[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27210-27239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now, at 
2:15, Senator Murray of Washington State be recognized for up to 7 
minutes; that following those remarks there be 30 minutes of debate 
with respect to the Thune amendment, No. 3317, with the time equally 
divided and controlled between Senators Thune and Harkin or their 
designees, that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote, and that the vote in relation to this amendment occur upon the 
disposition of the Ensign amendment No. 3295, with 2 minutes of debate 
prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence the 
vote time be limited to 10 minutes each.

[[Page 27211]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 3214 Withdrawn

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 3214 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are few bills that we deal with in 
Washington, DC, that are more critical to the safety and well-being of 
our communities than the bill we are considering on the floor today. 
This legislation is going to help fund Federal law enforcement and 
justice programs that are absolutely essential if we are going to keep 
our neighborhoods safe, keep our justice system strong, and make sure 
our communities are healthy. At a time when our budgets are very tight 
and our needs are very great, I believe this bill invests in the right 
priorities. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their 
leadership and their very hard work to put this bill together.
  But as all of us in this Chamber know, despite their hard work and 
leadership at their subcommittee to make a sound investment in the 
health of our communities, the President has said he will veto this 
bill. According to the administration, the additional funding in this 
bill is ``irresponsible and excessive.''
  That is very hard to fathom when this administration is asking for 
over $190 billion in emergency appropriations to fight the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan for 1 year. While this President easily is spending our 
money overseas, local communities in my home State and around the 
country are going without the money they need for very critical 
programs.
  The increases this legislation calls for are a fraction of what this 
President spends on the wars in a year. The money in this bill will go 
to revitalize programs that have been overlooked by this 
administration. My home State, for example, is experiencing a dangerous 
shortage of FBI agents who do essential work to ensure that we prevent 
another terrorist attack at home and who perform critical law 
enforcement duties. That shortage is one example of how this President 
mixed up the Nation's priorities. But this bill does make a small step 
toward fixing some of those years of problems.
  In my home State, the lack of FBI agents for critical law enforcement 
needs has been a serious concern for some time, but the urgency of this 
situation was driven home recently in a series of articles by the 
Seattle Post- Intelligencer. The paper's first article noted that since 
9/11:

     the White House and the Justice Department have failed to 
     replace at least 2,400 agents, transferred from law 
     enforcement to counterterrorism, leaving far fewer agents on 
     the trail of identity thieves, con-artists, hate mongers and 
     other criminals.

  The article I referred to found that Washington State has a mere 2.1 
FBI agents for every 100,000 residents. That is nearly half the 
national average.
  This past week, I met with police chiefs and sheriffs from across my 
State, and they agreed this shift has had a real impact on State and 
local law enforcement. One police chief told me the FBI had virtually 
disappeared from white collar crime investigations. A sheriff told me 
the local law enforcement now investigates and prosecutes over 90 
percent of all bank robberies, even though this has traditionally been 
a FBI responsibility.
  Another police chief told me the FBI does not have the law 
enforcement resources to adequately staff antigang task forces, even as 
the gang presence and gang-related crime increases in our communities.
  All of these sheriffs and police chiefs had nothing but praise for 
the essential work that FBI agents perform in their communities. But 
even as the FBI focuses on counterterrorism, they ask that it not 
abandon law enforcement. The Seattle FBI field office has remained 
understaffed even for counterterrorism agents. That is especially 
troubling because Washington State's industry-leading companies, 
international seaports, and important military facilities make it a 
prime target for a terrorist attack. Three years from now, thousands of 
people are going to travel through my home State to attend the 2010 
Vancouver Winter Olympics. We have to be prepared for the worst. 
Currently, Washington State ranks 35th in per capita FBI agents. 
Clearly, that makes no sense.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for working with me on 
this issue; specifically an amendment that would end this disconnect 
and ensure we are placing our FBI agents where they can best protect 
our communities. It will also get the FBI to tell us how it intends to 
distribute its resources.
  That amendment is the first step toward ensuring that the FBI's 
priorities are in sync with our country's security needs and its own 
stated priorities. I commend Senator Mikulski for her recognition of 
that need. Her work to include additional funding for the FBI in this 
bill is a very good first step. The next step is to increase funding to 
hire, train, and place new FBI agents throughout the country that will 
help to ease the burden the FBI has had to bear since 9/11 changed its 
mission.
  But I think we all know more funding is needed. Unfortunately, if 
this President believes that increasing our FBI budget is irresponsible 
and excessive and plans to veto this bill, we will not be able to make 
the necessary investments today that will make our country more secure 
tomorrow.
  While Federal agents are critically important to maintaining the 
security of our country, we all know that State and local law 
enforcement are the real guardians for our communities. In this post-9/
11 world, we have asked them to place counterterrorism at the top of 
their priorities.
  But criminals have not stopped abusing children or robbing stores or 
dealing drugs. The local police have been told they need to do more 
with less, but we have reached a point today where we simply cannot ask 
them to do more without help.
  A recent FBI crime report showed that after a decade of declines, 
violent crime is now rising for the second straight year. We have to 
make sure it doesn't rise again. This bill restores funding for our 
State and local law enforcement to nearly $2.7 billion and fills a 
major gap, after the President cut its budget in half. This will also 
provide $1.4 billion for State and local law enforcement grants, 
including $550 million for COPS grants, and over $100 million for Byrne 
grants. These funds are critically important and they support antidrug 
and antigang task forces around the country.
  They fund communications equipment that helps our police and our 
emergency response teams talk to each other, something we all know is 
desperately needed in all our communities.
  They fund critical programs to deal with the spread of 
methamphetamine, and police chiefs and sheriffs have consistently told 
me these grants were absolutely essential to their ability to protect 
our communities. Unfortunately, as I said, we have heard the President 
say he is going to veto this legislation. This bill addresses critical 
priorities across our country and I urge all my colleagues to support 
the bill and send the President a message from our constituents at home 
that he is taking our country's safety and economic well-being in the 
wrong direction and that we need to change focus and give our 
communities what they need to be safe and sound and secure.
  This bill also addresses vital commercial and economic interests 
across the Nation.
  In my home State, that means helping to ensure a healthy, sustainable 
salmon population. In Washington State, healthy salmon mean a healthy 
economy. That's why I am thankful that this bill includes $90 million 
in funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. This money 
will help support our State's coordinated effort to restore salmon runs 
and preserve a way of life in the Pacific Northwest.
  When I talk with leaders in my home State about the need to restore 
our salmon populations, they call it critical.

[[Page 27212]]

  When I go home and discuss with law enforcement officials, experts 
and the media, about the need to increase the number of FBI agents, 
they say it is an urgent problem.
  When I talk to local police and sheriffs about the need for COPS and 
Byrne grants, they say these grants are crucial to the security and 
safety of our communities.
  Yet when I return to Washington, DC, I am told by this President that 
the money that is so desperately needed at home is ``irresponsible and 
excessive.''
  It could not be clearer that this Administration is out of step with 
the priorities of the people of State and the people of this country.
  We have presented the President a measured, responsible bill to 
bolster our security and build our economy, and I understand he has 
decided to reject it.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and send the President 
a message from our constituents at home: That he is taking our 
country's safety and economic well-being in the wrong direction, and 
that we need to change focus and give our communities what they need to 
be safe, and sound, and secure.


                           Amendment No. 3317

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 3317, offered by the Senator from 
South Dakota, Mr. Thune, equally divided and controlled by the Senator 
from South Dakota and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  Who seeks time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am hear to speak in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. The amendment he 
offered would reduce the vital legal assistance to our most vulnerable 
citizens, low-income Americans who need help with their most critical 
legal needs.
  First of all, I wish to say I am a strong supporter of the bill 
before us. The President proposed drastic cuts in funding for State and 
local law enforcement, but the bill provides a total of $2.6 billion 
for State and local law enforcement which is about $1.5 billion above 
the President's request. The President's budget also proposed to reduce 
the number of Federal law enforcement agents working to combat violent 
crime, but this bill rejects that cut, as well as lifting the hiring 
freeze on DEA agents.
  I wish to point out something else. The bill further provides $1.7 
billion for U.S. attorneys, $92 million more than last year, and it 
directly addresses Native American needs. The bill provides $35 million 
for tribal law enforcement efforts. The bill further provides $1 
million in research on violence against Native American women.
  I know Senators Mikulski and Shelby did their best to provide 
additional resources, especially given the severe budget constraints we 
face, but the answer to the problems that Native Americans have with 
domestic violence and violent crime is not to deprive them and other 
poor citizens of our country of basic legal services. That is what the 
Thune amendment does. Senator Thune is putting more money into the U.S. 
attorneys to combat violent crime, but he is taking it out of Legal 
Services. That tradeoff is wrong and I encourage my colleagues to 
reject the Thune amendment and support the level of funding provided in 
the bill.
  Let me take a minute to explain why the increase in funding for Legal 
Services is so important. In 1996, Legal Services took a drastic cut in 
funding by the Congress. It went from $415 million to $278 million. It 
was almost cut in half. We have been trying to get the funding back up 
since that time. I point out if at that time, from 1995 to now, we had 
kept pace with inflation, Legal Services would currently be funded at 
about $566 million. This bill gets it up to $390 million, so we are not 
even back up to where we were in 1995. As I said, the Thune amendment 
cuts $20 million out of the increase provided in this bill and gives it 
to U.S. attorneys. But I also pointed out, the U.S. attorneys already 
got a $92 million increase in the bill, for $1.7 billion in total 
funding.
  Of course, it is not just Native Americans but a wide range of low-
income Americans including, in recent years, victims of Hurricane 
Katrina and even victims of 9/11, who utilize legal services. We have 
all read in recent months about the vast increase in the number of 
people losing their homes because of foreclosures and the scandal in 
the subprime lending market. Many of these people are low income, and 
they are going to need help from Legal Services because they will not 
be able to afford an attorney.
  Again, make no mistake, even under this bill as it is, Legal Services 
is not able to serve the legal needs of all low-income Americans. For 
example, 50 percent of eligible applicants requesting legal assistance 
from the Legal Services Corporation grantees are turned away because of 
lack of funding. Keep in mind that, in order to be eligible for Legal 
Services, you have to be at or below 125 percent of poverty level. That 
is an income of $25,000 a year for a family of four. That means right 
now we are turning away half of the families earning less than $25,000 
a year who need legal help. In some parts of the country, it is even 
higher. In Wisconsin, 80 percent of poor households who face legal 
problems do so without an attorney.
  In California, 66 percent; in Nebraska, 86 percent; in Utah, 87 
percent; in New Mexico, 80 percent. On and on. Those are the percentage 
of low-income people in those States who face a legal problem yet do 
not get any help.
  With so many people going unserved, every cent is crucial. The 
adoption of the Thune amendment would only result in furthering the 
justice gap in this country and in many cases hurt the very people the 
Senator from South Dakota wishes to help, Native Americans.
  The clients of Legal Services Corporation funded programs are the 
most vulnerable among us, and many of them are Native Americans. Since 
2001, 2.8 percent of all of the appropriations going to Legal Services 
has gone to meet the legal needs of disadvantaged Native Americans in 
this country. That means that under this bill about $10.4 million would 
go to Native American legal services. That includes South Dakota. In 
many of these States like South Dakota, a majority of legal services 
goes to serve Native American populations. In fact, in 2006, fully 67 
percent of the clients served by civil legal services in South Dakota 
were Native Americans--67 percent. By taking money from Legal Services, 
you are hurting the very people who need legal help, including many of 
our Native Americans.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for a 
question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator's presentation. 
I have indicated to my colleague from South Dakota that I share his 
instinct and we need better law enforcement on Indian reservations. I 
do not think there is any question about it.
  I appreciate the fact that Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby added 
back funds that had been eliminated in the President's budget. But we 
have a long way to go and we have talked about that here. The instinct 
is right to try to provide more funding so we are able to deal with 
those issues.
  I held a hearing last week. A report shows that 34 percent of Indian 
women will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That is 
unbelievable. We have serious law enforcement problems.
  But I must vote against this amendment for the following reason: I 
cannot support an amendment, even though it adds money we need, that we 
will pay for by eliminating--by reducing funding for legal services, 
precisely because, as the Senator from Iowa says, legal services are 
the access to the legal system for low-income folks. It is the only 
opportunity they have, in many cases, for them to access the legal 
system.
  That budget has been cut, and cut repeatedly. Now we are trying to 
add some back. To cut it now would be the wrong thing.

[[Page 27213]]

  I appreciate the Senator yielding to me. I am very interested, I know 
the Senator from Iowa is very interested, in working with Senator Thune 
and others, Senators Shelby and Mikulski. I have talked to them to try 
to find ways to add back to these accounts in the future. We must do 
that. It has been partially restored in some of these areas by Senators 
Mikulski and Shelby.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing me to weigh in. I say I 
certainly support his presentation. I support the instinct of the 
Senator from South Dakota in wanting to try to improve this area of 
funding. But we cannot do it by taking away from such important funding 
as Legal Services.
  Mr. HARKIN. I also appreciate the efforts of the Senator from South 
Dakota. Again, if you are asking whether I have any problems with where 
the Senator from South Dakota wants to provide additional funding, no, 
I do not. I have problems with where we are taking it from. That is my 
basic problem, because all of the data and all of the testimony tells 
us that Legal Services are helping the very people we are talking 
about, especially women who are victims of domestic violence.
  Because, a lot of times, Legal Services attorneys are handling family 
law matters. But before they get to the prosecutorial level, for 
example, there are things that can be worked out. Individuals have a 
lawyer--for example, domestic violence restraining orders, separation 
agreements, or child custody arrangements, those types of things, which 
are civil matters. U.S. attorneys do not handle that. That is what 
Legal Services does.
  The incidence of violence toward Native American women is tragic. As 
the Senator from South Dakota pointed out in his presentation earlier, 
he said Native American women are seven times more likely to be victims 
of domestic violence than other women. That is what the Senator from 
North Dakota also just told us.
  But, again, it is precisely these citizens whom Legal Services 
Corporation-funded programs assist. Three out of four clients of Legal 
Services are women--three out of four.
  Legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of the top 
priorities in their caseloads. Recent studies have shown that the only 
public service that reduces domestic abuse in the long term is women's 
access to legal aid, the very assistance this amendment would 
drastically curtail. So legal services does make a big difference.
  As I said, it is not just Native Americans I am talking about. Legal 
Services is still helping victims of 9/11, flood victims, Katrina 
victims. Now we have a whole new group of people accessing Legal 
Services. I am almost embarrassed to say this. There is another group 
we now see accessing Legal Services in a big way. Do you know who they 
are? Our soldiers and their families. Our soldiers and their families, 
because some of these enlistees who are privates and below do not get 
enough money. They may have problems, separations. They have been gone 
a long time. There are family problems. They do not have enough money 
to hire an attorney. Their spouses might not. So they are accessing 
Legal Services. This amendment would say: No, we are going to cut back 
on that. So, again, I think it is important for us to keep this in 
mind.
  I know the Senator from South Dakota had mentioned the recent 
management problems at Legal Services headquarters. Believe me, no one 
was more upset than this Senator when the reports came out a year ago, 
first with the IG investigation and then GAO report. I say that because 
I started my life after law school as a Legal Services attorney. That 
is what I did. I know that every cent in the field counts. So if they 
are wasting money up here in Washington with chauffeured limousines and 
fancy hotels and all of that kind of stuff, it makes my blood boil, 
because I know what the Legal Services attorneys in the field are 
living with, and they are pinching pennies. They are not paid a lot.
  That is why I was glad, in the education bill that passed earlier, we 
included Legal Services lawyers as those who would have their loans 
repaid if they stayed and became Legal Services attorneys.
  Again, I share with the Senator from South Dakota and others my total 
abhorrence of what was going on in the hierarchy. I will say this: The 
GAO recommended a number of things for Legal Services to do to address 
these problems that are now being implemented, in terms of the board 
structure and other important oversight protections. Why it was not 
done before, I do not know. There is no excuse for it. There is 
absolutely no excuse for it. But I can say that the board is now 
implementing the suggestions and the recommendations of the GAO. I made 
it very clear as a long-time supporter of the Legal Services 
Corporation, I made it very clear to management that they needed to act 
immediately to address the GAO recommendations. I know both Senator 
Shelby and Senator Mikulski have said the same thing to LSC. So LSC 
management knows that people here are watching. I know they are acting 
to address it. Their board of directors has publicly accepted all of 
GAO's recommendations. They have begun their implementation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Legal Services Corporation's response to GAO which outlines the 
steps they are taking to ensure better management at headquarters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Comments From the Legal Services Corporation

                                                    July 31, 2007.
     Jeanette M. Franzel,
     Director, Financial Management and Assurance, Government 
         Accountability Office,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Franzel: Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
     written comments on the Government Accountability Office 
     (GAO) draft report entitled Legal Services Corporation--
     Governance and Accountability Practices Need To Be Modernized 
     and Strengthened. This is Management's response to your draft 
     report. The Board of Directors is responding separately.
       We are pleased with your findings that LSC ``has stronger 
     federal accountability requirements than many nonprofit 
     corporations'' and that LSC Board members ``demonstrated 
     active involvement through their strong board meeting 
     attendance and participation in LSC oversight.'' We intend to 
     build on this strong base of accountability and oversight as 
     we respond to the recommendations for executive action which 
     you have made. We fully accept three of your recommendations 
     and we are committed to further action in the spirit of the 
     fourth recommendation.
       Regarding the appropriate financial reporting standard for 
     LSC, we are reviewing the Government Accounting Standards 
     Board standards, and we expect to complete our evaluation by 
     the end of October 2007.
       Regarding a Continuity of Operations Plan program, LSC has 
     adopted elements of a program, as noted in your draft report, 
     and we expect to complete our comprehensive program during 
     2008.
       Regarding a code of conduct, we have established a staff 
     task force to develop proposals for an LSC compliance 
     program, which will include a comprehensive code of conduct. 
     Our goal is to have recommendations to the Board of Directors 
     by the January 2008 Board meeting.
       Regarding a risk management program, we are committed to 
     improving the risk management program at LSC. We note that 
     LSC has managed its risks well over the past 33 years. We 
     will review and implement those additional program elements 
     that are desirable and appropriate for an organization of our 
     size.
       We recommend that several clarifications be made to your 
     draft report narrative to insure its overall accuracy. In 
     discussing the accountability of LSC for the management of 
     its federal appropriations, the draft report does not address 
     the existence of congressional oversight. LSC has both 
     authorizing and appropriations committees in the House and 
     the Senate, and LSC is subject to regular oversight from 
     these committees. LSC has been the subject of appropriations 
     and oversight hearings five times in the past three years. 
     LSC staff meet regularly with both Members and congressional 
     staff to discuss ongoing operations.
       In discussing LSC's whistleblower protections, the draft 
     report does not acknowledge that LSC has a whistleblower 
     protection statement in its Employee Handbook. This 
     protection for those who complain to the Office of Inspector 
     General (OIG) has been in place at LSC for almost 20 years.
       The draft report references potential conflicts of interest 
     with respect to LSC's Acting Special Counsels. All of the 
     relevant information relating to the Acting Special

[[Page 27214]]

     Counsels was provided to the OIG. The OIG made no findings of 
     any conflict of interest with respect to the Acting Special 
     Counsels, and no report of any potential conflicts of 
     interest exists. LSC has been and remains diligent in its 
     ethical obligation to avoid any conflicts of interest. Since 
     the draft report itself makes no finding by GAO of potential 
     conflicts of interest, the placement of this reference in the 
     ``What GAO Found'' section (see Highlights page) is 
     particularly troublesome.
       Finally, while we recognize that your recommendations of 
     matters for congressional consideration are not made to LSC, 
     we feel compelled to observe that LSC's existing statutory 
     framework is appropriate and has served very well the 
     purposes which Congress intended, as described in the 
     appendices to the draft report which explain the rationale 
     for establishing LSC as a non-profit corporation. Should 
     there be a desire to apply some additional management 
     requirements to LSC, that can be accomplished without 
     modifying the nonprofit corporation framework which Congress 
     enacted. To change the framework of LSC to that of a 
     government corporation or federal agency would subject the 
     mission of providing civil legal assistance to poor people to 
     the kind of political pressure and operational controls which 
     Congress wisely sought to avoid in 1974.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the draft 
     report. This has been a helpful and constructive process for 
     us. We welcome your recommendations for executive action.
           Sincerely,
                                               Helaine M. Barnett,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Regardless of what we may think about the management of 
Legal Services, and what the board was or was not doing, asleep at the 
switch, it is important to note that this amendment would not impact 
management. Only $13 million of the $390 million appropriated in the 
bill goes for management and administration. That account has not 
received a single penny increase in the funding, thanks to Senator 
Shelby and thanks to Senator Mikulski. I know this because I worked 
with them and I championed the increase included in the bill, but to 
ensure that the money went where it was needed, to the programs in the 
field and not to management here in Washington.
  Senator Thune's amendment, in taking this money out of Legal 
Services, may talk about the management, but none of the increase we 
put in here goes to management. It all goes to the field operations. 
Those are the people who need it the most.
  Again, I echo what my friend from North Dakota said. I think the 
thrust of what Senator Thune is trying to do is laudable. Obviously we 
do have a problem with domestic violence and abuse of Native American 
women. Obviously this needs to be prosecuted. I would say before that 
step, though, we need to make sure we have legal services available to 
them, so that we cut down on the incidence of domestic abuse and 
domestic violence. For that reason I would oppose the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, amendment No. 3317 I submitted last night. 
I spoke to it at that point, but I wish to again make some comments 
with regard to the amendment and the need that exists in the Indian 
country for this additional funding.
  I appreciate the passion of my friend from Iowa for Legal Services 
Corporation and support of that organization. But I would simply say 
that once again, these appropriations bills are forcing us to make 
decisions about what our priorities need to be.
  This debate is about choosing priorities. I also say to my friend 
from Iowa that we are not talking about cutting Legal Services 
Corporation over the level they were at last year. They were at $348 
million in fiscal year 2007. My amendment would still allow a $22 
million increase over last year's level. It would fund them at $370 
million instead of the $390 million that is included in the base bill. 
So you are still talking about a 6.3-percent increase in funding for 
the Legal Services Corporation, so they can continue to do the work 
they need to do to fulfill their obligations to the American public and 
the American taxpayers. But what this simply does is say we have a very 
desperate need in Indian country, and this $20 million could go to very 
good use in helping us combat violent crime on our reservations.
  I guess the question we come down to in these debates on 
appropriations--and particularly with regard to this amendment--is: 
Should we provide more badly needed funding to fight violent crime in 
Indian country or should we put additional funds into an organization 
that has engaged, according to the GAO and the inspector general, in 
wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by providing what would be a 
substantial increase above the President's recommendation of $311 
million and, as I said before, an increase of $42 million over the $348 
million that Legal Services Corporation received in last year's 
appropriations bill?
  This bill, the underlying base bill, provides $390 million to Legal 
Services Corporation. It is a program that has not been reauthorized 
since 1980. That is a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated 
for the Legal Services Corporation in fiscal year 2007, and a 20-
percent increase over the recommendations that were made earlier this 
year in the administration's budget. That substantial increase comes at 
a time when the Legal Services Corporation has faced very serious 
questions about its management and expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
  The GAO and the Office of Inspector General within the Legal Services 
Corporation clearly lay out the management and waste that has been 
going on in the LSC. As I said, my amendment is a modest decrease in 
the amount of spending that is reflected in the underlying bill. 
Instead of a $40 million increase, the Legal Services Corporation would 
still receive a substantial increase of $20 million under my amendment.
  Again, I would say that if you look at the GAO report, it is not some 
dated thing. This is August of 2007. The GAO in their report, entitled 
``Legal Services Corporation: Governance and Accountability Practices 
Need to be Modernized and Strengthened,'' noted a dozen officers and 
employees of the Legal Services Corporation have received compensation 
in excess of the statutory compensation limitation. According to the 
GAO and outside legal counsel, they issued an opinion last May 
concluding that LSC had not complied with the statutory limitation on 
the rate of compensation. The GAO agreed with that conclusion, and went 
on to state that: Without a properly designed and implemented end 
process for overseeing compensation, LSC remains at risk of not 
complying with related laws and regulations and engaging in imprudent 
management practices.
  Now, as my friend from Iowa has noted, they are responding, as 
rightly they should, to address those things. But I think the question 
is, do you want to reward, with a 12-percent increase, a significant 
increase over fiscal year 2007, that kind of behavior?
  We have an opportunity here again to set priorities. In my view, we 
have a very serious priority that needs to be dealt with on our Indian 
reservations in this country, which has been pointed out in any number 
of different stories and articles.
  I have lots of personal examples I can offer from people who actually 
live on reservations who work in the education system. I have a letter 
from a superintendent from a reservation school who says: We have 1 
school resource officer in our school system who is certified as a law 
enforcement officer. However, on this particular reservation, we have a 
total of seven BIA policemen to patrol 2.2 million acres of 
reservation. The response time by the BIA police department can be 
hours for our residents on the reservation or typically result in no 
response at all.
  If you look at the way these cases are prosecuted on the reservation, 
I have another letter from a constituent who lives out there who says:

       In some of these situations the people committing the 
     criminal activities have been caught. They have been sent to 
     jail, released and [are] back on the street committing more 
     crimes, sometimes within 24 hours of the last crime.

  This principal in his letter talked about what is becoming a very 
deep endemic problem on reservations; that is, the increased presence 
of organized gangs, violence, and drugs.

[[Page 27215]]

  There are lots of anecdotal examples I could share of the need for 
additional law enforcement presence. I cosponsored, along with Senator 
Dorgan, an amendment earlier on this bill that would increase the 
number of law enforcement personnel who would be on the reservations to 
address what is the issue of actually apprehending people when they 
commit crimes. What my amendment does is couples with that the other 
aspect, and that is making sure that when people are apprehended for 
committing these types of crimes, they go on to get prosecuted.
  What is amazing is, if you look at the rate of prosecution on Indian 
reservations and how it compares with prosecutions elsewhere--there was 
an article recently in the Wall Street Journal that said that based on 
Justice Department data, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred 
to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted. That compares with 56 percent for 
all other cases. It goes on to say that one of the reasons those cases 
don't get prosecuted in Indian country is because Federal prosecutors 
have long distances involved, a lack of resources, and the cost of 
hauling witnesses and defendants to Federal court. As a consequence, a 
lot of cases are not being dealt with.
  The U.S. attorney who deals with this in a very admirable way in my 
State of South Dakota suffers from a lack of resources to do the work 
that is necessary to make sure that crimes that are committed on the 
reservation are dealt with, and dealt with in an expeditious way.
  If you look at the data--this is Justice Department data from 1992 to 
2001--the average rate of violent crime among American Indians was 2\1/
2\ times the national rate. In fact, according to one report in the 
Indian Country Today newspaper, Native American women are seven times 
more likely to be the victim of domestic violence than are other women, 
and more than 60 percent of Indian women will be victims of violent 
assault during their lifetime.
  Senator Dorgan was on the Senate floor yesterday discussing this 
issue. He noted that one-third of Indian women will be raped or 
sexually assaulted during their lifetime. This is unacceptable. This 
has to stop.
  What we are simply saying with this amendment is, here is a way to 
address the issue. Again, we need more law enforcement personnel on the 
reservations, which this bill will attempt to address, as will an 
amendment that was offered earlier by Senator Dorgan. I cosponsored an 
amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, the meth hot spots legislation, 
that would allow the cops made available under that legislation to be 
used by Indian reservations. But it is important that we get at the 
issue of making sure our U.S. attorneys are in a position to be able to 
prosecute when violent crimes are committed in Indian country. These 
statistics are stunning, when you look at the number of Native American 
women who are subject to these types of violent crimes--in many cases, 
sexual assault--that go unprosecuted because of a lack of resources to 
the Justice Department so U.S. attorneys can bring those cases in 
court.
  I again come back to the basic premise of the amendment. It does 
increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the underlying 
bill does. The base bill increases it to $390 million from the $348 
million level in fiscal year 2007. The administration budget actually 
recommended $311 million. So $311 to $390 million is about a 20-percent 
increase. That was over the administration's budget. It is about 12 
percent in the base bill over the fiscal year 2007 level from $348 
million to $390 million. What my amendment does is pares back the size 
of that increase by $20 million. So it will now go from $348 million in 
fiscal year 2007 to $370 million in fiscal year 2008. That is a better 
than 6-percent increase. So we are not taking away anything from Legal 
Services Corporation or their ability to do their job. We are simply 
saying a part of that substantial increase, coming at a time when the 
Legal Services Corporation is under tremendous scrutiny and criticism 
from the Government/Accountabiilty Office, as well as from their own 
inspector general, it makes sense, in my view, to take those resources, 
those $20 million out of that particular account, apply that to giving 
the U.S. attorneys the resources they need to combat violent crime on 
our Indian reservations.
  There isn't anything that works if you don't have a secure, safe 
environment. Public safety is the most important responsibility we 
have. Our Indian reservations today are suffering from a tremendous 
lack of enforcement of laws, a failure on the part of our Government to 
respond to providing security. I have talked with school 
superintendents and principals whose children cannot learn when they 
don't have a safe learning environment. That is what we are dealing 
with today because of a lack of law enforcement personnel and a lack of 
capability on behalf of the U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes 
committed in Indian country so that those who perpetrate those crimes 
are not released and back out on the street to commit further crimes.
  It is a straightforward amendment: $20 million out of the Legal 
Services Corporation increase, a substantial increase still over what 
they received last year, and take that $20 million and apply it to a 
very desperate need that we have on our reservations to make sure we 
are doing our best to provide public safety so our young children in 
Indian country have the ability to learn, to get educated, to conduct 
their lives, and to create an opportunity where the economy in Indian 
country can grow and prosper as well. You can't do that absent public 
safety and security.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Up to 3 minutes has been reserved. Who seeks 
recognition?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond. Again, I want to read 
from the bill so it is clear in everyone's mind that none of the money 
the Senator from South Dakota is taking out of Legal Services will come 
from administration. The bill itself says, page 81: $372 million is for 
basic field programs, $13.8 million for management and administration--
exactly what they had last year.
  Again, we are not rewarding LSC management for being bad actors, nor 
are we rewarding the board for the poor oversight they provided. We are 
keeping the management and administration account to the same level it 
was funded at last year. So the money Senator Thune is proposing to cut 
will come from field operations.
  Secondly, there is a glass half full/half empty story about the 
increase in this bill for Legal Services. Over 11 years ago, this 
Congress cut Legal Services in half. Since that time, the number of 
people in poverty has grown. We have more poor people. Yet we still are 
not even at the level we were in 1995 for Legal Services. Imagine that. 
If we had kept pace with inflation from 1995 to now, Legal Services 
would be funded at the level of about $566 million. This bill only gets 
it back to $390 million. So we are not even where we were in 1995.
  Lastly, while I understand what the Senator from South Dakota is 
saying about violent crime in Indian country and on reservations, we 
are cognizant of that, but why take the money away from the very 
services helping our Native Americans. As I said, 67 percent of Legal 
Services money spent in South Dakota goes to Native Americans. I would 
submit that a lot of that goes to help prevent the kind of domestic 
violence that results in prosecutorial action later on. Think of it 
like preventive medicine. Better to have Legal Services there, access 
for poor Indians who want to come in who may have domestic problems, 
landlord-tenant problems, child custody problems, whatever, that may 
lead to some kind of domestic violence. Better to let them have access 
to Legal Services and take care of it that way before it blows up into 
a violent situation.
  I, again, hope Senators will reject the amendment of the Senator from 
South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in response to my colleague from Iowa, this

[[Page 27216]]

amendment doesn't take anything away from Legal Services Corporation. 
They received $348 million in fiscal year 2007. This base bill proposes 
to increase that by $42 million, or about 12 percent, to $390 million 
in 2008. This isn't taking away anything they currently have. In fact, 
under my amendment the Legal Services Corporation gets a 6.3-percent 
increase over fiscal year 2007. There is nothing being taken away from 
anybody. There is nothing they have today that is going to be taken 
away. They will see a 6.3-percent increase. What this does is shift 
money to what, in my view, is a higher priority, and that is the need 
we have in Indian country for making sure that we are doing a better 
job of prosecuting cases and enforcing the law. We have a serious 
problem.
  This is from the Justice Department: American Indians annually 
experience 7 sexual assaults per 1,000 residents compared with 3 per 
1,000 among African Americans and 2 per 1,000 among whites. The 
statistics are in front of us. We cannot afford to allow these 
conditions to continue to exist at a time when we have a lot of young 
people coming up on Indian reservations who need access to good 
education, need an opportunity to achieve their dreams. You just can't 
do that absent public safety. What we have today in Indian country is a 
very serious situation. For everybody who comes into my office, this is 
the issue that continues to recur that they share with me. We have to 
address it. I believe we have a responsibility to do that.
  This amendment does it in a responsible way, not by cutting anything 
for an organization from where it is today, but it simply reduces the 
increase that the Legal Services Corporation would get, from a 12-
percent increase over last year's level to a 6.3-percent increase over 
last year's level, which seems a fair way of going about this.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to do something 
about law enforcement and the crime problem that exists today on 
America's Indian reservations. In so doing, we will improve the quality 
of life for our citizens who live on America's reservations and 
hopefully provide a safer future for their children.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know the hour between 3 and 3:15 has not been 
designated for debate, but as the manager of the bill and also as a 
professionally trained social worker, I want to speak against the Thune 
amendment.
  What we want to acknowledge is the validity of the concerns to fund 
help for the Indian tribes. But let's go to the facts. Fact No. 1, the 
President's budget request eliminated dedicated funding for tribes. 
This very President, this very administration has eliminated dedicated 
funding for tribes. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, rejected 
that. It is true, we do need to help get those resources into Indian 
country. We do not doubt the validity of that. In response, we said no 
to the President eliminating dedicated funding, and yes to $83 million. 
This subcommittee will put in $83 million for tribal programs to fight 
crime, protect victims, and to help troubled tribal youth; $35 million 
for tribal law enforcement, for training, hiring, for equipment, for 
court improvement projects; $28 million for additional tribe 
assistance; $10 million for youth intervention programs; $6 million for 
domestic violence programs. We have said no to the President 
eliminating this, and yes to the $83 million. Even the way OMB counts, 
that is real money. The second thing is we should not pit one group of 
needy Americans against the needs of other Americans.
  Let's go to Legal Services. This agency was created in 1974, and it 
has been fighting for its existence ever since. But little by little 
over the years we made incremental improvements in its funding. 
However, in 1996 came a horrendous and Draconian cut. Legal Services 
endured a 50-percent cut in their funding. In 1980, the funding was 
$300 million. Remember what we are talking about now. In 2007 funds, we 
are talking about $390 million. If we had kept funding at the 1980 
levels, just with inflation, Legal Services would be funded at $757 
million.
  So guess what. Senator Mikulski, the Democrats take charge. We take a 
look at Legal Services and we say: We are concerned. We are concerned 
that for over 1 million people Legal Services helps, 1 million need to 
be turned away. Fifty percent of the people who come for legal services 
have to be turned away because of a lack of lawyers, paralegals, and 
other support staff.
  Let me say this: As a social worker--and, I might add, I am a dues-
paying National Association of Social Workers member. I was a foster 
care worker. I was a child abuse worker. I was an antipoverty program 
worker. I am still that kind of social worker, only now I fight it on 
the floor of the Senate rather than in the neighborhoods of Baltimore.
  As social workers, two of our best friends were our Legal Services 
lawyers and our school nurses. We could turn to them to have a team to 
help get families on the right track. We would turn to those Legal 
Services lawyers so that if a spouse was in a domestic violence 
situation, we could get the law enforcement help to them. We could get 
them through a divorce proceeding to get them on the right track, to 
give them a second chance, to get them moving.
  Often they were victims of predatory lending or other schemes and 
other scams. It was the Legal Services lawyers to whom we would turn to 
get that taken care of. Sometimes unscrupulous landlords would have 
them in lead-saturated houses. We could turn to our Legal Services 
lawyers and our public health nurses and we were able to turn lives 
around. Thank God for the Legal Services lawyers.
  Now, the Senator from South Dakota says this will not hurt anybody. 
You are not going after a corporation. We are eliminating lawyers and 
paralegals and the social support staff to help 1 million people. Darn 
right you are having an impact. You are not going after something 
called a corporation; you are going after our increases there.
  Now, we did not fund administrative costs. We did not kind of bloat 
up a bureaucracy. Our money is specifically focused on lawyers, 
paralegals, and the social support staff for a difference. So when we 
say let's take it from Legal Services to help the tribes, well, 70 
percent of the Legal Services population in South Dakota is Native 
American.
  So I would hope we are not pitting one group of needy Americans 
against another group of needy Americans. We hope you reject the Thune 
amendment, support the Mikulski-Shelby bipartisan bill that puts $83 
million in to help with tribal assistance. We are looking at how to 
deal with additional resources on the meth issues.
  Let's put Legal Services back on track. Let's help those lawyers. 
Let's help those paralegals. Let's help that social support staff work 
with people, families, and child services to turn lives around. One of 
the best ways to really help fight crime is in those early 
interventions we can do with families. So really, I ask you, with all 
the professional experience I ever had in these areas, let's stick with 
Legal Services.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence now 
commence at 3:30 p.m. today under the same conditions and limitations 
as previously ordered and that the time until then be equally divided 
between the managers or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BROWN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 27217]]

  The 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.


                           Amendment No. 3295

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in about 15 minutes we will be voting 
on a series of amendments, and I wish to comment now on one of them, 
the Ensign amendment No. 3295.
  I want my colleagues to know I oppose the Ensign amendment No. 3295. 
What the Senator from Nevada is proposing is to reduce the NASA funding 
in this bill by $150 million and to put it into something called the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  Again, we are pitting good ideas against each other. That is why you 
have to really rely upon the chairman and ranking member, who kind of 
strike a balance with this bill.
  In the CJS bill, we did want to fund the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program. We know how important it is because it reimbursed 
the States for detaining illegal immigrants. This is a priority for 
this subcommittee, and we provided $400 million to do that. We are very 
aware that State budgets are stretched thin, that they should not bear 
the cost of paying the bill for detaining illegal immigrants. We do not 
want to create another unfunded Federal mandate there. So working with 
my colleague on the other side of the aisle, we made sure there was 
$400 million in it. Now, we acknowledge that the Senator from Nevada 
would like to increase it. We would like to increase it as well. But 
already the President is threatening a veto because we restored the 
funding for the COPS Program.
  Now, the cut to NASA is not a benign cut. It would be a devastating 
blow to NASA. It would be a major setback to the exploration programs 
and a devastating blow to the science programs. It would harm our 
effort to do very important things, one of which is a key priority for 
funding the next-generation shuttle.
  The shuttle, as we now know it, will retire in 2010. It is getting 
older, it has fewer flights that it can continue, and we need to be 
returning to space with a new vehicle. It is the No. 1 priority, on a 
bipartisan basis, for Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby, 
Bill Nelson, and Barbara Mikulski, who kind have been the space 
Senators here. Also, it is the No. 1 priority for the administration, 
and it is the No. 1 priority for the director of NASA that we need not 
delay in getting ready for that vehicle that returns us to space.
  From 2010, for another 3 to 5 years, we will have no access in space. 
We are going to rely on the kindness of allies to go back. We cannot 
lose time or ground. Our national security and our national honor 
depend upon it. Also, this would have a tremendous impact on the state 
of science, which goes to major efforts in terms of better 
understanding our planet Earth, where we do suspect intelligent life, 
and also the impact of climate changes. It is wonderful that we win the 
Nobel Prize on climate change--and we support our former colleague, 
Vice President Gore--but we have to keep winning those. Remember, the 
Nobel Prize not only went to Gore but to the scientists studying this. 
Regardless how you feel about the climate crisis, I think we need sound 
science and sensible solutions. So please, while we are looking at how 
are we going to pay the bills for the detention of illegal aliens in 
State facilities, don't penalize NASA. That would be an incredible 
setback to national security, to national honor, to national 
innovation, and a key administration priority.
  So I hope that when the Ensign amendment No. 3295 comes up for a 
vote, my colleagues will join me in tabling this amendment.
  I cannot say enough about the cooperation of Senator Shelby and his 
staff and about finding a balance in this bill, because we had so many 
competing needs, and in each one we tried to strike the balance. We had 
the will, but we didn't quite have the wallet to do what we needed to 
do. But we certainly have made significant progress and went well 
beyond downpayments in meeting our responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 
3295 offered by the Senator from Nevada.
  This amendment seeks to take $150 million from NASA and will give it 
to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program--a program that is 
already $400 million dollars over the budget request of zero.
  At first glance, a reduction of $150 million from NASA's $17 billion 
budget would seem minimal.
  However, let's look at the facts. After debating this bill, it is 
clear that NASA is a priority for the Senate.
  We debated and added an additional $1 billion to NASA in order to 
partially compensate for the funding shortfall NASA has endured since 
the Columbia disaster. This funding will only cover one-third of the 
$2.7 billion needed to keep NASA on track.
  To cut funding will endanger NASA missions that will inform us about 
the world we live in, and cripple our ability to be competitive in 
space.
  We are in a space race. While we are the current leader in space, 
there are many countries that want to take our place and are 
aggressively moving forward to do so.
  The administration has articulated, and Congress has endorsed, a 
vision for exploration. The return of our astronauts to the Moon is a 
Priority and we have provided the funding to accomplish that goal.
  Now this funding is in jeopardy.
  And what are we jeopardizing our future for? The State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program--a program that was not requested by the 
administration, and currently is funded in this bill at $400 million.
  We are being asked to add $150 million to a program that barely 
touches many of our States. Since 2000, five States have received 77 
percent of the $2.8 billion in funding for this program.
  Let me say that again--77 percent, or $2.2 of the $2.8 billion, for 
this program since 2000 has gone to only 5 States.
  This can hardly be called a national program, although I'm sure it is 
an important program.
  Yet, our Nation's space program benefits the lives of every American. 
The work that NASA does, from encouraging students into science and 
engineering careers, to innovative technology advances, improve our 
quality of life. The forward and innovative thinking at NASA helps to 
ensure our Nation has the ability to compete, and lead, in the global 
economy.
  We are committed to keeping our leadership role in space.
  In order to do so, we must make the right investments in space at the 
right times. That time is now.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Ensign amendment.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There are 2 minutes remaining under the previous order.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I reserve 30 seconds for myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to oppose this 
amendment. What we have, thanks to the two Senators who are leading 
this bill, is emergency funding for NASA to replace the funds that NASA 
had to expend as a result of the destruction of the Space Shuttle 
Columbia. These are funds that normally would be provided, as they were 
over 2 decades ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger, 
out of emergency funds. Instead, this time, NASA has had to take it out 
of its hide, out of its own operating funds. Therefore, all the plans 
of what NASA is doing to complete the International Space Station, as 
well as prepare for the new vehicles, Orion and

[[Page 27218]]

Ares, in the stack called Constellation, in a program to take us into 
human orbit again and eventually to the Moon, as well as all the 
scientific research that is going on, it is all coming out of these 
funds instead of out of emergency funds.
  The 2 Senators have offered the leadership to make NASA whole. This 
little agency which is being starved of funds, they have restored these 
emergency funds. And now here comes Senator Ensign wanting to penalize 
NASA again.
  I understand my time is up, and I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3294

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate, equally divided and controlled, prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3294, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Ensign.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, on Ensign amendment No. 3294, I 
support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. We have 
arrived at a bipartisan solution. It is Ensign amendment No. 3295 that 
the Senators from Florida and Alabama and I oppose.
  So on Ensign amendment No. 3294, I urge support of this amendment and 
urge we go to a vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to Ensign 
amendment No. 3294. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 366 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3294) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think it is important we hear from the 
Senator from Nevada on this next amendment, which is an important one.


                           Amendment No. 3295

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3295 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Ensign.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment that 
would take $150 million out of the NASA budget. We know NASA has been 
increased by $1 billion over last year's budget, and we also increased 
this past week $1 billion in emergency funding. It is $150 million, not 
including the billion dollars in emergency funding over the President's 
request. We seek to help something that is always underfunded, and that 
is to help especially the southwestern States and their local law 
enforcement to combat criminals who are illegal aliens. There is a huge 
problem. They do not have the resources. So we took $150 million out of 
the NASA budget to put it toward programs to help combat not only 
illegal immigration but especially those who are here illegally and who 
are committing crimes. That is simply what this amendment does.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President and colleagues, I hope very much we 
will not adopt this amendment. We are already looking at a 5-year gap 
between 2010 when the shuttle goes out of existence and 2015 when the 
crew-returned vehicle comes online. That is a security risk for the 
United States. If we adopt this amendment, we are going to lengthen the 
time that America cannot put anyone in space. Russia can, China will 
probably be able to, India may be able to, but not America. That is a 
security risk I am not ready to take, and I hope my colleagues will 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I too oppose the Ensign amendment. We 
have met our responsibility to the State Criminal Alien Program. We 
have put $400 million in it. I believe the amendment is unnecessary.
  I oppose it, and I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 367 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith

[[Page 27219]]


     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Tester
     Thune
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion 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.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on rollcall Vote No. 367 I voted yea. It was 
my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have two very brief unanimous consent 
requests.
  On rollcall 367, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote 
``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 3317

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3317, offered by the Senator from South 
Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last year the Legal Services Corporation 
was funded at $348 million. This year the administration's budget 
proposed a funding level of $311 million. The base bill under 
consideration today funds the Legal Services Corporation at $390 
million, which would be a 12-percent increase over the appropriated 
level in fiscal year 2007. What my amendment does is simply takes $20 
million out of that increase. It still increases the Legal Services 
Corporation by 6.3 percent over fiscal year 2007 but takes $20 million 
of that proposed increase for the Legal Services Corporation and 
applies it to fighting violent crime on America's Indian reservations 
by increasing funding for our U.S. attorneys so they can prosecute 
crimes committed on Indian reservations.
  Around the country, 56 percent of crimes that are brought to U.S. 
Attorney's Offices end up being prosecuted. On Indian reservations that 
number is 30 percent. People on Indian reservations should not have to 
live in fear. Public safety is something for which we have 
responsibility. It is important we do something to address that. This 
amendment will move money toward fighting crime on Indian reservations 
to make it safer for people who live there.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, 
we vigorously oppose this amendment. We too acknowledge that we should 
help people who are victims of crime on Indian reservations. But the 
administration eliminated all funds to do that.
  The bipartisan agreement puts $83 million in for tribal programs to 
fight crime, protect victims, and help troubled tribal youth. What this 
amendment does is take money out of the first meaningful increase that 
Legal Services has had. This does not take money from something called 
a corporation, it takes it out of the lawyers, the paralegals, and the 
support staff who provide legal services to the poor in this country. 
In South Dakota, 70 percent of those are Native Americans.
  Senator Harkin and I oppose this moment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 368 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 368, I voted ``nay.'' It 
was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to change my vote, since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Vitter amendment, No. 3277, 
with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that 
the time from 5:30 to 6 be equally divided and controlled between 
Senators Mikulski and Vitter or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 3249

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up amendment No. 3249.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3249.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $30,000,000 for the Boys and 
  Girls Clubs of America and to provide a full offset for such amount)

       On page 52, line 5, strike ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,430,000,000''.

[[Page 27220]]

       On page 52, line 15, strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,000,000''.
       On page 70, after line 10, insert the following:
       Sec. _. Of the unobligated balances made available for the 
     Department of Justice in prior fiscal years, $30,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Provided, That within 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section the Attorney General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the amount 
     of each rescission made pursuant to this section.


                    Amendment No. 3249, as Modified

  Mr. LEAHY. I send to the desk a modification and ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 52, line 5, strike ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,415,000,000''.
       On page 52, line 15, strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert'' 
     $75,000,000''.
       On page 70, after line 10, insert the following:
       Sec__. Of the unobligated balances made available for the 
     Department of Justice in prior fiscal years, $15,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Provided, That within 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section the Attorney General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the amount 
     of each rescission made pursuant to this section.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I offer a modified amendment that will 
provide an additional $15 million for the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
America so the Clubs can continue to help our Nation's children become 
productive, law abiding teenagers and contributing adults.
  We have a responsibility to make sure that our children are safe and 
secure. I know firsthand how well Boys and Girls Clubs work and what 
topnotch organizations they are. When I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I 
was convinced of the great need for Boys and Girls Clubs because we 
rarely encountered children from these kinds of programs in criminal 
activity. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was 
such a big fan of the work of the Boys and Girls Clubs, that he asked 
me to help fund a club in his district rather than helping him secure 
funding for a couple more police officers.
  In Vermont, Boys and Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime 
and supporting our children. The first Club was established in 
Burlington 63 years ago. Now we have 6 clubs in Vermont and 25 other 
locations throughout the State managed by the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
America. These clubs serve well over 10,000 kids statewide. In a small 
State such as mine, that is a significant number.
  I had a terrific visit last month at the Boys and Girls Club of 
Burlington, VT, and was approached by parents, educators, law 
enforcement officers and others who told me: Keep doing this. It gives 
our children a chance to grow up free of drugs, gangs and crime. That 
is my ultimate proof. If these folks are asking for more clubs and more 
support, then we ought to do it.
  As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have 
pushed for more Federal funding for Boys and Girls Clubs. Since 1998, 
Congress has increased federal support for Boys and Girls Clubs from 
$20 million to $85 million. Due in large part to this increase in 
funding, there now exist more than 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50 
States serving almost 5 million young people.
  In 2004, Senator Hatch and I worked together to shepherd into law a 
reauthorization of Justice Department grants at $80 million for fiscal 
year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 2007, $90 million for fiscal 
year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 2009 and $100 million for fiscal 
year 2010 to Boys and Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional 
Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation.
  Because of these successes, I was both surprised and deeply 
disappointed to see that the President requested no funding in his 
budget for Boys and Girls Clubs for fiscal year 2008 in an effort to 
consolidate and cut grant funding in the Department of Justice. That 
request will leave thousands of children and their clubs behind. We 
cannot allow such a thing to happen. We seem to find an unlimited 
amount of money to send to Iraq, where half the time we cannot even 
find out what happened to the money after it went there. I would like 
to spend a little bit of that money in the United States to help 
protect our children. We owe it to them. This will do it.
  If we had a Boys and Girls Club in every community, prosecutors would 
have a lot less work to do because of the values that are instilled in 
children from the Boys and Girls Clubs. They deliver results and 
represent the best of what communities can do to improve the lives of 
their young people.
  Across the Nation, Boys and Girls Clubs are proven and growing 
successes in preventing crime and supporting our children. Our 
amendment will restore funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America 
to reach $75 million. It also provides an offset by rescinding $15 
million in unobligated balances from the Department of Justice in prior 
fiscal years. It would have no effect on budget authority.
  This is not a Democratic or Republican idea; it is just an idea that 
makes sense. It is also an idea that works. We all know instinctively 
that our Nation's strength and ultimate success lies with our children.
  I urge the Senate to adopt the Leahy amendment to provide an 
additional $15 million for the 2008 fiscal year for the Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America. Our greatest responsibility is to help children 
inhabit this century the best way possible and we can help do that by 
supporting the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Leahy-Hatch 
amendment which will increase funding for the Boys and Girls Club of 
America, BGCA. The Boys and Girls Club of America consists of more than 
4,000 neighborhood facilities that provide services for more than 4.8 
million young Americans each year. Many of the developmental programs 
that are offered increase and emphasize the education, leadership, and 
character of participating children. The amendment offered today will 
narrow the gap between the authorized and appropriated funds for the 
Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
  It is easy to see how important the Boys and Girls Clubs are to 
shaping the lives of at-risk youth. By creating an environment where 
America's children can learn and grow, Boys and Girls Clubs helps 
produce better students, better citizens, and stronger families. Boys 
and Girls Clubs are a vital part of communities across the Nation, and 
by continuing to help fund this organization, the more than 4 million 
youths served by BGCA will continue to have a place where they can find 
friendship, mentorship, and support.
  Congressional support for BGCA has resulted in support for 13 new 
club start-ups in Utah. Successes like this are being repeated in every 
other State across the country. At-risk children in public housing and 
public schools, on military bases and on Native American lands have 
come to know the Boys and Girls Clubs of America as a place where they 
can be themselves and escape the streets.
  The tremendous success stories of the BGCA program are abundant. 
These successes can be increased with the passage of this amendment. I 
fully endorse the amendment, and urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
working with the subcommittee. I know from firsthand experience how 
important Boys and Girls Clubs are in keeping our kids safe in 
neighborhoods and also doing the very important work that keeps them on 
the straight and narrow. Both the Senator from Alabama, my ranking 
member, and I would like to do more for Boys and Girls Clubs. We are 
more than willing to accept the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. 
It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I, therefore, urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3249), as modified, was agreed to.

[[Page 27221]]


  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside in order that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3313

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3313 pending at the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3313.

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

(Purpose: To set aside $75,000,000 of the funds appropriated under the 
heading State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance for activities that 
 support State and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to 
    assist the Federal Government's enforcement of immigration laws)

       On page 53, line 11, insert ``, and of which not less than 
     $75,000,000 shall be used by United States Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement for activities that support State and 
     local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to assist the 
     Federal Government's enforcement of immigration laws'' before 
     the semicolon at the end.

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I have just returned from North Carolina 
where this morning I attended a presentation by Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to the North Carolina Sheriffs Association. I heard today, 
as I have many times before, that ICE resources for enforcing our 
immigration laws are woefully underfunded. They tell me they are 
stretched much too thin, and they are asking for our help. As seen 
firsthand in parts of North Carolina, the programs carried out by ICE 
work, particularly where there are partnerships with local law 
enforcement. In North Carolina today we were announcing an exciting 
partnership between our 100 county sheriffs and ICE where tools will be 
made available to local law enforcement so they can help identify, 
apprehend, and remove illegal aliens who have self-identified 
themselves by committing crimes. But these programs that are so 
critical to enforcing our laws must have funding.
  This is the Senate's opportunity to act to make certain that these 
valuable programs are funded and our law enforcement professionals have 
the tools they need. My amendment would target $75 million in funds 
appropriated by the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to benefit 
local law enforcement agencies as they assist ICE in enforcing Federal 
immigration laws. When it comes to tackling this complex issue of 
immigration, an important first step must be addressing the criminal 
element and ensuring that people can feel safe in their homes and 
communities. We have all heard about families shattered when an illegal 
alien driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or engaged in 
gang-related activity kills a law-abiding citizen. Many tragedies can 
be prevented if we give our local law enforcement officials the tools 
and resources to identify and process illegal criminal aliens. 
Providing greater funding for ICE programs will demonstrate our 
commitment to helping local law enforcement officials secure the 
resources they need, and it is the right thing to do for all our 
communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, ordinarily I would wholeheartedly and 
enthusiastically agree with the Senator from North Carolina, but here I 
have to respectfully disagree, not with her intent but where she is 
getting the money. I rise to oppose this amendment because it would 
take $75 million from State and local law enforcement that has already 
been troubled and under siege and give it to the Department of Homeland 
Security, an agency that has its own appropriations.
  I acknowledge the work of North Carolina, what they are doing, the 
fact that they have a unique partnership that has been done. We 
acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that other law enforcement would 
also benefit. But she is talking about $75 million. The Department of 
Homeland Security received billions. The place for the Senator to have 
made this fight was when Homeland Security was on the floor, and she 
should have offered that as an amendment on Homeland Security and 
gotten it through an offset or gotten it in Homeland Security or gotten 
it by raising the Budget Act under a point of order.
  Let me tell you where we are. When we received the President's budget 
in February, I was horrified, as was my colleague. The COPS Program was 
eliminated. That is the program that actually puts money into the 
Federal checkbook to put cops on the street to fight violent crime. But 
it was eliminated.
  Under President Bill Clinton, who created the program--of course, 
Congress creates the programs, but working in partnership with the 
President when we did have the White House, we put on the streets of 
America 118,000 cops through that program, and we reduced violent crime 
by 10 percent. But in this President's budget it was eliminated.
  Then we saw another program called Byrne grants--not B-U-R-N, as if 
when you are injured in a fire, but B-Y-R-N-E, named after Edward 
Byrne, a police officer killed in the line of duty--it was President 
Bush's dad who created that program, again, with money going to local 
law enforcement to fight local problems, including sheriffs' 
departments.
  Now, the Senator from North Carolina is going to gut State and local 
law enforcement by taking $75 million out of it. We cannot do this. 
Violent crime in America is on the rise--murder, burglaries, rape, 
other things so despicable I do not want to speak about it on the 
Senate floor.
  When the Senator talks about her sheriffs, I have sheriffs too. But I 
am going to be one of the posse that helps them shoot straight. That 
means they need their resources that will come from State and local law 
enforcement grants we are going to provide for them to either add more 
police officers, have technology upgrades to maximize their efficiency 
and help them get real convictions, and have the kinds of things that 
will help them get the bulletproof vests they need, the other more 
advanced equipment that our rural communities--as the Presiding Officer 
from Colorado knows--do not have.
  So what we did in the Mikulski-Shelby bill is restore $1.5 billion so 
we could have cops on the beat, so we could have money to fund local 
law enforcement for technological upgrades, for the equipment they need 
such as bulletproof vests to protect themselves while they are busy 
helping us.
  We have to make sure they have those resources. I do not deny what 
the Senator is talking about, but I will say what she is trying to do 
right now would gut the local law enforcement program. She would have a 
Draconian impact on our ability to put cops on the beat and to also 
give them the equipment to protect themselves, the technology that is 
needed to extend their effectiveness and make sure the thin blue line 
does not get thinner.
  So I think this $75 million request is inappropriate. It is 
inappropriate not because of what she wants to accomplish, but it is 
inappropriate because she is taking money out of a Justice account and 
putting it in a Homeland Security account, when we had a Homeland 
Security bill and the Senator could have added it there. That was the 
place to make this fight.
  Now, we are afraid that no matter how well intentioned this amendment 
is--and I know it is very well intentioned and has a lot of 
intellectual

[[Page 27222]]

rigor behind it--it is not appropriate to take money out of State and 
local law enforcement and give it to Homeland Security, when they have 
their own whole subcommittee, and that was the place to make that 
fight.
  It is not about which committee. This is not about committees. But I 
am telling you, the Senator from Alabama and I have worked hard--really 
worked hard--to make sure we are helping our local law enforcement--our 
very first line of defense--with the resources they need with more 
officers and better equipment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to 
the Dole amendment occur at 5 p.m., with no amendment in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote and that the time until then be equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I simply wish to make the point that what I 
have suggested is ICE works at common purpose with SCAAP for money on 
the frontlines, where it is desperately needed by our law enforcement 
officials. This is State and local law enforcement. So I think they are 
working at common purpose. I wished to add that comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North 
Carolina, I am sorry, I was handling a procedural issue. Could you 
repeat what you said?
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I said what I have said earlier works at 
common purpose with SCAAP--the ICE funding--for money on the 
frontlines, where it is desperately needed by our law enforcement 
personnel. This is State and local law enforcement.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. But, Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from 
North Carolina, whom I worked with when she was at the Department of 
Labor as well as the Department of Transportation, along with other 
issues in our community--her support for the concern of battered women, 
homeless women is so well known--this is not SCAAP. This is not the 
program that helps pay State funds for the detention of detained 
illegal immigrants. This is taking real dollars in the Federal 
checkbook out of which local law enforcement can apply for the COPS and 
for the Byrne grants.
  So I have to continue my opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I think the intention of the Senator from 
North Carolina is good. I know she is concerned about border 
enforcement and everything that goes with it dealing with immigration. 
But that is the province of Homeland Security. We have an 
appropriations bill dealing with homeland security. I happen to serve, 
among others, on that committee too. But this bill deals with the 
Justice Department and related agencies.
  I do not think we should be taking money out of this bill to give to 
Homeland Security for some program or taking money out of Homeland 
Security to give to Justice. We have allocations, as the Presiding 
Officer sitting here knows.
  I think the Senator means well, but I think this is the wrong vehicle 
for what she is trying to do, and I oppose her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SHELBY. 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I oppose the Dole amendment No. 3313. 
I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 369 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3277

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now the Vitter 
amendment No. 3277. The time between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. will be 
equally divided.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as I look about, 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. VITTER. Madam 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. Madam President, I rise to strongly urge all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of Vitter 
amendment No. 3277. We will be voting on that amendment shortly.
  This is a commonsense, straightforward amendment, reasonable in 
nature, which is supported by the vast majority of the American people. 
It is supported because it makes good common sense. It says very simply 
that everyone at all levels of government should be part of the 
solution and should cooperate fully with Federal immigration 
enforcement officials and should not refuse to cooperate, refuse to 
give information to those officials trying to do a very difficult job, 
and in those cases where local jurisdictions do not properly cooperate 
with Federal officials, as is currently mandated by Federal law, then 
those local jurisdictions will not get COPS funds. It is pure and 
simple. This is present law. So we tell local and State jurisdictions:

[[Page 27223]]

Please follow present Federal law. And if you don't, don't expect to 
get money from the Federal Government, particularly in the area of COPS 
funding.
  Again, I think it is very important to make clear that we are not 
changing present Federal law with this amendment; we are simply trying 
to enforce it.
  In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act, and section 642(a) of that legislation, now over 10 
years old, is very clear:

       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.

  It couldn't be clearer, and it couldn't be simpler. That is present 
Federal law and has been for over 10 years--cooperate and share 
information. You cannot prohibit that basic, straightforward, 
reasonable sharing of information. Our Federal authorities have a very 
difficult job to do, and they can never get it done without reasonable 
minimal help from other law enforcement officials around the country.
  The problem is there are these so-called sanctuary cities or 
sanctuary jurisdictions that have made it perfectly clear they are 
going to ignore that Federal law. They are going to break that Federal 
law. They are not going to cooperate in any way with the enforcement of 
our immigration laws. They are going to be part of an active movement 
to flaunt them, to not enforce those laws, and to frustrate the 
enforcement of those laws.
  Not surprisingly, this is perhaps clearest coming out of San 
Francisco. There the mayor said very clearly--and this was just this 
past April in response to the Federal authorities' raid on an Oakland 
business, where they arrested 13 foreign nationals who entered the 
country illegally--the San Francisco mayor said:

       I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone 
     associated with this city to cooperate in any way, shape, or 
     form with these raids. We are a sanctuary city, make no 
     mistake about it.

  One of his counterparts in the area, the mayor of Richmond, CA, just 
outside of San Francisco, actually went a little further, if you can 
believe that, if you can believe it is possible to go further. This 
past February, he said:

       I really don't believe that any of our residents should be 
     living in a climate of fear and terror like this. People have 
     no real criminal behavior at all and have been unjustly 
     placed under arrest.

  That was in response to a raid by Federal officials.
  So the San Francisco mayor said: We are not going to have anything to 
do with it, we are going to do everything we can to frustrate the 
Federal law. The Richmond mayor went beyond that and said: We don't 
think Federal immigration officials should be doing their job.
  I think that is wrong.
  This has reached a ridiculous level, Madam President. It is no 
surprise to the American people that we are not enforcing our laws when 
they hear local jurisdictions acting like this, flaunting the law, 
ignoring clear Federal law that has been on the books for over 10 
years. If we have any chance to rein in illegal immigration and enforce 
the rule of law, Federal officials need reasonable help. That is what 
it will take to enforce our immigration laws. And in enforcing our 
immigration laws, we will make this country safer.
  I clearly, strongly disagree with these arguments that somehow this 
is going to lessen public safety. This will increase public safety as 
we enforce our laws. Surely, surely some horrible and tragic incidents 
from the past several months should make this clear.
  For instance, in Virginia Beach, 17-year-old Allison Kunhardt and 16-
year-old Tessa Tranchant were killed when their car was struck by a 
drunk driver who happened to be an illegal alien. Now, that is tragic 
enough, but that illegal alien had multiple prior convictions for drunk 
driving. He had gone through the local criminal justice system multiple 
times, and guess what--not once had that been reported to immigration 
officials. If it had, and if immigration officials had properly acted, 
that person would have been off the street, unable to kill through his 
vehicle.
  Similarly, in Newark, NJ, some college students were horribly and 
tragically shot execution style by Jose Carranza. Carranza was out on 
bail awaiting trial on two separate felonies. He was also in this 
country illegally. So not only was he out on bail under questionable 
circumstances, but if immigration officials had been notified and if 
they had acted properly, he could have been under arrest and/or out of 
the country. Instead, three completely innocent college students were 
executed and are dead today.
  This does have everything to do with the rule of law. It has 
everything to do with public safety. It has everything to do with 
getting hold of our safety and immigration laws and everyone working 
cooperatively in the right spirit, in the right vein, and following the 
present Federal law to do just that.
  I would also note that an identical amendment to this was passed 
quite easily--by voice vote, as a matter of fact--in the House of 
Representatives.
  Let's act on common sense, let's be reasonable, and let's enforce 
Federal law that has been on the books for over 10 years now. Let's 
adopt this amendment.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New 
Jersey, an outspoken opponent of this amendment, such time as he may 
consume, reserving for myself the last 5 minutes of my time for my own 
closing argument.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for 
yielding me time. Can I get a sense of how much time that is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, as I listened to our colleague describe his 
amendment, one might say: Why shouldn't I support this amendment? The 
problem is, the very issues he described, including the one in my own 
home State of New Jersey, would not be resolved by his amendment. That 
is a breakdown of the system that had nothing to do with communities 
making a decision not to go ahead and assist and inform, when they 
actually have someone who has committed a crime, of, in fact, the 
status of that individual.
  What this amendment will do--what this amendment will do--is it will 
undercut the ability of communities to actually prosecute the crime--to 
prosecute the crime. Why? Because a crime is committed against an 
individual, and if that individual happens to be a victim who is 
undocumented in this country, that community wants--and communities 
across the country want--the victim to come forth and say: Hey, I had 
this crime committed against me. I had this robbery committed against 
me. I was assaulted. I was raped. We want the victim to come forward 
and talk about the crime and testify against the perpetrator because 
society, the community, is best served by having the criminal--the 
criminal--put away in jail. If you don't have people coming forth to 
testify about the crimes committed against them--you might have had a 
sexual predator, you might have had someone who was involved in a whole 
host of things--the bottom line is, if you don't have the person who 
was the victim coming forth, you don't get to the person committing the 
crime, and that person is allowed to stay out there committing more 
crimes.
  What if you are a witness to a crime. As a witness to the crime--you 
saw it, you are an eyewitness--you can help the police, you can help 
the prosecutor, you can help the sheriff put that person away. But, no, 
you are not going to come forth because, in fact, your status in this 
country isn't clear, and ultimately why should you come forth and put 
yourself in jeopardy?
  Communities across the landscape of the country have said: We want to 
get

[[Page 27224]]

to the criminal element. We want that witness to come forth. We want 
them to come and testify. What the Vitter amendment does is it cuts the 
legs out from under law enforcement, who say they prefer to get the 
perpetrator of the crime and that is much more important than 
ultimately going to the question as to whether that person has a legal 
status in this country. That is why a large number of people whom we 
trust every day, who put their lives on the line for us in terms of 
protecting us as citizens, have said they oppose the Vitter amendment, 
including the National Sheriffs Association, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Police Chiefs Association, 
Major County Sheriffs Association, and those who, as the chief 
executive officers of their municipalities, are actually responsible 
for making sure that their citizens are protected, the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors--they have all come out in opposition to this amendment 
because they understand it goes to the very heart of being able to keep 
their communities safe.
  This amendment would deny funding to over 70 law enforcement 
jurisdictions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, 
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and 
Wisconsin; jurisdictions that have made it their decision to have laws 
and policies and practices that put the enforcement against the crime, 
that puts the perpetrator away in jail, as their primary goal.
  There are plenty of things that can be done to pursue people who are 
undocumented in this country if that is the right policy. But denying 
municipalities the funding, the Federal moneys for police officers, 
because they want to get the perpetrator versus get the undocumented 
immigrant is, in my mind, the wrong policy. That is why all these major 
law enforcement entities, the people on whom we depend, consistently 
are in opposition.
  Last, it seems to me when the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, in testimony over in the House, said nothing that these 
communities do stops ICE, which is ultimately responsible for 
prosecuting individuals, for detaining them and deporting them--that 
nothing by any of these jurisdictions is stopping them from being able 
to do that--as is being suggested, that that is why this amendment is 
necessary--I think it makes a very compelling argument.
  Let's make sure the victims of crime come forth. Let's make sure the 
witnesses of crimes come forth. Let's listen to the law enforcement 
entities that say they oppose the Vitter amendment. Let's make sure we 
have the community policing opportunities that take place to reduce 
crime, which has risen 2 years in a row in the country, and ultimately 
let's listen to the Secretary of Homeland Security who says nothing 
these jurisdictions have done has stopped them from being able to have 
ICE pursue their duty to proceed against an individual who is 
undocumented in this country.
  I would rather get the perpetrators, those who are committing a rape, 
who are committing a robbery, who are sexual predators, who are doing 
those things--who are breaking the law. The rule of law is very 
important and there are a lot of elements to that. We want to make sure 
the rule of law is preserved by ensuring those who can help us put 
criminals away have the wherewithal to do so and are not ultimately 
afraid to come forth. That helps all the citizens in the community and 
that is why I believe we should defeat the Vitter amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of 
the subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in support of the Vitter 
amendment No. 3277, pending before the Senate. I commend Senator Vitter 
from Louisiana for offering this important amendment.
  The Vitter amendment would seek to eliminate Federal COPS funds to 
local municipalities with what are commonly referred to as sanctuary 
policies, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking 
suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify 
the Federal Government of the presence of illegal aliens living in 
their communities. The policies end the distinction between legal and 
illegal immigration so illegal aliens often benefit from city services 
too. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, 
Senator Vitter, would ensure existing law is enforced uniformly across 
the country by withholding COPS Federal funds for cities that choose to 
violate the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act.
  A similar amendment was added to the House CJS appropriations bill 
recently. In August, a poll conducted by Rasmussen reported a 
proportion of likely voters in favor of cutting Federal funding for 
sanctuary cities at 58 percent for, with only 29 percent opposed. It 
was an overwhelming vote.
  Sanctuary policies, official or otherwise, result in safe havens for 
illegal aliens and potential terrorists. Sanctuary policies allow 
criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police 
from reporting aliens to the ICE, the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. Cities that blatantly ignore Federal law and put their 
cities at increased risk of harm by illegal aliens should not be 
awarded taxpayer dollars.
  I thank my colleague from Louisiana for offering this amendment and 
urge my colleagues to support the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time does our side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, who is 
a leading expert on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the nice comment. I 
will be necessarily brief here.
  By depriving major cities around the country of COPS funds, the 
Vitter amendment undercuts the efforts of law enforcement and 
contributes to the growing crime rate in three ways.
  First, it takes much needed funds away from State and local law 
enforcement agencies that are now struggling to protect their 
communities against a rising tide of crime. The FBI's Uniform Crime 
Report statistics indicate that for a second year in a row, crime is 
increasing. In the first 6 months of 2006, murders rose by 1.8 percent 
and violent crime by 1.9 percent. In 2005, the Police Executive 
Research Forum found that many of the same cities to which the Vitter 
amendment would deny COPS funding have recently experienced double-
digit increases in murder and violent crime, and the COPS Program has 
proven to be effective in fighting crime. As a recent Brookings 
Institute study shows, for every $1.4 billion spent on COPS, society 
saves between $6 and 12 billion. That is their report.
  In 2005, the General Accounting Office report found between 1993 and 
2001 the COPS Program contributed to a steady decrease in the crime 
rates.
  This amendment is going to have a very chilling effect on victims and 
witnesses in the immigrant community, who would otherwise report 
crimes.
  Finally, the amendment would reverse successful Federal crime 
policies that recognize that State and local law enforcement know what 
is best in their community to drive down the crime rate. It would 
disregard the judgment of 70 law enforcement jurisdictions that found 
immigration status confidentiality policies are an effective part of 
community-oriented policing in their States, counties, and cities.
  To vote for the Vitter amendment, to stay with the Vitter amendment, 
is to vote, I believe, against effective law enforcement. A vote for 
the amendment is a vote against safer communities, and I believe a vote 
for this

[[Page 27225]]

amendment would perpetuate the rise in crime rates all across the 
country.
  I understand there is a tabling motion that is going to take place. I 
may be mistaken. But vote against the Vitter amendment or vote to table 
it.
  I thank Senator Mikulski for the incredible job she has been doing on 
this, and for the additional funding for the COPS bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I wish to use 2 minutes of my remaining 
time and reserve the rest.
  We are talking about present Federal law over 10 years old. Are we 
going to enforce it or are we going to flout it? Let's not kid 
ourselves. We have all these arguments about law enforcement. I think 
everyone paying attention to this debate realizes it comes down to 
whether you think it is a problem, a big deal, for folks to be here in 
this country illegally. The other side of the argument doesn't even 
like to use the term being in the country illegally. They talk about 
``status issues'' and all of this other politically correct language 
for the fact that folks are in the country illegally, having broken the 
law to get here, and consistently are breaking the law to stay here.
  That is what the disagreement is about. That is what the debate is 
about. It is obvious, when you look at the fervor, the political fervor 
with which so many of these sanctuary cities proclaim their sanctuary 
status. It is a cause celebre because they basically do not think it is 
a problem for these folks to come to the country illegally and stay 
illegally.
  As I said, look at this quote from the mayor of Richmond, CA. He is 
criticizing the Federal authorities, the immigration authorities, for 
doing their job enforcing Federal law.
  The American people are watching. They know the fundamental question 
is: Are we going to get serious with the problem? Are we going to get 
serious with enforcement? I suggest this amendment is an excellent way 
to start.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time does the Senator from 
Louisiana have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute one second.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. And how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I will use 3 minutes now and reserve the remainder of 1 
minute.
  I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on this bill. I thank 
the assistant majority leader, Mr. Durbin, for helping me work this. 
The reason I am thanking him is this is a very important amendment. 
This isn't some throw-away amendment on how we can say we are being 
tough on illegal immigrants.
  First, every single Senator here opposes illegal immigration. We 
oppose illegal immigration. This is why we voted for strong measures 
when border enforcement came up. This is why we advocated comprehensive 
immigration reform. We are opposed to illegal immigration. But we are 
where we are.
  Let's talk about why municipalities have said ``no'' to enforcing 
immigration laws. Many municipalities, cities, towns, say they cannot 
afford to be the Federal cop on the beat. They know that enforcing 
immigration law takes a tremendous amount of training and takes a 
tremendous amount of money, and they simply cannot put their resources 
into that.
  The second is they have the right to decide how they best want to 
fight crime. Many municipalities have chosen not to ask their local law 
enforcement to enforce immigration laws exactly because they want to 
fight crime. What they would say is, if we go in and we are INS 
officers or ICE officers by proxy, we will never find a witness, and 
victims in many instances will not come forward.
  If you are a young girl and you have been gang-raped by MS-13, do you 
think you are going to come forward if you think that when you do, 
instead of getting the protection of the United States of America and 
getting justice done, you are going to be doubly brutalized and asked 
your immigration status, and you are the one who is punished?
  Do you think the witnesses to these brutal crimes that sometimes 
occur in communities--not Latino against Latino, but if someone were 
working in an office building and saw a burglary, would they say: Heck, 
I am not going to report that, even though I am an eyewitness, because 
they are going to ask my immigration status? Or if you are walking down 
the street, and you might be a day laborer, and you see someone mugged, 
you aren't able to go report it.
  My time has expired, but I think we need to defeat the Vitter 
amendment. At the appropriate time I will make the appropriate tabling 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, in closing, let me address one specific 
point the distinguished Senator from Maryland raised. I think she is 
giving the wrong impression to suggest that the Vitter amendment, or 
anything else in Federal law, places some affirmative duty on local or 
State law enforcement to all of a sudden take up the responsibility of 
Federal immigration officials. They have no duty to start enforcing 
Federal law and use up their budget and their time affirmatively 
enforcing Federal immigration law.
  But what we are saying, and what present Federal law says, is these 
jurisdictions cannot establish a set policy that absolutely prohibits 
that sort of communication and information sharing with Federal 
authorities. That is exactly what these sanctuary cities, sanctuary 
jurisdictions, have done. It is a left political cause celebre to 
proclaim yourself a sanctuary city and actually work to frustrate 
Federal law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I oppose the amendment. I disagree 
with the interpretation of the Senator's amendment. I want local law 
enforcement to get every nickel they are entitled to from the Federal 
Government. Again, I oppose the Vitter amendment. I move to table the 
Vitter amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 370 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss

[[Page 27226]]


     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The Senator from Maryland.


Amendments Nos. 3279; 3283; 3290, as Modified; 3278; 3312, as Modified; 
 3314; 3276; 3304, as Modified; 3228, as Modified; 3208, as Modified; 
3249, as Further Modified; 3311; 3209; and 3227, previously agreed to, 
                              as Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I have a number of 
amendments at the desk. We ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
considered and agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on 
the table, and that any statements relating to these amendments be 
printed in the Record, with all the above occurring en bloc. I would 
note that all the amendments have been agreed to on both sides of the 
aisle, and we urge their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3279

  (Purpose: To increase appropriations for personnel, equipment, and 
  other resources to be used for the analysis of DNA samples, and for 
                            other purposes)

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 217. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANALYSIS OF DNA 
                   SAMPLES.

       (a) In General.--The amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``salaries and expenses '' under the heading ``Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation'' under this title is increased by 
     $23,000,000, which shall be used for personnel, equipment, 
     build-out/acquisition of space, and other resources to be 
     used for the analysis of DNA samples.
       (b) Reductions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the amount appropriated for the Advanced Technology 
     Program under the heading ``industrial technology services '' 
     under the heading ``National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology'' under title I of this Act is reduced by 
     $23,000,000.


                           amendment no. 3283

  (Purpose: To use $10,000,000 from the Department of Justice Working 
   Capital Fund for the expansion of Operation Streamline, the zero 
tolerance prosecution policy currently in place in the Del Rio and Yuma 
                            border sectors)

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 217.  The Attorney General shall make available 
     $10,000,000 from the Department of Justice Working Capital 
     Fund to incrementally expand Operation Streamline across the 
     entire southwest border of the United States, beginning with 
     the border sector that had the highest rate of illegal 
     entries during the most recent 12-month period.


                    amendment no. 3290, as modified

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 217. ADDITIONAL PROSECUTORS FOR OFFENSES RELATING TO THE 
                   SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--The amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``salaries and expenses'' under the heading ``United States 
     Attorneys'' under this title is increased by $30,000,000, 
     which shall be used for salaries and expenses for hiring 200 
     additional assistant United States attorneys to carry out 
     section 704 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act 
     of 2006 (Public Law 109-248; 120 Stat. 649) concerning the 
     prosecution of offenses relating to the sexual exploitation 
     of children.
       (b) Reductions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``Procurement, Acquisition and Construction'' under the 
     heading ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' 
     under title I of this Act is reduced by $30,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3278

(Purpose: To correct a technical error in Public Law 110-53 relating to 
                emergency communications modernization)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ------. Section 2301 of the Implementing 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (47 U.S.C. 
     901 note) is amended by striking ``the `Improving Emergency 
     Communications Act of 2007'.'' and inserting ``the `911 
     Modernization Act'.''.


                    Amendment No. 3312, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce may--
       ``(1) develop, maintain, and make public a list of vessels 
     and vessel owners engaged in illegal, unreported, or 
     unregulated fishing, including vessels or vessel owners 
     identified by an international fishery management 
     organization, whether or not the United States is a party to 
     the agreement establishing such organization; and
       ``(2) take appropriate action against listed vessels and 
     vessel owners, including action against fish, fish parts, or 
     fish products from such vessels, in accordance with 
     applicable United States law and consistent with applicable 
     international law, including principles, rights, and 
     obligations established in applicable international fishery 
     management and trade agreements.
       ``(b) Restrictions on Port Access or Use.--Action taken by 
     the Secretary under subsection (a)(2) that include measures 
     to restrict use of or access to ports or port services shall 
     apply to all ports of the United States and its territories.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate 
     regulations to implement this section.''.


                           amendment no. 3314

    (Purpose: To make funds available for regional coastal disaster 
             assistance, transition, and recovery programs)

       On page 16, line 11, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``:  Provided further, That of the funds provided, not 
     less than $15,000,000 shall be available to carry out 
     activities under section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (8 U.S.C. 1864).''.


                           Amendment No. 3276

 (Purpose: To amend the Mandatory Victims' Restitution Act to improve 
       restitution for victims of crime, and for other purposes)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                    Amendment No. 3304, As Modified

       On page 16, line 11, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the funds provided under 
     this heading, for the Office of Response and Restoration 
     funds may be used from the Damage Assessment Restoration 
     Revolving Fund for sampling and analysis related to the 
     disposal of obsolete vessels owned or operated by the Federal 
     Government in Suisun Bay, California.''.


                    Amendment No. 3228, As Modified

       On page 16, line 11, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the funds provided under 
     this heading, up to $275,000 may be available for the 
     purchase and distribution of bycatch reduction devices to 
     shrimpers in areas of the Gulf Coast impacted by Hurricane 
     Rita or Hurricane Katrina during 2005.''.

                    Amendment No. 3208, As Modified

       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'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting ``, Tribal,'' after 
     ``support State''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection, or 
     in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) allows grants authorized under paragraph (3)(A) to be 
     made to, or used by, an entity for law enforcement activities 
     that the entity lacks jurisdiction to perform; or
       ``(B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or 
     deny a grant of funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe 
     for the purpose described in this subsection.''.
       (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--

[[Page 27227]]

       (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''.


                Amendment No. 3249, as Further Modified

  (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $15,000,000 for the Boys and 
  Girls Clubs of America and to provide a full offset for such amount)

       On page 52, line 5, strike ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert 
     $1,430,000,000.
       On page 52, line 15, strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$75,000,000.
       On page 70, after line 10, insert the following:
       Sec.__. Of the unobligated balances made available for the 
     Department of Justice in prior fiscal years, $15,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Provided, That within 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section the Attorney General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the amount 
     of each rescission made pursuant to this section.


                           amendment no. 3311

    (Purpose: To extend the numerical limitation exception for H-2B 
                             nonimmigrants)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SMALL AND SEASONAL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 214(g)(9)(A) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``an alien who has already been counted toward the 
     numerical limitation of paragraph (1)(B) during fiscal year 
     2004, 2005, or 2006 shall not again be counted toward such 
     limitation during fiscal year 2007.'' and inserting ``an 
     alien who has been present in the United States as an H-2B 
     nonimmigrant during any 1 of the 3 fiscal years immediately 
     preceding the fiscal year of the approved start date of a 
     petition for a nonimmigrant worker described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) shall not be counted toward such 
     limitation for the fiscal year in which the petition is 
     approved.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective during the 1-year period beginning October 
     1, 2007.


                           amendment no. 3209

     (Purpose: To make certain forestry workers eligible for legal 
                              assistance)

       On page 97, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 528.  Section 504(a)(11)(E) of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-55) is amended by 
     inserting before ``an alien'' the following: ``a nonimmigrant 
     worker admitted to, or permitted to remain in, the United 
     States under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) for 
     forestry labor or''.


                    amendment no. 3227, as modified

       On page 52, line 5, strike ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,415,000,000''.
       On page 53, strike lines 18 and 19 and insert the 
     following:
       (5) $40,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by section 
     1001(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act: Provided, That of the 
     unobligated balances available to the Department of Justice 
     (except for amounts made available for Drug Courts, as 
     authorized by section 1001(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 
     Act), $15,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That within 30 
     days after the enactment of this Act the Attorney General 
     shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the 
     amount of each rescission made pursuant to this section.

  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. 3279

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment provides $23 million in 
funding to the FBI for purposes of clearing its backlog of untested DNA 
evidence. This backlog consists of DNA evidence from untested rape 
kits, other untested crime-scene evidence, and samples collected from 
criminal offenders. The amounts provided by this amendment are the 
minimum amount that the FBI would need in order to be able to clear its 
current backlog of untested DNA evidence.
  Two recent articles in USA Today highlight the nature of this problem 
and why it matters. The first news story--published just last month--
indicates that FBI's backlog of untested DNA evidence has grown to over 
200,000 samples. As USA Today notes, past experience testing DNA 
samples indicates that testing the current backlog would probably solve 
over 3,000 rapes, murders, and other serious crimes.
  Allow me to repeat that statistic: according to USA Today, testing 
the current backlog of DNA evidence is expected to solve over 3,000 
cold cases--violent crimes and other serious offenses for which no 
perpetrator currently has been identified. Obviously, solving these 
crimes would bring relief to thousands of crime victims and their 
families. By identifying these criminal offenders and leading to their 
prosecution and incarceration, testing the DNA backlog would 
undoubtedly prevent many future offenses as well. But first we have to 
appropriate the funds to test that backlog.
  Another recent article in USA Today describes the costs imposed by 
not promptly testing DNA evidence. This article begins as follows:

       Under Maryland law, Raymont Hopewell should have had his 
     DNA taken after he was sentenced for selling $20 worth of 
     cocaine in April 2004.
       But the state police, who lacked sufficient technicians, 
     never got around to it. So no one knew that Hopewell's DNA 
     matched a pair of unsolved rape/murders on the national DNA 
     database. He served a few months in a halfway house and went 
     on to commit 3 more murders, 1 rape and 4 assaults before 
     being caught in September 2005. Then, a DNA test was 
     performed.
       Hopewell, now 36, pleaded guilty to all five murders, 
     including three that a DNA match could have prevented. He was 
     sentenced to four consecutive life terms last year.

  That is the cost of not promptly testing DNA evidence. The failure to 
test evidence in just this 1 case allowed the commission of 3 murders 
and 1 rape that clearly could have been prevented. The USA Today story 
goes on to note that:

     Cases in which such missed DNA matches led to further crimes 
     have begun to ``pop up increasingly'' as test backlogs grow, 
     [according to Lisa Hurst, a DNA expert].
       Cases similar to the Maryland case have been reported in 
     California, Ohio, Illinois and elsewhere in the past 4 years. 
     ``You have to believe there are a whole lot more than what 
     gets reported,'' Hurst says. ``This is not something that 
     people want to talk about. It's much worse than just an 
     embarrassment.''

  If we want the current Federal DNA backlog to be tested, we must 
provide FBI with this money. There are not a lot of things that the 
Federal Government can do that will directly prevent violent crimes, 
but this is one of them. I am pleased that the Senate will adopt my 
amendment and allow the FBI to promptly test its current evidence 
backlog, before another preventable rape or murder is committed.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the following articles appearing in 
USA Today printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Oct. 13, 2007]

                      DNA Backlog Piles Up for FBI

                          (By Richard Willing)

       Washington.--The FBI has fallen behind in processing DNA 
     from nearly 200,000 convicted criminals--85% of all samples 
     it has collected since 2001--Justice Department records show.
       The backlog, which expands monthly, means most of the 
     biological samples the bureau collects have not been stored 
     in the national DNA database and used to solve crimes. DNA 
     from 34,000 convicts has been added to the database since 
     2001, resulting in 600 matches to unsolved crimes, according 
     to statistics furnished by the Justice Department to the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee. At the same rate, the unloaded 
     samples could help solve an additional 3,200 crimes.

[[Page 27228]]

       The backlog expanded by about 80,000 samples in 2006, when 
     a law took effect requiring that all federal convicts, rather 
     than just violent felons, submit DNA samples. A new law 
     requiring DNA to be taken from about 500,000 federal 
     arrestees and detainees could swell the backlog. Rules for 
     implementing that law are due early next year, according to 
     Office of Management and Budget documents.
       Justice provided the backlog data to the committee in July 
     in response to questions posed to Attorney General Alberto 
     Gonzales during an April appearance before the panel.
       Using different figures, FBI lab spokeswoman Ann Todd said 
     in an e-mail that about 156,000 DNA samples, about 78% of 
     those collected, have not been put in the database. She 
     declined to comment on the discrepancy with the numbers from 
     the Justice Department, the FBI's parent organization. The 
     lab processes about 5,500 samples a month, Todd said. The 
     laboratory receives about 8,000 samples a month, meaning the 
     backlog continues to grow.
       ``It's embarrassing because it's the FBI, which is supposed 
     to be this powerful organization, but it's not surprising,'' 
     said Lawrence Kobilinsky, biology professor and DNA 
     specialist at John Jay College in New York City. ``Across the 
     nation, backlogs are an ongoing problem, a tragedy, really, 
     but one that it looks like is going to be with us for 
     awhile.''
       Since 1998, the FBI has maintained a system that matches 
     genetic profiles from criminals and, in some states, criminal 
     suspects with DNA drawn from unsolved crimes. All 50 states 
     and the FBI lab in Quantico, Va., maintain their own 
     databases, which are linked by computer software maintained 
     by the FBI.
       Through May, the national DNA database held 4.8 million 
     criminal samples and DNA from about 178,000 unsolved crimes, 
     according to an FBI website. It had scored matches that 
     assisted 50,343 investigations.
       The FBI's exacting testing standards caused the DNA 
     ``bottleneck,'' Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard 
     Hertling said in a letter to the committee. The FBI lab is 
     studying an automated system that could cut test times 
     significantly, he said.
                                  ____


                    [From USA Today, Oct. 13, 2007]

                   DNA Lag Leaves Potential for Crime

                          (By Richard Willing)

       Washington.--Under Maryland law, Raymont Hopewell should 
     have had his DNA taken after he was sentenced for selling $20 
     worth of cocaine in April 2004.
       But the state police, who lacked sufficient technicians, 
     never got around to it. So no one knew that Hopewell's DNA 
     matched a pair of unsolved rape/murders on the national DNA 
     database. He served a few months in a halfway house and went 
     on to commit 3 more murders, 1 rape and 4 assaults before 
     being caught in September 2005. Then, a DNA test was 
     performed.
       Hopewell, now 36, pleaded guilty to all 5 murders, 
     including 3 that a DNA match could have prevented. He was 
     sentenced to four consecutive life terms last year.
       Since 1998, the state and federal governments have used a 
     computer database to match genetic samples from convicted or 
     suspected criminals to DNA taken at the scene of unsolved 
     crimes.
       The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is overseen by 
     the FBI, has become a staple of television crime shows and 
     has produced some dramatic results. It has made matches that 
     caught criminals or otherwise aided in nearly 50,500 cases 
     since the system's inception. The DNA profiles of about 4 
     million criminals have been added to the system since 2001.
       Along with the success stories, however, comes a growing 
     list of DNA samples collected but not analyzed. Lisa Hurst, 
     who edits the DNAResource.com website, said cases in which 
     such missed DNA matches led to further crimes have begun to 
     ``pop up increasingly'' as test backlogs grow.
       Cases similar to the Maryland case have been reported in 
     California, Ohio, Illinois and elsewhere in the past four 
     years. ``You have to believe there are a whole lot more than 
     what gets reported,'' Hurst says. ``This is not something 
     that people want to talk about. It's much worse than just an 
     embarrassment.''
       At first, most states and the federal government took DNA 
     samples only from people convicted of the most serious 
     felonies, such as rape and murder. As DNA has proved its 
     usefulness, legislators have sought to extend its reach to 
     people convicted of lesser offenses and even to arrestees.
       Forty-five states and the federal government require DNA 
     samples from all felons, and 11 states take it from some 
     arrestees. Next year, the federal government is scheduled to 
     begin taking DNA samples from as many as 500,000 new federal 
     arrestees and detainees such as immigration violators.
       DNA testing requirements began to strap overworked crime 
     labs. In 2003, the Justice Department estimated that 
     nationwide, 200,000 to 300,000 samples had been taken and 
     awaited analysis, while as many as 1 million more awaited 
     testing. By this July, the FBI's backlog by itself totaled 
     nearly 200,000, according to Justice Department records.
       Congress has tried to bridge the gap, allocating over $560 
     million since 1999 to allow states to outsource some DNA 
     testing, to hire staff and to improve lab capacity.
       Barry Fisher, director of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs 
     Department crime lab, says the federal payments have had 
     ``some success'' but have had trouble keeping up with ever-
     increasing demands.
       In California this year, for instance, a combination of 
     federal and state grants reduced a 160,000 backlog by more 
     than half, according to state Department of Justice research. 
     But a state law that takes effect in 2009 will add DNA 
     samples from felony arrestees and others, probably adding 
     400,000 samples per year to the backlog.
       It's critical for the FBI to cut its backlog before the 
     federal government starts taking DNA from immigration 
     violators and other federal detainees next year, said Rep. 
     Dave Reichert, R-Wash., a major supporter of federal funds 
     for DNA testing.
       That program could add more than 1 million samples annually 
     to the FBI's workload, according to a paper an FBI technician 
     presented at a science conference in February.
       ``We can get them more money and more people, but the 
     bottom line is, (the FBI) has got to get those DNA samples up 
     there,'' says Reichert, a former King County sheriff. ``It's 
     the only way the DNA does everything it's capable of.''
       President Bush's DNA initiative, a five-year plan designed 
     to improve the use of DNA in the criminal justice system, has 
     accounted for about 75% of the federal DNA spending. Funding 
     expires after this year, and no follow-up legislation has 
     been proposed.
       Increased use of technology and private sector management 
     techniques helped the Forensic Science Service (FSS), the 
     United Kingdom's national lab, eliminate a 500,000-sample 
     backlog in 2004, says Richard Pinchin, the service's director 
     of U.S. operations.


                           Amendment No. 3304

  Mrs. BOXER. I am greatly concerned about the environmental impacts of 
the federally owned obsolete vessels in Suisun Bay, CA, on the marine 
environment. We need to ensure that these vessels are properly cleaned 
and disposed of, and minimize the impacts of these ships by addressing 
any remaining contamination.
  I am grateful that Chairman Mikulski and the CJS Subcommittee have 
agreed to accept my amendment to provide funding out of NOAA's 
operations, research, and facilities program to conduct sampling and 
analysis of heavy metals and other contaminants to better understand 
the degree of toxic contamination, and to develop appropriate 
remediation recommendations that use the best available science and 
environmental practices.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am glad that the subcommittee will include $1.5 
million in NOAA funding in the report to address the environmental 
needs at Suisun Bay and I pledge to carry that funding through 
conference.


                        juvenile accountability

  Mr. CASEY. I want to thank Chairman Mikulski for her leadership on 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science and 
for engaging in this discussion on how we can best combat violent crime 
around the country. The chairman's expertise and experience in these 
matters is second to none and I am grateful for her leadership.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for his leadership in this area and 
look forward to working with him on securing funding that is necessary 
to fight violent crime across the country. I know from our 
conversations of your concern for your home State of Pennsylvania and 
your particular concern about the recent rise in violent crime in 
Philadelphia.
  Mr. CASEY. As the Senator knows, I have authored an amendment to the 
Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that would increase 
funding for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program by $30 
million. On behalf of Senator Biden and Chairman Mikulski, I have also 
offered an amendment that would increase funding for the Community 
Oriented Policing Services Program by $110 million. I am also a strong 
supporter of the Byrne justice assistance grant program, and I 
appreciate Chairman Mikulski's efforts to significantly increase 
funding for this program. If we truly want to decrease violent crime, 
research and evidence-based practices show that we must simultaneously 
invest in law enforcement programs and prevention and intervention 
services for young people. My support for these

[[Page 27229]]

amendments, for the Byrne/JAG program, and for the underlying bill, 
reflect my strong commitment to this two-prong approach to reducing 
crime. Would the chairman permit me a moment to discuss the merits of 
the juvenile accountability block grant program?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Certainly.
  Mr. CASEY. As the chairman knows, the juvenile accountability block 
grant program, or JABG as it is more commonly known, is a bipartisan 
program that was originally created in 1998 for the purpose of 
strengthening and creating greater accountability within the juvenile 
justice system. Funds are available for many program purposes, 
including building, expanding, and operating temporary or permanent 
juvenile correction or detention facilities, training of correctional 
personnel, developing and administering accountability-based sanctions 
for juvenile offenders, hiring additional juvenile judges, prosecutors, 
probation officers, and court-appointed defenders, and funding pretrial 
services for juveniles.
  The program has been reauthorized twice since 1998, and additional 
program areas purposes now allow States to implement graduated 
sanctions programs that include counseling, restitution, community 
service, and supervised probation, to establish or expand substance 
abuse programs, and to promote mental health screening and treatment. 
Program funds can also be used to establish and maintain restorative 
justice programs, which focus on creative sentencing and meaningful 
accountability measures for juvenile offenders. JABG can also be used 
to fund programs focused upon gang prevention, antibullying 
initiatives, and reentry programs that help juvenile offenders 
reintegrate back into the community and help lower recidivism rates 
among this population.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I have always been a strong supporter of the juvenile 
accountability block grant program and its goals. I wholeheartedly 
agree that we must link law enforcement with effective prevention and 
intervention strategies aimed at at-risk youth. JABG does this and 
assists the juvenile justice system and community-based programs to 
promote accountability among youthful offenders. The value of this 
program is that it helps youth understand the impact of their actions 
and holds them accountable. This approach has been shown to be 
instrumental in helping young people turn away from delinquency and 
work toward becoming productive adults.
  Mr. CASEY. I agree with the chairman that holding young offenders 
accountable for the consequences of their actions is one of the most 
effective ways to reduce juvenile crimes. We cannot ``arrest our way'' 
out of this problem. This truth has been emphasized over and over by 
the law enforcement community. While incarceration is necessary for 
some offenders, there are other more effective--and less costly--
interventions that can be used with many young offenders. That is why 
the JABG Program has been so effective and is so necessary.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator.
  Mr. CASEY. And so, in addition to support for increased funding for 
the Byrne/JAG and COPS programs, my goal is to increase funding for 
JABG. Unfortunately, funding for the JABG Program has decreased 
dramatically since its inception. Originally authorized at $350 
million, it was funded at $250 million from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal 
year 2002, then dropped to $190 million in fiscal year 2003, and then 
to $60 million in fiscal year 2004. Since that time, funding has 
hovered between $50 and $60 million. President Bush sought to eliminate 
funding for this valuable program altogether in this year's budget 
proposal and in previous budget recommendations. Elimination of funding 
for this critical resource would seriously hamper efforts to deal 
effectively with juvenile delinquency. JABG would no longer be 
available to communities for the ongoing implementation of important 
accountability programming and service alternatives to youth and 
families involved in the juvenile justice system, including community-
based alternatives to detention and intervention activities, and 
school-based violence prevention programming. I recognize the 
subcommittee's commitment to this program, and appreciate the 
chairman's role in restoring funding for JABG.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The reduction in funding for this program has been an 
unfortunate result of overall budget cuts in recent years. We have 
worked hard to maintain funding and restore cuts that impact State and 
local law enforcement. It is our duty first and foremost to protect the 
American public. I share your support for the JABG Program and would 
support your amendment if it were possible to find funding for an 
additional $30 million. I regret to say that is not the case.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman for her support of this valuable 
program and appreciate her tireless work over the years to get our 
States and communities the funding they need to fight crime. Her 
commitment to this issue is truly inspiring. While I regret that my 
amendment to increase funding for the JABG Program cannot move forward, 
I understand the realities facing the subcommittee.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator's remarks and I look forward 
to working with him whenever the opportunity arises to strengthen our 
capacity to fight crime through increased funding for both law 
enforcement and prevention and intervention strategies for youthful 
offenders.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman and appreciate her support for the 
Byrne/JAG Program, the JABG Program and the COPS Program. In 
particular, I appreciate her support for the amendment offered by 
Senator Biden, myself and others to increase the COPS Program by $110 
million. That is a great victory for State and local law enforcement. I 
assure the chairman and my constituents that I will continue the fight 
against crime throughout my Senate career.


                           Amendment No. 3314

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of an amendment to 
address the problem on fisheries failures in New England.
  In November 2006, the New England Fishery Management Council imposed 
new regulations on groundfishing, known as Framework 42. Under these 
strict new rules, the number of days allowed to fish was effectively 
cut in half. These hardworking fishermen don't catch twice as many 
fish, and they don't get paid twice as much, but they are only allowed 
to work half as much. This is not to suggest efforts to rebuild the 
fisheries are not necessary or important, they are. But we must also 
address the impact of the regulations we impose.
  As a result of Framework 42, the States of Massachusetts, Maine, and 
New Hampshire are seeking the declaration of a commercial fisheries 
failure. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which we worked so hard to 
reauthorize last year, allows the Secretary of Commerce to assist 
coastal communities hit by both natural disasters and regulatory 
burdens. Unfortunately, no funding has been provided in the past and 
there is no funding in the CJS bill for this purpose.
  This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Snowe, and Collins, 
would provide $15 million for fisheries disaster assistance. It does 
not dictate how or where this money would be spent. It does not 
interfere with the Secretary's ability to determine when fisheries 
failures are declared. It does ensure that fishermen and fishing 
communities that may be eligible for assistance under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act have resources available.
  We sometimes romanticize life on a New England fishing boat. But in 
truth, it is a difficult and dangerous way to earn a living. The New 
England groundfishing industry has accepted strict limits as part of 
our effort to rebuild a fish population that has helped feed us for 500 
years. When they shouldered this regulatory burden, Congress said that 
there would be help. This amendment provides the financial resources to 
meet this obligation.


                             nasa workforce

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chair of the 
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee, my distinguished colleague

[[Page 27230]]

from Maryland, in a colloquy concerning current Federal investments in 
space research programs that provide hands-on training experience for 
university students in the space science and engineering disciplines.
  The senior Senator from Maryland has a long history of successfully 
championing Federal investment in the National Aeronautics & Space 
Administration, NASA. That history of Federal investment has kept the 
United States at the forefront in exploring space and expanding our 
knowledge of the complex world in which we live today. This investment 
in NASA has also made NASA an important partner of our Nation's 
colleges and universities in providing unparalleled educational 
experiences in the critical areas of science, technology, and 
engineering. Scientific research is critical to innovation, yet 
federally funded science programs have not kept pace with our need to 
train future generations of scientists and engineers, thereby 
diminishing the research and training opportunities offered to 
university students across the country. In the last 40 years, U.S. 
suborbital experimental launches have decreased 80 percent--from 270 
per year to 50 planned launches in 2007. Decreases in suborbital 
launches have resulted in a corresponding drop in the hands-on training 
opportunities our universities provide to undergraduate, masters, and 
doctoral students in hard sciences. These training opportunities are 
essential for recruiting and maintaining a highly trained workforce and 
for protecting our national preeminence in science, engineering, and 
exploration.
  The National Research Council released a report in June on ``Building 
a Better NASA Workforce and Meeting the Workforce Needs for the 
National Vision for Space Exploration.'' The report recommended that 
NASA focus more of its education budget on workforce-related programs 
such as the Graduate Student Researchers Program and other co-op 
programs. We know that some of NASA's programs involving sounding 
rockets, weather balloons, and small satellite launches are outstanding 
examples of worthy Federal investment that not only produces usable 
scientific data but provides outstanding hands-on learning 
opportunities for the next generations of scientists and engineers. Our 
investment in these programs has not kept pace with demand, and that is 
a problem we may want to address in future years as we consider the 
NASA budget. But before we make a decision about the right level of 
future Federal funding for these programs, I think it would be helpful 
for NASA, as one of our premier research institutions, to provide a 
report on its current investment in suborbital experimental launches 
and what will be needed in the future.
  I ask my colleague from Maryland, in her role as chairman of the 
Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, whether she would 
agree that it would be useful for NASA to study this issue and report 
back to the Congress on it in time for our consideration of the fiscal 
year 2009 CJS appropriations bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree that such a study would be useful and I thank 
my colleague for bringing this important matter to our attention.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators 
Mikulski and Shelby for their leadership in drafting the Commerce-
Justice-Science appropriations bill.
  This bill empowers our police and law enforcement professionals with 
tools and resources to keep our children safe. Today, our police need 
these tools more than ever.
  The FBI just released its violent crime data for 2006. After years of 
going down, violent crime went up in each of the past 2 years. Murders 
went up from 2005 to 2006, and nearly 15,000 people were murdered in 
2006. Those statistics are people--people whose lives were changed or 
ended by a horrible act of violence. But instead of reacting to those 
stories with vigilance, this administration has reacted by cutting the 
very programs that keep our streets safe from crime and violence.
  This bill fights back. It restores funding for the programs the 
administration wrongly cut and lets families feel more secure in their 
homes. For example, this bill provides $550 million for the COPS 
Program, and I was proud to cosponsor an amendment to add $110 million 
for hiring police officers. In New Jersey alone, the COPS Program has 
added 500 new cops on the beat. It is because of programs such as COPS 
that I am proud to support this bill. It is preposterous that President 
Bush is threatening to veto it.
  I must note, however, that there is one provision in this bill that 
is dangerous. Instead of making us safer, it puts our communities and 
the people trying to protect them at greater risk. That provision is 
the ``Tiahrt amendment,'' which has been a staple in appropriations 
bills over the last few years. Instead of helping our police, the 
Tiahrt Amendment makes their job harder.
  The Tiahrt amendment limits the information the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, can tell our police about 
guns used in crimes.
  The Tiahrt amendment does not protect responsible gun owners; it 
protects criminals, gang members, and gun traffickers.
  Before the Tiahrt amendment, ATF data showed 60 percent of crime guns 
came from 1 percent of gun dealers. It is only common sense that police 
should be able to target corrupt gun dealers, but the Tiahrt amendment 
makes it difficult for the police to identify those dealers.
  Limiting access to ATF gun trace information means that police have 
to wait until after a crime has been committed to get information about 
dangerous weapons, instead of being able to get that information to 
prevent crimes. That makes no sense.
  It is bad enough that the Tiahrt amendment restricts the information 
our police can get, but the language in the Senate bill is even worse 
than in previous years and in the current House bill. The Senate 
version of the Tiahrt amendment requires local cops to certify to the 
ATF why they want the information--and it threatens them with up to 5 
years in jail. It is simply outrageous to threaten our cops with jail 
time in order to protect the people committing gun crimes. Even the 
Department of Justice admitted in 2006 that threatening our police with 
criminal penalties could create a ``chilling effect'' on law 
enforcement. The Senate language also further restricts the sharing of 
information between law enforcement agencies when they do obtain 
information from ATF. With violent crime on the rise, we should be 
encouraging law enforcement to work together, not prohibiting 
collaboration.
  Simply put, the Tiahrt amendment hurts our law enforcement efforts. 
That is why more than 10 national law enforcement organizations, 240 
mayors, and State and local leaders from across the country have joined 
together to oppose the Tiahrt amendment. And that is why Senator 
Mikulski showed leadership and left this language out of the bill to 
begin with. Regrettably, the Tiahrt Amendment was added back during the 
committee markup.
  The job of fighting crime is hard enough already. We don't need to 
make it any harder.
  I will continue my fight against the Tiahrt amendment until the 
Tiahrt amendment is no more.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, nearly 5 months ago, the Congress sent the 
President the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, 
and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act 2007.
  Despite the President's signing the measure into law on May 25, 2007, 
I have learned with great disappointment that the Office of Management 
and Budget has yet to release more than $104 million included in this 
legislation by the Congress for the purpose of assisting the FBI in 
combating terrorism.
  These were funds that the FBI had asked the OMB to include in the 
supplemental in order to deal with various aspects of homeland security 
such as carrying out the FBI's new responsibility for rendering safe a 
chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear incident in the United 
States. The funds

[[Page 27231]]

were also requested by the FBI to make advances in areas such as DNA 
and other identification technologies, which offer opportunities to 
positively identify individuals and prevent terrorists, criminals, and 
other ineligible individuals from entering the United States, thus 
better securing our borders.
  I call upon the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to 
release these funds for the purposes identified by the FBI. This is a 
dangerous way to waste time. Nearly 5 months have already been wasted. 
These funds should be put to use for the purposes for which they were 
appropriated in order to better secure the homeland and combat 
terrorism.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3093, the fiscal year 2008 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill. I congratulate the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, 
and the ranking member, Mr. Shelby, for their fine work in producing a 
bill that supports law enforcement, scientific research and technology, 
and enhances U.S. competitiveness. I would like to take a moment to 
note just a few of the bill's important provisions.
  This body recently passed the DOD appropriations bill supporting our 
troops overseas. The CJS bill supports our day-to-day warriors here at 
home. That is, our law enforcement officers. It funds the FBI, the DEA, 
and the ATF; Federal law enforcement agencies charged with protecting 
our citizens from internal terrorist threats, international drug 
cartels, and the rising threat of violent crime. Further, the bill 
provides for important victims' assistance programs for those whose 
lives are forever altered by violent crime.
  The CJS bill focuses on what is right with America by providing the 
resources needed to compete in the global economy. In my home state of 
Maryland, we are very fortunate to have The National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST assists industry in developing 
technology, modernizing manufacturing processes, ensuring product 
reliability, and facilitating rapid commercialization of products based 
on new scientific discoveries. Advances in avionic navigation systems 
and modern-day mammograms and semiconductors are indicators of the 
value of NIST. This bill provides $186 million above the 
administration's request for this significant agency that is crucial to 
U.S. competitiveness.
  Maryland is also fortunate to be home to several National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration facilities. NOAA provides scientific, 
technical, and management expertise to promote safe and efficient 
marine and air navigation; assess the health of coastal and marine 
resources; monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global 
environments, including weather forecasting; and protect and manage the 
Nation's coastal resources. NOAA's significance is strongly felt in 
Maryland which, with the Chesapeake Bay, boasts 4,000 miles of coastal 
land. I am proud that this bill strongly supports NOAA through the 
provision of $4.21 billion.
  I join my colleagues to note the importance of NASA. NASA programs 
serve a number of functions, such as planetary exploration, pioneering 
aeronautic technologies, and space operations. This includes 
maintaining the space shuttle and supporting the International Space 
Station. Previous cuts, combined with the Columbia tragedy have 
strained NASA's resources. We must provide the necessary funding in 
order for America to remain a leader in space exploration, aeronautics, 
and planetary science. I applaud the committee for identifying this 
truth and supporting NASA.
  I would like to further thank the committee for supporting several 
key programs in Maryland, including:
  Chesapeake Bay Programs--The health condition of America's largest 
estuary is critical. Programs that assess, manage, and monitor bay 
ecosystems are imperative to preserving this vast natural resource. I 
thank my colleagues for recognizing the significance of focusing on the 
Chesapeake Bay. Funded bay programs will not only research viable 
restoration solutions but also focus on educating the public as to the 
importance of preserving the bay. These education efforts include the 
successful Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training Program, or 
B-WET, that enhances environmental literacy in K-12 students. In 
addition, there are Chesapeake Interpretive Buoys that act as markers 
for the newly established Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 
Historical Trail, providing interpretive information for both trail 
users and educators while also providing essential science information 
about bay health.
  Maryland Eastern Shore Broadband Coverage--The bill provides funding 
for the continued construction of a broadband link between the Wallops 
Island Flight Facility and the Patuxent River Naval Station. This 
telecommunication enhancement will help pave the way for high-tech 
business and employment opportunities on Maryland's eastern shore.
  Maryland Radio Interoperability Project--The State of Maryland has 
committed to developing a radio interoperability Project that will link 
State and local law enforcement agencies. Cooperation and shared 
information between agencies will develop a more effective, efficient 
law enforcement system for the protection of our citizens.
  Baltimore Felony Diversion Program--The city of Baltimore has 
developed a pilot project designed to divert drug addicted offenders to 
long-term substance abuse treatment, aftercare, and monitoring as an 
alternative to detention and method of reducing recidivism.
  This bill is good for Maryland and good for America. I am honored to 
support it.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the 
$10 million in the Senate fiscal year 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science 
Appropriations Act for the landmark Penobscot River Restoration 
Project, the most significant river restoration project ever in the 
eastern United States. I was pleased to work with my colleague from 
Maine to secure funding for this important environmental restoration 
project. This funding will provide significant federal cost-share 
toward the purchase of three hydropower dams on the Penobscot River 
that are slated for removal. When the project is complete, nearly 1,000 
miles of habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon and other fish species 
will be restored.
  Atlantic salmon populations have declined drastically in the last 200 
years, from an estimated half million adult salmon returning to U.S. 
rivers each year in the early 1800s to as few as 1,000 in 2001. The 
National Academy of Sciences completed a report in 2004 on Atlantic 
salmon in Maine which identified several specific threats to the 
recovery of Maine's salmon populations. Top among them was the 
obstructed passage and habitat degradation caused by dams. The National 
Academy of Sciences recommended that dam removal projects are precisely 
what is needed to best enhance Atlantic salmon populations.
  The Penobscot River Restoration Project represents such a 
comprehensive effort and is one of the largest, most creative river 
restoration projects in our Nation's history. In fact, Interior 
Secretary Kempthorne highlighted the project as a successful example of 
cooperative conservation during his September 20, 2006, visit to 
Brewer, ME.
  The 5-year, $50 million project would restore the natural flow of 
Maine's largest watershed. This project is a partnership of the State 
of Maine, local communities, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the U.S. Department of Interior, the National Park 
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Penobscot Indian Nation, 
the Atlantic Salmon Federation, PPL Corporation, the Natural Resources 
Council of Maine, and other environmental groups.
  In addition to enhancing Atlantic salmon recovery efforts, it will 
also have far-ranging benefits for the entire Gulf of Maine, protecting 
endangered species, migratory birds, and a diversity of riverine and 
estuarine wetlands.

[[Page 27232]]

Finally, the project will help revive the social, cultural, and 
economic traditions of New England's second largest river.
  The merits of this project are demonstrated by the fact that it has 
attracted both federal and private support. The federal government has 
already contributed $5.5 million to this important project, and a 
private fundraising campaign recently reached its goal of raising $10 
million.
  I congratulate the Penobscot River Restoration Trust for its 
outstanding efforts to secure funding for this critical project. Their 
dedication and commitment, sustained over years of effort, have helped 
bring the project closer to completion.
  The Penobscot River Restoration Project is a critical environmental 
restoration project. Including the $10 million in the final FY 2008 
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill is crucial to ensure the 
success of the project. I urge swift passage of the bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I rise today to support the funding bill for the 
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science and Related Agencies and 
commend Senators Mikulski and Shelby for their hard work on this 
legislation.
  This bill provides important funding that will strengthen the 
American economy, promote scientific advancement, and protect our 
national security. It reflects our priorities by funding State and 
local law enforcement agencies across the country. Since September 11, 
2001, these agencies have been on the front lines of Nation's efforts 
to fight crime as well as to safeguard our communities against terror.
  Our law enforcement officials have accepted these responsibilities 
willingly and have performed admirably. But for several years, they 
have been burdened by their expanded role. These agencies have asked 
the administration and Congress for help--but instead of providing them 
with the funding they need, the Bush administration and the Republican 
Congress sought instead to cut their budgets. To those who patrol our 
streets, these repeated budget cuts made no sense, and they made no 
sense to those of us in the Democratic minority in Congress.
  Thankfully, there's a new group of sheriffs on Capitol Hill. This 
Democratic Congress is committed to providing law enforcement with the 
tools they need to help keep our communities safe.
  This bill delivers on our commitment. It provides nearly $2.7 billion 
in State and local law enforcement assistance--$1.5 billion above the 
President's request.
  The American people learned a decade ago that federal funding for 
State and local law enforcement helps reduce violent crime. During the 
Clinton administration, we provided meaningful funding for tough and 
effective anticrime programs. The Community Oriented Policing Services 
Program put more than 115,000 additional cops on the street and in our 
schools. Byrne grants helped fund state and local law enforcement 
agencies, criminal justice systems, and antidrug task forces.
  This investment in State and local law enforcement paid off. Violent 
crime nationwide fell by nearly 26 percent between 1994 and 2000. And 
study after study showed the link between lower crime rates and Federal 
assistance for law enforcement. In Illinois, nearly $40 million in COPS 
grants have funded 5,540 additional police officers and sheriffs. 
Nearly 700 local and State law enforcement agencies in my home State 
have directly benefited from this funding.
  In northern Illinois, the village of Johnsburg has a population of 
about 7,000. Experts recommend 1 police officer per 400 to 500 people. 
Johnsburg, however, has only 10 officers--an average of 1 per 700 
residents. The lack of officers in Johnsburg means that often they have 
only one car patrolling the streets. This is no way to ensure the 
safety of small town residents. Small towns like Johnsburg desperately 
need the funding provided by COPS grants in order to put cops on the 
beat and keep crime off of their streets.
  COPS grants also play a crucial role in the war against drugs. I am 
sorry to say that Illinois has a serious problem with methamphetamine 
abuse. In Williamson County, Sheriff Tom Cundiff is using COPS funding 
to train some 150 individuals in dismantling meth labs. This is no 
inexpensive undertaking--the breathing apparatus needed for each person 
alone costs $3,000. Sheriff Cundiff tells me that COPS funding has 
allowed him to train eight times the number of officers than he could 
have trained without our help.
  This funding is also vital for the safety of our schools. Nearly $22 
million has been awarded to add 181 school resources officers to 
improve safety for students and teachers in public schools throughout 
Illinois. Why is this money so important? In Breese, IL, town of 4,000, 
the population doubles every day as the children of Clinton County 
arrive in Breese to attend school. This influx strains the resources of 
the police department and its six officers. With a grant of just 
$56,000, the Breese police department will be able to install cameras 
and other security equipment in their schools. These cameras will feed 
images to computers in police cruisers so officers can patrol the 
village while still keeping track of what's happening at school.
  Since the late 1990s, the Bush administration and the Republican-led 
Congress have cut funding for State and local law enforcement, year 
after year, budget after budget. Not surprisingly at the same time the 
administration was slashing funds for state and local law enforcement, 
violent crime rates started going up.
  According to the FBI's crime reports, violent crime rates increased 
2.3 percent in 2005 after years of decreases, and then rose again by 
1.9 percent in 2006. This represents tens of thousands of additional 
violent crimes each year. This alarming increase in violent crime rates 
should have been a call to action. But it wasn't.
  Instead, the administration's's 2008 budget request tried to cut more 
than half of all State and local law enforcement funding. It cut the 
COPS program down to a mere $32 million, virtually eliminated the 
Byrne/JAG program, and eliminated the juvenile accountability block 
grant program.
  Can the administration honestly say that we should be spending 
billions of dollars a month to police the streets of Iraq but that we 
can't afford to pay for proven crime prevention programs here at home? 
Earlier this year, Russ Laine, the chief of police in Algonquin, IL, 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing about 
rising crime.
  Chief Laine also serves as the vice-president of the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, and he speaks on behalf of chiefs 
throughout the Nation. He talked about the growing crime problem in 
Algonquin, a tiny town that had just suffered its first drive-by 
shooting and has seen clashes between violent gangs. He also talked 
about the strain that law enforcement agencies have felt in trying to 
fight crime while also detecting, investigating and preventing 
terrorist acts.
  In his testimony, Chief Laine said the following:

       We willingly accept the new responsibilities in combating 
     terrorism, but our ability to continue with traditional 
     policing is our best weapon against terrorism. . . . Law 
     enforcement are doing all that we can to protect our 
     communities from increasing crime rates and the specter of 
     terrorism, but we cannot do it alone. We need the full 
     support and assistance of the federal government.

  Chief Laine, help is on the way.
  The fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution passed by this Congress 
earlier this year provided $2.6 billion in State and local law 
enforcement assistance programs. It included funding increases for the 
COPS and Byrne/JAG programs. The bill we consider today further 
increases state and local law enforcement funding. It provides $550 
million for COPS and $1.4 billion for State and local law enforcement 
grants.
  This bill also increases funds the crime and terror prevention 
efforts of Federal law enforcement agencies. The FBI, DEA, ATF and the 
U.S. Marshals are all funded in this bill, and all at levels exceeding 
the President's request.
  Let's pass this bill and give law enforcement agencies the tools they 
need to keep our communities safe.

[[Page 27233]]

  I would be remiss, however, to yield the floor without mentioning 
that this bill goes beyond providing vital support to law enforcement 
agencies across the country.
  This legislation also helps another important issue we face today--
climate change. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our 
ability to monitor severe weather systems, declining fish stocks, 
shortages of freshwater, increased soil erosion, and significant 
changes to the global climate all depend on NASA's Earth science 
budget.
  This bill restores funding for environmental polar-orbiting and 
geostationary satellites. These satellites provide data about our 
planet that allow Federal and State agencies, scientists, and industry 
to identify and assess environmental patterns and threats. After the 
Bush administration proposed cutting funding for these satellites, 
scientists from both NOAA and NASA reacted strongly, arguing that the 
decision would place ``the overall climate program in serious 
jeopardy.''
  This measure also provides funding to implement some of the 
recommendations made by the Joint Ocean Commission to protect the 
planet's waters. It funds research into coastal areas and the Great 
Lakes, including studies on invasive aquatic species. The need to 
address invasive species is nowhere greater than in Illinois, where the 
Asian Carp threatens Lake Michigan and the entire Great Lakes 
ecosystem.
  Global climate change poses a threat to our future and to our 
national security. Failing to recognize and plan for the consequences 
of global warming would be a serious mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for the safety of 
our communities and the future of our planet.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that once again, 
the Senate is considering a bill that mortgages our children's future 
for our own political gain. To date, the Senate has passed five 
spending bills--the majority of which exceeded the President's budget 
request. Today, the Senate will seek to add a sixth appropriations bill 
to that list.
  The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies 
appropriations bill, 2008, H.R. 3093, provides $54 billion in total 
discretionary spending and exceeds the President's budget by $3.2 
billion. This has prompted the White House to call the bill 
``irresponsible'' and threaten a veto. If this bill passes in its 
current form, the Senate will have approved 6 spending bills that 
combined exceed the President's budget by $8 billion. And, the Senate 
still has 6 more appropriations bills to consider this year
  While the recently enacted ethics and lobbying reform measure 
requires the disclosure of the authorship of earmarks, it seems to have 
had little, if any, impact on curtailing earmarks. Indeed, 91 members 
secured earmarks in this appropriations bill alone. There are over 600 
earmarks in this bill that total $486 million. For example, this bill 
contains: $1 million for the National Fatherhood Initiative; $500,000 
for a Maritime Museum in Mobile, AL; $15 million for a Massachusetts 
groundfish disaster--I was unaware there was such a disaster--$215,000 
for the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission; $360,000 for 
Hawaii Rain Gages; over $9 million for Human Intelligence Management; 
$500,000 for Girls, Inc. of New York, NY.
  And if that wasn't enough, the bill also includes: $450,000 for an 
advanced undersea vehicle; $500,000 for horseshoe crab research; $2 
million for permanent displays for the Thunder Bay Exhibit; $3 million 
for the Maryland Institute for Dextrous Robotics; $400,000 for wireless 
cameras in Elizabeth, NJ; $5 million for forensic lab equipment in West 
Virginia; $1.5 million for the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation.
  In addition, the bill provides funding to many programs that were 
proposed to be cut by the President. It also funds many other programs 
at levels beyond what was recommended by the President's budget. For 
example, $100 million is allocated for the Advanced Technology Program 
that the President has sought to eliminate for the past several years 
and $110 million is allocated for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program--$64 million above the President's budget request. 
The sole purpose of both programs is to subsidize private firms and 
industries, which, as I have argued previously, are nothing more than 
welfare programs for corporate special interests. I have fought against 
funding for both of these programs for many years to no avail, but will 
continue to speak out against hard-earned taxpayer dollars being 
provided to assist corporations that have billions of capital available 
to them on the private markets.
  Since the bill has been brought to the floor, over $1 billion worth 
of spending has been added. Specifically, the Senate voted to add $1 
billion on top of the $10 billion the bill already provided to NASA. I 
continue to support NASA and space research, but at what cost to our 
Nation's children who will inherit the largest national debt this 
country has seen? :
  Again, I would like to express my disappointment that Senate 
leadership has brought to the floor a bill that is $3 billion over the 
President's request, containing more than 600 earmarks. In my recent 
travels around the Nation, I hear again and again from citizens who are 
fed up with porkbarrel spending, and yet Congress fails to listen. It 
is a shame and I can only hope that the American people will join me 
and the President in expressing their displeasure with this bill. I 
hope that the remaining six appropriations bills do not contain such 
rampant and reckless spending, and that Congress works to regain some 
fiscal discipline.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Senate fiscal year 2008 
Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies appropriations bill. 
This bipartisan bill increases funding for many important programs 
including some that aim to improve our Nation's innovation and 
manufacturing infrastructure.
  American companies can compete with any company in the world if we 
have a level playing field, but the problem is that our manufacturing 
companies often are not competing against foreign companies, but 
foreign governments. Two of the programs that have helped to give a 
boost to our manufacturing companies are the Advanced Technology 
Program, recently renamed the Technology Innovation Program, and the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Unfortunately, the administration 
has cut funding for these programs in recent years. This bill turns 
that trend around by providing the necessary increased funding in 
fiscal year 2008 for both of these important programs.
  The bill increases funding for the National Institute for Standards 
and Technology, NIST, which administers the Advanced Technology 
Program, ATP. I have long fought for the Advanced Technology Program, 
and I believe we have achieved an important victory today.
  The ATP enables U.S. companies to develop the next generation of 
breakthrough technologies that allows our country to compete against 
foreign rivals who often employ large and effective programs to support 
their industries. The ATP invests Federal R&D resources in public-
private partnerships, enhancing U.S. competitiveness by accelerating 
development, commercialization, and application of promising 
technologies, and by improving manufacturing techniques of small and 
medium-sized manufacturers.
  During Senate consideration of H.R. 2272, the 21st Century 
Competitiveness Act of 2007, the bill that authorizes NIST programs, I 
worked to build support for a more robust ATP program. The Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee chairman offered to support a funding 
increase for the ATP in the conference committee between the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, and with his support we were able to 
achieve a stronger ATP-like program.
  I was pleased that the final legislation that was signed into law 
adopted the Technology Innovation Program. This is a victory for 
innovation and manufacturing because the TIP Program is basically an 
improved version of the ATP program which retains many of ATP's best 
features while

[[Page 27234]]

modifying the program to address past criticism. The TIP program will 
continue the excellent work that has been undertaken by ATP. Like the 
ATP, it will continue to bridge the gap between the research lab and 
the marketplace by providing cost-shared funding to small and medium-
sized companies conducting high-risk R&D with broad commercial and 
societal benefits that would probably not be undertaken by the private 
sector because the risk is too great or because rewards to the private 
company would be insufficient to make it worth the investment.
  We have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In the 
face of these losses and strong global economic competition, we should 
be doing all we can to promote programs that help create jobs and 
strengthen the technological innovation of American companies. I 
believe the TIP program is one way to give American companies resources 
they need in the important fight for American manufacturing to remain 
globally competitive.
  TIP allows for greater industry input in the operation of the 
program, allows university participation for the first time, and 
requires the lead grant recipient to be a small or medium-sized firm to 
address past criticism that grants went to large companies--joint 
ventures between smaller and larger companies will still be allowed.
  I am pleased this bill strongly supports the ATP/TIP program. A 
portion of the new funds must go toward funding new awards which 
guarantees there will be a new competition each year to fund high-risk 
groundbreaking research by some of America's most nimble and innovative 
small and medium-sized technology companies.
  The bill also increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program, MEP, providing $110 million in fiscal year 2008 to 
fund MEP centers and to fund a technology deployment pilot. The MEP co-
funds a nationwide system of manufacturing support centers to assist 
small and midsized manufacturers modernize to compete in a demanding 
marketplace by providing technical assistance and helping small firms 
boost productivity, streamline operations, integrate new technologies 
and lower costs.
  The bill also provides important resources to combat illegal 
counterfeiting of America's innovation and products by providing an 
increase in funding for the FBI to enforce intellectual property laws 
and to the International Trade Administration, ITA, to improve 
enforcement of our trade agreements. Acknowledging the need to do more 
to fight against unfair foreign trade practices that result in our 
companies having to compete not against foreign companies but against 
foreign governments that are often illegally subsidizing their domestic 
industries at the expense of our industries, the bill provides 
important additional funding to the Department of Commerce's Import 
Administration which enforces U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty 
laws. This is especially timely since the Commerce Department recently 
agreed it should apply our countervailing duty law to imports from 
China, a non-market economy, and as a result, an increase in the number 
of subsidy cases is expected.
  I requested, and the bill provides, $2 million for the Thunder Bay 
National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. The Thunder Bay 
National Marine Sanctuary is the only sanctuary designated in the Great 
Lakes, and it protects a significant collection of approximately 160 
shipwrecks which span over a century of Great Lakes shipping history. 
The funding provided in this bill will be used for the completion of 
permanent displays for the facility's new visitor center as well as the 
acquisition of telepresence equipment. The Thunder Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary has been in existence since 2000, and the visitors center was 
only recently constructed. Therefore, it is important that the 
sanctuary construct exhibits for the new visitors center that educates 
visitors on the maritime history of the Great Lakes. Additionally, the 
Thunder Bay Sanctuary will have telepresence to allow students in 
classrooms across the country as well as visitors to the sanctuary, to 
see the actual shipwrecks at Thunder Bay through underwater cameras.
  I am pleased that my amendment to enhance the FBI National Name Check 
Program was included in the bill. The FBI National Name Check Program 
is used to run background checks on many who apply for immigration 
benefits, and those seeking employment with the U.S. Government, as 
well as other checks requested by the National Security Agency, other 
Government agencies, and some private users. Many immigrants who are 
applying for adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, applying 
for naturalization, asylum or a waiver end up waiting for months or 
years for the completion of the name check that the U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, CIS, or other agencies request from the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  The FBI has recognized the flaws in this program. In 2003, Robert J. 
Garrity, Jr., then Acting Assistant Director of the Records Management 
Division of the FBI stated before the House Committee on Government 
Reform that, ``[t]he name check delays have significant consequences to 
FBI customers and stakeholders. The delays impede hiring or clearing 
skilled workers; completing government contracts; student enrollment, 
and . . . clearing requested visas for business visits to the United 
States. More importantly than all of the foregoing, these processing 
delays can also diminish counterterrorism effectiveness.'' In the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, Ombudsman's 2007 Annual 
Report, Mr. Prakash Khatri, the USCIS Ombudsman, stated that ``the 
problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened'' since last 
year, with 93,358 more name check cases pending than last year for a 
total of 329,160 pending as of May 4, 2007. Around 31,000 cases have 
been pending for at least 33 months. This is unacceptable. If these 
individuals are a security threat, we must know that sooner rather than 
later.
  My amendment would help ensure that these important security checks 
are completed in a timely manner by requiring the FBI to report to 
Congress every year regarding progress made in improving the FBI's 
system of processing background checks and automating investigative 
files.
  This legislation restores vital law enforcement funding that has been 
decreasing for far too long. Although violent crime has increased over 
the past 25 years, the President has continued to propose reduced 
funding and the elimination of vital law enforcement programs. This 
bill appropriately restores that funding and reinforces our commitment 
to keeping our communities safe. For Michigan, the bill provides 
funding training programs for law enforcement personnel, computers for 
patrol vehicles and interoperable communications equipment.
  I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment that I cosponsored 
that increases the drug court appropriation to $40 million. Drug courts 
intervene and break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime. 
They place substance abusing offenders under strict court monitoring 
and community supervision, coupled with effective, long-term treatment 
services, and I am pleased that we have appropriated adequate funding 
to continue these vital services.
  The Senate has put together a responsible bill that funds the 
programs that our citizens rely on, in spite of the fact that the 
President has threatened to veto it. I am hopeful that these funding 
levels will remain intact in conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now coming to the closing hour of 
this debate. As we get ready for the Republican leadership to offer an 
amendment, then Senator Shelby and I will be making the appropriate 
motion to move to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                            motion to commit

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I now move to commit the bill and send 
that motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 27235]]

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to commit 
     H.R. 3093 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report the same back to the Senate with the 
     total discretionary amounts not exceeding the amount 
     ($51,238,522,000) recommended in the President's budget for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 submitted to Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are 16 days into the fiscal year, 
and Congress has yet to enact a single appropriations bill.
  This bill, should it pass, will never get signed into law.
  It is time to start taking our obligations to the taxpayers 
seriously. I believe that we can do so in a fiscally responsible way.
  The bill, when reported, increased spending by 8.1 percent over last 
year's bill, and it has only grown since it has been on the floor. When 
we finish this bill we will have increased spending by nearly 10 
percent--a double digit increase--at a time when the CPI went up only 
by about 2 percent.
  The American people demand that Congress get serious about 
restraining spending. We can pass the buck--and fund government through 
multiple continuing resolutions--or we can make the choices necessary 
to responsibly legislate.
  Senator Lott and I propose to send this bill back to committee and 
instruct them to prioritize spending in a way that is both responsible 
to the taxpayer and will secure a Presidential signature. We will move 
to commit H.R. 3093 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
instructions to report back with total amounts not to exceed $51.238 
billion. I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and to 
support the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Republican 
leader, I rise to oppose the motion to commit this bill to the full 
committee. This bill is the product of strong bipartisan work. Our bill 
totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Some say we spent 
more than the President asked. Yes, we did. We are proud of the fact 
that what we spent money on was that we didn't overspend, that the 
President underfunded.
  We had three--when I say ``we,'' I am talking about the ranking 
member, Senator Shelby, and I--priorities: Security, keeping 300 
million Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime; our second 
priority was innovation, investments in science and technology that 
will create jobs that will stay in the United States of America; No. 3, 
reform. We were soundly on the side of fiscal accountability and 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We stood sentry over waste, fraud, and 
abuse. We stood sentry over lavish conferences that spent $4 on a 
meatball. We reformed the NOAA satellite program.
  But our first priority was also to make sure local communities are 
safe. We lifted the hiring freeze on DEA agents so they could fight the 
heroin and Taliban in Afghanistan as well as keeping our streets clean. 
We also, at the same time, added money for local law enforcement, 
particularly dealing with the fact that the COPS program had been 
eliminated and that the Byrne grants had been cut down to only $32 
million. Yes, we added $1.5 billion. We certainly did. People all over 
America who understand what violent crime is know what this means.
  I know my other colleagues want to speak. I do appreciate the 
Republican leadership for wanting fiscal accountability and 
stewardship. But I believe we also need to fund America's priorities. I 
believe law enforcement and the fight against terrorism is No. 1. By 
God, we did it in this bill. And by God, this bill should stand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
commit. Chairman Mikulski and I have worked hard with a lot of Members 
on both sides of the aisle to meet the priorities of the Senate and the 
Nation. This bill funds State and local law enforcement $1.6 billion 
over the administration's request. The budget proposed to cut law 
enforcement to an unacceptable level. The bill fully funds the 
President's vision for space and makes critical investments in science 
and education that will be needed to keep this country competitive. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill Senator Mikulski and I have 
crafted to meet the needs of the Senate and the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to commit 
this appropriations bill with instructions to report back to the Senate 
forthwith with a total discretionary amount not exceeding the amount of 
$51,238,522,000.
  Let me make it clear, I understand these appropriations bills are 
difficult. You have a lot of demands from a lot of Members. You have to 
work with the administration. You have to work with outside people who 
have needs, concerns, and priorities. It is not easy to live within a 
budget. But if we are ever going to begin fiscal responsibility and 
some restraint on spending, when is it going to be?
  This is a bill which richly deserves to have some restraint applied 
to it. I think this bill demonstrates why the American public has such 
a dismal view of the Congress.
  At a time when the CPI went up barely 2 percent and average weekly 
earnings went up 3.9 percent, the Senate is considering a bill that has 
double-digit increases for these Departments that are involved.
  Spending for the Commerce Department, not the Justice Department--and 
by the way, I suspect people have some doubts about some of the ways 
the Justice Department has been spending money--Commerce is up 14 
percent. Spending for the Legal Services Corporation is up 12 percent. 
Overall spending for Commerce, Justice, and Science--more than $55 
billion, a 10-percent increase. How much is enough? No wonder people do 
not think we have any desire to restrain spending.
  This is, by the way, not just a partisan charge; it is a problem that 
has been building for quite some time. At some point, we have to begin 
to say we have to get a control on this. Let's send it back to 
committee. They know what is in this bill. I do not want to pit one 
department or one agency against another. It won't be easy for them to 
do it, but they have the knowledge, the ability to get this under 
control.
  The proposal the President sent up was $900 million over the previous 
year--a 1.8-percent increase. But we added--I believe this is correct--
$4.2 billion over last year's spending.
  So I think this is a tremendous burden. We can get this under 
control. Why do we want to force this into a confrontation where we run 
the risk or expectation of a veto and an override when we can get it 
under control now, hopefully get it under control along the way as we 
go into conference?
  I supported the Treasury, Transportation, and HUD appropriations 
bill. I supported going to conference. But there, too, it was $3 
billion over the budget request of the President. If you add this up--a 
billion here, a billion there--the combination is about $40 billion 
over the appropriations bills we have. When you couple that with $20 
billion more we added earlier in the year, that is $60 billion more 
than should be expected in this budget.
  So I urge my colleagues, let's support the motion to commit. We can 
pick away at this earmark or take a little away from this agency or 
department, but we need hundreds of millions of dollars to be moved 
around here. Let these leaders of the committee, who know where the 
funding is, make some decisions of where we can bring this spending 
under control.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to commend Senator Mikulski for her 
skillful management of this bill. The Commerce-Justice-Science bill 
requires tough tradeoffs between critical programs that serve our 
country well.
  I thank Senator Shelby for his many contributions to this bipartisan 
legislation.
  I urge Senators--do you hear me?--I urge Senators to vote no on the 
motion

[[Page 27236]]

to commit the bill to committee for the purpose of reducing the bill to 
the President's request. If such a motion were approved, the bill would 
need to be reduced by $3.2 billion. Did you get that? If such a motion 
were approved, now, the bill would have to be reduced by $3.2 billion.
  Now, to any Senators who intend to vote for the motion, I ask this 
question--listen--what programs would you cut? Hear me. What programs 
would you cut? Stand up. Let me see you. Let me hear you.
  Should we reduce funding for the FBI while it is struggling to fight 
the global war on terror and fight crime on our streets? Should we? Is 
that what you want? Should we? I ask again, should we reduce funding 
for the FBI? I do not hear anyone responding on that.
  Should we reduce funding for law enforcement grants to State and 
local governments when violent crime is on the rise in this country? 
Should we? Let me ask you again. Should we reduce funding for law 
enforcement grants? Step up to the plate now. Should we reduce funding 
for law enforcement grants to State and local governments when violent 
crime is on the rise in this country?
  This summer, the President signed the America COMPETES Act 
authorizing increased funding for the National Science Foundation and 
for NIST. Should we cut those programs that will help to drive a 
prosperous economy?
  Should we reduce our commitment to NASA? Should we? Should we reduce 
our commitment to NASA? I hear nobody. Why all this silence? I think 
not.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to commit, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to commit 
because it would constitute abandonment, a surrender of the Congress's 
authority to participate in the appropriations process. There is a 
fundamental constitutional issue involved by this body at this time.
  I believe we ought to be frugal and fiscally responsible, and I have 
repeatedly supported the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget 
so we would live within our means. I have supported the line-item veto. 
In the tenure I have had here on the Appropriations Committee, I have 
been zealous in supporting programs which were meritorious and worthy 
of the taxpayers' money. We all pay taxes, and we know how painful that 
is. I do not believe we are being profligate.
  Now, there was an opportunity in the Appropriations Committee for 
this motion to have been made to establish the President's figure, but 
it was not done. There were opportunities to pare and trim many of the 
items. But if we are going to accept the President's figure, then we 
are surrendering our constitutional authority to be involved in the 
appropriations process.
  Now, Congress does not act alone. We all know that. Congress makes a 
presentment, and the President either signs it or he vetoes it. But 
certainly who can deny we have a role--really the fundamental role, as 
article I is written--giving the constitutional authority to Congress 
on appropriations.
  Now, we have a similar matter pending on SCHIP, health care for 
children. Congress has submitted a bill with a $35 billion increase 
over 5 years. The President has said it is too much. He wants $5 
billion. He has said he is prepared to negotiate. Well, that is the way 
the political process works. The Congress passes a bill, the President 
vetoes it, and then we sit down and try to work it out. But I do not 
think it is appropriate for the Congress to submit to whatever figure 
the President puts on it.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is he wiser than the 535 Members of Congress? Does he 
have more authority under article II than the Congress? Article II does 
not say anything about the President's authority on appropriations. He 
derives that authority by virtue of the Constitution, which gives him 
the right to sign or veto. But the appropriations authority, all 
through the Constitution, vests with the Congress.
  Now, this is an issue and a vote which goes far beyond this 
particular bill. Next we have the appropriations bill on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, a subcommittee which I chaired for 
many years and am now ranking. If we are going to submit on this bill 
to the President's figure, you can be sure there will be a motion to 
commit that bill, which is over the President's figure, and a motion to 
commit all of the bills which are over the President's figure. We might 
as well not even convene and act.
  These appropriations bills are the result of a lot of very careful 
thought and a lot of hard work by staff and by Senators. We have 
subcommittees, we have full committee work, and we present it to the 
body. If there are some motions to reduce it, those motions could have 
been made before the bill came to the floor of the Senate.
  We had a confrontation in 1995, where the Government was shut down, 
and I think a lesson was learned by both branches. I do not think that 
is going to recur. But at least let's try to compromise, to follow on 
this bill and other bills the same outline which the President has 
recommended. The President's view was we ought to negotiate and 
compromise on SCHIP, and that ought to be done here if we are to 
fulfill our constitutional responsibility for appropriations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
commit. This appropriations process is about choices. We have to make 
these choices. I think Senator Mikulski, as chairman of the Commerce, 
Justice, and Science Subcommittee, and her counterpart, Senator Shelby, 
have made good choices. If you look at the money that is spent here 
over what the President requested, you have a right to ask: What are we 
going to spend it on? When you ask that question, you understand why 
they made the right choices.
  Does America need 100 more FBI agents to fight the rising threat of 
violent crime? We do in Illinois and in Maryland and in West Virginia, 
maybe even in Mississippi, because we find the violent crime rate 
rising in America. Do we need the 100 more FBI agents the Senator has 
called for? I think the people across America would say: Obviously, we 
do.
  How about the Drug Enforcement Agency? Is the drug issue no longer a 
problem in America? I wish that were the case. We know better. What 
Senator Mikulski has done here is put an extra $50 million in this bill 
for the Drug Enforcement Agency to lift its hiring freeze, to hire 200 
new agents to fight the drug peddlers and drug gangs across America. Is 
that a priority? Is that worth spending more than the President 
requested? Obviously, it is.
  Have you been back to your hometowns to meet with the police 
department? Remember what they asked you about first: What have you 
heard about Byrne grants? What have you heard about the COPS Program? 
How about the Federal money that is going down to police departments so 
they can have better training, better equipment, and be ready if, God 
forbid, something terrible happens in that community. That is what they 
ask me about in Illinois. Senator Mikulski heard that, Senator Shelby 
heard that, and they put an additional $1.6 billion in to go back to 
State and local governments to help on law enforcement preparedness.
  If we ever face another act of terrorism, it is unlikely that our 
local residents are going to pick up the phone and call Members of 
Congress. They are going to dial 9-1-1 and pray to God that the party 
on the other end of that call is a fire department and a police 
department and a medical responder ready to move, and move quickly and 
effectively. With this appropriation, we will be able to do that. The 
list goes on.
  What troubles me about this whole debate is that last year, when the 
Republican Congress sent spending bills to the President $50 billion 
over his request, he didn't veto one of them. He didn't even threaten 
to veto one of them. He didn't take a trip to South Carolina to 
announce he was going to veto one of them. Not one. This year,

[[Page 27237]]

we are $20 billion over and the President says: I am standing my 
ground.
  Well, let me tell you about the ground that he is standing on. It is 
shaky.
  Mr. BYRD. It is.
  Mr. DURBIN. Because in a week from now, this same President is going 
to come to this Congress and ask us for, I say to the Senator from West 
Virginia, $192 billion more for the war in Iraq.
  Mr. BYRD. Get out of my face.
  Mr. DURBIN. He will ask us for $192 billion for the war in Iraq. That 
is for 1 year.
  Mr. BYRD. Just 1 year.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is not paid for, and now we hear from the President's 
party: We can't afford $3.2 billion to make America safe at home, for 
our own police departments, our own FBI, our own Drug Enforcement 
Agency.
  I think the Members who are pushing this motion to commit believe the 
Senate is suffering from attention deficit disorder; that we cannot 
think ahead, that the President will just in a few days ask us for $192 
billion to make Iraq safe. We know that is coming. They don't want to 
talk about that. Is it too much to ask for $3.2 billion to make America 
safe? Doesn't a stronger America begin at home? Doesn't it begin with 
our own Department of Justice? Doesn't it begin with our police 
departments?
  I would say to my colleagues, we understand the choices here, and the 
right choices have been made by this committee on a bipartisan basis. 
They worked this bill through the committee, and they worked hard on 
it. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby brought it to the floor. 
Amendment after amendment they have gone through the process. Now, the 
Senate will make a decision: Are we going to toss all their work 
overboard, are we going to commit this bill back to the committee? I 
hope we don't. I hope we stand up for this country in which we live, 
this country we love that deserves the protection that this bill will 
give. Let's defeat this motion to commit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I was listening to Senator Byrd, the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he asked 
who would stand up. I will stand up. I think we ought to cut a lot of 
things, but the first thing we ought to do is cut out claiming 
something that isn't true.
  What we need to claim is that we can live within the same parameters 
that every family in this country has to live within. We are not doing 
it on this bill. It is not about whether the FBI is funded. It is not 
about the ATF or the Drug Enforcement Agency--it is about priorities. 
There is just $640 million worth of earmark nonpriority things in this 
bill. So we could get $640 million tomorrow out of the earmarks that 
are not priorities, and I will be happy to list for anybody the total 
for every State, for every Senator who has a priority they think is 
more important than families having to live within a budget that they 
have to live with every day.
  This isn't a debate about the President. This is a debate about the 
future of our country starting to live within the means of which we 
have.
  The very things we claim we want to do for all the States that they 
don't have money to do--by the way, there are cumulative budget 
surpluses over $40 billion right now. Ours is, if you take Washington 
speak, $160 billion; if you take true accounting, it is $330 billion. 
But the States have a surplus. The Justice Department had the highest 
unexpended balances they have ever had this last year--almost $1.6 
billion. Yet we think they need more money. Does anybody in this 
country think every agency of this Government couldn't run 5 percent 
more efficiently? Nobody outside of Washington believes they couldn't. 
They know they can because they know they have to make those same 
choices every day in everything they do because they can't run with a 
credit card and charge it to their grandchildren.
  Now, 10 percent growth in this bill is too much. This motion to 
commit doesn't have anything to do with the President. It has to do 
with whether we will stand up and do what every other American has to 
do, and that is live within the realities of the money available to 
them. We can claim that we are doing everything. Since when is fire 
prevention the total responsibility of the Federal Government? Since 
when is police protection the total responsibility of the Federal 
Government? It is not going to go away. If it is a higher priority, 
then let's make it a higher priority, but let's get rid of some things 
that aren't. There are no choices to get rid of things that are low 
priority. We can't have it both ways. Those who want to grow the 
Government can't have it both ways. Either you want to live within the 
means, you want to be honest with the American people and say: You are 
right; we can do a better job.
  This bill does not do a better job. We ought to relook at it, 
reformulate priorities. That doesn't undermine what the committee has 
done. We added $1 billion on the floor. The committee didn't do that, 
we did. What we ought to say is let's add 2 or 3 percent, live with 
less than inflation, do what every American has to do, and if we do 
that all the way across the board, then we will start solving the 
fiscal problems that are in front of us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will agree to the yeas and nays. 
First, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to vote on 
the motion to commit; that no amendments be in order to the motion; 
that if the motion is defeated, no further amendments or motions be in 
order and the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote 
on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate; and that the subcommittee be 
appointed along with Senators Byrd and Cochran; that following morning 
business on Wednesday, October 17, the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 3043, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill; and 
further, that if the motion is agreed to, then the remaining provisions 
of this agreement be nullified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kerry

[[Page 27238]]


     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was rejected.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. I thank my colleagues and 
staff for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to take a second to thank 
Chairwoman Mikulski and her staff who helped us craft a very good 
bipartisan bill. I thank the majority clerk, Gabrielle Batkin; Erin 
Corcoran; Doug Disrude; Kevin Kimball; and Robert Rich.
  I also thank my staff who worked so diligently on this bill: Art 
Cameron, Goodloe Sutton, Allen Cutler, Rachelle Schroeder, and Augusta 
Wilson. Without them, we could not have done it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, thank the Appropriations Committee staff, 
particularly Charles Kieffer and his able team.
  Mr. President, I thank the floor staff of both parties, because we 
worked together and showed that you can actually run a bill and have 
collegiality and have civility and yet have robust debate where we can 
disagree without being disagreeable. With that, we are ready to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill. 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 New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 372 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Lott
     McCain
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clinton
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Obama
     Warner
  The bill (H.R. 3093), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the 
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2008 and that the bill contains higher levels of 
funding for state and local law enforcement than Congress has provided 
in recent years.
  I believe that Congress, in partnership with states and local 
communities, has an obligation to provide the tools, technology and 
training that our Nation's law enforcement officers need in order to 
protect our communities. I have consistently supported a number of 
Federal grant programs, including the Community Oriented Policing 
Services, COPS, Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to 
train new officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also have 
long supported funding for the Byrne grant program, which provides 
funding to help fight violent and drug-related crime, including support 
to multijurisdictional drug task forces, drug courts, drug education 
and prevention programs, and many other efforts to reduce drug abuse 
and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important these programs have 
been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, particularly in light of the 
recent increase in the violent crime rate across the country.
  I am pleased that the Senate approved an appropriation of $660 
million for the COPS program for fiscal year 2008, $110 million above 
the CJS Subcommittee recommendation. This funding level, in conjunction 
with the House appropriation of $725 million, leaves me hopeful that 
Congress will ultimately fund COPS at an adequate level this year. I am 
pleased that both Houses of Congress took action to increase funding 
for COPS, especially as crime rates rise and the needs of law 
enforcement officers and our Nation's first responders continue to 
grow.
  Byrne grants also fared better in fiscal year 2008 than in recent 
years. The House bill allocates $42 million more than it did last year, 
and the Senate appropriated a total of $660 million, $105 million more 
than last year. The Democratic majority in Congress has made it a 
priority to work responsibly toward restoring funding for these 
programs--funding that has been disastrously slashed in recent years. 
The level of funding included in the final version of this bill puts 
Congress back on track towards funding Byrne grants at higher levels.
  I was pleased as well that the Senate agreed to Senator Menendez's 
amendment to bolster the funding for juvenile mentoring programs and 
Senator Dorgan's amendment to restore funding for the Drug Court 
program to fiscal year 2005 levels. These grant programs assist state 
and local governments in their efforts to pursue a comprehensive 
approach to crime reduction, including preventive measures and 
innovative approaches as well as more traditional law enforcement 
initiatives.
  I hope that increased funding for State and local law enforcement 
will become a trend that continues, and that the years of neglecting 
our State and local law enforcement officers are finally over. It is 
our responsibility to support the men and women who keep our 
communities safe. The Senate's work today is a good start.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair appoints Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.

[[Page 27239]]

Cochran as conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the record to reflect that it is the 
feeling of the Senate, not just me, of a tremendously good job done by 
the managers of this bill. Senator Shelby, Senator Mikulski, and I 
served in the House together. We came to the Senate together. And the 
two managers of this bill are two of the very best.
  Now, I can't say enough positive things about Senator Mikulski. I 
have told her this. And I don't want to hurt the feelings of anyone 
else in the Senate, but I have said publicly and privately that the 
finest orator we have in the Senate is the Senator from Maryland. She 
is outstanding. But not only is she a fine orator, she is a great 
legislator, and this bill is an example of that.
  I also want to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance that we got 
from the membership of our Senate. This is a bipartisan bill, as 
indicated by the vote that was just taken. So I deeply appreciate the 
work of all Senators but especially that of my friend from Maryland, 
Senator Mikulski.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to share a joy as 
though in Morning Business, and I ask unanimous consent to have my 
whole statement appear in case I am not able to make it through this 
emotional sharing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          LILLY'S ANNOUNCEMENT

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am a grampa again. Incidentally, that is 
spelled with an ``m,'' not an ``n,'' and no ``d.'' Grampa. It is the 
greatest title anyone can have. It is really indescribable, unless you 
have felt the thrill, felt the love, felt the awe.
  This weekend, my son and his wife had a daughter, Lilly Grace. My 
son, like me, had the good fortune to over-marry to Danielle, a 
delightful young lady from Kentucky whom he met here in Washington. She 
is one of the most organized and focused people I know. My son Brad and 
daughter-in-law Danielle already have a son, Trey, who first made me a 
grampa. Now they have a daughter, Lilly Grace Enzi. I can't begin to 
share the emotion and feeling that overwhelms me today. It is such an 
incredible feeling to hold another generation in your hands, to see 
such a miniature person and such a huge miracle.
  Danielle and Lilly Grace had extremely fortunate timing for my wife 
Diana and me. Trey and Lilly were both born when we were close by in 
Wyoming. Trey was born when we were attending a University of Wyoming 
football game, just 45 miles away. Lilly was born during a Redskins 
football game when we were just 2 blocks from the hospital. Brad 
checked Danielle into the hospital at 11 Sunday morning, and at exactly 
2 p.m., October 14, that Sunday, we had a granddaughter. Lilly Grace 
weighed 7 pounds, 2 ounces, and was 20 inches long, with delicate hands 
and long fingers.
  Danielle came through, as is her nature, invigorated and 
enthusiastic. You would not have known by looking at her face, except 
for the aura of a mother, that she had just given birth. The rest of us 
were emotional wrecks. When Danielle went into labor, I rejoiced at the 
timing and extended the weekend another day and had the pleasure of 
holding that baby and watching her breathe and move ever so delicately, 
with a thousand different expressions, and listened to all the sounds 
she made. Of course, I had to let Diana hold her a little, too, and her 
mom and dad even wanted turns.
  If you would have told me that I would spend time just gazing at the 
miracle of life and having only that thought for hours, I probably 
wouldn't have believed you. But I have some great instant replay 
memories of that little face and those moving hands and all those 
blankets and the cap they use to hold in the body heat locked in my 
mind, and I am constantly doing instant replays for myself and thanking 
God for the opportunities he has given me--from finding Diana, to 
learning about prayer with our first child, the daughter who was born 
premature and who showed us how worthwhile fighting for life is, to the 
birth of our son, to the birth of our youngest daughter, to helping me 
through open-heart surgery so that I might have this chance to hold yet 
another generation in my hands.
  I think of the prayer of Jabez in Chronicles where he says, ``Lord, 
continue to bless me, indeed,'' and to that I add my thanks for this 
and all the blessings, noticed and, unfortunately, often unnoticed.
  So now I am grampa. That is not grandfather. That is too stilted. 
Years ago, my daughter gave me a hand-stitched wall hanging that says: 
Any man can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a dad.
  That is a challenge for grampas to live up to, too. Again, I note 
that the name is not grandpa. That is a title a little too elevated. 
This grampa is with an ``m'' and no ``d.'' That is what I called my 
Grampa Bradley, who took me on some wonderful adventures and taught me 
a lot of important lessons, including fishing. Now it is my turn to 
live up to that valued name. He liked being called grampa, and I am now 
delighted to have the opportunity to earn that name, too. I wish I 
could adequately share with you the joy that is in my heart.
  Now, some would say: Lilly Grace, you have been born at a scary 
time--a time of fear; fear of almost everything: fear of war, fear of 
people from other countries, fear of our neighborhoods. As an Enzi, we 
have faith that doing the right thing, doing your best, and treating 
others as they want to be treated will solve most problems, which will 
overcome fear.
  In my job, I get to hear a lot of disparaging comments about our 
country and our Government. But for you, granddaughter, you are lucky 
to be born in this country. I have been to a lot of places in the world 
now, and I can tell you that there are none anyone would trade for the 
United States. In my job, I often have to remind people that I never 
hear of anyone trying to get out of our country. I do hear of millions 
who would like to be here.
  Now, as you, precious baby, get older, if things don't change, you 
will hear people who think that the Government owes them a living and 
all kinds of guarantees, and you will hear people portray business as 
greedy, and you will see attempts to keep faith and God out of your 
vocabulary. And all those things could come to pass, except for you. 
You and others will know how to do the right thing and you will value 
the way our country was founded and has grown.
  Lilly, granddaughter, welcome to this world of promise and hope and 
faith and love. I am excited to have you in my life.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I missed the beginning part of the 
statement of my friend from Wyoming. Are you a new grandfather? Another 
grandchild? Congratulations.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you.
  Mr. SANDERS. I have 3. I often think that one of the funniest bumper 
stickers I have ever seen in my life is one that says: If I had known 
how much fun grandchildren would be, I would have had them first. So 
congratulations.

                          ____________________