. They could not believe 
they were in the United States of America. One of the right wingers 
showed up in the area where he has his business to do on-the-spot 
investigative reporting. I wish we were as good at keeping our borders 
safe as we are at keeping the boundaries around SCHIP. I wish we were 
as good at keeping an eye on terrorists. But, no, they went after the 
Frost family.
  Paul Krugman felt so outraged about it that he wrote a column in the 
New York Times about it. He called it ``a teaching moment on politics 
and health care.'' He tells the story about this and then he said what 
happened to this family should be a teaching moment.
  I will read from this and then I will ask unanimous consent that it 
be printed in the Record:

        . . . The Frosts and their four children are exactly the 
     kind of people SCHIP was intended to help: working Americans 
     who can't afford private health insurance.
       The parents have a combined income of about $45,000.

  What they have is that the father is a self-employed woodworker and 
welder. They bought a house in east Baltimore in a neighborhood that is 
going gentry, called Butchers' Hill. When they bought it, it was called 
Butchers' Hill from years and years ago, when there were 
slaughterhouses where they were killing cows for beef and making 
sausage for the ethnic communities. But it took on another name about 
the time they bought it. It was like a frontier town--riddled with 
drugs and all kinds of problems--but they believed in Baltimore, they 
believed in their country, and they were willing to be urban pioneers, 
so they bought this home for a modest price. Now, we have been 
reclaiming Baltimore. Yes, the houses are selling at very high prices, 
but that is not what they paid for it.
  This man is self-employed. When he married, yes, they were from a 
prominent family. Their wedding announcement was in the New York Times. 
Since when does that mean anything? He has a small warehouse that 
provides a modest rental income. His wife works part time at a medical 
publishing firm. They don't have health benefits.
  To go on with what Krugman said, he said that soon after the radio 
address, right wing bloggers began insisting that there is something 
wrong with the Frosts; that they have a house in a neighborhood they 
said is expensive. I can tell you that when they bought it, it was 
truly Butchers' Hill. They have two children in private school, but 
they were on scholarship. Nobody bothered to find that out. The right 
wing bloggers made unfounded accusations against them all of the time. 
It was led by a woman who, according to the technocrats, is the most 
trafficked right wing blog on the Internet.
  This tone of vitriol and viciousness has to stop. The attack on this 
family was picked up by Rush Limbaugh, the same guy calling dissident 
military people ``microphone marines.'' And then the smear went on with 
that. At the same time this was going on, a CNN report suggested that 
the Democrats made a tactical error because we had this family on.
  I don't know what we are doing here. Again, we are attacking a family 
when we should be attacking the problems of children's health. First, I 
called the Frost family. I listened to what they have had to endure 
because they didn't have health insurance, after what happened to their 
children after this terrible accident and the recovery. Then I listened 
to what they had to endure because they spoke up for the Children's 
Health Initiative.
  When I listened to them, I said to them I think the Senate owed them 
an apology that we now have come to this point. Now, I have watched 
good people be attacked by the right wing. The other day, we sanctioned 
MoveOn.org because of what they did to General Petraeus. I voted for 
that sanction. What about my Frost family? Should we have a sense of 
the Senate on that? I don't know if I am going to put this family 
through more. But I will tell you this: I think we have to start 
changing the tone. We have to start changing the tone in our 
institution to work on a bipartisan basis the way the Senator from 
Alabama and I have. We are moving forward a solid bill that promotes 
scientific research, keeps America's space program going, but equally 
we are funding local law enforcement.
  Can we not change the tone? Do we always have to attack each other? 
Do we have to be so violent in our language, so vicious, so vitriolic? 
I don't think so. I think our country has to get back to the basics, 
where you can disagree without being disagreeable, where you focus on 
the policies, not on the person, where you try to deal with issues and 
you don't attack people for the simple reason that they have spoken up 
and they have spoken out.
  I think we need to take a timeout in this country. I respect free 
speech, I respect the bloggers and what they have; but when there is a 
deliberate attempt from either the right or the left to go after people 
simply because they have spoken up, I think it is the wrong direction. 
I think we have been heading in the wrong direction.
  I wanted to bring to everyone's attention what happened to this 
family. I ask unanimous consent that the Krugman article be printed in 
the Record and that the David Herszenhorn article about what happened 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Sliming Graeme Frost

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       Two weeks ago, the Democratic response to President Bush's 
     weekly radio address was delivered by a 12-year-old, Graeme 
     Frost. Graeme, who along with his sister received severe 
     brain injuries in a 2004 car crash and continues to need 
     physical therapy, is a beneficiary of the State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program. Mr. Bush has vetoed a bipartisan 
     bill that would have expanded that program to cover millions 
     of children who would otherwise have been uninsured.
       What followed should serve as a teaching moment.
       First, some background. The Frosts and their four children 
     are exactly the kind of people S-chip was intended to help: 
     working Americans who can't afford private health insurance.
       The parents have a combined income of about $45,000, and 
     don't receive health insurance from employers. When they 
     looked into buying insurance on their own before the 
     accident, they found that it would cost $1,200 a month--a 
     prohibitive sum given their income. After the accident, when 
     their children needed expensive care, they couldn't get 
     insurance at any price.
       Fortunately, they received help from Maryland's S-chip 
     program. The state has relatively restrictive rules for 
     eligibility: children must come from a family with an income 
     under 200 percent of the poverty line. For families with four 
     children that's $55,220, so the Frosts clearly qualified.
       Graeme Frost, then, is exactly the kind of child the 
     program is intended to help. But that didn't stop the right 
     from mounting an all-out smear campaign against him and his 
     family.
       Soon after the radio address, right-wing bloggers began 
     insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and 
     his sister attend private schools (they're on scholarship), 
     because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses 
     are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 
     in 1990 when the neighborhood was

[[Page 27086]]

     rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns 
     a business (it was dissolved in 1999).
       You might be tempted to say that bloggers make unfounded 
     accusations all the time. But we're not talking about some 
     obscure fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who 
     according to Technorati has the most-trafficked right-wing 
     blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging has a 
     nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and 
     is a frequent guest on Fox News.
       The attack on Graeme's family was also quickly picked up by 
     Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing 
     universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with 
     Vice President Dick Cheney.
       And G.O.P. politicians were eager to join in the smear. The 
     New York Times reported that Republicans in Congress ``were 
     gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have 
     overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy 
     enough to afford private insurance'' but had ``backed off'' 
     as the case fell apart.
       In fact, however, Republicans had already made their first 
     move: an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell, 
     the Senate minority leader, sent to reporters and obtained by 
     the Web site Think Progress, repeated the smears against the 
     Frosts and asked: ``Could the Dems really have done that bad 
     of a job vetting this family?''
       And the attempt to spin the media worked, to some extent: 
     despite reporting that has thoroughly debunked the smears, a 
     CNN report yesterday suggested that the Democrats had made 
     ``a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster 
     child,'' and closely echoed the language of the e-mail from 
     Mr. McConnell's office.
       All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration 
     of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in 
     particular its routine reliance on character assassination in 
     place of honest debate. If service members oppose a 
     Republican war, they're ``phony soldiers''; if Michael J. Fox 
     opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his 
     Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes 
     the case for a government health insurance program, he's a 
     fraud.
       Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians far from trying 
     to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace 
     them. And some people in the news media are still willing to 
     be used as patsies.
       Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true 
     depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country 
     has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is 
     now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they 
     have incomes some might call middle-class.
       And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: 
     ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about 
     Graeme Frost and his sister.
       I don't know about you, but I think American children who 
     need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think 
     adults have made bad choices--a baseless smear in the case of 
     the Frosts, but put that on one side--only a truly vicious 
     political movement would respond by punishing their injured 
     children.
                                  ____


               Capitol Feud: A 12-Year-Old Is the Fodder

                       (By David M. Herszenhorn)

       Washington, Oct. 9.--There have been moments when the fight 
     between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program has seemed to 
     devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.
       So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who 
     along with a younger sister relied on the program for 
     treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, 
     to give the response to Mr. Bush's weekly radio address 
     earlier this month, Republican opponents quickly accused them 
     of exploiting the boy to score political points.
       Then, they wasted little time in going after him to score 
     their own.
       In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by 
     conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats' 
     plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They 
     scrutinized the family's income and assets--even alleged the 
     counters in their kitchen to be granite--and declared that 
     they did not seem needy enough for government benefits.
       But what on the surface appears to be yet another partisan 
     feud, all the nastier because a child is at the center of it, 
     actually cuts to the most substantive debate around S-chip. 
     Democrats say it is crucially needed to help the working 
     poor--Medicaid already helps the impoverished--but many 
     Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means 
     to help themselves.
       The feud also illustrates what can happen when politicians 
     showcase real people to make a point, a popular but often 
     perilous technique. And in this case, the discourse has been 
     anything but polite. The critics accused Graeme's father, 
     Halsey, a self-employed woodworker, of choosing not to 
     provide insurance for his family of six, even though he owned 
     his own business. They pointed out that Graeme attends an 
     expensive private school. And they asserted that the family's 
     home had undergone extensive remodeling, and asserted that 
     its market value could exceed $400,000.
       One critic, in an e-mail message to Graeme's mother, 
     Bonnie, warned: ``Lie down with dogs, and expect to get 
     fleas.'' As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the 
     private school on scholarship. The business that the critics 
     said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family's 
     home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, 
     was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about 
     $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, 
     the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.
       Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a 
     commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides 
     rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking 
     and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time 
     administrative job at a firm that provides services to 
     publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide 
     health coverage.
       Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six 
     must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify. 
     The program does not require applicants to list their assets, 
     which do not affect eligibility.
       In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently 
     been rejected by three private insurance companies because of 
     pre-existing medical conditions. ``We stood up in the first 
     place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted 
     to help other families,'' Mrs. Frost said.
       ``We work hard, we're honest, we pay our taxes,'' Mr. Frost 
     said, adding, ``There are hard-working families that really 
     need affordable health insurance.''
       Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have 
     risen to the Frosts' defense, saying they earn about $45,000 
     a year and are precisely the type of working-poor Americans 
     that the program was intended to help.
       Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday said, ``I think it's really a sad 
     statement about how bankrupt some of these people are in 
     their arguments against S-chip that they would attack a 12-
     year-old boy.'' The House and Senate approved legislation 
     that would expand the child health program by $35 billion 
     over five years. President Bush, who proposed a more modest 
     increase, vetoed the bill last week. Mr. Bush said the 
     Democrats' plan is fiscally unsound; the Democrats say Mr. 
     Bush is willing to spend billions on the Iraq war but not on 
     health care for American children.
       Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use 
     Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the 
     health program to include families wealthy enough to afford 
     private insurance, have backed off, glad to let bloggers take 
     the heat for attacking a family with injured children.
       An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the 
     Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not 
     issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.
       But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who has levied 
     harsh criticism against the Frost family, insisted that 
     Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches. 
     ``The bottom line here is that this family has considerable 
     assets,'' Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. ``Maryland's 
     S-CHIP program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets 
     tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal 
     entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If 
     Republicans don't have the guts to hold the line, they 
     deserve to lose their seats.''
       As for charges that bloggers were unfairly attacking a 12-
     year-old, Ms. Malkin wrote on her blog. ``If you don't want 
     questions, don't foist these children onto the public 
     stage.''
       But Mr. and Mrs. Frost said they were bothered by the 
     assertion that they lacked health coverage by their own 
     choice. ``That is not true at all,'' Mrs. Frost said. 
     ``Basically all these naysayers need to lay the facts out on 
     the page, and say `How could a family be able to do this?' S-
     chip is a stopgap.''

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, they speak more eloquently about it than 
I have been able to. I felt badly about what happened to the Frost 
family. I hope we can focus on dealing with the Children's Health 
Initiative. It is for protecting all of the children. Today I stand up 
here for the Frost family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to speak on the pending bill before 
the Senate for a few minutes.
  This is the second day of consideration of the fiscal year 2008 
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. This bill funds the 
Departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA, and the National Science 
Foundation. Given the extremely diverse subject matters contained 
within this bill's jurisdiction, we must entertain a wide range of 
amendments on the Senate floor. This has been true in the past and is 
true again this year.
  Chairwoman Mikulski and I are currently reviewing a substantial list 
of amendments and are working with various Members and staffs to 
determine

[[Page 27087]]

appropriate resolutions to the list of amendments. I ask Members to 
come to the floor to discuss with the chairwoman and myself your 
concerns so we can move this critical funding bill forward.
  We hope and expect to finish this bill no later than mid-day 
tomorrow, but to accomplish this we will need every Senator's help.
  It is Monday afternoon and we can move some things tonight and get 
this bill moved tomorrow with the help of a lot of our colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been filed. 
I will call it up so it can be considered at the appropriate time. I 
gather that to do that I must ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I do so now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3208

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3208.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), for himself, 
     and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 3208.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
  1968 to clarify that territories and Indian tribes are eligible to 
       receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NATIVE AMERICAN METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND 
                   TREATMENT ACT OF 2007.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Native 
     American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 
     2007''.
       (b) Native American Participation in Methamphetamine 
     Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, territories, and Indian tribes (as defined in section 
     2704)'' after ``to assist States''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and local'' and 
     inserting ``, territorial, Tribal, and local'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, territories, and 
     Indian tribes'' after ``make grants to States''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting ``, Tribal,'' after 
     ``support State''.
       (2) Grant programs for drug endangered children.--Section 
     755(a) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act 
     of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc-2(a)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     territories, and Indian tribes (as defined in section 2704 of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3797d))'' after ``make grants to States''.
       (3) Grant programs to address methamphetamine use by 
     pregnant and parenting women offenders.--Section 756 of the 
     USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 
     U.S.C. 3797cc-3) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``, territorial, or 
     Tribal'' after ``State'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) by inserting ``, territorial, or Tribal'' after 
     ``State''; and
       (II) by striking ``and/or'' and inserting ``or'';

       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by inserting ``, territory, Indian tribe,'' after 
     ``agency of the State''; and
       (II) by inserting ``, territory, Indian tribe,'' after 
     ``criminal laws of that State''; and

       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 2704 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797d).''; 
     and
       (C) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Indian Tribes'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribes''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (4)--

       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) by striking ``State's''; and
       (bb) by striking ``and/or'' and inserting ``or'';

       (II) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``State'';
       (III) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, Indian 
     tribes,'' after ``involved counties''; and
       (IV) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, Tribal'' after 
     ``Federal, State''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that 
communities throughout Indian country have the resources they need to 
fight the meth epidemic.
  The amendment is based on a bipartisan bill I introduced along with 
Senator Smith entitled the Native American Methamphetamine and 
Treatment Act of 2007. It would ensure that Native American communities 
are able to access essential Federal funding to fight the use of 
methamphetamines.
  Senators Dorgan, Cantwell, Feingold, Salazar, and Baucus are also 
cosponsors of this amendment.
  This last March, after hearings were held in the House Judiciary 
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly passed this legislation by a vote of 423 
to 0.
  We all know that Indian country has been hard hit by the use of meth. 
Over 70 percent of Indian tribes surveyed by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs identified meth abuse as the greatest threat to their 
communities, and about 40 percent of violent crime cases investigated 
in Indian country involve meth in some capacity.
  According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, or 
SAMHSA, American Indians, Alaskan natives, and native Hawaiians have 
the highest rate of meth abuse of any ethnic group in our country. 
Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic 
Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants under 
some of the newly authorized grant programs. They were left out of the 
Department of Justice Hot Spots Program, which helps local law 
enforcement agencies obtain the tools they need to reduce the 
production, distribution, and use of meth and to clean up meth labs, 
support health and environmental agencies, and purchase equipment and 
support systems. The Combat Meth Act authorized $99 million in new 
funding under this program.
  Tribes were also left out of the Drug Endangered Children Grant 
Program, which helps children who live in a home in which meth has been 
used or manufactured or sold. Under this program, law enforcement 
agencies and prosecutors, child protective services, social services, 
and health care services work together to ensure that these children 
get the help they need. The act authorized $20 million for this 
program.
  I can see absolutely no reason Native-American communities that are 
struggling to contain the meth epidemic should be denied the resources 
necessary to address the problem, and to this end I hope my colleagues 
will agree with me and support this important amendment when the time 
comes for its important consideration.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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.
  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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague from New 
Mexico that we agree with him on the amendment. Certainly there are 
challenges facing the West. We see the scourge of meth, and that is one 
of the largest areas of requests we have for congressionally designated 
projects. I know my colleague wants them to be eligible for grants and 
to compete for them, and so we support the intent.
  Right now, there is an objection from two Senators, and we also 
understand that the Senator from Arizona would like to have further 
conversations with my colleague about the possibility of a 
modification. If you could have that conversation and see if we can 
come back, we could either move to a vote or see if it could be 
accepted.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank the manager of the bill, 
my colleague from Maryland, and respond that, yes, I am anxious to deal 
with

[[Page 27088]]

any concern any Senator has, and I have spoken to the Senator from 
Arizona about his concerns and have tried to accommodate them. To date, 
we have not been able to get his agreement to an accommodation that has 
been suggested. So I just want to be sure we have reserved the right to 
have a vote on the amendment if we are still not able to get agreement.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I think the Senator has our word that he will have--Mr. 
President, what is the parliamentary mechanism to reserving the right 
to a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no particular order.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would say to the Senator from New Mexico that he has 
our word that if he can work it out, we will see whether we can take 
it, and if not, we will have the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate that assurance. 
As I say, I hope very much we can get language that is acceptable to 
the Senator from Arizona. If not, I think we can allow the Senate to 
work its will, and hopefully the amendment will pass.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would further like to say to the Senator from New 
Mexico, in keeping with what my colleague from Alabama said, we would 
like to finish this bill before the caucuses tomorrow. So I will 
discuss this with the Senator from Alabama, but it would be our 
intention to see how much we can get cleared and then have some stacked 
votes tomorrow morning. So if the Senator from New Mexico could let us 
know by tomorrow morning--say, 9:30--whether he has been able to reach 
an accommodation--or this evening--we will be here and would welcome 
that.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that, and I am glad to 
advise the Senator if we reach an accommodation. I think, for purposes 
of ensuring a vote, if there is a group of stacked votes scheduled for 
tomorrow, if this can be included in that list, and then, of course, if 
agreement is reached prior to the time of the vote, we could delete it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator has our word on that.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are working very well, here again on 
a bipartisan basis. I thank Senator Shelby and his staff for the way we 
are working. We have been able to look at a variety of amendments 
colleagues have offered, and we are ready to accept them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3309

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I now call up amendment No. 3309 offered by myself and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3309.

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

     (Purpose: To provide that certain funds be available for the 
     development of educational activities in science, technology, 
  engineering, and mathematics related to the civilian space program)

       On page 72, line 14, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading 
     for cross-agency support programs, $10,000,000 shall be made 
     available, and distributed in equal increments, to each of 
     NASA's 10 centers for the development of educational 
     activities in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics related to the civilian space program of the 
     United States''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified with 
the modification at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3309), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 72, line 14, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading 
     for cross-agency support programs, $10,000,000 may be made 
     available, and distributed in equal increments, to each of 
     NASA's 10 centers for the development of educational 
     activities in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics related to the civilian space program of the 
     United States''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3309), 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. 3251

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3251 offered by 
Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. 
     Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 3251.

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

 (Purpose: To provide funds for the National Research Council study on 
   acidification of the oceans as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens 
    Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006)

       On page 16, line 11, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the funds available for 
     the Ocean Research Priorities Plan Implementation, such sums 
     as may be necessary shall be set aside to initiate the study 
     to be completed within 2 years on acidification of the oceans 
     and how this process affects the United States as authorized 
     by section 701 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
     479; 120 Stat. 3649).''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask the amendment be modified with the modification 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3251), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 16, line 11, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the funds available for 
     the Ocean Research Priorities Plan Implementation, such sums 
     as may be necessary may be set aside to initiate the study to 
     be completed within 2 years, on acidification of the oceans 
     and how this process affects the United States as authorized 
     by section 701 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
     479; 120 Stat. 3649).''.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both side of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment, (No. 3251), 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. 3275

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3275 by Senator 
Levin of Michigan and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3275.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page 27089]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the FBI to submit an annual report to Congress 
  regarding the length of time taken by the FBI to conduct background 
                                checks)

         At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ANNUAL REPORT ON DELAYED BACKGROUND CHECKS.

         (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall submit a report to the congressional 
     committees listed in subsection (b) that contains, with 
     respect to the most recently completed fiscal year--
         (1) a statistical analysis of the number of background 
     checks processed and pending, including check requests in 
     process at the time of the report and check requests that 
     have been received but are not yet in process;
         (2) the average time taken to complete each type of 
     background check;
         (3) a description of the efforts and progress made by the 
     Director in addressing any delays in completing such 
     background checks; and
         (4) a description of the progress that has been made in 
     automating files used in the name check process, including 
     investigative files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
         (b) Recipients.--The congressional committees listed in 
     this subsection are--
         (1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
         (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
         (3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives; and
         (4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3275) 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. 3247

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3247 by Senator 
McCaskill of Missouri and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mrs. 
     McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 3247.

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

  (Purpose: To require the Departments, agencies, and commissions to 
establish and maintain on their website homepages a direct link to the 
     websites of their Inspectors General, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Departments, agencies, and 
     commissions funded under this Act, shall establish and 
     maintain on the homepages of their Internet websites--
       (1) a direct link to the Internet websites of their Offices 
     of Inspectors General; and
       (2) a mechanism on the Offices of Inspectors General 
     website by which individuals may anonymously report cases of 
     waste, fraud, or abuse with respect to those Departments, 
     agencies, and commissions.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask that I be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle, and I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3247) 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. 3234

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3234 by Senator 
Obama of Illinois and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Obama, 
     for himself and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3234.

  The amendment follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
 made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an 
 amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such 
   amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain 
            certifications regarding Federal tax liability)

       At the end of title V, add the following:
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that, to the best of its knowledge and 
     belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all Federal tax 
     returns required during the three years preceding the 
     certification, has not been convicted of a criminal offense 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, more 
     than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any 
     unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an 
     installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in 
     default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous 
     administrative or judicial proceeding.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3234) 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. 3263

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3263 by Senator 
Pryor of Arkansas and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Pryor, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3263.

  The amendment follows:

    (Purpose: To establish a pilot program for digital and wireless 
networks to advance online higher education opportunities for minority 
                               students)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DIGITAL AND WIRELESS NETWORKS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``ED 1.0 
     Act''.
       (b) Appropriations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, from the amount appropriated under title I under 
     the heading ``Technology Opportunities Program'', $4,500,000 
     may be available for the pilot program under this section, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration.
       (2) Eligible educational institution.--The term ``eligible 
     educational institution'' means an institution that is--
       (A) a historically Black college or university;
       (B) a Hispanic-serving institution as that term is defined 
     in section 502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5));
       (C) a tribally controlled college or university as that 
     term is defined in section 2(a)(4) of the Tribally Controlled 
     College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
     1801(a)(4));
       (D) an Alaska Native-serving institution as that term is 
     defined in section 317(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059d(b)(2)); or
       (E) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution as that term is 
     defined in section 317(b)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059d(b)(4)).
       (3) Historically black college or university.--The term 
     ``historically Black college or university'' means a part B 
     institution as that term is defined in section 322(2)

[[Page 27090]]

     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)).
       (d) Minority Online Degree Pilot Program.--
       (1) Pilot program established.--
       (A) In general.--There is established within the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration a pilot 
     program under which the Administrator shall award 9 grants to 
     eligible educational institutions to enable the eligible 
     educational institutions to develop digital and wireless 
     networks for online educational programs of study within the 
     eligible educational institutions. The Administrator shall 
     award not less than 1 grant to each type of eligible 
     educational institution, enumerated under subsection (c)(2).
       (B) Grant number and amount.--
       (i) Number.--The Administrator shall award a total of 9 
     grants under this subsection.
       (ii) Grant payment amounts.--The Administrator shall make 
     grant payments under this subsection in the amount of 
     $500,000.
       (2) Priority.--
       (A) In general.--In awarding grants under this subsection 
     the Administrator shall give priority to an eligible 
     educational institution that, according to the most recent 
     data available (including data available from the Bureau of 
     the Census), serves a county, or other appropriate political 
     subdivision where no counties exist--
       (i) in which 50 percent of the residents of the county, or 
     other appropriate political subdivision where no counties 
     exist, are members of a racial or ethnic minority;
       (ii) in which less than 18 percent of the residents of the 
     county, or other appropriate political subdivision where no 
     counties exist, have obtained a baccalaureate degree or a 
     higher education;
       (iii) that has an unemployment rate of 7 percent or 
     greater;
       (iv) in which 20 percent or more of the residents of the 
     county, or other appropriate political subdivision where no 
     counties exist, live in poverty;
       (v) that has a negative population growth rate; or
       (vi) that has a family income of not more than $32,000.
       (B) Highest priority.--In awarding grants under this 
     subsection the Administrator shall give the highest priority 
     to an eligible educational institution that meets the 
     greatest number of requirements described in clauses (i) 
     through (vi) of subparagraph (A).
       (3) Use of funds.--An eligible educational institution 
     receiving a grant under this subsection may use the grant 
     funds--
       (A) to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking 
     capability, hardware, software, digital network technology, 
     wireless technology, or wireless infrastructure;
       (B) to develop and provide educational services, including 
     faculty development; or
       (C) to develop strategic plans for information technology 
     investments.
       (4) Matching not required.--The Administrator shall not 
     require an eligible educational institution to provide 
     matching funds for a grant awarded under this subsection.
       (5) Consultations; report.--
       (A) Consultations.--The Administrator shall consult with 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives, on a quarterly 
     basis regarding the pilot program assisted under this 
     subsection.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit to 
     the committees described in subparagraph (A) a report 
     evaluating the progress of the pilot program assisted under 
     this subsection.
       (6) Limitation on use of other funds.--The Administrator 
     shall carry out this subsection only with amounts 
     appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this 
     subsection.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3263) 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. 3271

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3271 by Senator 
Shelby of Alabama and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3271.

  The amendment follows:

       On page 30 line 4 strike the ``.'' and insert ``: Provided, 
     That within 200 days of enactment of this act, the Inspector 
     General shall conduct an audit and issue a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of all expenses of the 
     legislative and public affairs offices at each location of 
     the Justice Department, its bureaus and agencies, including 
     but not limited to every field office and headquarters 
     component; the audit shall include any and all expenses 
     related to these activities.''

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3271) 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. 3272

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up another amendment by Senator 
Shelby, No. 3272, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3272.

  The amendment follows:

 (Purpose: For the review of IT and 2010 Census related activities at 
                       the Bureau of the Census)

       On page 18 line 13 strike the ``.'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``: Provided, That of the amounts provided to the Secretary 
     within this account, $10,000,000 shall not become available 
     for obligation until the Secretary certifies to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the Bureau of the Census 
     has followed, and met all best practices, and all Office of 
     Management and Budget guidelines related to information 
     technology projects: Provided further, That the Secretary, 
     within 120 days of enactment of this Act, shall provide a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations that audits and 
     evaluates all decision documents and expenditures by the 
     Bureau of the Census as they relate to the 2010 Census: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary, within 120 days of the 
     enactment of this Act, shall provide a report to Congress 
     that is publicly available on the Bureau's website on the 
     steps that the Census Bureau will take to allow citizens the 
     opportunity to complete the decennial census and the American 
     Community Survey over the Internet.''

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3272) 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. 3273

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 3273 by 
Senator Shelby and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3273.

  The amendment follows:

       On page 69 line 13 after the second ``.'' strike all 
     through page 70 line 10 and insert:
       ``Of the funds appropriated in this Act for the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation's Sentinel program, $25,000,000 shall 
     not be available for obligation until 60 days after the 
     Committees on Appropriations receive from the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation a report on the results of a completed 
     integrated baseline review for that program: Provided, That 
     the report shall be submitted simultaneously to the 
     Government Accountability Office: Provided further, That the 
     Government Accountability Office shall review the Bureau's 
     performance measurement baseline for the Sentinel program and 
     shall submit its findings to the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives within 60 days of 
     its receipt of the report.
       Sec. 216. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be obligated for the initiation of a future 
     phase or increment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
     Sentinel program until the Attorney General

[[Page 27091]]

     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that existing 
     phases or increments currently under contract for development 
     or fielding have completed 70 percent of the work for that 
     phase or increment under the performance measurement baseline 
     validated by the integrated baseline review referred to in 
     Sec. 215 of this Act: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to planning and design activities for future phases 
     or increments: Provided further, That the Bureau will notify 
     the Committees of any significant changes to the baseline.''

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3273) 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. 3288

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3288 by Senator 
Shelby and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3288.

  The amendment follows:

  (Purpose: To provide transparency and accountability in funding for 
    conferences and meetings of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                            Administration)

       After the period on page 97 line 9, insert the following:
       Sec. xx. (a) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration shall submit quarterly reports to 
     the Inspector General of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration regarding the costs and contracting procedures 
     relating to each conference or meeting, held by the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration during fiscal year 2008, 
     and each year thereafter, for which the cost to the 
     Government was more than $20,000.
       (b) Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     include, for each conference described in that subsection 
     held during the applicable quarter--
       (1) a description of the number of and purpose of 
     participants attending that conference or meeting;
       (2) a detailed statement of the costs to the Government 
     relating to that conference or meeting, including--
       (A) the cost of any food or beverages;
       (B) the cost of any audio-visual services;
       (C) the cost of all related travel; and
       (D) a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 
     costs relate to that conference or meeting; and
       (3) a description of the contracting procedures relating to 
     that conference or meeting, including--
       (A) whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis; 
     and
       (B) a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration in evaluating 
     potential contractors for any conference or meeting.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment also has been cleared on both sides of 
the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3288) 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. 3318

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3318 by Senator 
Coburn of Oklahoma and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3318.

  The amendment follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional transparency and accountability in 
 funding for conferences and meetings of the National Aeronautics and 
                         Space Administration)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION __. LIMITATION AND REPORTS ON TRAVEL EXPENSES TO 
                   CONFERENCES

       (a) In this section, the term conference means a meeting 
     that--
       (1) is held for consultation, education, awareness, or 
     discussion;
       (2) includes participants who are not all employees of the 
     same agency;
       (3) is not held entirely at an agency facility;
       (4) involves costs associated with travel and lodging for 
     some participants; and
       (5) is sponsored by 1 or more agencies, 1 or more 
     organizations that are not agencies, or a combination of such 
     agencies or organizations.
       (b) The Administrator of NASA shall, not later than 
     September 30, 2008, submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress and post on the public Internet website of the 
     agency in a searchable, electronic format, a report on each 
     conference for which the agency paid travel expenses during 
     Fiscal Year 2008 that includes--
       (1) the itemized expenses paid by the agency, including 
     travel expenses and any agency expenditure to otherwise 
     support the conference;
       (2) the primary sponsor of the conference;
       (3) the location of the conference;
       (4) in the case of a conference for which the agency was 
     the primary sponsor, a statement that--
       (A) justifies the location selected;
       (B) demonstrates the cost efficiency of the location;
       (C) the date of the conference;
       (D) a brief explanation how the conference advanced the 
     mission of the agency; and
       (E) the total number of individuals who travel or 
     attendance at the conference was paid for in part or full by 
     the agency.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3318) 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have now cleared 28 amendments. As we 
continue to move toward a vote that we will be having at 5:45 on the 
Brown amendment dealing with international trade, we hope if colleagues 
do have amendments on which they wish to have a vote they will please 
come now and offer the amendment and let's have a debate on it. We 
would like very much to debate as many amendments as we could to have 
stacked votes tomorrow, and even to come to final passage before the 
12:30 caucus.
  Colleagues out there on both sides of the aisle, Senator Shelby and I 
are here. We are open for business. We are ready to hear your ideas and 
ready to debate them and follow through on our regular process. Either 
that, or if you do not wish to offer it, come see us and withdraw it 
and perhaps offer it at another time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to raise my voice 
in strong support of H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science 
Appropriations Act of 2007. I wish to thank and congratulate Chairwoman 
Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member 
Cochran for their strong leadership on this bill.
  As a former attorney general for Colorado, I am particularly proud of 
the investment that this bill will make in the local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement agencies across our country, the more than 
800,000 officers who patrol America's streets and put their lives on 
the line every day to help make our communities safe and secure. They 
are truly the frontlines of America's homeland security.
  In my 6 years as attorney general of Colorado, and in the last 2\1/2\ 
years as a Senator, I have traveled thousands of miles through my State 
to visit with county sheriffs, police chiefs, and law enforcement 
officers working in our

[[Page 27092]]

small towns, rural counties, and big cities. They are public servants 
through and through. They know that security is the foundation of a 
free society. They know that to enjoy our liberties and a prosperous 
economy, Americans must live in a society governed by the rule of law, 
free from the threat of violence and secure in their place of 
residence.
  It is the voices of these men and women in uniform across our 
country, America's peace officers, that should help guide our law 
enforcement efforts in this country. They should help us make sure we 
are prepared to meet the emergency we will confront and that will help 
us address the domestic security priorities we face in the Nation. We 
should therefore take notice when sheriffs and police officers tell us 
they do not have the resources they need to combat the scourge of meth 
that is devastating so many communities across our Nation.
  Meth is tearing families apart and financing an underground economy 
in abandoned farm buildings, fire traps, and houses that are shrouded 
with plastic. When police go to raid a lab, they never know what they 
are going to find; whether it is going to be a drug armed to the teeth, 
whether it is going to be chemicals that are ready to burn and to 
explode or drug users who are in desperate need of medical attention.
  In my State, on a raid on a meth lab in Aurora, CO, this past summer, 
police found a 2-year-old boy lying in the basement next to a highly 
toxic cocktail of chemicals. The police rescued him. But what his 
parents were doing or thinking one can only imagine. Stories such as 
this story have been too common across our country.
  We should also take notice when people such as the U.S. attorney in 
Colorado, Troy Eid, tell us we do not have enough Federal law 
enforcement officers to serve Native American communities in 
southwestern Colorado. Last year, we had a total of five Bureau of 
Indian Affairs officers policing 600,000 acres in one corner of my 
State. This is astonishing--five Bureau of Indian Affairs officers 
policing 600,000 acres.
  Criminals, in fact, were calling in false crime reports on one side 
of the reservation, drawing police away from their target they were 
aiming to hit on the other side of the reservation.
  With this shortage of law enforcement, the murder rate on the Ute 
Mountain Ute and Southern Ute reservations in Southwestern Colorado has 
climbed to almost 20 percent of the national average. We need to take 
notice when people such as recently retired Sheriff Liggett, of Mineral 
County, Colorado, tell us our communications equipment in rural 
communities is woefully inadequate.
  I have known Sheriff Liggett for many years. On snowy nights, Sheriff 
Liggett would call ahead and make sure that I and other travelers made 
it safely over Slumgullion Pass or Wolf Creek Pass on our way to our 
destinations.
  That is the way things are done in rural Colorado. Sheriff Liggett 
knows very well the boundaries of his department's communications 
coverage and the risks that the limitations of that coverage pose to 
residents and travelers.
  The Mineral County Sheriff's Department, similar to so many rural 
sheriffs' departments, need broader communications coverage and a 
better ability to talk across agencies and jurisdictions in case an 
emergency arises.
  In late 1990, we made some progress in helping bring safety and 
security to American's communities. The Federal Government, seeing the 
homicide rate on the rise, responded to the public's call for a 
crackdown on crime by making smarter investment in law enforcement and 
crime prevention. These investments paid off, with violent crime in the 
United States dropping by nearly 40 percent from the record highs of 
the early 1990s.
  Unfortunately, these investments have lagged in recent years, and the 
administration has tried to cut key programs at the very moment, at the 
very moment that our law enforcement officers are facing a set of 
growing challenges from homeland security and emergency preparedness to 
combating meth, to all of the other issues that the 800,000 men and 
women who keep the security in our country face every day.
  I know this administration has been focused on Iraq and that this has 
consumed a massive proportion of Federal spending; almost $750 billion 
in the last 4\1/2\ years. But this focus on Iraq and our security 
objectives abroad should not come at the expense of American security 
right here at home in our United States.
  Too many Americans live with fear of drug-related violence in their 
communities. Too many Americans have seen meth destroy the lives of a 
family member or of a neighbor. Too many Americans worry that when a 
disaster strikes, the way it did with Katrina, help will come but help 
will not come quickly enough.
  This bill, which the chairperson from Maryland and Ranking Member 
Shelby have put together, resets our priorities to where they should 
be, on the safety and security of America's families. For that I thank 
and applaud the leadership of Senator Mikulski.
  The Appropriations Committee has reported a bill that restores 
critical investments on law enforcement that this President had 
proposed to cut. I wish to briefly talk about a few of those provisions 
that will benefit the peace officers of my State of Colorado.
  First, I am pleased the bill we are considering today includes $1.4 
billion for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, including $660 
million for the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants and $190 
million for Byrne discretionary grants.
  This program, which the President had--beyond my understanding--
proposed to eliminate, provides grants to State and local governments 
for law enforcement, for prosecution and court programs, for prevention 
and community education programs, drug treatment, and community 
corrections programs. These are the kinds of programs that the men and 
women in law enforcement in this country know do, in fact, work to make 
our communities safe.
  Secondly, this bill includes $550 million for the Community Oriented 
Policing Services, known as COPS. These funds go to tribal, State, and 
local law enforcement agencies for community policing initiatives which 
put law enforcement professionals on the streets with a beat so they 
can build relationships with the people they serve and they protect.
  By earning the trust of the members of their communities and making 
these individuals stakeholders in their own safety, community policing 
makes law enforcement safer and more efficient. Some of the COPS 
Program funds that are set forth in this bill will go directly to the 
drug task forces that have been operational and effective in my State 
of Colorado. They include: The San Luis Valley Drug Task Force, my 
native valley; they include the 22nd Judicial District Drug Task Force, 
the North Metro Task Force, the Delta/Montrose Drug Task Force, the 
Eagle County Drug Task Force, the Greater Routt and Moffatt Narcotics 
Enforcement Team, the Weld County Drug Task Force.
  Rest assured that from my point of view as a former attorney general 
of the State of Colorado, I know these task forces are at the point of 
the spear in combating the scourge of drugs in my State of Colorado, 
and these important funds will allow us to keep up that fight.
  Finally, I am pleased this bill provides $5.6 billion for the Bureau 
of Prisons to help curb the staff shortages, construction needs and 
operations budgets for the Federal prison system.
  The correctional officers who handle some of the most dangerous 
criminals in America will tell you the funding levels over the past few 
years have been inadequate.
  At the Supermax prison in Florence, CO, which houses inmates such as 
Ted Kaczynski, al-Qaida terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, and the shoe 
bomber, Richard Reid, at that Supermax facility, where we house the 
most dangerous of the most dangerous of America's enemies, funding cuts 
have left them short staffed and short on beds.
  At the prison that houses terrorists, gang leaders and the most 
violent

[[Page 27093]]

members of society, this is a dangerous game that we cannot afford, and 
this legislation moves forward in a way to address those shortfalls.
  I am not going to take time to go through all the other good that is 
included in this bill, but I would mention very briefly the $340 
million this bill provides to the juvenile justice program and the 
investment this bill makes in all our Federal law enforcement agencies 
such as the DEA, the FBI, and the ATF.
  When you look at these investments, you begin to understand how 
important this bill is to our Nation's law enforcement authority. 
Anyone who has worked or who works in law enforcement today and who 
takes the time to look at this bill, will understand this is a strong 
statement of support for peace officers and for protecting our public 
across the country. That is why I am perplexed that there is a veto 
threat by the President on this bill.
  There should not be that veto threat because this is a bill that 
takes a strong position to secure Americans here in the homeland. I 
hope that as this bill makes it through the Congressional process and 
to the President's desk, President Bush will decide he is going to 
stand up for the Nation's law enforcement and for the security here in 
the homeland and will, in fact, sign this bill.
  I end where I began. This is a very good bipartisan product that 
Senator Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby have put together for the 
consideration of this Chamber. I am proud to be a supporter of this 
bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Colorado yield for a question?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I will.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for his comments about our bill 
that were so complimentary and for speaking out. As a former attorney 
general of the State of Colorado, who is essentially the top cop in 
Colorado, knows one of the hallmarks of good law enforcement is strong 
law enforcement opportunities, along with prevention in terms of 
intervening with our young people. But is the Senator aware why this 
bill is under a veto threat?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I have understood that the President has said he doesn't 
like the funding levels in this bill which I interpret to mean that he 
doesn't support funding of these very important programs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is exactly right. We face a veto threat not 
because we have done bad legislation but because we have done good 
funding.
  Is the Senator aware that the legislation called for the elimination 
of the COPS Program?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I am aware that the President has 
called for elimination of the COPS Program. I am also aware that when I 
speak to the law enforcement community throughout the country and 
throughout my State, sheriffs and chiefs of police across the board say 
the COPS Program is, in fact, working, and when we see what happened 
with the dip in violent crime in the 1990s, it occurred precisely 
because we had programs such as the COPS Program which were very 
effective.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. So then it is the belief of the Senator that our 
addition of over $500 million to guard the streets and neighborhoods 
and communities of America will be well spent?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I can think of no more important priority for all of us. 
As we deal with issues of crime and violence and the rule of law in 
places far away such as Iraq and Afghanistan, it ought to be an 
important priority, a high priority for us to make sure we are 
enforcing the rule of law and providing security for Americans at home; 
that we take care of the homeland first.
  I strongly agree with the Senator from Maryland that, in fact, this 
bill moves us in that direction.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Colorado. I appreciate his 
comments and support.
  Madam President, by way of information for our colleagues, when we 
talk about the COPS Program, one might recall, as the Senator from 
Colorado said, violent crime really skyrocketed in the mid-1990s. 
President Clinton, working then with our colleague who continues to be 
in the Senate, Senator Joe Biden, a leader on the Judiciary Committee, 
came up with the COPS Program. During the Clinton administration, from 
1993 to 1998, they put 118,000 extra police officers on the streets of 
America. They were in 13,000 communities, and violent crime dropped 10 
percent. Cops do make a difference. We are concerned that by 
eliminating the COPS Program, the thin blue line that protects us in 
our communities is even getting smaller. So working on a bipartisan 
basis within the Senate, we have added over $500 million to restore 
that COPS Program; not that we micromanage from the national level, but 
we empower the local communities to apply for these grants and deploy 
where they know best to protect their citizens.
  We think we have a great bill. We want to move it along. We thank the 
Senator for the kind words. Now our colleagues can help us not only 
with words but with deeds, which is, if they have an amendment, offer 
it or send their staff to either see if we can modify it or have it 
withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3260

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of amendment No. 3260 offered by the Senator from 
Ohio, Mr. Brown. There will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided 
between the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Maryland, Ms. 
Mikulski, or their designees, prior to a vote in relation to the 
amendment.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I begin my thanking Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Shelby, as well as Senators Baucus and Grassley, for their 
support of this amendment. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Stabenow, Byrd, Rockefeller, and Levin. I should note that the Finance 
Committee chair has drafted a bill to boost trade enforcement. I look 
forward to working on that very important piece of legislation.
  This amendment will help America's manufacturers compete on even 
terms with foreign manufacturers. For generations American 
manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and work for our 
whole country. Especially for working families, it has been a ladder to 
the middle class. 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 every day our manufacturing sector. In the State of Michigan, 
in Ohio, across the Midwest, throughout the country, it would be and is 
dangerous to ignore that.
  Over the last several years, U.S. manufacturing has faltered. 
Millions of good jobs have been lost. In my State of Ohio, from Toledo 
to Gallipolis, from Ashtabula to Middletown, well over 200,000 
manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the last 6 years.
  American industry, we know, 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. Unfortunately, some of our trading partners have 
repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws to gain an unfair 
advantage against our workers and our companies. This has led to 
record-breaking trade deficits--some $800 billion in 2006--which 
threaten the long-term health of our economy and massive job losses 
which have wreaked havoc on the middle class. Foreign governments 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 ample evidence that something 
is very wrong--when I first ran for Congress in 1992, the U.S. 
multilateral trade deficit was $38 billion. Last year it was literally 
more than 20 times that, and we can look at job loss figures, the trade 
deficit, outsourcing figures, offshoring figures--the Bush 
administration needs to aggressively enforce American trade law.
  Recent WTO decisions threaten to create enormous loopholes in trade 
law

[[Page 27094]]

enforcement. This affects industries and local economies throughout the 
country. We know about steel. We know about paper. But it affects all 
American manufacturing. That is why we need to be more aggressive in 
enforcement of the trade laws. If the WTO continues to target U.S. 
trade remedy laws, we in this Chamber need to fight back. This 
amendment is a modest reminder to the administration that we need to 
vigorously enforce our trade laws.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their 
support. I ask my colleagues for their support.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I stand here with my colleague from 
Alabama to tell all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle it is 
the intention of Senator Shelby and myself to finish this bill 
tomorrow. We have some amendments that have been filed, and yet we do 
not know what the intent is of the Senators who have filed such 
amendments. We are going to be voting very shortly--in a matter of 
minutes--and we would like every Senator who has filed an amendment to 
come and tell us what their intent is. Do they intend to offer it? When 
do they intend to offer it? Or do they wish to seek another 
accommodation?
  We would like to present to the leaders on both sides of the aisle--
the majority leader and the Republican leader--a finite list tonight 
before Senator Shelby and I go home so we can have the finite list for 
tomorrow and assiduously, earnestly, thoroughly work through these 
amendments. But we must know the intent of the Senators.
  I believe there is an old-fashioned saying: It is now time to fish or 
cut bait. We would prefer Senators actually cut their bait. But being 
an old Maryland fisherwoman myself, we want to talk to our colleagues. 
Talk to us during this vote. Senator Shelby is at his desk. I will be 
at mine. Let's talk things over and see how we can move this bill and 
make America proud of us. Too often when all is said and done, too much 
gets said and nothing gets done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I join with Senator Mikulski. She is 
telling our colleagues--and I join with her--that we have accepted and 
are working through a lot of amendments on both sides of the aisle. 
There are a number of amendments that have been filed. We, as she 
pointed out, need to know if people are going to insist on amendments 
or if there is some way we can accommodate Senators, if they would come 
to the floor and meet with us, because in a few minutes we are going to 
vote. The leaders will be on the floor and they are going to want a 
report from us as to what is pending, because tomorrow we want to move 
this bill. This is a very important bill, as the Presiding Officer 
knows. We need to move on with it and not delay it more. We are back 
now in a new week and I think we can make some progress. If my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will meet with us and tell us if 
they want a vote, we will debate it and vote. If they want to see if we 
can work out something with them, we will do that. But it is our 
intention again to move this bill tomorrow.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3260, as modified, offered by the Senator 
from Ohio, Mr. Brown.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Lott), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders. Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Allard
     Hagel
     Lugar

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Alexander
     Bayh
     Biden
     Brownback
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     Lott
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3260), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. 3277

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside any 
pending amendment or business so that the Vitter amendment, No. 3277, 
may be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr. 
     Sessions and Mr. DeMint, proposes amendment numbered 3277.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit funds from being used in contravention of section 
 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
                              Act of 1996)

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 217.  None of the amounts made available in this title 
     under the heading ``community oriented policing services'' 
     may be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is amendment No. 3277, and it is very 
simple and straightforward and, I believe,

[[Page 27095]]

very needed. The amendment would simply prohibit COPS funding, which is 
governed under this bill, from going to so-called sanctuary cities. In 
doing so, it would do nothing more than to enforce current Federal law.
  Mr. President, as you know, in 1996, Congress passed the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. In that 1996 
legislation, which is current law, there is a very clear section on 
sanctuary city policy. It is section 642(a), and it states in clear 
unmistakable terms:

       Federal, State or local government entity or official may 
     not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity 
     or official from sending to, or receiving from, the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding 
     the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of 
     any individual.

  Mr. President, the idea behind that policy is very simple. Law 
enforcement around the country should be free to cooperate with Federal 
authorities regarding immigration, regarding immigration enforcement, 
and no State or local government should be able to contradict Federal 
law by establishing a State or local law which bars this sort of 
commonsense cooperation. Unfortunately, that is exactly what several 
local jurisdictions and at least two States on a statewide basis have 
done. They have established, by State law, by local law, by local 
ordinance, so-called sanctuary policies absolutely prohibiting law 
enforcement and other public personnel in their jurisdiction from 
working with or cooperating with Federal authorities with regard to 
immigration enforcement.
  This is by no means the majority policy of jurisdictions around the 
country. Far from it, Mr. President, because I think a clear 
overwhelming majority of the American people and their State and local 
elected officials support commonsense cooperation with the Federal 
Government in enforcing our laws. But it is a very significant trend, a 
very significant happening around the country. Many local jurisdictions 
and at least two States have adopted this very conscious and very 
boldly proclaimed policy, calling themselves sanctuary cities, or 
sanctuary jurisdictions.
  My amendment would simply prohibit COPS funding from going to these 
jurisdictions. It would say this is our Federal law, and that States, 
that localities must cooperate with Federal immigration officials. And 
if they are not going to do that, if they are going to pass laws 
clearly in contravention, 180 degrees opposed to Federal law, then they 
will not get COPS funding under this bill.
  Again, Mr. President, it couldn't be simpler. It couldn't be more 
straightforward--COPS money, COPS funds, will not go to sanctuary 
cities, so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, if my amendment passes. And, 
again, this is doing nothing more than enforcing present Federal law, a 
policy or law that has been on the books for over 10 years. So why 
shouldn't we put some meaningful teeth in that Federal law and prevent 
these local and State jurisdictions from simply flaunting Federal law 
and not abiding by Federal law?
  I would note that the House of Representatives has already acted on 
this issue in the companion bill to this CJS appropriations bill. In 
the House bill, a similar amendment to mine passed by voice vote. 
Having said that, I would hope that a huge majority of the Senate 
similarly votes to pass this Vitter amendment, to adopt it, and to put 
it on the CJS appropriations bill.
  This is common sense. It does nothing more than enforce current 
Federal policy and Federal law. It is clearly the sort of commonsense, 
straightforward legislation that a huge majority of the American people 
support. I know there will be a vote on this sometime tomorrow, Mr. 
President, so I urge all my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to 
join with the huge majority of the American people behind this 
reasonable and commonsense policy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Vitter 
amendment. I don't believe it is common sense, I don't believe it is 
reasonable, and I want to lay out the reasons.
  This body has, during the immigration debate, actually acted on a 
very similar amendment and defeated it. And the reason this body was 
wise enough to defeat it was because they understood that some of the 
toughest law enforcement officials in our country, from sheriffs to 
prosecutors, and a whole host of law enforcement officials in between, 
understand that the cooperation of a community is essential for police 
and law enforcement entities to do their job.
  Under Senator Vitter's amendment, denying money to municipalities 
across the landscape of the country--and this would deny monies to 
about 126 cities in a whole host of States represented by people on 
both sides of the aisle--would set up a series of circumstances under 
which a crime could be committed and the witness to that crime happens 
to be someone who is undocumented in some fashion. Do we want the 
witness to be able to come forward and provide essential, crucial 
eyewitness testimony about the crime or do we want them to hide in the 
darkness and not talk to the police because they are afraid of their 
immigration status?
  I want to solve the crime, Mr. President. I want to get the 
perpetrator. I want to convict that person and put them in jail. I 
don't want the opportunity to do that to go wasted because of some 
political statement that has nothing to do with the core issue of 
security in our communities.
  I want to make sure a witness comes forth and testifies against a 
perpetrator and has no fear to do so.
  Senator Vitter's amendment would undermine that ability. Senator 
Vitter's amendment would undermine the ability of someone who is a 
victim of a crime and who happens to be in an undocumented capacity to 
come forward because they might very well be concerned that their 
status is such that it might create a problem for them. So victims of a 
crime would not come forward, which not only is inhuman as it relates 
to the victim of that crime--and that crime could be of all types and 
manner that was committed against the individual--but the unwillingness 
of that person to come forward because of fear--fear--may lead to 
another crime committed against someone else by that same individual in 
that same community; perhaps to a child who might be molested, to a 
person who might be assaulted, to a family who might get robbed.
  So instead of catching the perpetrator, the criminal element, and 
being able to prosecute them either through the witness or through the 
victim, no, we prefer to deny monies to that community because they 
have a view that in their own interest--and I hear so many times in 
debates that States and municipalities know best, but when it comes to 
this, they know nothing. They know nothing about how best to secure 
their communities. They have made decisions across the landscape of the 
country--urban, suburban, and rural--to say we care more about 
prosecuting the crime and having witnesses come forward to tell us 
about the crime than we care about the person's status, and we are not 
going to put a chilling effect across the landscape of our community to 
being able to achieve those goals.
  That is what tough law enforcement will tell you--sheriffs will tell 
you, prosecutors will tell you, and police chiefs will tell you. They 
will tell you that they want the community to participate.
  Now, when Secretary Chertoff was before the committee recently 
testifying in a House hearing, he responded to a question about this 
issue. He said: I am not aware of any city that actually interferes 
with our ability to enforce the law.
  So let's not mix apples and oranges. The suggestion is that these 
cities interfere with the Department of Homeland Security and ICE's 
ability to go ahead and pursue someone to be deported. That is not the 
case. But that is the argument that is trying to be made in pursuit of 
an amendment that is all about immigration and nothing about security. 
We need to be about security in our communities. We need to be able to 
have witnesses come forward and be able to have victims come forward.

[[Page 27096]]

  Now, local governments have taken the initiative to reassure these 
communities in order to deliver services vital to the public health and 
safety. And these may be immigrant families who also, in fact, have 
perfect status in this country. But the message being sent out is: 
Don't talk to the local police.
  We have had incidents where people who, in fact, have total legal 
status, and who, because they came forward as witnesses to a crime, 
ended up feeling more like a criminal themselves than the person they 
were trying to testify against. That sends a chilling effect across 
immigrant communities which says: Do not participate.
  It would not be in the interest of security in our communities to 
have that be the message. If immigrant families are afraid to access 
the opportunities for local law enforcement to have their participation 
as the eyes and ears of what is happening, it would have a negative 
effect and be a ripple effect of what would happen. If that is the 
message, then if you are a perpetrator of a crime and you want to do 
breaking and entering, robbing in a community, God forbid you want to 
do rapes, you say: This community will not go to the police. Let's do 
it in that sector. Then the crime continues and the perpetrator 
continues to be free and the process gets worse and worse.
  It seems to me all Americans are at higher risk of preventable crimes 
when the population fears coming forward to give information.
  This is also about telling municipalities that they cannot figure out 
for themselves what is the best way to combat crime in their 
communities. Our whole effort under the fantastic bill that Senator 
Mikulski has put together is to ensure communities have the wherewithal 
to combat the rise in crime we have seen over the past 2 years, 
according to recent reports. The way to do that is to have citizens 
come forward and participants in communities come forward and tell the 
police about what is happening. It is not to put a chilling effect on 
it.
  The Senate has in the past already largely rejected these 
amendments--in good judgment. Let's listen to the cops, let's listen to 
the prosecutors, let's listen to the sheriffs, let's listen to the 
tough law enforcement people, let's listen to the communities that have 
elected officials who are in the midst of these communities and who 
say: When it comes to identifying crime and victims of crime, we want 
them to come forward. That is in the public interest.
  Nothing in these cities is used in a way, as Secretary Chertoff said, 
to impede the opportunity for ICE to do what they want to do should 
they want to deport somebody.
  For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the Vitter 
amendment when it comes up for a vote and preserve the security of our 
communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise to oppose the Vitter 
amendment. For the benefit of our colleagues, they should know a 
similar amendment was defeated on the immigration bill this year. I 
opposed the amendment then and I oppose it now. I oppose it on 
substantive grounds, and I oppose it also on the grounds related to 
States rights and home rule.
  To refresh everyone, what the Vitter amendment would do is ban local 
governments from receiving Federal law enforcement funds if a city or a 
locality has passed a law prohibiting police from asking an immigration 
status.
  Why is this bad? First of all, local law enforcement officers all 
across America are opposed to this amendment. Their opposition has been 
very well articulated by our colleague from New Jersey. What has been 
articulated by local law enforcement communities is they believe they 
should not be held responsible for enforcing Federal immigration laws; 
that Federal laws on immigration should be enforced by Federal 
immigration authorities.
  This amendment would also make it harder for local police to enforce 
laws and stop crime. One of the things that would happen, if police are 
forced to do this, it would foster great mistrust in our immigrant 
communities--meaning immigrants who are here legally. You know, there 
are many immigrants who are here legally. Because you might have a last 
name such as Sanchez doesn't mean you are an illegal immigrant. You 
might be the owner of an IT business in Silver Spring, MD.
  One of the things we are concerned about is that immigrants, then, 
will not report crimes or will not give information to those who could 
go after serious crimes--such as the gang effort.
  We are also concerned when people will not come forward particularly 
related to domestic violence. If there is domestic violence, a battered 
spouse might not call the police because it could trigger some type of 
raid in their own community.
  This is not a good way to go. Let's go to the consequences of local 
communities deciding what they want to do. What we are talking about is 
a situation where a city or a locality has passed a law prohibiting 
police from asking an immigration status. That is their right. That is 
their right, to say what they want to do in their own community. Then 
to deny Federal funds for law enforcement, funds for all the other 
things they might be applying for funds for, I think is outrageous. 
What happens if they are applying for interoperable communication 
equipment so they can fight violent crime? Oh, no, they can't have it.
  What happens when they have applied for funds for the Violence 
Against Women Act, to deal with battered spouses or abused children? 
Oh, no, they would not be able to get their Federal funds.
  What happens, then, in the issue of sexual predators? We have a 
robust effort to go after sexual predators in our communities. If they 
have applied for grants to be able to protect our children, they will 
not be able to get them under the Vitter amendment. So the Vitter 
amendment is not targeted at illegal aliens or illegal immigrants. What 
the Vitter amendment does is target law enforcement. If the Vitter 
amendment is agreed to, in many of these communities it will stifle, 
shackle, and impede local law enforcement from applying for Federal 
funds to which they would otherwise be entitled.
  I think this is misguided. I think it is misdirected. For those of us 
who are very concerned about the issues of protecting our borders, we 
understand we need to protect our borders, but we also need to protect 
our communities. One of the ways we protect our communities is to let 
law enforcement apply for Federal funds for a variety of things, from 
cops on the beat, which they wouldn't be able to get; Byrne grant money 
for technology or bulletproof vests, they wouldn't be able to get it; 
violence against women funds, they wouldn't be able to get that. I 
think the Vitter amendment is misguided and misdirected. We should 
defeat it.
  I 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. 3256, As Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are making great progress. We have 
some amendments we wish to clear.
  I call up amendment No. 3256, as modified, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending and will be so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3256), as modified, is as follows:


                    amendment no. 3256, as modified

       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

[[Page 27097]]

     years, $110,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That within 30 
     days after the date of enactment of this section the Attorney 
     General shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a report 
     specifying the amount of each recission made pursuant to this 
     section.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3256), 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. 3310

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment 3310 for myself and 
Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself and 
     Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 3310.

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

      (Purpose: To provide for certain public-private competition 
                             requirements)

       At the end of title V, add the following:
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for a public-
     private competition conducted under Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-76 or to convert a function performed by 
     Federal employees to private sector performance without such 
     a competition unless a representative designated by a 
     majority of the employees engaged in the performance of the 
     activity or function for which the public-private competition 
     is conducted or which is to be converted without such a 
     competition is treated as an interested party with respect to 
     such competition or decision to convert to private sector 
     performance for purposes of subchapter V of chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3310) 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. 3239

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3239 by Senator 
Kennedy and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3239.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To clarify that student loan repayment assistance does not 
violate section 209 of title 18, United States Code relating to Federal 
                                salary)

       On page 70, after line 10, insert the following:
       SEC. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     public or private institution of higher education may offer 
     or provide an officer or employee of any branch of the United 
     States Government or of the District of Columbia, who is a 
     current or former student of such institution, financial 
     assistance for the purpose of repaying a student loan or 
     forbearance of student loan repayment, and an officer or 
     employee of any branch of the United States Government or of 
     the District of Columbia may seek or receive such assistance 
     or forbearance.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3239) 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are making great progress. Our staffs 
are going to be working through the night. We have about 36 amendments 
pending; 10 on the Democratic side, about 26 on the Republican side. We 
know the staffs are working well after 7. This is a good time to come 
over and work with us. We hope tomorrow morning we will be able to have 
some votes and also further progress. It is the intention of the 
majority leader and the Republican leader to finish this bill tomorrow, 
even if we have to work through the night. The best way not to work 
through the night tomorrow night is to work through the night tonight. 
So come over, help clear up some of these amendments. It would be a 
great help.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________