[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 26]
[Issue]
[Pages 34537-35818]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 34537]]
VOLUME 153--PART 26
SENATE--Monday, December 17, 2007
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jack Reed, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
God of our fathers and mothers, we thank You for Your kindness and
mercy. When we call You in our pain, You answer our prayers and remove
our worries. You enable us to defeat our enemies and surround us with
Your protection.
Today, let Your presence be felt in the Senate. Encourage our
Senators to be models of the unity our country longs for. Remind them
that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity, for Your
Word states, ``By their fruits, You will know them.'' Help them to see
that they need each other and that more will be accomplished by working
together than by laboring at cross-purposes.
We pray in the name of Him whose life was the epitome of peace,
poise, and power. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Jack Reed led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, December 17, 2007.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jack Reed, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. REED thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate will immediately resume the
motion to proceed to S. 2248, the FISA legislation. This debate will
extend until 12 noon. At noon, the Senate will vote--or thereabouts;
there may be a couple minutes' slippage--on the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed to the legislation. If cloture is
invoked on the motion, the motion can then be adopted and the Senate
can proceed to the bill and begin the amending process.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
I have 10 minutes under my control. I have given 35 minutes to
Senator Dodd and 15 minutes to Senator Feingold. It is my understanding
that the distinguished Senator from Missouri will allow 10 minutes from
the Republican leader's time to go to Senator Rockefeller. I will give
Senator Rockefeller 10 minutes. That means he will have 20 minutes.
That uses all our time.
I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2248,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 2248) to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize
and streamline provisions of that Act, and for other
purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will proceed on leader time so as not
to encroach on the complicated agreement we reached on dividing time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, heading into our last work week,
Republicans remain focused on the two principles that have guided us
all year: protecting and defending the country from harm and protecting
taxpayers' wallets. In these last few days, we will face some of the
most crucial tests of the year on both fronts.
On security, Senate Republicans will amend the House version of the
Appropriations bill to include funding for the troops in Iraq. Our men
and women in uniform deserve our support wherever they are serving.
These funds are dangerously overdue. Delaying them further could put
the Pentagon in serious straits and potentially jeopardize the
universally acknowledged gains of the Petraeus plan.
[[Page 34538]]
We will also need to act wisely on reforming the FISA law that lets
our intelligence agents track terrorists overseas. The success of this
law over the last several years should be obvious to everyone.
The Intelligence Committee has produced a bill that would retain its
core strengths; that has broad bipartisan support; and that, with
slight modification, the President would sign into law. We need to act
on this version of the revision without any political games.
On protecting taxpayers, we have two major pieces of legislation to
finish: AMT, and a fiscally responsible omnibus bill.
A quarter of the way into the fiscal year, we have passed 1 of 12
Appropriations bills from last year.
We need to evaluate this omnibus and make sure it is written in a
form the President will sign. That means funding for our forces in
Afghanistan and Iraq, no excess spending, and no poison pills in the
form of politically motivated policy riders.
Crucially, we also need to assure middle-class Americans we are not
going to raise their taxes or further delay their tax refunds. The
House needs to patch the AMT tax that now threatens 23 million
taxpayers it was never meant to affect, and they need to do so without
raising other taxes on these households.
We saw last week we could get legislation out the door when we work
together. After Republican insistence, we passed an energy bill without
raising taxes or utility rates. We will need to repeat that effort this
week on several issues that lie at the very heart of our
responsibilities to the American people.
We need to ensure the safety of our citizens. We need to keep them
from being hit by new and unnecessary taxes.
We will need to do all this and act on several important executive
nominations. New week. Much to do. America's watching. Let's get to
work.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 12 noon is equally divided and controlled between the two leaders
or their designees, with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd,
controlling 35 minutes and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold,
controlling 15 minutes of the opponents' time.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am not a part of the order as read
by the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator has been allocated 20 minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair.
Today, the Senate begins debate on S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act
of 2007. I am confident in saying without any risk of exaggeration that
FISA modernization is one of the most important matters that will be
considered by this Congress. It calls on us to get two essential
matters entirely right--protection of our national security and the
preservation of the privacy of our citizens.
I am proud of the substance of the bill the Intelligence Committee
reported to the Senate in late October on a strong bipartisan vote of
13 to 2. I am equally proud of the process by which we achieved that
result. The distinguished vice chairman of the committee, Senator
Christopher Bond, and I provided simple guidance for all who worked on
this bill: First, work together, reach out; second, reach out
particularly to the intelligence community and the Department of
Justice for their expertise; third, keep in mind at all times the
fundamental principles of protecting both the security and the privacy
of all Americans; and finally, remain united in our effort to produce a
bill that will meet the test of Congress and that will be signed into
law by the President.
I am also grateful to all members of our committee for their
contribution. As the Senate can see from our report, we debated and
voted on highly important issues. We then sought as a committee to lay
out for the entire Senate and the American public a description of our
bill, the reasons for it, and, in additional views, further
improvements that Members might seek. Our report is on each Member's
desk. It is also on our committee's Web site and the Web site of the
Library of Congress. I urge every Member of the Senate to read it,
including a careful section-by-section explanation of the bill.
Of course, some sensitive intelligence matters cannot be described in
a public report. That makes this something of an awkward procedure. If
any Member has a question about a classified matter, please let the
vice chairman or myself know, and we will do our best to answer your
questions in a classified setting.
I am also pleased that we will be sharing the management of this
debate with Senator Leahy and Senator Specter, the distinguished
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. From the very
beginning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1976, it has
been a joint responsibility of the Intelligence Committee and the
Judiciary Committee. It is, after all, a statute that concerns both
intelligence collection and judicial proceedings. The Judiciary
Committee considered the Intelligence Committee bill on sequential
referral and has reported a proposed amendment to our bill.
In accordance with Senate rules, the Senate has before it only one
bill; that is, the Intelligence Committee bill, S. 2248. The
legislative recommendations proposed by the Judiciary Committee will be
the first pending amendment. Some of the suggestions the Judiciary
Committee made improve the quality of our product.
I commend Majority Leader Reid for his decision to bring the FISA
bill before the Senate under the regular order. While some advocated
bringing before the Senate a hybrid bill which combined parts of both
committees' work into one bill, the majority leader recognized that
following regular order would not only allow for orderly consideration
of important amendments but ultimately produce an even stronger
bipartisan bill.
The products of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have a lot
in common. Both fix a number of deficiencies in the flawed Protect
America Act, hastily passed in August, as we all remember. Both
strengthen our national security while protecting American civil
liberties and privacy rights through enhanced and mandatory court
review and approval of surveillance activities. Both would greatly
improve oversight and accountability and ensure that the unchecked
wiretapping policies of the Bush administration are a thing of the
past.
Finally, each committee's work includes a sunset provision. Each
strengthens the exclusivity of FISA--all concepts to be explained. Each
establishes court approval of surveillance of Americans overseas--
perhaps the most important of all the amendments. But there are
differences in how each committee went about effecting these important
protections.
Over the past month, we have worked very closely--our staffs--
together to determine how best to reconcile the work of the two
committees. It has been a bipartisan, straightforward process. I
believe we have been able to work out a number of important amendments
that take elements of the Judiciary Committee's work and add them to
the underlying Intelligence Committee bill. There are some elements of
the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment, however, that I do not
support, but in all instances, I deeply appreciate the work of Senator
Leahy and our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
I commend in particular the extraordinary contribution during this
process of four Senators serving on both committees: Senator Feinstein,
Senator Hatch, Senator Feingold, and Senator Whitehouse. They have
worked tirelessly in their dual committee assignments to make this
legislation as sound and balanced as possible.
Before I go into any details of the legislation and the expected
debate over the next few days, I want to briefly remind my colleagues
of the history of the debate and why FISA modernizing is so important.
The need to modernize FISA is explained by looking at the convergence
[[Page 34539]]
of three elements in recent years. One is the rapid change of the
world's communications systems, with new challenges and opportunities
for signals intelligence arising from the fact that much of the foreign
intelligence information now passes through or is stored in American
electronic space. The second change is the significant increase in the
number of intelligence targets outside of the United States,
particularly as a result of international terrorism but also from
weapons of mass destruction proliferation and other foreign threats.
The final key judgment is that the 30-year-old FISA law has required a
large number of individual applications to the FISA Court for the
surveillance of foreign persons outside the United States, which was
never intended--which was never intended--under the original
legislation and does not involve the privacy of Americans.
So the question before our committee was not whether to modernize
FISA but how to modernize FISA. We began this effort in March of this
year, when the vice chairman, Senator Bond, and I notified the Attorney
General of our intention to address FISA modernization. We also advised
the Attorney General we would focus on whether legislation should be
enacted to address the legal consequences of the President's
warrantless surveillance program; namely, the many lawsuits resulting
from the President's decision to act outside of the statutory
requirements of FISA. In response, the Director of National
Intelligence submitted a legislative proposal in April, which the
Intelligence Committee began to consider at a public hearing in May.
These efforts to address FISA, however, were stalled for several
months because of disagreements with the administration over access to
key documents relating to the President's warrantless surveillance
program. Yet, given the pressing need to fix FISA and allow for timely
collection, we made a concerted effort over the summer to produce a
bill that both the Congress and the administration could support.
Unfortunately, it did not work. The result of that effort ended in the
hastily passed and significantly flawed Protect America Act, which
allowed for timely collection, yes, but did not include significant
FISA Court safeguards.
In order to fix the Protect America Act and protect the privacy of
Americans while strengthening the timely collection of intelligence,
our Intelligence Committee spent several months this fall working on a
new bill--the bill before us today--which accomplishes four principal
reforms.
First, the special procedures provided by this bill apply only to
persons outside the United States. If somebody is in the United
States--an American is in the United States--all the traditional
provisions and protections of FISA continue to apply. Everyone agrees
this should be the case. The distinction of whether the target of
surveillance is foreign or domestic makes it imperative that there is
an adequate basis for determining whether somebody is reasonably
believed to be outside the United States.
An important safeguard for Americans in the bill is the requirement
for court-approved targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to
accurately make the determination whether somebody is outside of the
United States. The Protect America Act had included that requirement,
and our bill does the same. But the Protect America Act had limited the
authority of the FISA Court to review the reasonableness of those
procedures by imposing a ``clearly erroneous standard'' on that review.
Our bill strikes that limitation.
Second, our bill recognizes that minimization procedures have been an
essential part of FISA from the beginning and will continue to play an
essential role. These will be explained. These are procedures to
ensure, among other things, that if Americans are overheard in
conversations of a foreign target or there is discussion about
Americans, that the identity of those Americans only be revealed within
the U.S. Government if there is a good foreign intelligence purpose for
so doing.
The Protect America Act had provided that the Attorney General
approve minimization procedures, but it did not provide for court
review of them. Our bill corrects that deficiency. The FISA Court will
now have the responsibility to ensure that the procedures comply with
the law.
Thirdly, our bill provides protections for U.S. citizens who are
outside the United States. Under the Protect America Act, if a U.S.
citizen sets foot outside the United States, he or she would be treated
the same as any foreigner outside the United States.
The Intelligence Committee rejects the proposition that Americans
lose rights--any kind of rights--because they travel or work elsewhere
in the world. An essential part of the rights of an American is the
determination by a judge whether there is probable cause to believe an
American outside the United States is a lawful subject of surveillance
by our own Government.
This is a concept which both committees--Democrats and Republicans
alike--agreed to. Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell
endorsed this change in law as well in testimony before the
Intelligence Committee. There are, however, some differences in how to
accomplish this. After considerable negotiation, I believe we have
reached an agreement on a bipartisan amendment which would reconcile
the approaches of the two committees and resolve the concerns of the
administration over unintended consequences of the language reported
out by both committees.
It is my hope, given the centrality of this reform to the work of
both committees, that this bipartisan amendment is the first one before
the Senate once cloture is invoked, if it is invoked and we are,
therefore, then on the bill.
The fourth principal accomplishment of the Intelligence Committee
bill is that it considerably enhances oversight of these protections by
each branch of Government. This is achieved through a series of annual
reports to Congress on the authorized collection, including instances
of noncompliance; inspector general reviews by the Justice Department
and the intelligence community; and FISA Court review and approval of
acquisition and minimization procedures.
As we begin debate on these and other important issues, one of the
concepts the Senate will hear a lot about is exclusivity. Exclusivity
addresses the question of whether FISA and the laws that explicitly
govern the domestic interception of communications for law enforcement
purposes are the exclusive means by which the President may authorize
the surveillance of Americans.
The President claims that he has the authority as Commander in Chief
to approve surveillance even when he has no statutory authority to do
so. No act of Congress by itself can finally resolve that debate
between Presidential and congressional authority, but what Congress can
make clear is which statutes authorize electronic surveillance.
The significance of this, in connection with our recent national
experience, is that the Department of Justice has claimed that the
authorization to use military force, passed in response to 9/11,
somehow authorized the President to disregard FISA. Not only is this
proposition dubious at best, in my opinion, it is also dangerous. In
fact, the next time Congress is asked to act quickly in response to an
attack, should there be one, it may pause and take time to consider
whether its authorization to use force will have completely unintended
consequences, such as authorizing the President unlimited power to
violate acts of Congress.
To make sure authorizations for the use of military force do not
again become an excuse to wipe away acts of Congress, both the
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees sought to make even clearer than
before which statutes constitute the exclusive means for conducting
electronic surveillance.
I believe we have been able to work out language on an amendment that
will reconcile the differences in these two bills.
The Intelligence Committee also establishes a 6-year sunset for the
new authority it provides. A sunset is essential because we owe it to
the American people to make sure we have gotten both parts of this
system right--effective intelligence collection and the
[[Page 34540]]
protection of the privacy of Americans--before settling on what should
be permanent law. The Judiciary Committee amendment proposes a 4-year
sunset. The House FISA bill provides for a 2-year sunset. The
administration opposes any sunset. I will join with Chairman Leahy in
support of an amendment to incorporate the Judiciary Committee 4-year
sunset into the underlying bill. Four years will ensure that a decision
on permanency is made during the next Presidential term, not the one
succeeding it.
Finally, title II of the committee's bipartisan bill addresses the
question of protection for telecommunications companies that assisted
the Government during the course of the President's warrantless
surveillance program.
The Intelligence Committee carefully reviewed this matter of
retroactive liability protection for companies prior to reporting out
its bill. We received and reviewed the letters sent by the
administration to the companies. These letters stated that the
assistance of the companies was ``required,'' that the request was
based on order of the President, and that the Attorney General had
certified the form and legality of the order.
In the course of our investigation, the committee heard from the
companies themselves as well as administration officials and many
others and determined that the companies were not provided with any of
the Justice Department legal opinions underlying the Attorney General's
certifications they received ordering them to do something which has
come to put them at risk.
In the end, a bipartisan consensus of the Intelligence Committee
supported a narrowly drawn retroactive immunity provision. I want to
stress the phrase ``narrowly drawn'' because what the committee
approved was not--I repeat: was not--the broad and open-ended immunity
sought by the administration.
The committee immunity provision applies only to companies that may
have participated in the warrantless surveillance program from a
specific period of time--from 9/11--until it was placed under FISA
Court authorization in January 2007. Nothing in the bill provides
immunity for Government officials for their actions--that is in the
current law; it is not in the law that we have proposed--nor to
companies outside the specified timeframe.
The 12 members of our committee who supported the provision did so
for different reasons. Some Senators believed that the President acted
within his constitutional responsibility and authority in establishing
the surveillance program. Some other Senators, including me, believe
the President trampled on our Constitution and our laws in unilaterally
creating a warrantless surveillance program in 2001 and continuing it
for years without seeking statutory authority to support it. But no
matter what may be the views about the President's adherence to the
law, our collective judgment on the Intelligence Committee is that the
burden of the debate about the President's authority should not fall on
telecommunications companies because they responded to the
representations by Government officials at the highest levels that the
program had been authorized by the President and determined to be
lawful and received requests, compulsions to carry it out.
Companies participated at great risk of exposure and financial ruin
for one reason, and one reason only: in order to help identify
terrorists and prevent follow-on terrorist attacks. They should not be
penalized for their willingness to heed the call during a time of
national emergency.
I conclude by urging my colleagues to support cloture on the motion
to proceed so that we can turn our attention to reconciling the fine
work of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees and ultimately pass a
FISA reform bill before adjournment.
Every one of us in the Senate and in Congress has a responsibility to
correct the flaws in the Protect America Act and put our Nation on
firmer footing in authorizing critical intelligence surveillance
activities that are effective, while safeguarding the constitutional
rights of Americans.
I thank the Acting President pro tempore, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we yielded some time to the distinguished
chairman from my side. How much time is remaining on this side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 46 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOND. Forty-six. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, first let me begin by thanking our majority leader,
Senator Reid, and our minority leader, Senator McConnell, for bringing
this very important bill to the Senate floor. It is critical that we
discuss it, debate it, vote on it, and pass it. I express my great
thanks to the chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, for his
thoughtful discussion of the bill and his urgent request, in which I
join, that all Members of this body move forward, adopt cloture, and
adopt this bill. I wish to thank the chairman and all of the members of
the committee and the staff of the Intelligence Committee who have
labored long and hard over many months, beginning well before the April
request for legislation, to understand the program. I believe almost
all of us have gone out to the NSA to see how the program works and to
see what the protections are that are built in.
We have asked questions many times over. I think I have heard the
same questions asked many times, and each time they are explained, I
learn a little bit more. I think we have a good understanding--not a
perfect understanding--of the process, but we do fully appreciate how
important it is.
The bill before us today reflects a tremendous amount of work and
compromise. The distinguished chairman and I and others have had
disagreements. We view things a little bit differently. But I think it
is significant for this body to realize we came together, the majority
and the minority, in a 13-to-2 vote to present to this body a good
compromise. Nobody is 100 percent happy with it. I don't expect them to
be. But this is about as good as we can do in earthly matters, and
particularly in congressional matters, if we can come that close, I
think it is a good product.
Obviously, I have some disagreements with the chairman on the Protect
America Act of which I was a principal sponsor. Because that bill was
passed--had to be passed hurriedly before the August recess--what we
were able to do in that bill was to restore the FISA process with a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court acting as it had originally
been intended to act: to approve collections on U.S. persons in the
United States. We changed the law so that technological changes would
no longer bring within the FISA Court jurisdiction--or the FISA Court
workload, more appropriately--collections on foreign targets where very
often they were communicating with foreign recipients of messages. That
was never the purpose and, as I indicated on the Senate floor, the FISA
Court objected to the intelligence community having to be burdened by
approving collections against targets where there was only minimal
impact on any U.S. citizen.
The Protect America Act did fill in a critical national security
intelligence gap. We all heard about it for a number of months. The
intelligence community was shut out of the ability to go up on foreign
targets which might have had vital information. Now, we have had time
to consider all of the aspects of this collection program, and we have
come up with a plan that will modernize the bill not only to make sure
it keeps up with modern technology, but that it adds additional
protections under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This morning, in a few minutes, we will hear from some of our
colleagues about why they are not happy with the bill coming before us.
I would venture that some individuals made the same speeches back in
1978 before the passage of that bill as well. But let me state the
measure very plainly. The
[[Page 34541]]
question is, Can the intelligence community of the United States obtain
signals intelligence on foreign persons believed to be terrorists and
reasonably believed to be outside of the United States, and do so in a
manner that will protect us.
We know the electronic surveillance that was done under the
President's program and under the current FISA Court jurisdiction has
provided valuable intelligence which has helped to thwart attacks on
the United States and, more importantly, as we heard from GEN Stan
McCrystal, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, when
the outmoded FISA law application shut down our ability to collect
foreign intelligence, the people most greatly at risk were our men and
women in the service overseas who did not have the benefit of
collection of intelligence that might have foretold attacks on them. So
our men and women volunteers defending America, protecting security in
the world, were without the protection our technology enables us to
collect at the same time they were fighting overseas, and this kind of
information could have been a big help.
Well, the legislation we are looking at today contains far greater
protections for U.S. persons than this body ever conceived of or was
ever willing to grant Americans when it passed FISA 30 years ago. We
have gone further than ever before in this bill in protecting
Americans' privacy rights, and I am proud to be part of the process
that is shoring up our national security while protecting to the
greatest extent possible the liberties of all Americans.
The chairman is correct; we made many changes. We added many
protections--important protections--that the Director of National
Intelligence agreed were necessary additions to provide protections for
Americans, U.S. persons that were not previously in the law. But I
believe we can say today that Americans can feel safe and secure; that
not only is their privacy being protected but their lives are being
protected from terrorist attacks if we pass this bill which will
modernize and extend FISA.
We have an urgent need to proceed to the Senate's consideration of
the FISA amendments of 2007. Just last week, the Senate heard from our
Director of National Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, and Attorney
General Mike Mukasey in a closed briefing about the vital importance of
this legislation to our intelligence collection efforts. This
legislation will give the intelligence community the tools it needs
today and in the future to protect our country.
The Protect America Act, passed in August by Congress, allowed the
intelligence community temporarily to close critical intelligence gaps
that were impeding the intelligence community's ability to protect our
troops and to detect terrorist plots against our homeland. That
temporary legislation expires in less than 2 months, and we must not
let those dangerous gaps reopen. Two months may seem like a lot of
time, but when it comes to this bill or when it comes to floor action
in the Congress in both Houses and then a conference, it is a very
short time period. Anybody who has watched this distinguished
deliberative body and its counterpart on the other side work knows that
2 months sometimes can go in the flash of an eye.
The Senate will go out of session this week until mid-January,
leaving only about 2 weeks for us to work out our differences with the
House to get a bicameral bill sent to the President--one that he can
sign into law before the current Protect America Act expires on
February 5. I regret the majority did not let this important bill get
to the floor sooner, particularly when we had the DNI on the Hill last
March urging Congress to modernize FISA, giving us his template of
legislation for FISA modernization in early April. But we are here in
the last week before Christmas, and I hope we will not waste any time
in passing the bill on the way to becoming law.
I sincerely hope we are not going to leave ourselves in the same
uncomfortable position we found ourselves in this past August when the
Senate's consideration of the Protect America Act had to be passed very
quickly. Because the Senate waited from April until August to act, we
found ourselves in a chaotic rush to pass a bill, and there were
genuine fears in the intelligence community that a terrorist attack
against the homeland might be in the works. If we had acted in a more
timely manner, we would not have had some of the hard feelings we do
today that resulted from that rushed process in August. That process
produced a bill that continued FISA as it was originally intended but
did not include the additional protections we have added today.
The good news, however, is that all of that is ancient history now
because the product we have coming before us today is a thoroughly
bipartisan Intelligence Committee bill that was put together in close
coordination with the subject matter experts in the offices of both the
Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. I can
assure my colleagues that all of the good ideas we have had--I have had
and other members of the committee have had--when we have taken them to
these experts, we have found out you have to do it this way if you want
to accomplish the results you want. Some of the things we attempted to
do had impossible burdens that we did not understand until we laid them
out for these experts. They have told us how to accomplish our purposes
and do so in a manner that would be effective in protecting the
interests, and yet not destroy the ability of the intelligence
community to collect the information we need.
So I implore my colleagues in the Senate to move as quickly as
possible on this bill since its construction has been quite deliberate
so that we do not repeat the history of the hasty manner in which we
had to pass the Protect America Act. But that also means we must pass a
good bill that will not get vetoed. We don't have time for that. It is
always fun to posture and make political statements, but what is more
important, we don't have to do that. The bill coming before the Senate
out of the Intelligence Committee offers the legislation that gives the
intelligence community the flexibility it needs to protect our troops
and those of us in America, while protecting the privacy and civil
liberties of Americans. With two small fixes that Chairman Rockefeller
and I intend to add to the bill in a manager's amendment, I have been
assured that the President will sign that bill.
Now, let me comment a minute on exclusivity. We are working on an
agreement on exclusivity that states to the greatest extent possible
this will be the exclusive legislative means for the President to
collect foreign intelligence. As one who used to be a student of the
Constitution and still remembers a little bit of it, I have been
impressed to read over the years how article 2 of the Constitution has
been interpreted. Article 2 of the Constitution has been interpreted to
say that the President--the President alone--has the power to collect
foreign intelligence.
That power was used by Presidents going back in history. President
Carter and President Clinton have used that bill to collect
information. The FISA Court of Review has said, in the in re: Sealed
Case, that the President's power to collect foreign intelligence
remains. The President has put this bill under the FISA Court. So he
has accepted the jurisdiction of the court in assessing the
appropriateness of the collection means that have been requested.
We cannot erase by legislation a constitutional power. That
constitutional power that the President has was fully laid out in the
opinions and advice given by the Department of Justice and the
intelligence community to any carriers that may have participated in
the collection of information during the pendency of the President's
terror surveillance program.
One other item I will comment on is the sunset. The provision we have
in the bill--the 6-year sunset--is a compromise we reached. I don't
believe a bill such as this should have a sunset. FISA did not have a
sunset. It stayed in effect from 1978 until 2006. We should have
reviewed it before. That is what we are in business for.
[[Page 34542]]
The Intelligence Committee of the Senate continues to hold hearings
and have oversight of the intelligence community, and I would expect
that if we see problems in the bill, we will move to correct them when
we see them, not wait to a sunset. General Mukasey strongly opposed
having any sunset on the bill, and I oppose lessening the sunset from 6
years. In fact, I prefer to see that sunset provision out of the bill.
To summarize, S. 2248, the bill passed out of the Intelligence
Committee by a solid bipartisan vote of 13 to 2, on which I hope the
Senate invokes cloture in a few minutes, will be the proper means of
assuring the intelligence community can go forward with the vitally
important collection of signals intelligence, while at the same time
protecting the civil rights and privacy of all Americans and U.S.
persons.
The bill is an extremely delicate arrangement of compromises that
will fall apart if significant changes are made to it. By ``fall
apart,'' what I really mean is it won't become law. We need a bill that
Democrats and Republicans can support, that the DNI says will work for
the intelligence community, and that the President will sign into law.
That means the first principle we need to follow today is that the age-
old advice that doctors and others use: ``do no harm,'' and not
deconstruct what the Intelligence Committee has carefully crafted.
We don't have time for poison pill amendments or any other sort of
political posturing. The Senate Intelligence Committee bill is a good
one and needs to become law without further delay so our intelligence
collectors and troops in harm's way will have the tools they need
before the Protect America Act expires in February.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote with Chairman Rockefeller
and me to proceed to this bill.
I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
What is the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). There are 28 minutes.
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, let me say to my two good friends,
Senators Rockefeller and Bond, I appreciate the job they do serving as
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I
commend them for their efforts in this matter.
Having said that, I reluctantly rise to urge my colleagues to vote
against cloture on S. 2248, the FISA Amendment Act, and I will explain
why.
Opposing cloture is essential, because there is no unanimous consent
agreement in place providing for the immediate adoption of the
Judiciary Committee substitute amendment.
As you know, the Judiciary substitute amendment, among other things,
strikes title II of the Intelligence Committee bill--the title which
seeks to provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies
who are alleged to have violated their customers' privacy rights by
turning over information to the government without warrants.
I am fully aware that the majority leader has various parliamentary
options at his disposal to move this legislation forward. It is his
right to attempt to invoke cloture.
But I regret that decision, and I hope that my colleagues will join
me in stopping this legislation.
Mr. President, why do I feel so strongly about this matter?
For the last 6 years, our largest telecommunications companies have
been spying on their own American customers.
Secretly and without a warrant, they delivered to the Federal
Government the private, domestic communications records of millions of
Americans--records this administration has compiled into a database of
enormous scale and scope.
That decision betrayed millions of customers' trust. It was
unwarranted--literally.
But was it illegal?
That, Mr. President, I don't know. And if this bill passes in its
current form, we will never know. The President's favored corporations
will be immune.
Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The details of
their actions will stay hidden. The truth behind this unprecedented
domestic spying will never see light. And the book on our Government's
actions will be closed, and sealed, and locked, and handed over to the
safekeeping of those few whom George Bush trusts to keep a secret.
The bill that the majority leader will seek to make the pending
business of the Senate later today--the FISA Amendments Act of 2007--
has a long and twisted history behind it. Its origins lie in President
Bush's years of warrantless spying on Americans.
That abuse of power was exposed by the press in late 2005. The New
York Times revealed that:
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the [National
Security Agency] has monitored the international telephone
calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of people inside the United States without
warrants over the past three years.
In fact, we later learned that the President's warrantless spying was
authorized as early as 2001.
Disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in a 2006 white
paper, attempted to justify that spying; his argument rested on the
specious claim that, in authorizing the President to go to war in
Afghanistan, Congress had also somehow authorized him to listen in on
phone calls in America.
But many of those who voted on the original authorization of force
found this claim to new executive powers to be a laughable invention.
Here's what former Majority Leader Tom Daschle wrote:
As Senate majority leader . . . I helped negotiate that law
with the White House counsel's office over two harried days.
I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless
wiretaps of American citizens never came up . . . I am also
confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of
authorization of force against al-Qaida did not believe that
they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.
Such claims to expanded executive power based on the authorization
for military force have since been struck down by the courts.
In recent months, the administration has changed its argument, now
grounding its warrantless surveillance power in the extremely nebulous
``authority of the President to defend the country'' that they find in
the Constitution.
Of course, that begs the question: Exactly what doesn't fit under
``defending the country''? If we take the President at his word, we
would concede to him nearly unlimited power, as long as he finds a
lawyer willing to stuff his actions into that boundless category.
Rather than concede such power, Congress has worked to bring the
President's surveillance program back where it belongs--under the rule
of law.
At the same time, we have worked to modernize FISA and ease
restrictions on terrorist surveillance. The Protect America Act, a bill
attempting to respond to that two-pronged challenge, passed in August;
but it is set to expire in February.
The bill now before us would create a legal regime for surveillance
under reworked and more reasonable rules. But crucially, President Bush
has demanded that this bill include full retroactive immunity for
corporations complicit in domestic spying. In a speech on September 19,
he stated that ``it's particularly important for Congress to provide
meaningful liability protection to those companies.''
In October, he stiffened his demand, vowing to veto any bill that did
not shield the telecom corporations. And this month, he resorted to
shameful, misleading scare tactics, accusing Congress of failing ``to
keep the American people safe.''
That month, the FISA Amendments Act came before the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence. Per the President's demand, it included full
retroactive immunity for the telecom corporations. Senator Nelson
introduced an amendment to strip that immunity, and instead allow the
matter to be settled in the courts. It failed by a vote of 3 to 12.
But as it passed out of the Intelligence Committee, by a vote of 13
to 2, the bill still put corporations literally
[[Page 34543]]
above the law and ensured that the extent of the President's invasions
of privacy would remain a secret. I found retroactive immunity far
beyond the pale, and I made my objections strongly and publicly.
But the bill also had to pass through the Judiciary Committee. There,
Chairman Pat Leahy succeeded in reporting out a bill without the
egregious immunity provision. Over the years, Pat Leahy has cemented
his reputation as a champion of the rule of law; and I believe the
stand he took last month will be honored for a long time to come.
However, I am still concerned that when Senator Feingold proposed an
amendment to strip immunity for good, it failed by a vote of 7 to 12.
So here we are--facing a final decision on whether the
telecommunications companies will get off the hook for good. The
President's allies are as intent as they ever were on making that
happen. They want immunity back in this bill at all costs.
But what they are truly offering is secrecy in place of openness.
Fiat in place of law.
And in place of the forthright argument and judicial deliberation
that ought to be this country's pride, two simple words from our
President's mouth: ``Trust me.''
I cannot speak for my colleagues--but I would never take that offer,
not even in the best of times, not even from a perfect President. I
would never take that offer because our Constitution tells us that the
President's word is subject to the oversight of the Congress and the
deliberation of the courts; and because I took an oath to defend the
Constitution; and because I stand by my oath.
``Trust me.'' It is the offer to hide ourselves in the waiting arms
of the rule of men. And in these threatened times, that offer has never
seemed more seductive. The rule of law has rarely been so fragile.
``It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be
charged to the provisions against danger . . . from abroad.'' James
Madison, the father of our Constitution, made that prediction more than
two centuries ago. With the passage of this bill, his words would be
one step closer to coming true. So it has never been more essential
that we lend our voices to the law, and speak on its behalf.
On its behalf, we say to President Bush that a Nation of truly free
men and women would never take ``trust me'' for an answer, not even
from a perfect President--and certainly not from this one.
In these times--under a President who seems every more day intent on
acting as if he is the law, who grants himself the right to ignore
legislation, who claims the power to spy without a warrant, to imprison
without a hearing, to torture without a scruple--in these times, I
would be a fool to take his offer.
But ``trust me,'' says President Bush. He means it literally. When he
first asked Congress to make the telecoms' actions legally disappear,
Congress had a reasonable question for him: Can we at least know
exactly what we'd be immunizing? Can you at least tell us what we'd be
cleaning up?
And the President refused to answer. Only he, his close advisors, and
a handful of telecom executives know all of the facts. Congress is only
asked to give token oversight. But if we are to do our constitutionally
mandated job, we need more than token oversight; we need full hearings
on the terrorist surveillance program before the Intelligence and
Judiciary Committees.
Without that, we remain in the dark--and in the dark we're expected
to grant the President's wish, because he knows best.
Does that sound familiar to any of my colleagues?
In 2002, we took the President's word and voted to go to war on
faulty intelligence. What if we took his word again--and found, next
year or the year after, that we had blindly legalized grave crimes?
If this disastrous war has taught us anything, it is that the Senate
must never again stack such a momentous decision on such a weak
foundation of fact. The decision we're asked to make today is not, of
course, as immense. But between fact and decision, the disproportion is
just as huge.
So I rise in determined opposition to this unprecedented immunity and
all that it represents. I have served in this body for more than a
quarter century. I have spoken from this desk hundreds and hundreds of
times. I have rarely come to the floor with such anger.
But since I came to Washington, I have seen six Presidents sit in the
White House--and I have never seen a contempt for the rule of law equal
to this. Today, I have reached a breaking point. Today my disgust has
found its limit.
I don't expect every one of my colleagues to share that disgust, or
that limit. I wish they did--but had that been the case, we would never
have come to this point.
I only ask them to believe me when I say if I did not speak today, my
conscience would not let me rest.
The right to conscience is one of the Senate's most treasured
allowances. It is perhaps this body's defining feature. The President
has his dominating bully pulpit. Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote
that ``in drama, magnitude and finality [the President's] decisions so
far overshadow any others that almost alone he fills the public eye and
ear. No other personality in public life can begin to compete with him
in access to the public mind.''
But in this Chamber, a minority--even an impassioned minority of
one--has the right to stand against all the combined weight and
machinery of government and plead: ``Stop!'' Or at least: ``Wait.'' A
minority can't stand forever, as surely as I can't speak forever.
Ultimately, a minority has only one recourse--to make itself a
majority. And I have faith that when the American people understand the
full extent of this President's contempt for the law, they will share
my outrage. This is a trusting and patient nation--and with more than
two centuries of democratic tradition, rightly so. But that trust is
not infinite; that patience is not endless; and after 7 years of this
President, they are worn down to the nub.
If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be standing here today. If the
rule of law were not my ruling passion, I wouldn't be standing here
today. But I do, and it is.
``Law'' is a word we barely hear from the President and his allies.
They offer neither a deliberation about America's difficult choices in
the age of terrorism, nor a shared attempt to set for our times the
excruciating balance between security and liberty.
They merely promise a false debate on a false choice: security or
liberty, but never, ever both.
It speaks volumes about the President's estimation of the American
people that he expects them to accept that choice. I think differently.
I think that America's founding truth is unambiguous: security and
liberty, one and inseparable, and never one without the other.
Secure in that truth, I offer a challenge to the President's allies:
You want to put the President's favored corporations above the law.
Could you please explain how your immunity makes any one of us any
safer by an iota?
If security were truly the issue, this debate wouldn't be happening.
An excellent balance between security and liberty has already been
struck by FISA, a balance that has stood for three decades. In fact,
FISA was written just to prevent a situation like ours from occurring:
to protect Americans without countenancing executive lawbreaking.
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, the U.S. Senate convened the
Church Committee, a panel of distinguished senators determined to shine
light on executive abuses of power. The facts it uncovered were
shocking:
Army spying on the civilian population; Federal dossiers on citizens'
political activities; a CIA and FBI program that had opened hundreds of
thousands of Americans' letters without warning or warrant.
The collective force of these revelations was undeniable: In their
oversight duties, Congress and the courts
[[Page 34544]]
had failed; they had unquestioningly accepted the executive's ``trust
me''; and as a result, Americans had sustained a severe blow to their
fourth amendment rights ``to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''
The Senate could have panicked; it could have ended or drastically
curtailed those searches altogether. But in its wisdom, the Senate
understood that protecting the American people was not the problem; the
problem was simply the Nixonian attitude that ``if the President does
it, it's not illegal.''
The solution was to bring the executive's efforts to protect America
under the watchful eye of Congress and the courts--to restore checks
and balances to surveillance, and to give it the legitimacy it demands
and deserves. America would not be America if such power remained
concentrated in the hands of one man, or one branch of Government.
The Church Committee's final report, ``Intelligence Activities and
the Rights of Americans,'' put the case eloquently:
The critical question before the Committee was to determine
how the fundamental liberties of the people can be maintained
in the course of the Government's effort to protect their
security. The delicate balance between these basic goals of
our system of government is often difficult to strike, but it
can, and must, be achieved.
We reject the view that the traditional American principles
of justice and fair play have no place in our struggle
against the enemies of freedom. Moreover, our investigation
has established that the targets of intelligence activity
have ranged far beyond persons who could properly be
characterized as enemies of freedom. . . .
We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes
and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and
occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian
regimes.
We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs
initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal
violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what
witnesses characterized as ``vacuum cleaners,'' sweeping in
information about lawful activities of American citizens.
The Senators of the Church Commission concluded:
Unless new and tighter controls are established by
legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to
undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its
nature.
What a strange echo we hear in those words. They could have been
written yesterday. Three decades ago, our predecessors in this Chamber
understood that when domestic spying goes too far, it threatens to kill
just what it promises to protect--an America secure in its liberty.
That lesson was crystal clear 30 years ago. Why is it so clouded now?
And before we entertain the argument that ``everything has changed''
since those words were written, remember: The men who wrote them had
witnessed world war and Cold War, had seen Nazi and Soviet spying, and
were living every day under the cloud of nuclear holocaust. How short
some memories are.
The threats have multiplied and grown in complexity, but the lesson
has been immutable: Warrantless spying threatens to undermine our
democratic society, unless legislation brings it under control. In
other words, the power to invade privacy must be used sparingly,
guarded jealously, and shared equally between the branches of
Government.
Or the case can be made pragmatically. As my friend Harold Koh, the
dean of Yale Law School, recently argued:
The engagement of all three branches tends to yield not
just more thoughtful law, but a more broadly supported public
policy.
Three decades ago, that broadly supported public policy--a prime
outcome of the Church Committee--was the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, or FISA. FISA confirmed the President's power to
conduct surveillance of international conversations involving anyone in
the United States, provided that the Federal FISA court issued a
warrant--ensuring that wiretapping was aimed at safeguarding our
security, and nothing else. To further protect intelligence gathering,
that court was to work in secret.
Ironically, none other than the President's own Director of National
Intelligence, Mike McConnell, explained the rationale in an interview
this summer: The United States ``did not want to allow [the
intelligence community] to conduct . . . electronic surveillance of
Americans for foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant, so that
was required.''
As originally written in 1978, and as amended nine times since, FISA
has accomplished its mission; it has been a valuable tool for
conducting surveillance of terrorists and those who would harm America.
And every time Presidents have come to Congress openly to ask for more
leeway under FISA, Congress has worked with them; Congress has
compromised; and together, Congress and the President have struck a
balance that safeguards America while doing its utmost to protect
privacy.
This summer, Congress made a technical correction to FISA, enabling
the President to wiretap, without a warrant, conversations between two
foreign targets, even if those conversations are routed through
American computers. Personally, I felt that this summer's legislation
went too far, and I opposed it. But the point is that Congress once
again proved its willingness to work with the President on FISA. Isn't
that enough?
Just this October and November, as we have seen, the Senate
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees worked with the President to
further refine FISA and ensure that, in a true emergency, the FISA
court would do nothing to slow down intelligence gathering. Isn't that
enough?
And as for the FISA court, it has approved the President's
wiretapping requests with impeccable consistency.
Between 1978 and 2004, according to the Washington Post, the FISA
court approved 18,748 warrants and rejected five. The FISA court has
sided with the executive 99.9 percent of the time. Isn't that enough?
Is anything lacking? Isn't the framework already in place? Isn't all
of this enough to keep us safe?
We all know the President's answer. Given this complex, fine-tuned
machinery, crafted over three decades by all three branches, what did
he do? He ignored it.
Given a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping he could
conceive--he conducted his own, illegally.
If the shock of that decision has yet to sink in, think of it this
way: President Bush ignored not just a Federal court, but a secret
Federal court; not just a secret Federal court, but a secret Federal
court prepared to sign off on his actions 99.9 percent of the time. A
more compliant court has never been conceived. And still that wasn't
good enough for our President.
So I will ask the Senate candidly, and candidly it already knows the
answer: Is this about our security or is it about his power?
I ask that question not to change the subject, but because it is the
key to understanding why this administration is pushing so hard for
telecom immunity--that is, for secrecy. Richard Nixon, the same man who
declared that ``if the president does it, it's not illegal,'' raised
secrecy to an art form--because he understood that the surest way to
amass power is to conceal its true extent.
Secrecy can spring from the best motives; but as it grows it begins
to exist only for itself, only for its own sake, only to cover its own
abuses.
The Senators of the Church Committee expressed succinctly the deep
flaw in that form of Government: ``Abuse thrives on secrecy.''
Today, we have seen the executive branch pass to a new master of
secrecy. Vice President Cheney practices a secrecy so baroque that it
could, in a less threatened time, be an object for laughter, instead of
fear.
His unclassified papers? Stamped ``treat as TSSCI,'' one of the
highest levels of state secret. The list of papers he has declassified?
Classified. The members of his energy task force? None of your
business. His location? Undisclosed. The names of his staff?
Confidential. And tellingly, of course, the visitor log for his office?
Shredded by the Secret Service.
When secrecy becomes this divorced from practicality, we are left
with only
[[Page 34545]]
one conclusion: For this executive branch, secrecy is power.
Of course, I don't mean any offense against our Vice President--as he
reminds us, he is not part of the executive branch.
We see a pattern of secrecy stretching back to the first months of
this administration. Its push for immunity is no different--secrecy is
at its center.
And tellingly, the administration's original immunity proposal
protected not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the
wiretapping program. In their original proposal, that is, they wanted
to immunize themselves.
Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt:
their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the
years to come, they would be found liable or convicted. They knew
better than anyone else what they had done--they must have had good
reason to be afraid!
Thankfully, executive immunity is not part of the bill before us. I
am grateful for that. But the origin of immunity tells us a great deal
about what's at stake here: This is, and always has been, a self-
preservation bill.
Otherwise, why not have the trial and get it over with? If the
President's allies believe what they say, the corporations would win in
a walk.
After all, look at things from their perspective: In their telling,
when our biggest telecom corporations helped the President spy without
a warrant, they were doing their patriotic duty. When they listened to
the executive branch and turned over private information, they were
doing their patriotic duty.
When one company gave the NSA a secret eavesdropping room at its own
corporate headquarters, it was simply doing its patriotic duty. The
President asked, the telecoms answered.
Shouldn't that be an easy case to prove, Mr. President? The
corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the assurances
they were given, and they will be in and out of court in 5 minutes. If
the telecoms are as defensible as the President says, why doesn't the
President let them defend themselves? If the case is so easy to make,
why doesn't he let them make it? Why is he standing in the way?
Our Federal court system has dealt for decades with the most delicate
national security matters, building up expertise in protecting
classified information behind closed doors--ex parte, in camera. We can
expect no less in these cases. If we're worried about national security
being threatened as a result, we can simply get the principals a
security clearance.
No intelligence sources need be compromised. No state secrets need be
exposed. And we can say so with increasing confidence, because after
the extensive litigation that has already taken place at both the
district court and circuit court level, no sensitive information has
leaked out.
In fact, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, a Republican
appointee, has already ruled that the issue can go to trial without
putting state secrets in jeopardy. He reasonably pointed out that the
existence of the President's surveillance program is hardly a secret at
all: The government has already disclosed the general contours of the
``terrorist surveillance program,'' which requires the assistance of a
telecommunications provider.
George Bush wouldn't be the first president to hide righteously
behind the state secrets privilege. In fact, the privilege was tainted
at its birth by a President of my own party, Harry Truman. In 1952, he
successfully invoked the new privilege to prevent public exposure of a
report on a plane crash that killed three Air Force contractors.
When the report was finally declassified--some 50 years later,
decades after anyone in the Truman administration was within its
reach--it contained no state secrets at all. Only facts about repeated
maintenance failures that would have seriously embarrassed some
important people. And so the state secrets privilege began its career
not to protect our nation--but to protect the powerful.
In his opinion, Judge Walker argued that, even when it is reasonably
grounded:
The state secrets privilege [still] has its limits. While
the court recognizes and respects the executive's
constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the
court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to
adjudicate the disputes that come before it. To defer to a
blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that
duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this
litigation has been so publicly aired.
The compromise between liberty and security remains a
difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would
sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.
And that ought to be the epitaph for this Presidency: ``sacrificing
liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.'' Worse than selling
our soul--giving it away for free!
The President is equally wrong to claim that failing to grant this
retroactive immunity will make the telecoms less likely to cooperate
with surveillance in the future.
The truth is that, since the 1970s, FISA has compelled
telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance, when it is
warranted--and what's more, it immunizes them. It is done that for more
than 25 years.
So cooperation in warranted wiretapping is not at stake today.
Collusion in warrantless wiretapping is--and the warrant makes all the
difference, because it is precisely the court's blessing that brings
Presidential power under the rule of law.
In sum, we know that giving the telecoms their day in court--giving
the American people their day in court--would not jeopardize an ounce
of our security. And it could only expose one secret: the extent of our
president's lawbreaking, and the extent of his corporations'
complicity. That, our President will go to the mat to defend. That, he
will keep from the light of a courtroom at all costs. That, his
supporters would amend the law to protect.
And that is the choice at stake today: Will George Bush's secrets die
with this Presidency? Or will they be open to the generations to come,
to our successors in this Chamber, so that they can prepare themselves
to defend against future outrages of power and usurpations of law from
future Presidents, of either party?
I am here because I will not see those secrets go quietly into the
good night with Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney
and George Bush. I am here because the truth is not their private
property--it belongs to every one of us, and it demands to be heard.
``State secrets,'' ``patriotic duty''--those, as weak as they are,
are the arguments the president's allies use when they're feeling high-
minded! When their thoughts turn baser, they make their arguments in
dollar signs.
Here's how Mike McConnell put it:
If you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it
would bankrupt these companies. So . . . we have to provide
liability protection to these private sector entities.
Mike McConnell is quickly becoming an accidental truth-teller! Notice
how the President's own Director of National Intelligence concedes that
if the cases went to trial, the telecoms would lose. I don't know if
that's true, Mr. President--but we can thank Admiral McConnell for
telling us how he really feels.
Of course, it is an exaggeration to claim that these companies would
surely go bankrupt, even if they did lose.
We are talking about some of the wealthiest, most successful
companies in America. Let me quote an article from Dow Jones
MarketWatch. The date is October 23, 2007. The headline reads: ``AT&T's
third-quarter profit rises 41.5 percent.''
AT&T Inc. on Tuesday said third-quarter earnings rose 41.5
percent, boosted by the acquisition of BellSouth and the
addition of 2 million net wireless customers . . . Net income
totaled $3.06 billion . . . compared with $2.17 billion . . .
a year ago.
Note that AT&T has posted these record profits at a time of very
public litigation.
A company with more than $3 billion in profits one quarter--only the
most exorbitant and unlikely judgment could completely wipe it out. To
assume that the telecoms would lose, and that their judges would then
hand down such backbreaking penalties, is already to take several
leaps.
[[Page 34546]]
The point, after all, has never been to financially cripple our
telecommunications industry. The point is to bring checks and balances
back to domestic spying. Setting that precedent would hardly require a
crippling judgment.
It is much more troubling, though, that the Director of National
Intelligence even feels the need to pronounce on ``liability protection
for private sector entities.'' Since when were our spies in the
business of economics? Since when did they put protecting AT&T or
Verizon ahead of protecting the American people? Since when did the
amount a defendant stands to lose have any bearing on whether a suit
should go forward? I learned in law school that guilty was guilty--no
matter how rich or how poor.
Lean on this logic, and you'll sink to its venal core: Certain
corporations are too rich to be sued. Forget what they owe; forget
what's just; forget judges setting the penalty. If there's even a
chance of the judgment being high, throw the suit out--it endangers the
Republic!
This administration has equated corporations' bottom lines with our
Nation's security. Follow that reasoning honestly to its end, and you
come to the conclusion: The larger the corporation, the more lawless it
can be. If we accept Mr. McConnell's premises, we could conceive of a
corporation so wealthy, so integral to our economy, that its riches
place it outside the law altogether. And if the administration's
thinking even admits that possibility, we know instinctively how flawed
it is.
The truth is exactly the opposite: The larger the corporation, the
greater the potential for abuse, and the more carefully it must be
watched. Not that success should make a company suspect; companies grow
large, and essential to our economy, because they are excellent at what
they do. I simply mean that size and wealth open the realm of
possibilities for abuse far beyond the scope of the individual.
Consider this. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Clear, first-hand whistleblower documentary evidence
[states] . . . that for year on end every e-mail, every text
message, and every phone call carried over the massive fiber-
optic links of sixteen separate companies routed through
AT&T's Internet hub in San Francisco--hundreds of millions of
private, domestic communications--have been . . . copied in
their entirety by AT&T and knowingly diverted wholesale by
means of multiple ``splitters'' into a secret room controlled
exclusively by the NSA.
If true, that constitutes one of the most massive violations of
privacy in American history. And it would be inconceivable without the
size and resources of an AT&T behind it--the same size that makes Mike
McConnell fear the corporations' day in court.
If reasonable search and seizure means opening a drug dealer's
apartment, the telecoms' alleged actions would be the equivalent of
strip-searching everyone in the building, ransacking their bedrooms,
and prying up all the floorboards. That is the massive scale we are
talking about--and that massive scale is precisely why no corporation
must be above the law.
On that scale, it is impossible to plead ignorance. As Judge Walker
ruled:
AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in
its position could have believed that the alleged domestic
dragnet was legal.
But the arguments of the President's allies sink even lower. Listen
to the words a House Republican leader spoke on Fox News. They are
shameful:
I believe that they deserve immunity from lawsuits out
there from typical trial lawyers trying to find a way to get
into the pockets of American companies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Cindy Cohn is one of those ``trial lawyers.'' She is lead
counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a small public-interest
law firm bringing suit against the telecom corporations. And when she
heard that Fox News claim about typical greedy trial lawyers, she
laughed.
If he still thinks that we're rich plaintiffs' attorneys
after he's visited our little tiny Mission Street offices,
[she said,] then I have a bridge to sell him. Most of the EFF
lawyers worked in those big fancy firms for big fancy
salaries, and took big pay cuts to join us . . .
Young lawyers come to me and say, ``I really want to work
for EFF--you have such great lawyers.''
I say: ``Take your current paycheck, rip it in three
pieces, take any third, and that's about what you'll get
working for EFF.'' The lawyers who work for EFF . . . are
making far less than they could on the open market in
exchange for being able to work in things they believe in
every day.
Consider the hundreds of lawyers retained by the corporations in
question, and their multimillion-dollar legal budgets, and the attempt
to portray them as pitiable Davids is ludicrous. Sprint's lawyers
recently settled an unrelated class-action lawsuit for $30 million.
Three years ago, AT&T handled a settlement with shareholders for $100
million.
With those resources, I think they can give EFF's nine nonprofit
lawyers in their little office on Mission Street a fair fight.
Mr. President, I don't presume to know how that fight will end. I
don't presume to hand out innocence and guilt--that's not my job.
Judges and juries do that. And in their search for the truth, the only
job of this body is to get out of the way.
I am not invested in one verdict or another--only that a verdict is
reached. I don't care who the truth favors--only that it comes out at
all.
State secrets; future cooperation; economic harms; reputational
damage; legal burdens--as we've seen, not a single one of the
President's arguments for this immunity stands. Nothing tells us to
halt the legal process, to bar the courthouse door. Everything tells us
to open it.
Mr. President, perhaps when I leave this floor today, someone will
ask me, ``Why are you so agitated about some telephone records? There's
so much else to be worked up about!''
And I'll only be able to respond: ``Exactly.''
We have seen this administration chip away at the rule of law at a
dozen points. Its relentlessness may be its greatest strength--the
assault becomes numbing, and our healthy outrage grows dull. It was an
outrage when this President set up secret courts outside the law. It
was an outrage when he ignored the courts and tapped our phones. It was
an outrage when he sanctioned torture. But outrage upon outrage upon
outrage--and we wind up in a stupor. We have allowed each abuse with
nothing more than a promise to resist the next one--and the next one,
and the next one.
I am here, in the end, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Why not here? Why not today?
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the motion on
cloture. Let them come back, strip this language out on immunity, and
give us a clean FISA bill. That is the only right thing to do. The law
is here to protect all of us. We can have security and liberty.
As Benjamin Franklin said some 200 years ago:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve
neither security nor liberty.
So I urge my colleagues to reject cloture, and then we can send the
bill forward without that immunity provision.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 13 minutes to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, then 5 minutes to Senator Sessions, 5 minutes to Senator
Chambliss, and 5 minutes to Senator Kyl. That would conclude the time
on our side, and I think that will put us at a vote or it will consume
the time on our side. So I unanimous consent that be the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding me the
time, and I wish to begin with the comment made by the Senator from
Connecticut raising a question about the grant of retroactivity
immunity. I believe that had that provision not been in the Senate
bill, it would be a great deal easier to deal with, although there
[[Page 34547]]
are some substantial problems with the bill as such, even in addition
to the provision on retroactive immunity.
But I support the motion to invoke cloture because I believe it is
necessary to deal with the fight against terrorism, and I think the
Government has made a case for some expanded powers, although I think
we have to weigh them very carefully--to fight terrorism but still
protect civil liberties in this country.
I have a strong objection to the provision in the bill relating to
retroactive immunity, and my objection goes to the point that the
administration did not follow the provisions of law in notifying the
Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate or the chairman and
ranking member of the Judiciary Committees about this program. To come
at a later date and seek retroactive immunity I think is inappropriate.
I found out about it when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee
last year, and I moved to subpoena the records of the telephone
company, and then I moved to go into a closed session. While that was
in process, Vice President Cheney went to the members of the Judiciary
Committee on the Republican side, without notifying me--which I thought
was inappropriate--and thwarted the efforts I was making to find out
what this program was all about.
I ask unanimous consent to have my letter to Vice President Cheney
dated June 7, and his reply to me dated June 8, printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2006.
Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
The Vice President,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Vice President: I am taking this unusual step in
writing to you to establish a public record. It is neither
pleasant nor easy to raise these issues with the
Administration of my own party, but I do so because of their
importance,
No one has been more supportive of a strong national
defense and tough action against terrorism than I. However,
the Administration's continuing position on the NSA
electronic surveillance program rejects the historical
constitutional practice of judicial approval of warrants
before wiretapping and denigrates the constitutional
authority and responsibility of the Congress and specifically
the Judiciary Committee to conduct oversight on
constitutional issues.
On March 16, 2006, I introduced legislation to authorize
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rule on the
constitutionality of the Administration's electronic
surveillance program. Expert witnesses, including four former
judges of the FISA Court, supported the legislation as an
effective way to preserve the secrecy of the program and
protect civil rights. The FISA Court has an unblemished
record for keeping secrets and it has the obvious expertise
to rule on the issue. The FISA Court judges and other experts
concluded that the legislation satisfied the case-in-
controversy requirement and was not a prohibited advisory
opinion. Notwithstanding my repeated efforts to get the
Administration's position on this legislation, I have been
unable to get any response, including a ``no''.
The Administration's obligation to provide sufficient
information to the Judiciary Committee to allow the Committee
to perform its constitutional oversight is not satisfied by
the briefings to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
On that subject, it should be noted that this Administration,
as well as previous Administrations, has failed to comply
with the requirements of the National Security Act of 1947 to
keep the House and Senate Intelligence Committees fully
informed. That statute has been ignored for decades when
Presidents have only informed the so-called ``Gang of
Eight,'' the Leaders of both Houses and the Chairmen and
Ranking on the Intelligence Committees. From my experience as
a member of the ``Gang of Eight'' when I chaired the
Intelligence Committee of the 104th Congress, even that group
gets very little information. It was only in the face of
pressure from the Senate Judiciary Committee that the
Administration reluctantly informed subcommittees of the
House and Senate Intelligence Committees and then agreed to
inform the full Intelligence Committee members in order to
get General Hayden confirmed.
When there were public disclosures about the telephone
companies turning over millions of customer records involving
allegedly billions of telephone calls, the Judiciary
Committee scheduled a hearing of the chief executive officers
of the four telephone companies involved. When some of the
companies requested subpoenas so they would not be
volunteers, we responded that we would honor that request.
Later, the companies indicated that if the hearing were
closed to the public, they would not need subpoenas.
I then sought Committee approval, which is necessary under
our rules, to have a closed session to protect the
confidentiality of any classified information and scheduled a
Judiciary Committee Executive Session for 2:30 P.M. yesterday
to get that approval.
I was advised yesterday that you had called Republican
members of the Judiciary Committee lobbying them to oppose
any Judiciary Committee hearing, even a closed one, with the
telephone companies. I was further advised that you told
those Republican members that the telephone companies had
been instructed not to provide any information to the
Committee as they were prohibited from disclosing classified
information.
I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to
influence, really determine, the action of the Committee
without calling me first, or at least calling me at some
point. This was especially perplexing since we both attended
the Republican Senators caucus lunch yesterday and I walked
directly in front of you on at least two occasions enroute
from the buffet to my table.
At the request of Republican Committee members, I scheduled
a Republican members meeting at 2:00 P.M. yesterday in
advance of the 2:30 P.M. full Committee meeting. At that
time, I announced my plan to proceed with the hearing and to
invite the chief executive officers of the telephone
companies who would not be subject to the embarrassment of
being subpoenaed because that was no longer needed. I
emphasized my preference to have a closed hearing providing a
majority of the Committee agreed.
Senator Hatch then urged me to defer action on the
telephone companies hearing, saying that he would get
Administration support for my bill which he had long
supported. In the context of the doubt as to whether there
were the votes necessary for a closed hearing or to proceed
in any manner as to the telephone companies, I agreed to
Senator Hatch's proposal for a brief delay on the telephone
companies hearing to give him an opportunity to secure the
Administration's approval of the bill which he thought could
be done. When I announced this course of action at the full
Committee Executive Session, there was a very contentious
discussion which is available on the public record.
It has been my hope that there could be an accommodation
between Congress's Article I authority on oversight and the
President's constitutional authority under Article II. There
is no doubt that the NSA program violates the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act which sets forth the exclusive
procedure for domestic wiretaps which requires the approval
of the FISA Court. It may be that the President has inherent
authority under Article II to trump that statute but the
President does not have a blank check and the determination
on whether the President has such Article II power calls for
a balancing test which requires knowing what the surveillance
program constitutes.
If an accommodation cannot be reached with the
Administration, the Judiciary Committee will consider
confronting the issue with subpoenas and enforcement of that
compulsory process if it appears that a majority vote will be
forthcoming. The Committee would obviously have a much easier
time making our case for enforcement of subpoenas against the
telephone companies which do not have the plea of executive
privilege. That may ultimately be the course of least
resistance.
We press this issue in the context of repeated stances by
the Administration on expansion of Article II power,
frequently at the expense of Congress's Article I authority.
There are the Presidential signing statements where the
President seeks to cherry-pick which parts of the statute he
will follow. There has been the refusal of the Department of
Justice to provide the necessary clearances to permit its
Office of Professional Responsibility to determine the
propriety of the legal advice given by the Department of
Justice on the electronic surveillance program. There is the
recent Executive Branch search and seizure of Congressman
Jefferson's office. There are recent and repeated assertions
by the Department of Justice that it has the authority to
criminally prosecute newspapers and reporters under highly
questionable criminal statutes.
All of this is occurring in the context where the
Administration is continuing warrantless wiretaps in
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is
preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from carrying out
its constitutional responsibility for Congressional oversight
on constitutional issues. I am available to try to work this
out with the Administration without the necessity of a
constitutional confrontation between Congress and the
President.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
____
The Vice President,
Washington, June 8, 2006.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of
June 7, 2006 concerning the
[[Page 34548]]
Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) the Administration has
described. The commitment in your letter to work with the
Administration in a non-confrontational manner is most
welcome and will, of course, be reciprocated.
As recently as Tuesday of this week, I reiterated that, as
the Administration has said before, while there is no need
for any legislation to carry out the Terrorist Surveillance
Program, the Administration will listen to the ideas of
legislators about terrorist surveillance legislation and work
with them in good faith. Needless to say, that includes you,
Senator DeWine and others who have ideas for such
legislation. The President ultimately will have to make a
decision whether any particular legislation would strengthen
the ability of the Government to protect Americans against
terrorists, while protecting the rights of Americans, but we
believe the Congress and the Administration working together
can produce legislation to achieve that objective, if that is
the will of the Congress.
Having served in the executive branch as chief of staff for
one President and as Secretary of Defense for another, having
served in the legislative branch as a Representative from
Wyoming for a decade, and serving now in a unique position
under the Constitution with both executive functions and
legislative functions, I fully understand and respect the
separate constitutional roles of the Congress and the
Presidency. Under our constitutional separation between the
legislative powers granted to Congress and the executive
power vested exclusively in the Presidency, differences of
view may occur from time to time between the branches, but
the Government generally functions best when the legislative
branch and the executive branch work together. And I believe
that both branches agree that they should work together as
Congress decides whether and how to pursue further terrorist
surveillance legislation
Your letter addressed four basic subjects: (1) the legal
basis for the TSP; (2) the Administration position on
legislation prepared by you relating to the TSP; (3)
provision of information to Congress about the TSP; and (4)
communications with Senators on the Judiciary Committee about
the TSP.
The executive branch has conducted the TSP, from its
inception on October 4, 2001 to the present, with great care
to operate within the law, with approval as to legality of
Presidential authorizations every 45 days or so by senior
Government attorneys. The Department of Justice has set forth
in detail in writing the constitutional and statutory bases,
and related judicial precedents, for warrantless electronic
surveillance under the TSP to protect against terrorism, and
that information has been made available to your Committee
and to the public.
Your letter indicated that you have repeatedly requested an
Administration position on legislation prepared by you
relating to the TSP program. If you would like a formal
Administration position on draft legislation, you may at any
time submit it to the Attorney General, the Director of
National Intelligence, or the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for processing, which will
produce a formal Administration position. Before you do so,
however, it might be more productive for executive branch
experts to meet with you, and perhaps Senator DeWine or other
Senators as appropriate, to review the various bills that
have been introduced and to share the Administration's
thoughts on terrorist surveillance legislation. Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales and Acting Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven G. Bradbury
are key experts upon whom the executive branch would rely for
this purpose. I will ask them to contact you promptly so that
the cooperative effort can proceed apace.
Since the earliest days of the TSP, the executive branch
has ensured that, consistent with the protection of the
sensitive intelligence sources, methods and activities
involved, appropriate members of Congress were briefed
periodically on the program. The executive branch kept
principally the chairman and ranking members of the
congressional intelligence committees informed and later
included the congressional leadership. Today, the full
membership of both the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
(including four Senators on that Committee who also serve on
your Judiciary Committee) are fully briefed on the program.
As a matter of inter-branch comity and good executive-
legislative practice, and recognizing the vital importance of
protecting U.S. intelligence sources, methods and activities,
we believe that the country as a whole, and the Senate and
the House respectively, are best served by concentrating the
congressional handling of intelligence matters within the
intelligence committees of the Congress. The internal
organization of the two Houses is, of course, a matter for
the respective Houses. Recognizing the wisdom of the
concentration within the intelligence committees, the rules
of the Senate (S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress) and the
House (Rule X, cl. 11) creating the intelligence committees
mandated that the intelligence committees have cross-over
members who also serve on the judiciary, foreign/
international relations, armed services, and appropriations
committees.
Both in performing the legislative functions of the Vice
Presidency as President of the Senate and in performing
executive functions in support of the President, I have
frequent contact with Senators, both at their initiative and
mine. We have found such contacts helpful in maintaining good
relations between the executive and legislative branch es and
in advancing legislation that serves the interests of the
American people. The respectful and candid exchange of views
is something to be encouraged rather than avoided. Indeed,
recognizing the importance of such communication, the first
step the Administration took, when it learned that you might
pursue use of compulsory process in an attempt to force
testimony that may involve extremely sensitive classified
information, was to have one of the Administration's most
senior officials, the Chief of Staff to the President of the
United States, contact you to discuss the matter. Thereafter,
I spoke with a number of other Members of the Senate
Leadership and the Judiciary Committee. These communications
are not unusual--they are the Government at work.
While there may continue to be areas of disagreement from
time to time, we should proceed in a practical way to build
on the areas of agreement. I believe that other Senators and
you, working with the executive branch, can find the way
forward to enactment of legislation that would strengthen the
ability of the Government to protect Americans against
terrorists, while continuing to protect the rights of
Americans, if it is the judgment of Congress that such
legislation should be enacted. We look forward to working
with you, knowing of the good faith on all sides.
Sincerely,
Dick Cheney.
Mr. SPECTER. The telephone companies, I do believe, have acted as
good citizens. I would not want to see them pay damages because they
were responding to a governmental request. So my idea, in order to
strike a balance between the Senate bill which grants retroactive
immunity and the House bill which leaves it out, would be instead to
provide for the Government to be substituted as a party for telephone
companies.
Toward that end, I have introduced S. 2402, which was considered by
the Judiciary Committee last week and did not pass, on a vote of 13 to
5. Since that time, I have heard from other Senators that they think it
is a good idea. I believe it has to be explored and will be explored
because I will offer it as an amendment to this bill as soon as I have
an opportunity to do so.
What my idea does, essentially, is to substitute the Federal
Government as the party defendant for the telephone companies in the
cases which have been initiated. The Government would stand in the
shoes of the telephone companies, with no more and no less defenses
available. For example, governmental immunity would not be available as
a defense to the Government because obviously the telephone companies
do not have governmental immunity.
The telephone companies, I think, or the defendants in these cases
are highly unlikely to pay damages. But I believe it is very important
that the courts not be foreclosed from making a judicial determination
on the issues which are involved. Part of the concern I have is that
the Government is now coming forward to try to have retroactive
immunity, to absolve them from any potential wrongdoing in the past. I
do not know whether there is wrongdoing, but I do not believe that it
is appropriate for the Federal Government to act secretly,
surreptitiously, not tell the intelligence committees as required by
law, not tell the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, and then come back at a later date and say: Please exonerate
us. If we give that kind of a blank check, carte blanche to the
executive officials, it would be a terrible, devastating precedent for
the future.
I believe it is necessary for the judicial actions to run their
course. Again, let me say I think it is highly questionable that any of
the plaintiffs will succeed. The defense of state secrets has been
interposed in the cases against the telephone companies. Similarly, the
Government would have that defense if it were substituted in their
stead.
But the fact is that the Congress has not been successful in
conducting oversight of the Federal Government. The
[[Page 34549]]
terrorist surveillance program was in existence from October of 2001
until December of 2005, before the Congress ever found out about it.
Then we didn't find out about it as a result of our oversight
activities; we found out about it because it was disclosed in a New
York Times story.
I remember the morning well. I was managing the PATRIOT Act re-
authorization, to try the give the U.S. Government adequate powers to
fight terrorism. Right in the middle of the final day of our
consideration, the story broke about the secret terrorist surveillance
program, and the comment was made on the floor of the Senate by one
Senator that he was prepared to vote for the PATRIOT Act but not after
he found out about the terrorist surveillance program.
The Federal Government did not notify the Intelligence Committees as
required by law until well after the New York Times article. Then they
notified the Intelligence Committees only because they felt compelled
to do so in order to get General Hayden confirmed.
There is a long list of efforts by congressional oversight which have
been insufficient: the signing statements in which the President has
cherry-picked, taking provisions he likes and excluding provisions he
doesn't like. Senator McCain and the President personally negotiated
the question of interrogation in the Detainee Treatment Act. There was
language put in, on a 90-to-9 vote, limiting interrogation practices.
Then, when the President signed the bill, he made an exclusion, saying
that his constitutional authority under article II would enable him to
ignore some of those provisions.
Similarly, on the PATRIOT Act re-authorization, we negotiated certain
oversight, and then the President issued a signing statement again
saying there were some items which he would feel free to disregard on
the oversight provisions.
On habeas corpus and detention, the Congress has been totally
ineffective at any oversight; it is only the Supreme Court of the
United States in Rasul and in a case now pending, Boumediene, argued
recently in the Supreme Court. So the judicial oversight on checks and
balances and on separation of powers, I believe, is indispensable.
We have within the past few days another instance of executive
resistance to congressional oversight. Senator Leahy and I wrote to the
Attorney General recently--a week ago today--inquiring about the
destruction of the tapes by the CIA. The Attorney General responded
last week, on December 14, denying our request for information.
I ask unanimous consent to have the Attorney General's letter printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, DC., December 14, 2007.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Specter: Thank you for your
letter of December 10, 2007, regarding your concerns about
the reported destruction by the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) of videotapes showing interrogations of detainees and
the Department's review of this matter.
As you note, the Department's National Security Division is
conducting a preliminary inquiry in conjunction with the
CIA's Office of Inspector General. Enclosed please find a
letter from Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein
to CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo, which provides
some further detail regarding this inquiry, and which was
released to the public on December 8.
As to your remaining questions, the Department has a
longstanding policy of declining to provide non-public
information about pending matters. This policy is based in
part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law
enforcement decisions are subject to political influence.
Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further
information in response to your letter, but appreciate the
Committee's interests in this matter. At my confirmation
hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist
political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in
cases brought by the Department of Justice. Consistent with
that testimony, the facts will be followed wherever they lead
in this inquiry, and the relevant law applied.
Finally, with regard to the suggestion that I appoint a
special counsel, I am aware of no facts at present to suggest
that Department attorneys cannot conduct this inquiry in an
impartial manner. If I become aware of information that leads
me to a different conclusion, I will act on it.
I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Mukasey,
Attorney General.
____
Department of Justice,
National Security Division,
Washington, DC., December 8, 2007.
John A. Rizzo,
Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Rizzo: I am writing this letter to confirm our
discussions over the past several days regarding the
destruction of videotapes of interrogations conducted by the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Consistent with these
discussions, the Department of Justice will conduct a
preliminary inquiry into the facts to determine whether
further investigation is warranted. I understand that you
have undertaken to preserve any records or other
documentation that would facilitate this inquiry. The
Department will conduct this inquiry in conjunction with the
CIA's Office of Inspector General (OIG).
My colleagues and I would like to meet with your Office and
OIG early next week regarding this inquiry. Based on our
recent discussions, I understand that your Office has already
reviewed the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the
videotapes, as well as the existence of any pending relevant
investigations or other preservation obligations at the time
the destruction occurred. As a first step in our inquiry, I
ask that you provide us the substance of that review at the
meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation with the Department in this
matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Wainstein,
Assistant Attorney General,
National Security Division.
Mr. SPECTER. It surprised me that the Attorney General would say that
in light of his very recent statements made during the confirmation
hearings. ``If confirmed, I will review Department of Justice policies
with a goal of ensuring that Congress is able to carry out meaningful
oversight.''
When I talked to Judge Mukasey in advance of the confirmation
hearings and gave him a copy of the letter which I had sent to Attorney
General Gonzales, Judge Mukasey agreed with the standards established
by the Congressional Research Service, saying that these are within the
bounds of congressional authority on oversight.
[A] review of congressional investigations that have
implicated DOJ, or DOJ investigations over the past 70 years,
from the Palmer Raids and Teapot Dome to Watergate, and
through Iran Contra and Rocky Flats, demonstrates that the
Department of Justice has consistently been obliged to submit
to congressional oversight. . . .
Including:
. . . testimony of subordinate DOJ employees, such as line
attorneys and FBI field agents, was taken. . . .
Again:
In all instances, investigating committees were provided
with documents respecting open or closed cases.
So here is another example of congressional oversight being thwarted,
so that when you have a challenge to what has been done by the
telephone companies here and you have litigation in progress, I believe
it to be most inappropriate for the Congress to intercede and grant
immunity retroactively.
I believe our Federal investigative agencies need very substantial
powers in the fight against terrorism. I have discussed the issue with
Director of National Intelligence McConnell about granting the
Government authority to acquire the cooperation of the telephone
companies prospectively. I am waiting for a briefing on the issue, to
understand the full import of what it is that the Director of National
Intelligence wants. I am open to granting those powers prospectively,
but I do not believe, in the context of what has happened here, that it
would be advisable to retroactively give these officials a blank check
when they kept these matters secret from the oversight committees, and
when the Judiciary Committee sought to have subpoenas to find out about
it, and we
[[Page 34550]]
were thwarted in that effort, as disclosed by the exchange of letters
between the Vice President and myself, made a part of the record.
I note my time has expired. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Feingold may have been next, and
I see he has returned. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his
courtesy.
Mr. President, I oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2248,
as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This bill is deeply
flawed, and I am very disappointed by the decision to take it up on the
Senate floor rather than the better bill reported by the Judiciary
Committee.
Before leaving town for the August recess, Congress bowed to pressure
from the administration, and vastly expanded the Government's ability
to eavesdrop without a court-approved warrant. That legislation, the
so-called Protect America Act, was rushed through this Chamber in a
climate of fear--fear of terrorist attacks, and fear of not appearing
sufficiently strong on national security. There was very little
understanding of what the legislation actually did.
But there was one silver lining: The bill had a 6-month sunset to
force Congress to do its homework and reconsider the approach it took.
The Senate should be taking this opportunity to fix its mistakes and
pass a new bill that gives the Government all the tools it needs to spy
on suspected terrorists but also protects Americans' basic freedoms.
This time around, the Senate should stand up to an Administration that
time and again has employed fear-mongering and misleading statements to
intimidate Congress.
The fact is, the Intelligence Committee bill doesn't fix those
mistakes, and it is not the bill we should be considering on the Senate
floor.
I do agree with the administration on one point--Congress should make
clear that when foreign terrorists are communicating with each other
overseas, the U.S. Government doesn't need a warrant to listen in, even
if the collection activity ends up taking place in this country because
of the way modern communications are routed. Unfortunately, both the
Protect America Act and the bill approved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee go far beyond fixing that problem and also authorize
widespread surveillance involving Americans--at home and abroad.
The bill we should be considering is the Judiciary Committee bill,
which 14 Senators urged the majority leader to take up, in a letter
last week.
The Judiciary Committee bill made critical improvements to ensure
independent judicial oversight of these sweeping new powers and to
better protect innocent Americans. The Judiciary bill does not contain
a new form of retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly
cooperated with an illegal wiretapping program that lasted for more
than 5 years. And, while the Intelligence Committee bill was drafted
and debated behind closed doors and in close consultation with the
administration, the Judiciary bill was the product of an open process
with the input of experts from a variety of perspectives.
The Judiciary Committee bill is not perfect. It needs further
improvement. But it would be a vastly better starting point for Senate
consideration than the bill that the majority leader has brought to the
floor, which simply gives the administration everything it was
demanding, no questions asked.
The stakes are high. I want my colleagues to understand the impact
that the Protect America Act and the Intelligence Committee bill could
have on the privacy of Americans. These bills do not just authorize the
6 unfettered surveillance of people outside the United States
communicating with each other. They also permit the Government to
acquire those foreigners' communications with Americans inside the
United States, regardless of whether anyone involved in the
communication is under any suspicion of wrongdoing.
There is no requirement that the foreign targets of this surveillance
be terrorists, spies or other types of criminals. The only requirements
are that the foreigners are outside the country, and that the purpose
is to obtain foreign intelligence information, a term that has an
extremely broad definition.
There is no requirement that the foreign targets of this surveillance
be terrorists, spies, or any other kind of criminal. The only
requirements are that foreigners are outside the country, that the
purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, a term that has
an extremely broad definition.
No court reviews these targets individually. Only the executive
branch decides who fits these criteria. The result is that many law-
abiding Americans who communicate with completely innocent people
overseas will be swept up in this new form of surveillance, with
virtually no judicial involvement.
Even the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program, as
described when it was publicly confirmed in 2005, at least focused on
particular terrorists. What we are talking about now is a huge dragnet
that will sweep up innocent Americans.
In America, we understand that if we happen to be talking to a
criminal or terrorist suspect, our conversations might be heard by the
Government. But I do not think many Americans expect the Government to
be able to listen into every single one of their international
communications with people about whom there are no suspicions
whatsoever.
These incredibly broad authorities are particularly troubling because
we live in a world in which international communications are
increasingly commonplace. Thirty years ago, it was very expensive, and
not common, for many Americans to make an overseas call. But now,
particularly with e-mail, such communications are commonplace. Millions
of ordinary, and innocent, Americans communicate with people overseas
for entirely legitimate personal and business reasons.
Parents of children call family members overseas. Students e-mail
friends they have met while studying abroad. Businesspeople communicate
with colleagues or clients overseas. Technological advancements
combined with the ever interconnected world economy have led to an
explosion of international contacts.
We often hear from those who want to give the Government new powers
that we just have to bring FISA up to date with new technology. But
changes in technology should also cause us to take a look at the
greater need for the privacy of our citizens.
We are going to give the Government broad new powers that will lead
to the collection of much more information on innocent Americans. We
have a duty to protect their privacy as much as we possibly can, and we
can do that. We can do that, as the Senator from Connecticut said,
without sacrificing our ability to collect information that will
protect our national security.
To take one example, a critical difference between the Intelligence
and Judiciary bills is the role of the court. The Judiciary bill gives
the secret FISA Court new authority to operate as an independent check
on the executive branch.
It gives the court authority to assess the Government's compliance to
wiretapping procedures, to place limits on the use of information that
was acquired through unlawful procedures, and then gives the court, as
most courts should have, the ability to enforce its own orders.
The Judiciary bill also does a better job of protecting Americans
from widespread warrantless wiretapping. It prohibits so-called bulk
collection. What is that? Vacuuming up basically all the communications
between the United States and overseas, which the DNI admitted is legal
under the PAA. And it ensures that if the Government is wiretapping a
foreigner overseas in order to really collect the communications of the
American with whom that foreign target is communicating, what is called
reverse targeting, well, in that case it has to get a court order on
that
[[Page 34551]]
American. Well, none of these changes hinders the Government's ability
to protect national security.
The process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted,
amended, and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside
experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment.
With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional
rights of Americans, I think the result of this open process should be
accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee's
unique role and expertise in protecting those rights.
Now, I am certain that over the course of this week we will hear a
number of arguments about why the Judiciary bill will hamper the fight
against terrorism. Well, let me say now to my colleagues: Do not
believe everything you hear. Last week I sat with many of you in the
secure room in the Capitol and listened to arguments made by the
Director of National Intelligence and by our Attorney General.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that several of the examples
they gave were simply wrong, simply false. I am happy to have a
classified meeting with anyone in this body who wishes to discuss that.
This is not about whether we will be effective in combating terrorism.
Both bills allow that. This is about whether the court should have an
independent oversight role and whether Americans deserve more privacy
protections than foreigners overseas. All of this should sound familiar
to those who followed previous debates about fighting terrorism while
protecting American's civil liberties in the post-9/11 world.
The administration says--and again, following on what the Senator
from Connecticut said--the administration basically says: Trust us. We
do not need judicial oversight. The court will just get in our way. You
never know when they might tell us what we are doing is
unconstitutional. We would prefer to make that decision on our own.
Time and again, that has proved to be a foolish and counterproductive
attitude, and sadly, despite the objections of many of us in this
Chamber, too many times, Congress has just gone along. We do not have
to make that same mistake again. In this case we have a factual record
to help us evaluate whether we should simply trust the administration
or whether we should write protections into the law.
The Protect America Act has only been in effect for 4\1/2\ months,
and we are still missing key information about it. The Intelligence
Committee has recently been provided some basic information about its
implementation. Based on what I have learned, I have very serious
questions about the way the administration is interpreting and
implementing the Protect America Act, including its effect on the
privacy of Americans.
I will shortly be sending the Director of National Intelligence a
classified letter detailing my concerns which are directly relevant to
the legislation we are considering. I regret this information is
classified, so I cannot discuss it here. I regret that more of my
colleagues have not been privy to this information prior to this floor
debate, but I would be happy to share a copy of my letter in an
appropriate classified setting with any Senator who wishes to review
it.
I have been speaking for some time now about my strong opposition to
the Intelligence Committee bill, and I have not even addressed one of
the more outrageous elements of the bill: the granting of retroactive
immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal
wiretapping program that lasted for more than 5 years.
This grant of automatic immunity is simply unjustified. There is
already an immunity provision in current law that has been there since
FISA was negotiated in the late 1970s, with the participation of the
telecommunications industry.
The law is clear. Companies already have immunity from civil
liability when they cooperate with a Government request for assistance,
as long as they receive a court order or the Attorney General certifies
that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have
been met.
So this is not about whether the companies had good intentions or
acted in good faith; it is about whether they complied with this
statutory immunity provision, which has applied for 30 years. If the
companies follow that law, they should get immunity. If they did not
follow that law, they should not get immunity. A court should make that
decision, not Congress. It is that simple.
Congress passed a law laying out when telecom companies get immunity
and when they do not for a reason. Those companies have access to our
most private communications, so Congress has correctly subjected them
to very precise rules about when they can provide that information to
the Government. If the companies did not follow the law Congress
passed, they should not be granted a ``get out of jail free'' card
after the fact.
We have heard a lot of arguments about needing technical cooperation
of carriers in the future. We do need that cooperation, but we also
need to make sure carriers do not cooperate with illegitimate requests.
We already have a law that tells companies when they should and when
they should not cooperate, so they are not placed in the position of
having to somehow independently evaluate whether the Government's
request for help is legitimate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the
Senator's request for 3 additional minutes on each side?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I would not object to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, 3 minutes will be added to
each side.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Instead of allowing the courts to apply that law to the
facts, instead of allowing judges to decide whether the companies
deserve immunity for acting appropriately, the Intelligence Committee
bill sends the message that companies need not worry, they do not have
to worry about complying with questionable Government requests in the
future, because they will be bailed out. This is outrageous. Even more
outrageous is the fact that if these lawsuits are dismissed, the courts
may never rule on the NSA wiretapping program.
So what this is is an ideal outcome for an administration that
believes it should be able to interpret laws on its own without
worrying about how Congress wrote them or what a judge thinks. For
those of us who believe in three independent and coequal branches of
Government, this is a disaster.
For all of these reasons, I oppose closure on the motion to proceed
to the Intelligence Committee bill. I fear we are about to make the
same mistake we made with the PATRIOT Act. We passed that law without
taking the time to consider its implications, and we did not do enough
during the reauthorization process to fix it. As a result, three
Federal courts have struck down provisions of the PATRIOT Act as
unconstitutional, and that is right back where we are going to end up
if we do not do our jobs now and fix the Protect America Act.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe the last unanimous consent
agreement was that there would be 5 minutes for Senators Kyl,
Chambliss, and myself. We have added 3 minutes to that. I ask unanimous
consent that we each have 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, Senator
Feingold, and his passionate argument, but I am going to tell my
colleagues that this Congress and this Government of
[[Page 34552]]
the United States are capable of overreacting. We are capable of
getting excited about an issue and taking theoretical positions that
end up, as a practical matter, leaving our country at greater risk.
This is not just an item of discussion; it is very real.
I would point out to my colleagues that we have made two dramatic
errors some years ago in a situation just like this, on emotion driven
by our civil libertarian friends, such that a wall was put up between
the FBI and the CIA which barred the sharing of information between
those two critical agencies.
We also mandated that the Central Intelligence Agency officers could
not obtain information from people deemed to be dangerous. Bad people.
How do you get information in the world and protect America and our
legitimate national interests without sources? Those became laws.
And what happened after we were attacked on 9/11? Both those rules
that we imposed on our military intelligence agencies were deemed to be
bogus, wrong, and mistaken, colossally so. Many Members of this body
were warned when they were made the law of the United States, they were
warned then that if we did these things it was not wise. But, oh no,
the others loved the Constitution more, they loved liberty more, so
these unwise laws were passed. And what happened afterwards, after 9/
11? Well, we properly removed both of those silly rules. We have taken
them off the books, in a bipartisan, unanimous way. They were never
required by the Constitution. They were never sensible from the
beginning. But we passed them on emotion not reason. Some ideas being
promoted now are not sensible either and can leave our country in
dangerous straits. So this is an important matter. These things are
life and death issues.
Last year, a Federal court ruled, based on changes in technology,
that those laws we passed effectively limited the collection of
critical communications of foreign intelligence. It was not the
intention of Congress when we passed it, I am sure, that the law would,
in effect, end up gutting perhaps the most important surveillance
program we have against international terrorists, but that was the
effect of it.
Admiral McConnell was flabbergasted. He came to us and pleaded with
us to give him relief. So what happened? Well, he said this to us.
Listen to these words. Basically this is what he said: The United
States was unable to conduct critical surveillance of . . . foreign
terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside our country.
That is basically--that is what he said to us. That is a dramatic
thing.
So what happened? Congress went through an intense study, and we
passed the Protect America Act this past summer. Some people said: This
is a rush, though we spent weeks on it. Congress spent a lot of time
working on it. But we said: OK, it will come back up for
reauthorization in February. As of this date, there has been no example
of abuse of that act.
Senator Feingold says these intelligence procedures were illegal
wiretapping. I think that is really not a fair thing to say. A court
ruled that these procedures we had been using for some time, must,
according to statutes we passed, go through a certain number of
procedural hoops that, as a practical matter, would have eliminated the
possibility of us continuing these surveillance techniques. That is
what they ruled. I don't think we ever intended this to be the effect,
but the court probably ruled fairly on the law. I am not sure. We are
stuck with the ruling regardless.
I don't think it is fair to say the program was illegal. But
certainly the procedures were not unconstitutional because this summer,
when we passed the Protect America Act, we effectively concluded the
program was good and constitutional. We affirmed the program.
I want to say, if we have any humor left on this subject, perhaps we
ought to write President Bush a letter and tell him: Thank you. We are
sorry we accused you of violating our Constitution and basic civil
liberties. After the Congress spent weeks studying this, we passed a
law that basically allowed the program to continue as it was.
I urge that we do the right thing on this legislation and move
forward to the Intelligence bill, not the Judiciary bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise in support of the motion to proceed to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2007. It is
important to underscore just how critical this legislation is and how
the bill which was voted out of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence by a vote of 13 to 2 is a comprehensive and bipartisan
bill.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made
allegations that this bill will infringe upon Americans' right to
privacy. This bill only infringes on one group's right to privacy, and
that is terrorists.
Prior to congressional action in August, and again if we do not make
permanent these changes, our intelligence community was unable to
collect vital foreign intelligence without the prior approval of a
court. If our intelligence community wanted to direct surveillance at
an al-Qaida member located in Waziristan who was communicating with
another terrorist in Germany, they would have to first petition the
FISA court for approval. In August, our intelligence community told us
that without updating FISA, they were not just handicapped, they were
hamstrung.
Congress passed the Protect America Act which temporarily fixed the
intelligence community's legal gaps. However, the Protect America Act
will expire in February of 2008. Congress must act swiftly before our
core collectors are faced with losing valuable intelligence as a result
of inaction by Congress.
When FISA was enacted in 1978, it was meant to provide our Government
with the means to collect foreign intelligence within the United States
while not infringing upon U.S. citizens' rights. Prior to FISA, the
courts held that fourth amendment warrant protection applied to
surveillance in a variety of cases, including the decisions of Katz and
Keith. Congress reacted to these cases in the criminal and foreign
intelligence arena by enacting legislation addressing the requirements
of the fourth amendment in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 and in FISA.
While debating FISA, Congress sought to protect the rights of U.S.
persons from unwarranted Government intrusion while collecting foreign
intelligence within the United States. The congressional report
accompanying FISA states:
The purpose of the bill is to provide a statutory procedure
authorizing the use of electronic surveillance in the United
States for foreign intelligence purposes.
Regulating the collection of foreign intelligence, including the
electronic surveillance of foreign communications made by terrorists,
was neither contemplated during FISA nor by the courts after enactment
of FISA. It has been long held that foreigners do not enjoy the
protection of our Constitution unless they enter the territories of the
United States, and even FISA provides an exception to that warrant
requirement if it is unlikely that a U.S. person's communications would
be intercepted. As an unfortunate consequence of the rapid advancements
in technology since 1978 and post-Cold War threats, surveillance of
some overseas communications were subjected to court orders.
It is now time for Congress to act to make permanent the fix to FISA
so that our intelligence community has the tools they need to do their
job in a very professional manner and gather the information necessary
to protect our national security.
Let me be clear: These amendments to FISA would only apply to
surveillance directed at individuals who are located outside the United
States. This is not meant to intercept conversations between Americans
or even between two terrorists who are located in the United States.
The Government still would be required to seek the permission of the
FISA Court for any surveillance done against people physically
[[Page 34553]]
located within the United States, whether a citizen or not.
This is not good enough for some Members of Congress. They wish to
extend the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment currently not
bestowed under U.S. criminal law and procedure to American citizens
overseas. The U.S. laws do not extend beyond our border, but the
Supreme Court has held that certain fundamental rights such as those
protected by the fifth and sixth amendments, as well as the
reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment, do extend to U.S.
citizens outside the country. However, despite the opportunity, the
Supreme Court has refused to hold that the warrant clause of the fourth
amendment applies abroad for U.S. citizens. In a criminal prosecution,
U.S. courts will accept evidence against U.S. citizens obtained by
foreign governments without the probable cause demanded by U.S. law.
U.S. courts recognize that the Bill of Rights does not protect
Americans from the acts of foreign sovereigns, and excluding evidence
obtained by them will not deter foreign governments from collecting it.
Therefore, the evidence can be turned over to the United States and
used in a criminal prosecution.
There was an amendment offered in the Intelligence Committee that
requires that anytime a U.S. person is a target of surveillance,
regardless of where the collection occurs, the Attorney General must
seek approval under title I of FISA for that collection. The amendment
fails to consider the intelligence community's adherence to current
regulations which were drafted to comply with the reasonableness
requirement of the fourth amendment.
Currently, under Executive Order 12333, section 2.5, the Attorney
General may authorize the targeting of a U.S. person overseas upon
finding probable cause to believe that the individual is a foreign
power or agent of a foreign power. The intelligence community will now
be required to obtain authorization from the FISA Court prior to
conducting surveillance against terrorists or spies overseas who assist
foreign governments merely because they are United States persons. It
is my belief that the intelligence community has demonstrated to
Congress how judicious, selective and careful they have been when it
comes to protecting the very small number of U.S. citizens this applies
to and does not necessarily need the court to approve their actions
every step along the way. This complicates, and attempts to
micromanage, the efforts of our intelligence community. Additionally,
it prevents the intelligence community from acting quickly and with
discretion in a process which has worked well to protect U.S. citizens
for almost 30 years.
Some of my colleagues have expressed opposition to title II of the
bill which provides that no civil actions may be brought against
electronic communication providers if the Attorney General certifies
that the assistance alleged was in connection with a lawful
communication intelligence activity authorized by the President and
designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack against the United
States. Providing our telecommunications carriers with liability relief
is necessary and responsible. The Government often needs assistance
from the private sector in order to protect our national security and,
in return, they should be able to rely on the Government's assurances
that the assistance they provide is lawful and necessary for our
national security. As a result of this assistance, America's
telecommunications carriers should not have to front heavy legal
battles shrouded in secrecy on the Government's behalf.
The chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence introduced a carefully crafted, bipartisan piece of
legislation. Although it was not a perfect bill, in committee I was
willing to forgo offering amendments to support the bipartisan process
and provide our intelligence community with the minimum requirements it
needs in an environment with rapidly changing technology. I believe
that the bill which was ultimately adopted by the committee, and with
my support, contains troubling language which should be altered before
enactment. Even so, this legislation is strides ahead of the partisan
bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee and offered here as a
substitute.
This is not, and should not, be a partisan issue by any means. The
ability to collect the intelligence necessary to protect our country
from foreign adversaries and terrorists should not be subjected to
partisan politics in Congress. Protecting our national security is in
the interest of all Americans, and Congress should seek to ensure that
our Nation is protected fully. There are serious differences between
the substitute bill voted out of the Judiciary Committee and the bill
voted out of the Intelligence Committee. I urge my colleagues to reject
the Judiciary Committee's substitute amendment and support the
carefully crafted bipartisan bill passed out of the Intelligence
Committee. However, differences of opinion exist and make it essential
for Congress to examine and debate these issues on the floor. For these
reasons I support cloture on the motion to proceed to FISA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Georgia in
encouraging support for the motion to proceed so we can begin
consideration of this important bill. The reason for the FISA bill is
very straightforward. Technology has outpaced the law. We are now able
to collect intelligence in ways that were never understood or
contemplated years ago when the law was drafted. As a result, we need
to change the law to accommodate that collection.
Before we changed the law last year, we had lost about two-thirds of
the ability to collect intelligence against al-Qaida. Clearly, in this
war against these evildoers, these terrorists, we cannot cede two-
thirds of the playing field to them without any monitoring or
collection of intelligence against them. When we did the Protect
America Act last summer, we regained the capability to collect that
intelligence by conforming the legal procedures to the technology that
enables us to collect this material.
Al-Qaida has not ceased to exist after 9/11. In fact, it exists and
is still desiring to carry out the same kinds of attacks against the
United States and other countries that it did on 9/11. We know the
incredible amount of damage that can be inflicted if we are not
prepared to deal with them. We also know that the best way to deal with
al-Qaida and the like is to collect intelligence so we can prevent
attacks from occurring rather than worrying about them after they have
occurred. That is why it is so important for us to ensure that under
the law we can engage in the kind of intelligence collection against
al-Qaida that technology today enables us to do.
Many of our friends on the other side of the aisle have insisted that
there be stringent congressional oversight of these programs by which
we collect the intelligence. No one disputes that is a desirable thing
to do. That is why this Congress and previous Congresses have agreed on
a bipartisan basis to create robust oversight of U.S. intelligence
gathering, even when it is against foreign targets. The agencies
executing wiretaps and conducting other surveillance must report their
activities to Congress and to others, so the opportunities for domestic
political abuse of these authorities is eliminated.
No one is on a witch hunt against Americans. There is more material
out there to be collected against foreign targets. Our people certainly
don't have time to try to spy on Americans. That is not what is
involved. We have to be careful that in creating this oversight we
don't cut deeply into the capabilities of our intelligence community,
that we don't in effect limit what they are able to do.
If you compare the Intelligence Committee bill with the Judiciary
bill, you will see that the Judiciary bill would severely limit this
collection of intelligence. Even the Intelligence Committee bill has
one major flaw in it. We have to be careful that we don't tie
[[Page 34554]]
down our Intelligence agencies with so many limits on how they can
monitor foreign terrorist organizations that they really cannot respond
to the threat that exists.
Let me give one example. The Intelligence Committee bill, which is
the bill we are taking up first and which we should adopt, includes a
provision that has been labeled the Wyden amendment which, as written,
would require a warrant for any overseas surveillance that is conducted
for foreign intelligence purposes and targets a U.S. person. As the
Senator from Georgia pointed out, we already have protocols to deal
with that, to minimize any potential problems that might arise in
conducting intelligence that would include a U.S. person. But the way
the Wyden amendment is written is overly broad and unprecedented.
Under current law, a warrant would not be required for overseas
surveillance that is targeted to a U.S. person if that surveillance is
conducted for purposes of a criminal investigation. So consider the
anomaly. The Wyden amendment would create a requirement for a warrant
to go after foreign terrorists involving also potentially U.S. persons,
but it would not require a warrant in those circumstances of drug
trafficking or money laundering that involve the very same people. It
should not be more burdensome to monitor al-Qaida than it is to monitor
a drug cartel. Yet the Wyden provision literally creates a situation
where if an overseas group that includes U.S. persons is suspected, for
example, of smuggling hashish, no warrant is required, but if the same
overseas group is suspected of plotting to blow up New York City, then
a warrant would be required. This is not only anomalous; it is bad
policy. It is the very kind of thing that if, God forbid, another
attack should occur and we permit this to be written into the law, the
next 9/11 Commission will criticize the Congress for writing it into
the statute. We can prevent that from occurring by rejecting the Wyden
amendment.
Let me conclude by asking: What is our goal? Do we want to allow our
intelligence agencies to use the most up-to-date technology to track
and prevent attacks by the most evil people in the world today, these
al-Qaida terrorists, or are we so concerned about some potential
theoretical, possible situation in which an American citizen's
communications might be temporarily intercepted, if they call an al-
Qaida person or an al-Qaida person calls them, that we are not going to
take advantage of these intelligence-collection techniques?
We can write the law to ensure the protection of every U.S. person.
We need to do that. But we cannot restrict our intelligence agencies
from collecting that intelligence that is out there that might warn us
of another attack.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we will have a cloture vote shortly on
the motion to proceed to the FISA reform legislation that the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence reported last fall. I am glad we are
proceeding to this bipartisan bill rather than to either of the rule
XIV proposals. Both of those proposals would carve out core components
of the Intel Committee's bill and likely would not obtain a
Presidential signature.
The Intelligence Committee bill is a rarity in this Congress. It is
the product of weeks of painstaking negotiations between Senate
Republicans and Democrats, and benefited from the participation of
intelligence experts in the administration.
The overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Intel Committee reflected the
care, concern, and good faith that went into crafting that bill. The
final vote was not 15 to 0, but a vote of 13 to 2 is pretty close.
What is all the more impressive about the Intel bill is that this
accomplishment is in an area--foreign intelligence surveillance--that
is highly sensitive.
Modifications to the Intel bill still need to be made, but it
contains the two main ingredients that are needed for a Presidential
signature: It will allow intelligence professionals to do their jobs,
and it will not allow trial lawyers to sue telecom companies that
helped protect the country.
Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee bill lacks all the hallmarks
of the Intelligence Committee's product. It does not provide our
intelligence community with all the tools it needs. It does not protect
telecommunications companies from lawsuits. It does not enjoy
bipartisan support. And, most importantly, it will not become law.
So I think we have one approach that could lead to an important
accomplishment, and we have one that will not. I am hopeful we will
choose the right path.
Finally, I wish to make a couple of brief comments about the floor
process for the FISA reform legislation.
I will be voting for cloture on the motion to proceed to the Intel
bill, and I encourage all of our colleagues to do the same. A cloture
vote is needed because of objections to the bipartisan bill by Senators
Feingold and Dodd and others. It is certainly their right to object to
the Senate's consideration of this important legislation. But it is
also the right of other Senators to proceed carefully and thoughtfully
on this matter.
Legislation dealing with our foreign intelligence surveillance
capabilities is complex, and what we do determines if we are able to
adequately defend the homeland from attack. Thus, Republicans will
insist on being able to debate and study the complicated consequences
of amendments that are offered. That is every Senator's right and,
especially in this area, every Senator's duty.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, under the
previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 2248, FISA.
Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Inouye,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Frank R. Lautenberg, Debbie
Stabenow, Richard J. Durbin, Tom Carper, John Kerry, E.
Benjamin Nelson, Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, Carl Levin,
Mark Pryor, Charles Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, S.
Whitehouse, Bill Nelson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 2248, an original bill to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline
provisions of that act, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden), would vote ``no.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback),
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig),
[[Page 34555]]
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 435 Leg.]
YEAS--76
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
NAYS--10
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Dodd
Feingold
Harkin
Kerry
Menendez
Wyden
NOT VOTING--14
Allard
Biden
Brownback
Clinton
Coburn
Craig
DeMint
Gregg
Inhofe
Lautenberg
Lieberman
McCain
Obama
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are
10. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the
distinguished Republican leader. We are now postcloture. No one is
intending to use the 30 hours. We know we have to get to the omnibus
and other such things, but there are some people who want to talk
postcloture. I have spoken to the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee and the ranking member. I have spoken to the Judiciary
Committee members several times today. I have spoken to Senator Dodd,
who has an amendment dealing with immunity. On this side, there is a
general feeling that the first amendment should be one dealing with
immunity. At this stage, the one who is willing and ready to offer it,
as soon as the postcloture finishes, is Senator Dodd. So we will get to
that on our side as soon as we can.
I would also state it appears at this stage it would probably be in
everyone's interest that we acknowledge going into this that everything
is going to take 60 votes anyway. So rather than play games, I have
spoken to the Republican side, and it would appear to me that when we
get to the amendment-offering stage, we should recognize that is likely
be to the issue.
Now, let me also say this: I have finished a meeting 45 minutes ago
with the Speaker. They are going to finish the omnibus tonight. It will
be late. We will not get it tonight. They probably will not finish it
until between 10 and 11 o'clock tonight. But that being the case, we
are going to move to the omnibus tomorrow, if at all possible. To say
the least, it has been very difficult to get to the point where we are.
I would hope everyone understands we are going to do our very best to
finish the bill tomorrow. There are a number of amendments that will be
offered. There are very few that will be offered.
I have talked to Senator McConnell. At this stage, it appears there
will probably be four amendments, and that is all. That, of course, is
always a moving target, and there may need to be more. If people have
questions about this, check with the floor staff on the procedural
aspects. But it is a pretty straightforward issue tomorrow. When we
finish that, we have to do something about AMT, which is not completed.
We have terrorism insurance that we have to do. We have to do an
extension of CHIP and some of the Medicare provisions. That is about
it. I may be missing something, but I don't think much.
Everyone should understand that even though the omnibus is coming
here, we have spent hours and hours on this over the weekend trying to
work out some of our differences. The bill has almost nothing as it
relates to anything other than spending. It has been hard to arrive at
where we have, but I think it has been one of cooperation. It was a
good weekend. I don't mean this in any negative sense, but I didn't
have to speak to the White House because we were able to work this out
with the Speaker and Senator McConnell--the Republican leaders in the
House and my colleagues here. So I think we are in fairly decent shape
to complete our work in the next couple of days.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. This Senator wonders if we will have a chance to read
that omnibus. I understand it may or may not contain all of the bills
that are unresolved as far as the appropriations process is concerned.
Mr. REID. The bill was online last night. It was filed around 5
o'clock. It is on the House Rules Web site. It has been available for
15 to 18 hours.
Mr. STEVENS. It is still subject to amendment in the House, isn't it?
Mr. REID. No. Well, it is subject to whatever the Rules Committee
does over there. They are taking it to Rules today, and it will be on
the floor sometime early this evening, and they will finish it tonight.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the leader will yield, Senator Dodd is
prepared----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If we can extend the courtesies to our Members
here, we need order in the Senate.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. We have a Judiciary Committee bill that
was passed out with a majority vote. I, at some point, will modify that
somewhat. At some point, that will require a vote. We have discussed
this already. I wanted to make sure people understand that. Senator
Dodd will go first, but at some point I will do that.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we thought there may be, initially, a bill
that would be offered by the respective chairmen of the Intelligence
and Judiciary Committees. That didn't quite work out. Senator Leahy
graciously indicated he would be willing to have Senator Dodd go first.
Senator Dodd has other things he wants to look to. We have a tentative
time agreement for Senator Dodd, but we don't have that finalized yet.
We need to get some of the postcloture debate out of the way. As soon
as that is done, Senator Dodd will be recognized. If that is not the
case, I will be recognized to offer the amendment on his behalf. We
hope there will be no efforts to have a jump ball on our side. That is
the first amendment Senator Leahy and Senator Rockefeller want to do.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, did I hear the majority leader ask unanimous
consent that votes would have a 60-vote requirement?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I did not ask that.
I indicated I thought we should understand that would be the end
result.
I ask unanimous consent that all votes in relation to the bill that
is now before the Senate--the FISA legislation--require 60 votes,
except for final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is there a
rule in the Senate that requires this?
Mr. REID. It is by unanimous consent on this bill. It is a very
controversial bill. I think there would not be the votes, for example,
on the immunity aspect; I am confident there are people who would
require 60 votes. In an effort to cut through a lot of the talk here,
we would try to set up a time that we would vote on this as the first
amendment out of the box; and on the other amendments, until further
notice and agreement among Senators, we would have a 60-vote margin.
Mr. DODD. Let me say this, further reserving the right to object, I
will respectfully object at this time, and I
[[Page 34556]]
will talk with the leader about that necessity. I don't want to set the
precedent of insisting on 60 votes on a germane amendment. I will
object at this point, and following that, the leader can make the
request again.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend has every right to object. It is
quite obvious that this is required because Members will simply
filibuster. They have told me so. If we are talking about something as
sensitive as immunity, retroactive immunity, and prospective immunity,
it is going to take 60 votes. The rules don't require that, we know
that, but the rules do require 60 votes to stop a filibuster.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I object to any measure coming up that does
not have a 60-vote requirement. We conditioned our approval to bring up
these amendments on agreeing to 60 votes; otherwise, we will use the
prerogatives of the Senate.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand the 60-vote majority, but I
have a germane amendment that strikes a provision in the bill. I
understand the rules. When something is nongermane or violative of the
rules of the Senate and you want to waive the rule, you have a
supermajority requirement, but not on an amendment pertaining directly
to the bill that strikes a section of it. I understand there is
opposition to it, but having to reach a supermajority on an amendment
that strikes something in the bill that is of significant disagreement
seems to be excessive at this point.
This is an important piece of legislation, and the Judiciary
Committee voted differently than the Intelligence Committee on this
matter. We feel strongly about this. If I were offering something that
is violative of the Senate rules, I would accept a supermajority. But
to establish the precedent here that any amendment to be offered to
this bill will be subjected to a supermajority vote I think is too
excessive. That is my concern. Tell me I am wrong about that, that I am
violating the rules of the Senate, and I will accept that. But if we
are establishing that simply on any amendment that is different, I
think that is a direction in which we should not go.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, on the immunity issue--we have
a lot of matters here. We have had 60-vote margins all year, including
on the war in Iraq. The Senator is right that there is no requirement
that there be 60 votes. But there is a requirement that if somebody
talks and keeps talking, there won't be a vote. So the Senator can
offer his amendment, but, as we have heard from people on both sides of
the aisle, there won't be a vote taking place on his amendment--50
votes or 55 votes or 60 votes.
I thought it would be in the interest of the body to cut to the chase
and say on this and other matters--this is a very controversial issue.
We don't have time to have a lot of cloture votes on different
amendments. So it seems to me that it is in the best interest of
everybody that that is the agreement. The suggestion made is a good
one.
Despite agreeing with the Senator from Connecticut as to this issue,
it doesn't mean he and I are right. Certainly, by the unanimous consent
request, there is no precedent set in the Senate. It is on a case-by-
case basis.
Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 2248.
Mr. REID. That is one where we have 30 hours from the time the vote
takes place, with Senators having 1 hour under their control; is that
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are now postcloture, that is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. I
wonder, is there a unanimous consent request regarding speakers
postcloture at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No request.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to know this, if I may ask a question to
Senator Dodd. He, at this point, is objecting to a 60-vote requirement,
and therefore the regular order would be to have people speak on the
motion to proceed; is that correct?
Mr. DODD. I have an amendment I would like to offer that strikes
title II of the legislation. I am prepared to offer that. I know
Senator Leahy talked about going first. I am prepared to follow
whatever the Senate would like us to in order. I would like an
opportunity to offer my amendment at some point. I told the leader that
we can work out a time agreement. I wasn't quite ready to do it. I want
to know how many people want to be heard. I will limit myself, but I
want to get a vote. I am not looking for extended debate on my
amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Further, when such a list is made, I ask Senator Dodd or
the majority leader to please place me on the list for a 15-minute
timeframe on his amendment and a broader statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On a motion to proceed, amendments are not in
order at this point.
Who seeks time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it would be appropriate if we find
out, postcloture, who wants to give speeches. Once we find out how many
want to speak and how much time they want, we can lay down the bill and
have Senator Dodd offer his amendment. Anybody who wants to speak
postcloture, let us know so we can get to the bill. We are not on the
bill yet. We are postcloture.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if it is in order, I would like to start
and talk for 10 minutes. I would like to make my remarks on the issue
that is pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support bringing the Judiciary
Committee version of the FISA bill before us. That is why I voted not
to proceed to take up the Intelligence Committee bill.
I did not cast that vote lightly because, as the Chair knows, I want
to get the terrorists. I voted to go after Osama bin Laden. I voted to
go after al-Qaida after they attacked us. I have voted to give this
President every penny he needed to go ahead and capture Osama bin
Laden. To date, much to my dismay and the dismay of the American
people, we haven't captured bin Laden, who engineered the attack
against our Nation. We have not caught him dead, we have not caught him
alive. But we did capture Saddam Hussein, who didn't attack us on 9/11.
We did get into a war we cannot get out of, thanks to the President and
his backers, who have gotten us into a position where there is no way
out and no end in sight. But capture bin Laden? No.
I will never give up hope on that. I will give our country all the
tools it needs to get him and the others who have harmed us and who
want to harm us in the future. That is our most sacred responsibility
and duty. But if we are not careful, if we are not prudent, if we are
not honest about what we are doing here, we give bin Laden exactly what
he wants, Mr. President: a country that scares its people rather than a
country that protects its people, a country that takes away the rights
of its people out of fear.
Former Justice Thurgood Marshall said:
History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come
in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too
extravagant to ignore.
Now, what makes America so great? It is that we have been a guiding
light to the world because we have been a strong nation in all ways,
and a strong nation protects the rights of its citizens, while a weak
nation, a fearful nation, a nation that lives in fear, abdicates those
rights. We see it around the world. Let us never see it here.
We have an understanding here in America that the need for security
must always be balanced against the rights of the people. Once we lose
that precious balance, we are giving the terrorists exactly what they
want.
We cannot and we must not ever lose that precious balance. If freedom
and liberty become nothing more than just hollow words, then when we
try to lead the world, we will simply not have the moral high ground.
We have seen this happen in our great Nation in so many areas, and we
cannot today, or during the next couple of days, allow this Nation,
with our permission, to look at the rights of our people and take them
lightly.
[[Page 34557]]
I quote another Supreme Court Justice, one of my heroines, Sandra Day
O'Connor:
It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments
that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely
tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our
commitment at home to the principles for which we fight
abroad.
``We must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which
we fight abroad.''
When President Bush announced his foreign policy--I will never forget
it--he said we need to bring democracy around the world. We need to
bring freedom around the world. We need to stop the despots of the
world from taking away the freedoms the people have. Yet here at home
they are destroying tapes, at home they are listening in on Americans
without a warrant.
What is in the judiciary version of the bill that makes it much
better than the intelligence version, and why was I so proud to stand
with only 10 of my colleagues? I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership
on this issue. That is a hard vote. Here is why.
The judiciary version of the bill requires at least one specific
individual target in order to begin bulk collection of international
communications. You need to name one target; that is what the Judiciary
Committee is saying. You just don't go on a fishing expedition. We have
seen those kinds of fishing expeditions before. We have seen people
herded up before. We cannot do that now, not in this century; not in
this century when we are fighting bin Laden and we are fighting the
forces that want to take away freedom.
Second, it requires a FISA Court order to continue surveillance when
a call involves U.S. citizens. That is called a check and balance. That
is essential to our freedom.
Third, it allows the FISA Court to decide whether surveillance
continues while the Government appeals a decision against a proposed
surveillance program. That is another example of check and balance.
Human beings are flawed, and when all the power resides in one or two
of them, we need to have a check and balance. By the way, check and
balance is one of the centerpieces of our freedom, of our Constitution.
In this particular area of the law, we ought to make sure it is built
in.
The Judiciary bill provides ongoing FISA Court supervision, including
audits of surveillance programs. Again, a check and balance.
And then, of course, there is the issue on which Senator Dodd has
been such a leader, and that is the issue of immunity, immunity for
telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration's
warrantless surveillance program.
Let me point out that there were some companies that did not go along
with it. Let's not be led to believe that every company rolled over and
said: Here, have at it. There were some that stood up for the law, the
law that was supposed to guide them. There were some that stood up for
the American people, and I thank them.
To the others, what I say to them is this--I understand why they
might not have stood up, but we have to get to the bottom of this
issue. We cannot go around giving people immunity when they turn their
backs on the rule of law.
Granting immunity without fully understanding whether Americans were
spied upon in a warrantless surveillance program is irresponsible
because of this reason: Congress and the American people will be
blocked from finding out the truth about the warrantless program. We
may not find out for 20 years, 30 years, 40 years. That is wrong. The
American people deserve to know the truth.
Again, I take it to what we are as a nation. We are a free people.
Our people deserve to be protected. The ones who are bad apples deserve
to be caught and face the music. We need to find a law that seeks that
balance and gets that balance. I think the Judiciary Committee did that
beautifully, and I wish that was the bill in front of us now. That is
why I voted not to proceed to the Intelligence Committee version.
Having said this, I hope we can work together and improve the
Intelligence Committee bill. The Intelligence Committee version of the
bill with telecom immunity puts the interests of the telecom companies
ahead of the rights of the American people.
In closing, this is a watershed moment for us. Why do I say that? I
heard Senator Sessions come down and give a very eloquent speech. He
said, ``The civil''--I am quoting him now--``The civil libertarians
among us''--and then he listed all the bad things he thinks the civil
libertarians among us have done. I hope every one of us--every one of
us in this Chamber--supports the civil liberties of the United States
of America because if you don't, you don't believe in the Constitution.
That is where we get these rights.
We need a FISA bill that will help us continue to track the
terrorists without surrendering our rights and our liberties, and this
can be done. I hope we can get a coalition together and amend this
Intelligence Committee bill in a way that will do just that. We need a
bill that closes loopholes in FISA that clearly have been created by
advancements in technology. I understand that. But we also need a FISA
bill that, while it allows us to go after the bad guys, has proper
checks and balances within it. We need a bill that will improve FISA
Court oversight of our foreign surveillance programs without hindering
our ability to protect our country. We can do that.
I believe the Judiciary Committee version of the FISA bill
accomplishes these goals. We don't have to create it here. They did an
excellent job. It seems to me to throw out all their work would be a
big error.
Finally, my point: It is so ironic and sad to me that we are losing
our beautiful young people, and, by the way, not so young, some from
the National Guard who are in their thirties and forties and older. We
are losing them every day over in Iraq. Why? Ask the President to
answer that question. He will be quick to answer it eloquently. To
bring freedom and democracy, bring freedom and democracy, bring freedom
and democracy.
If you feel that way, Mr. President, and those who support him and
have given him a blank check, then let's protect it at home in a way
that allows us to go after those who will do us harm if we are not
careful, and yet protects the very essence of our Nation, the very
freedom of our Nation, the very essence of our Constitution that has
brought us to this point where the world envies our freedom and
democracy. To give it up for politics or sound bites or 30-second
commercials on television would be a dereliction of our most sacred
duty.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be
recognized for 15 minutes and that the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, be recognized next if no Member of the minority seeks
recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, just recently, the Attorney General
of the United States published an opinion piece in the Los Angeles
Times on our ongoing work to improve the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, what we call FISA. This follows closely on a similar
opinion piece by the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral
McConnell, in the New York Times.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record each of these
documents.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2007]
A FISA Fix
(By Michael B. Mukasey)
One of the most critical matters facing Congress is the
need to enact long-term legislation updating our nation's
foreign intelligence surveillance laws. Intercepting the
communications of terrorists and other intelligence targets
has given us crucial insights into the intentions of our
adversaries and has helped us to detect and prevent terrorist
attacks.
Until recently, our surveillance efforts were hampered by
the unintended consequences of an outdated law, the Foreign
[[Page 34558]]
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 1978 to
establish a system of judicial approval for certain
intelligence surveillance activities in the United States.
The requirement that a judge issue an order before
communications can be intercepted serves important purposes
when the target of the surveillance is a person in our
country, where constitutional privacy interests are most
significant. The problem, however, was that FISA increasingly
had come to apply to the interception of communications of
terrorists and other intelligence targets located overseas.
In FISA, Congress had embedded the crucial distinction
between whether targets are inside or outside our country,
but did so using terms based on the technology as it existed
then. However, revolutionary changes in communications
technology in the intervening years have resulted in FISA
applying more frequently to surveillance directed at targets
overseas. The increased volume of applications for judicial
orders under FISA impaired our ability to collect critical
intelligence, with little if any corresponding benefit to the
privacy of people in the U.S.
This summer, Congress responded by passing the Protect
America Act. That law, passed with significant bipartisan
support, authorized intelligence agencies to conduct
surveillance targeting people overseas without court
approval, but it retained FISA's requirement that a court
order be obtained to conduct electronic surveillance directed
at people in the United States. As J. Michael McConnell, the
director of national intelligence, stated, the new law closed
dangerous gaps that had developed in our intelligence
collection. Congress, however, set the act to expire on Feb.
1, 2008.
It therefore is vital that Congress put surveillance of
terrorists and other intelligence targets located overseas on
surer institutional footing. The Senate Intelligence
Committee has crafted a bill that would largely accomplish
that objective. Recognizing the uncommon complexity of this
area of the law, the committee held numerous hearings on the
need to modernize FISA, received classified briefings on how
various options would affect intelligence operations and
discussed key provisions with intelligence professionals and
with national security lawyers inside and outside government.
This thorough process produced a balanced bill approved by an
overwhelming, and bipartisan, 13-2 vote.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's bill is not perfect,
and it contains provisions that I hope will be improved.
However, it would achieve two important objectives. First, it
would keep the intelligence gaps closed by ensuring that
individual court orders are not required to direct
surveillance at foreign targets overseas.
Second, it would provide protections from lawsuits for
telecommunications companies that have been sued simply
because they are believed to have assisted our intelligence
agencies after the 9/11 attacks. The bill does not, as some
have suggested, provide blanket immunity for those companies.
Instead, a lawsuit would be dismissed only in cases in which
the attorney general certified to the court either that a
company did not provide assistance to the government or that
a company had received a written request indicating that the
activity was authorized by the president and determined to be
lawful.
It is unfair to force such companies to face the
possibility of massive judgments and litigation costs, and
allowing these lawsuits to proceed also risks disclosure of
our country's intelligence capabilities to our enemies.
Moreover, in the future we will need the full-hearted help of
private companies in our intelligence activities, we cannot
expect such cooperation to be forthcoming if we do not
support companies that have helped us in the past.
The bill that came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee
was carefully crafted and is a good starting point for
legislation. Unfortunately, there are two other versions of
the bill being considered that do not accomplish the two key
objectives. The House of Representatives recently passed a
version that would significantly weaken the Protect America
Act by, among other things, requiring individual court orders
to target people overseas in order to acquire certain types
of foreign intelligence information. Similarly, the Senate
Judiciary Committee made significant amendments to the Senate
Intelligence Committee's bill that would have the collective
effect of weakening the government's ability to effectively
surveil intelligence targets abroad.
Moreover, neither the House bill nor the Senate Judiciary
Committee's version addresses protection for companies that
face massive liability. Both the Senate Judiciary Committee
amendments and the House bill passed largely on party lines,
and the full Senate will be debating this issue shortly
Congress must choose how to correct critical shortcomings
in our foreign intelligence surveillance laws. It is a time
for urgency. The Protect America Act expires in just two
months, and we cannot afford to allow dangerous gaps in our
intelligence capabilities to reopen. But this is also a time
of opportunity, when we can set aside political differences
to develop a long-term, bipartisan solution to widely
recognized deficiencies in our national security laws. When
Congress returns to this challenge, it should continue on the
course charted by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
____
[From the New York Times, Dec. 10, 2007]
Help Me Spy on Al Qaeda
(By Mike McConnell)
The Protect America Act, enacted in August, has lived up to
its name and objective: making the country safer while
protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Under this new
law, we now have the speed and agility necessary to detect
terrorist and other evolving national security threats.
Information obtained under this law has helped us develop a
greater understanding of international Qaeda networks, and
the law has allowed us to obtain significant insight into
terrorist planning.
Congress needs to act again. The Protect America Act
expires in less than two months, on Feb. 1. We must be able
to continue effectively obtaining the information gained
through this law if we are to stay ahead of terrorists who
are determined to attack the United States.
Before the Protect America Act was enacted, to monitor the
communications of foreign intelligence targets outside the
United States, in some cases we had to operate under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, a law
that had not kept pace with changes in technology. In a
significant number of these cases, FISA required us to obtain
a court order. This requirement slowed--and sometimes
prevented--our ability to collect timely foreign
intelligence.
Our experts were diverted from tracking foreign threats to
writing lengthy justifications to collect information from a
person in a foreign country, simply to satisfy an outdated
statute that did not reflect the ways our adversaries
communicate. The judicial process intended to protect the
privacy and civil liberties of Americans was applied instead
to foreign intelligence targets in foreign countries. This
made little sense, and the Protect America Act eliminated
this problem.
Any new law should begin by being true to the principles
that make the Protect America Act successful. First, the
intelligence community needs a law that does not require a
court order for surveillance directed at a foreign
intelligence target reasonably believed to be outside the
United States, regardless of where the communications are
found. The intelligence community should spend its time
protecting our nation, not providing privacy protections to
foreign terrorists and other diffuse international threats.
Second, the intelligence community needs an efficient means
to obtain a FISA court order to conduct surveillance in the
United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
Finally, it is critical for the intelligence community to
have liability protection for private parties that are sued
only because they are believed to have assisted us after
Sept. 11, 2001. Although the Protect America Act provided
such necessary protection for those complying with requests
made after its enactment, it did not include protection for
those that reportedly complied earlier.
The intelligence community cannot go it alone. Those in the
private sector who stand by us in times of national security
emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits. I share the view of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, which, after a year of
study, concluded that ``without retroactive immunity, the
private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful
government requests in the future,'' and warned that ``the
possible reduction in intelligence that might result from
this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our
nation.''
Time for the Protect America Act is growing short, but
there is still an opportunity to enact permanent legislation
that helps us to better confront both changing technology and
the enemies we face in a way that protects civil liberties.
I served for almost 30 years as an intelligence officer
before spending some time in the private sector. When I
returned to government last winter, it became clear to me
that our foreign intelligence collection capacity was being
degraded. I was very troubled to discover that FISA had not
been updated to reflect new technology and was preventing us
from collecting foreign intelligence needed to uncover
threats to Americans.
The Protect America Act fixed this problem, and we are
safer for it. I would be gravely concerned if we took a step
backward into this world of uncertainty; America would be a
less safe place.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, both opinion pieces go on at some
length about the importance of new legislation on foreign surveillance
activities. They devote paragraph after paragraph to this issue. But
the two leaders of America's law enforcement and intelligence
communities completely ignore, never once mention, the issue that is
actually in dispute; that is, on what terms will we allow this
administration to spy on Americans?
We all agree to unleash our intelligence agencies on foreign targets
of
[[Page 34559]]
foreign surveillance. There is no question there. The heart of the
debate is the question of spying on Americans, one, when they are
outside the country, or, two, when they are incidentally intercepted by
surveillance targeted at someone else.
This, the wiretapping of Americans, has been the entire subject of
our work on surveillance. And yet Judge Mukasey and Admiral McConnell
never once mentioned the topic. There are only two possibilities and
each is regrettable. One is that these two gentlemen simply don't know
what is going on, which seems unlikely since Director McConnell has
participated in hearings on the subject, and we discussed in detail our
concern about wiretapping Americans, and members of my staff are
working through the details of the issue on a nearly daily basis with
lawyers at the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of
Justice.
So that leaves only one alternative that these two gentlemen do know
what is going on and just chose to talk past the issue, ignore its very
existence. That is a shame, and I hope it is not the early propaganda
phase of a Bush administration effort to replicate the August stampede
that got us into this pickle in the first place.
Since they have not mentioned it, let me tell you what the problem
is. The Protect America Act passed in the August stampede contains no
statutory limitation on this administration's ability to spy on
Americans traveling abroad whenever it wants, for whatever purpose. Let
me repeat that. The Protect America Act contains no statutory
restriction on this administration's ability to spy on Americans
traveling abroad whenever it wants, for whatever purpose.
The only limitation that now exists on that power is section 2.5 of
Executive order No. 12333, which says the administration will not
wiretap Americans overseas unless the Attorney General determines that
person is an agent of a foreign power.
The problem, as I noted in a speech in this Chamber recently, is a
secret Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel memo related to
surveillance activities which says this:
An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no
constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new
Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms
of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an
Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived
it.
In other words, the only thing standing between Americans traveling
overseas and a Government wiretap is an Executive order that this
President believes he is under no obligation to obey and may secretly
disregard. The only thing standing between Americans traveling overseas
and a Government wiretap is an Executive order this President believes
he has no obligation to obey and may secretly disregard.
So for months we have worked to repair the flawed bill of August, and
the question of spying on Americans has been the issue--the issue--of
concern. I and my staff, many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle and their staffs have been working diligently and in good faith
to solve this problem. What I have seen in these negotiations has been
a thoughtful exchange by well-intentioned people who are committed to
keeping America safe without trampling on the rights of Americans.
We have talked not only with each other on both sides of the aisle
but also with people in this administration, including staff attorneys
at the DOJ and DNI. We have worked almost all the way toward making
sure Americans who are incidentally intercepted enjoy full, meaningful
minimization protections. I think we have worked all the way toward
making sure a court order is required to wiretap an American who
happens to be overseas.
For both Director of National Intelligence McConnell and Attorney
General Mukasey to write an op-ed as if the issue of spying on
Americans abroad has no role in this debate, when it has been the key
and central issue in this debate, is, frankly, disappointing. One
wonders how big the elephant in the room has to be before they are
willing to acknowledge it. Ignoring this problem may serve the Bush-
Cheney interest in unaccountable executive power, but it does not
protect Americans' privacy and it does not make Americans safer.
I urge my colleagues to remember that the issue we have been
grappling with is a simple one: On what terms will we allow this
administration to spy on Americans? It is a question with real
implications for our democracy, for our civil liberties, and ultimately
for the security of this Nation.
Unless we really believe that when Americans leave our country we
leave our civil rights behind, unless we really believe this Government
should have unfettered power to eavesdrop on conversations of families
vacationing in Europe or soldiers serving in Iraq, then the authority
to spy on Americans abroad cannot be left under the exclusive control
of this administration. It is a matter that must be solved in this
legislation that Congress must pass to restore the Protect America Act
to a fair appreciation of civil liberties.
That is why we have been working on this question so hard. It is a
serious question. I wish the two gentlemen leading the key Departments
of Government involved had recognized that it exists, and I urge my
colleagues to insist on the protections we have worked so hard for--to
protect Americans from surveillance in a way the intelligence community
has come to support.
We have come a long way. Chairman Rockefeller is owed our gratitude,
as is Chairman Leahy. Their leadership in this has been spectacular. I
also wish to express appreciation for the efforts of the distinguished
ranking members, Senators Kit Bond and Arlen Specter. We are on the
verge of a historic moment in the rights of Americans and in making
sure that when they travel abroad it is clear that they take their
rights with them. Let us not let this moment slip away.
Madam President, how much time remains of my 15 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Let me say one thing quickly, and we will come back
to it, I believe, when amendments come forward.
With respect to the question of how we deal with the litigation that
presently involves certain telephone communications carriers, I think
everybody in this Chamber should remember the impossible predicament in
which those companies have been placed. There are litigants, private
litigants in court, in an ongoing action, and the Government has come
in and told them: You may not defend yourself. It has told them: You
may not say one word in defense of this litigation. National security
is asserted as the reason, and all of the threats that come with
violations of national security are in play.
So there they are, private litigants in private litigation, and the
Government has stepped in and said: You may not defend yourself. I
think we have to do something about that. Along with what the ranking
member of the Judiciary said earlier, the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, I think the only decent thing we can expect
the Government to do is to at least step in itself for these litigants.
If they are going to tell the carriers they can't defend themselves in
court in ongoing litigation, the least this Government should be able
to do is to step in and say: We will step in and substitute ourselves
for you.
So I applaud what Senator Specter has done with his substitution
bill, and I look forward to a discussion of that.
I yield the remainder of my time, and I yield floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield
the remainder of my hour postcloture to Senator Dodd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me begin by thanking my colleague from
California, Senator Boxer, not only for her generosity in giving me
some additional time, but also for her comments regarding the
underlying discussions on the FISA legislation and the provisions of
the law before us for our consideration. I appreciate her comments
[[Page 34560]]
and her thoughts on the subject matter.
I have already spoken at some length on FISA this morning, on these
amendments, this new legislation before us, and my concern for what I
consider to be the most egregious provision in this proposed
legislation--that is, the retroactive immunity for the
telecommunications industry that may have helped the President break
the law. I have objected to that immunity on some very specific grounds
because it would cover up an immense violation of trust, privacy, and
civil liberties in our country.
This was not some small matter. It was not a one-time event. It went
on for 5 years, in an elaborate and extensive way. But even more
importantly, immunity is wrong because of what it represents. This is a
fatal weakening of the rule of law which shuts out our independent
judiciary and concentrates power in the hands of the executive.
FISA, as we have seen, was written precisely to resist that
concentration. That the motivation in 1976-1978 when this legislation
was drafted: making sure we could bridge this gap between security and
rights, protecting both our security and our fundamental liberties.
When we divide that power responsibly between the legitimate
legislative, judicial, and executive branches, terrorist surveillance
is not weakened; it is strengthened and made more judicious and more
legitimate and less subject to the abuses that sap public trust.
But when millions of people, for over 5 years, had their private
communications interrupted by the telecommunications industry, without
a court order--which is what the law requires--the spirit of FISA has
been undermined, and the public trust has been sapped. That, Mr.
President, compromises our security.
I firmly believe, therefore, that any changes to FISA must be in
keeping with its original spirit of shared powers, respect for the rule
of law. If we act wisely, we can ensure terrorist surveillance remains
inside the law and not an exception to it.
The Senate should pass a bill doing just that, and we will have the
opportunity to do so; but the FISA Amendments Act, as it comes to us
from the Intelligence Committee, is not that bill. Its safeguards
against abuse, against the needless targeting of ordinary Americans,
are far too weak. The power this bill concentrates in the hands of the
administration is far too expansive.
However, the Senate also has before it a version of the bill that
embodies a far greater respect for the rule of law. The version crafted
by the Senate Judiciary Committee substituted a completely new title I
and was reported out on November 16. Both versions of the bill
authorize the President to conduct overseas surveillance without
individual warrants. Let me repeat that: both bills--both versions of
the bill authorize the President to conduct overseas surveillance
without individual warrants.
Madam President, I see my colleague from California arriving on the
floor, so I will yield the floor to her. I will ask when I come back to
pick up my remarks as if uninterrupted, when the Senator from
California completes her remarks; or the Senator from Missouri may have
some thoughts on this legislation, and I will be more than happy to
yield to him, as well, before coming back to the remarks I was in the
midst of giving.
But I appreciate the opportunity to address the subject of
retroactive immunity, which is the reason I am here on this matter
today. So I look forward to hearing from the Senator from California,
and I am withholding my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Indeed, Madam President, I am taken aback by the
generosity of the Senator from Connecticut, and I want him to know I
very much appreciate it.
I wish to make a few comments on this bill and then introduce two
amendments. These two amendments are very important to me because
without them I am going to have a great deal of trouble voting for the
final product. I say that as a predicate.
First, the general comments.
On December 16, 2005, the New York Times introduced the world to a
secret NSA surveillance program, later dubbed the ``terrorist
surveillance program,'' or TSP as it came to be known. This program,
ordered by the President after September 11, 2001, was conducted in
violation of U.S. law.
I have served on the Intelligence Committee for more than 6 years now
and on the Judiciary Committee for almost 15 years, and I can tell you
that NSA signals intelligence is an indispensable tool on the war on
terror. No one should think there aren't people who would do us harm.
The only way to wage this war on terror is to find them before they
find us. At the same time, it is crucial to remember the history.
FISA was first enacted in 1978 in the wake of major civil rights
abuses of foreign intelligence. The White House had authorized
surveillance on Americans because of their political views--Martin
Luther King, Joan Baez, and many others--a massive drift net collection
of communications of U.S. citizens into and out of the United States.
FISA was enacted to ensure such abuses would not occur again, and it
has, in fact, safeguarded Americans' privacy rights for the past 30
years.
FISA requires court review and approval when surveillance is
targeting a person inside this country. No content can be collected on
an individual unless there is a warrant by the FISA Court.
As has been pointed out many times, changes in telecommunications
technology and a change in the nature of our enemies have made updates
to the 1978 FISA law necessary. New legislation is, in fact, needed to
redraw the lines detailing when and where surveillance can take place
and when a court warrant is required. That is what this debate is about
and that is what the cloture vote just began.
To be clear, these modifications should not come at the expense of
civil liberties protections that are enshrined in our Constitution.
Today, in my view, it is clear that the administration made a big
mistake in not using FISA in the first place. I have consistently said
that I thought the terrorist surveillance program could be done under
FISA. A FISA Court judge proved this correct earlier this year. If
changes to FISA were needed to accomplish this surveillance, the
administration should have requested those changes when we reauthorized
the PATRIOT Act.
But, instead, the White House and Department of Justice relied on a
new and aggressive interpretation of the President's article II
authority under the Constitution, and a flawed argument that the
authorization to grant military force use provided a statutory
exemption to FISA. That was a big mistake. It is clear to me from the
Office of Legal Counsel opinions that individuals in the Justice
Department did not feel bound by established U.S. law, but proceeded
under a new and expanded view of Presidential authority to move forward
with the program.
With this bill, we can turn the page on a sad portion of our Nation's
history. Both the Intelligence and the Judiciary bills will keep the
terrorist surveillance program under FISA, and it will restore
protections for America's privacy rights in ways that the Protect
America Act does not. Let me give a few examples.
No. 1, this bill categorically requires an individualized warrant any
time surveillance targets someone inside the United States. So the
argument about a great drift net being cast across the United States,
picking up tens of thousands of America's phone calls, simply is not
correct. Targets outside the United States would be subject to a
program warrant where the FISA Court reviews the targeting, in what are
called minimization procedures.
No. 2, the FISA Court review must be involved any time the
intelligence community is conducting surveillance on an American
anywhere in the world. By that I mean any time a American is collected
for content anywhere in the world, that individual becomes a target.
Until now, the Attorney General has authorized, under section 2.5 of
Executive Order 12333, surveillance of
[[Page 34561]]
Americans outside the country. There has been no FISA Court review in
these cases.
The numbers of Americans targeted overseas were between 50 and 60
cases last year, according to the DNI--last year being 2006. So the
numbers are small, and reports are made anonymous through minimization,
and only included if they contained foreign intelligence value.
No. 3, the bill puts the FISA Court review upfront, where it belongs,
rather than 4 months after collection has begun, as was done under the
Protect America Act. In other words, upfront the FISA Court reviews the
minimization and approves that minimization, and can say to the
Department: We want you to come back in 6 months or 8 months or 3
months, and we will take another look at it.
No. 4, procedures known as ``minimization'' are clearly defined and
applied. This has been a hallmark of FISA for 30 years, but was not
included in the Protect America Act. Once again, minimization is the
process that the intelligence community has used since 1978 to protect
information concerning Americans. When the NSA collects the content of
communications, it does so to write intelligence reports. Minimization
states that information without a foreign intelligence purpose is not
used, and it cannot be retained indefinitely. It must be discarded at
some point.
Intelligence reports that use information about an American are made
anonymous, to protect that person's privacy rights. The bill requires
that the minimization procedures used in each program be approved by
the court upfront, so they go to the court first and they say this is
what we want to do and these are the procedures we will use, and the
court can affirm it or deny it. But it goes before a court.
If the amendments are adopted, the court will have the power to
review how the minimization is being applied as well, so they will have
constant review of the process.
No. 5, oversight mechanisms are stronger in this legislation. Reviews
are required by inspectors general, agency heads, the FISA Court, and
the Congress on how the surveillance authority is being used.
I wish to speak for a moment on the subject of telecom liability and
then on exclusivity. If I might, I wish to do the exclusivity first.
On behalf of myself, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Leahy, and Senator
Nelson, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment may be filed but not offered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this bill does not include language
I authored to strengthen the exclusivity provisions of FISA. It has
been reviewed by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and they are both cosponsors, as
well as an additional cosponsor in Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who
is also a member of the Intelligence Committee. Basically, what this
amendment does is strengthen FISA as the only and exclusive authority
for gathering intelligence through electronic surveillance. It
specifically closes the AUMF loophole I mentioned earlier, whereby the
administration contends it does not need FISA approval.
Second, it provides that only another statute, specific statute can
constitute an additional exclusive means of electronic surveillance.
Third, it strengthens the requirements for certifications. The
administration must identify the specific provision of the law on which
the certification is based.
The exclusivity amendment I have submitted is intended to reinforce
the legislative intent of the bill. In 1978, when the bill was passed,
the court was to be absolute when conducting electronic surveillance
against Americans for foreign intelligence purposes. Unfortunately,
despite the 1978 language, the Bush administration decided it could go
outside the law. That was both wrong and unnecessary.
To make matters worse, the administration made up an argument that
Congress had authorized it to go around FISA by some passing the
authorization for use of military force against al-Qaida and the
Taliban. Does anyone here actually believe that? I do not know one
Member of Congress who has stated publicly that they believed they were
authorizing the terrorist surveillance program when they voted to go to
war against bin Laden. In fact, to the contrary, it was never
considered and to the best of my knowledge it was never thought of.
When the Department of Justice came to the Congress in September 2001,
outlining the changes it needed in FISA to wage this war, it did not
mention anything about surveillance efforts such as those the TSP
program addressed.
Congressional intent from 1978 is clear. Congress clearly intended
for FISA to be the exclusive authority under which the executive branch
may conduct electronic surveillance. Let me briefly review the history,
because it is important.
Congress wrote, in 1978, in report language accompanying FISA:
Despite any inherent power by the President to authorize
warrantless electronic surveillance in the absence of
legislation, by this bill and chapter 119 of title 18,
Congress will have legislated with regard to electronic
surveillance in the United States, that legislation, with its
procedures and safeguards prohibit the President,
notwithstanding any inherent powers, notwithstanding any
inherent powers--
Which means AUMF, article II of the Constitution
--from violating the terms of that legislation.
That is a quote. The legislative history continues by describing the
Supreme Court's decision in the Keith case, in which the Court ruled at
that time Congress hadn't ruled in this field, and simply left the
Presidential powers where it found them.
But at this point the legislative history turns. The 1978 language
responded to the Keith case and said this:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, however, does
not simply leave Presidential powers where it finds them. To
the contrary, this bill would substitute a clear legislative
authorization pursuant to statutory, not constitutional,
standards.
I want the record to show here the clear understanding in 1978 that
FISA was the exclusive authority. That was the report language
accompanying H.R. 7138 as it passed the 95th Congress.
President Carter signed the bill. His signing statement said this:
This bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial
warrant from all electronic surveillance for foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United
States in which communications of U.S. persons might be
intercepted.
That is pretty clear, on the part of the President who signed the
bill, and the House and the Senate that passed that bill, what the
intention was.
The Intelligence Committee bill before us reiterates the 1978
exclusivity language, but I believe this needs to be strengthened in
light of the article II and the AUMF arguments that this administration
has been making. I am going to introduce this amendment at this time.
This language closes loopholes that this Department of Justice
squeezed through, to claim that the AUMF was an authorized exception to
the FISA. It clearly was not. The amendment does this by tightening
language in FISA, and in title 18 of the criminal code, making clear
that future Presidents should not try to read between the lines in
future legislation for authorization to go outside of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It also provides more specificity in what must be included in written
requests or directives to telecommunications authorities for them to
legally provide assistance. It is clear from the recent history that
this is necessary. In fact, the whole issue of whether telecom immunity
is needed is because past certifications have not been clear.
I couldn't support a bill that did not clearly reestablish the
primacy of FISA. I tried to do it in committee. I thought it was done
in committee. It was not included in the base bill. The Republican side
would not go along with it. I once again submit it. To me it is vital,
and my vote on the bill was, at least 50 percent, based on this
exclusivity provision.
Now, if I may, may I mention telecom immunity and submit an
[[Page 34562]]
amendment? I voted for telecom immunity in the committee. I am not
inclined to vote for it, to be candid with you, unless this amendment
is adopted. So let me begin by talking about the immunity provision of
the bill. It is not as expansive as some would make it sound. The
language would only cover cases where the Attorney General certifies
that the defendant companies received written requests or directives
from top levels of the Government for their assistance.
In other words, the Government, in writing, I stress in writing,
assured those companies that the program was legal, the President had
authorized the program, and that its legality has been approved by the
Attorney General.
The legislation does not provide immunity for criminal wrongdoing,
nor does the legislation provide liability relief for any Government
official such as that the Director of National Intelligence had
requested in April. No individual immunity of anyone in the government
is included in this bill.
There are approximately 40 cases pending in the Ninth Circuit. The
companies in these cases are prevented from making their own defense. I
do not know if Members understand the full importance of this. They are
prevented from responding to inaccurate news articles, inaccurate press
releases, they cannot come before the Congress and testify in public,
they cannot respond to anything that is said in the public sector, and
they are prevented from defending themselves in court.
These defendants have to sit by and listen to what they consider to
be misrepresentations, and they cannot respond to these
misrepresentations. So, in effect, they are handcuffed and gagged by
the administration's claim of state secrets. This is a matter of
fairness. These companies have no financial motives in providing
assistance to the Government. In fact, they incurred a substantial risk
in doing so. They were given written requests, legal assurances in the
weeks after September 11. The letters went out within 5 weeks of
September 11, when we all feared this Nation might suffer additional
attacks.
In fact, evidence has come to light to indicate the second wave of
attacks involving the West Coast was being planned. It was this
administration, not the companies, that made a flawed legal
determination. It was this administration that withheld its activities
from the Congress for 4 long years. It was this administration that
decided not to go to the FISA Court. They could have gone to the FISA
Court. They could have asked for a program warrant, which they
subsequently got.
They could have put this program under FISA coverage, which it now
is, which they did not at the time.
It has been pointed out that there is a longstanding common law
provision that allows citizens to rely on the assumption that the
Government acted legally when it asks a private citizen or a company to
assist it for the common good. All that is required is that the citizen
act in good faith.
So the question is whether the small number of people, and it was a
small number of people, who were actually cleared in a classified
sense, to deal with this, of these companies, were acting in good faith
and whether it was reasonable for them to determine that the
assistance, in fact, it provided was legal.
A small number of telecom officials were acting under the cloak of
secrecy and a directive not to disclose the Government's request. They
are not experts on article II of the Constitution. The amendment I am
going to submit would put before the FISA Court the question of whether
the telecommunications companies should, in fact, receive immunity
based on the law.
The FISA Court would be required to act, en banc, and how this is, is
15 judges, Federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, they sit 24/
7, and this is all they do, they would act en banc. They would look at
the following: Did the letters sent to the carriers which were repeated
virtually every 35 to 45 days over the last 4 to 5 years, did the
letters sent to the carriers meet the conditions of law.
Section 2511 of title 18 clearly states that a certification from the
Government is required in cases where there is no court order. That is
the only two ways that FISA allows this to proceed, by written
certification or by court order.
The Government has to certify in writing that all statutory
requirements for the company's assistance have been met. So the FISA
Court would first look at whether the letter sent to the companies met
the terms of this law. The court would then look at, if the companies
provided assistance, was it done in good faith and pursuant to a belief
that the compliance was legal.
Finally, the FISA Court would ask: Did the defendants actually
provide assistance? If the FISA Court finds that defendant did not
provide any assistance to the Government or that the assistance either
met the legal requirements of the law or was reasonably and in good
faith, the immunity provision would apply.
If the FISA Court finds that none of these requirements were met,
immunity would not apply to the defendant companies. I think the merit
of this approach is it preserves judicial review, the method we look at
in order to decide questions of legality.
Now, the bulk of the Members of this body, probably 90 percent of
them, have not been able to see the written certification, so you do
not know what was there. What we ask in this amendment is: FISA Court,
you take a look at these letters, and you make a ruling as to whether
they essentially meet the certification requirements of the FISA law.
Therefore, there is judicial review to determine whether, under
existing law, this immunity should be forthcoming. It is a narrowing of
the immunity provisions of the Intelligence bill. I think it makes
sense. I read the letters. I am a layperson, I am not a lawyer. I
cannot say whether they met the immunity provisions. Others can say
that.
But it should be up to a court to make that decision. It seems to me
that if the FISA Court finds that none of these requirements were met,
immunity would not apply to the defendant companies.
The FISA Court of Review stated in 2002 that the President has
article II authorities to conduct surveillance. The article II
authority is the big rub in all this. The collection under this program
was directed overwhelmingly at foreign targets.
But no court has addressed this issue since FISA was enacted in 1978.
And, candidly, I think the time has come to see whether the President's
article II authority--and the FISA Court would be the first judge of
this--in fact, supersedes the article II authority based on the reading
that I had given you of FISA Court passage in 1978.
So essentially that is the amendment I would like to send to the desk
at this time which narrows the immunity provision of the FISA law. I
thank the clerk for receiving the amendment.
In sum, I have tried to pay a great deal of attention to this. I
tried to do my due diligence, both as a member of the Judiciary
Committee and the Intelligence Committee. I truly do believe electronic
surveillance is vital in the war against terror.
I believe it is the most likely way we learn what is being planned
for the future and have an opportunity to prevent it from happening. I
truly believe there are people who would do this Nation grievous injury
and harm if they are given the opportunity to do it, and I think the
telecom communities did depend on the good faith of the head of the
National Security Agency and the Attorney General and the requests from
the highest levels of Government.
The question is, Did they comply with the law? And so the amendment I
have suggested would give the FISA Court the opportunity to make a
ruling as to whether, in fact, they did comply with the law.
The second amendment would strengthen the exclusivity provisions of
the FISA law so we never again, hopefully, will find ourselves in the
same situation.
I look for a vote on both those amendments, and I thank the Chairman
of the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee and Senator
Nelson for supporting my amendment on exclusivity.
[[Page 34563]]
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be added as a
cosponsor of the FISA Court evaluation on the immunity question
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding to
me.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am troubled by the FISA bill that has
come to the Senate floor. Since I introduced the original FISA
legislation over 30 years ago, I have worked to amend the FISA law many
times, and I believe that this bill is not faithful to the traditional
balance that FISA has struck. This bill gives the executive branch vast
new authorities to spy on Americans, without adequate guidance or
oversight. Americans deserve better.
I voted ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to consideration of this
bill because I believe this legislation is too important to hold up any
longer. The House has already passed a new FISA bill, and the Senate
needs to do the same. But let me be clear, the Senate should reject the
bill that we have before us. We need to pass the Judiciary Committee
version instead.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is one of our landmark
statutes. For nearly three decades, it has regulated Government
surveillance in a way that protects both our national security and our
civil liberties and prevents the Government from abusing its powers. It
is because FISA enhances both security and liberty that it has won such
broad support over the years from Presidents, Members of Congress, and
the public alike. It is important to remember that before this
administration, no administration had ever resisted FISA, much less
systematically violated it.
When the administration finally came to Congress to amend FISA after
its warrantless wiretapping program was exposed, it did so not in the
spirit of partnership, but to bully us into obeying its wishes. The
Protect America Act was negotiated in secret at the last minute. The
administration issued dire threats that failure to enact a bill before
the August recess could lead to disaster. Few, if any, knew what the
language would actually do. The result of this flawed process was
flawed legislation, which virtually everyone now acknowledges must be
substantially revised.
I commend the members of the Intelligence Committee for their
diligent efforts to put together a new bill. They have taken their
duties seriously, and they have made some notable improvements over the
Protect America Act.
But their bill is deeply flawed, and I am strongly opposed to
enacting it in its current form. This bill fails to protect Americans'
constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms.
There are many problems with the bill.
It redefines ``electronic surveillance,'' a key term in FISA, in a
way that is unnecessary and may have unintended consequences.
Court review occurs only after the fact, with no consequences if the
court rejects the Government's targeting or minimization procedures.
It is not as clear as it should be that FISA and the criminal wiretap
law are the sole legal means by which the Government may conduct
electronic surveillance.
Its sunset provision is December 31, 2013. For legislation as
complicated, important, and controversial as this, Congress should
reevaluate it much sooner.
The bill purports to eliminate the ``reverse targeting'' of
Americans, but does not actually contain language to do so. For
instance, it has nothing analogous to the House bill's provision on
reverse targeting, which prohibits use of the authorities if ``a
significant purpose'' is targeting someone in the United States.
It does not fully close the loophole left open by the Protect America
Act, allowing warrantless interception of purely domestic
communications.
It does not require an independent review and report on the
administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. Only through such a
process will we ever learn what happened and achieve accountability and
closure on this episode.
Add it all up, and the takeaway is clear: This bill is inconsistent
with the way FISA was meant to work, and it is inconsistent with the
way FISA has always worked.
The Judiciary Committee's FISA bill shows that there is a better way.
The Judiciary Committee's version is faithful to the traditional FISA
balance. It shares the same basic structure, but it addresses all of
the problems I listed above. The Judiciary bill was negotiated in
public, which allowed outside groups and experts to give critical
feedback. It was also negotiated later in time than the Intelligence
bill, meaning we had the benefit of reviewing their work.
Like the Intelligence Committee's bill, the Judiciary Committee's
version also gives the executive branch greater authority to conduct
electronic surveillance than it has ever had before. Make no mistake,
it too is a major grant of power to the intelligence community. But
unlike the Intelligence Committee's bill, the Judiciary Committee's
version sets some reasonable limits that protect innocent Americans
from being spied on by their Government without any justification
whatever.
No one should lose sight of how important title I of FISA is. The
rules governing electronic surveillance affect every American. They are
the only thing that stands between the freedom of Americans to make a
phone call, send an e-mail, and search the Internet, and the ability of
the Government to listen in on that call, read that e-mail, review that
Google search. In our ``information age,'' title I of FISA provides
Americans a fundamental bulwark against Government tyranny and abuse.
If we enact the title I that is now before us, we will undermine that
bulwark.
Unfortunately, the exact same thing would be true if we enact the
Intelligence Committee's title II.
The Nation was shocked to learn earlier this month that the CIA had
destroyed videotapes showing employees using severe interrogation
techniques. The willful destruction of these tapes by the CIA obviously
raises serious questions involving obstruction of justice.
But this is not the only coverup that the administration has been
involved in lately. President Bush has been demanding that Congress
grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that
cooperated with the administration's illegal surveillance program. He
wants us to pretend that this whole episode never happened.
I oppose granting any form of retroactive immunity to these
companies, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike
title II from the FISA bill. Amnesty for telecommunication companies
may help the administration conceal its illegal spying, but it will not
serve our national security, and it will further undermine the rule of
law.
Let's not forget why we are even talking about this issue. At some
point in 2001, the Bush administration began a massive program of
warrantless spying. New reports suggest that the administration began
its warrantless spying even before 9/11. The administration never told
Congress what it was doing. In clear violation of the FISA law and in
complete disdain for the fourth amendment, it also never told the FISA
Court what it was doing.
Because the Bush administration secretly ignored the law, we still do
not know how deeply this program invaded the privacy of millions of
innocent Americans. The push for immunity by this administration is a
push to avoid all accountability for a wiretapping program that was a
massive violation of the law.
FISA has been in force for 29 years. It was designed from the
beginning to allow flexibility in pursuing our enemies. It was enacted
with strong bipartisan support in 1978, and it has been amended on a
bipartisan basis some 30 times since then. It has enhanced Americans'
security and safeguarded our liberty. Every previous administration has
complied with FISA.
[[Page 34564]]
But the Bush administration apparently decided that FISA was an
inconvenience. With the help of certain phone companies, it secretly
spied on Americans for years, without any court orders or oversight.
There is still a great deal we don't know about this secret spying,
but what we do know is alarming. Numerous reports indicate that it
covered not only international communications, but also Americans'
purely local calls with their friends, neighbors, and loved ones. A
lawsuit in California has produced evidence that at the Government's
request, AT&T installed a supercomputer in a San Francisco facility
that copied every communication by its customers, and turned them over
to the National Security Agency.
Think about that. The National Security Agency of the Bush
administration may have been intercepting the phone calls and e-mails
of millions of ordinary Americans for years.
The surveillance was so flagrantly illegal that even lawyers in the
administration tried to fight it. Nearly 30 Justice Department
employees threatened to resign over it. The head of the Office of Legal
Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, testified that it was ``the biggest legal mess
I had ever encountered.''
Mr. Goldsmith himself acknowledged that ``top officials in the
administration dealt with FISA the way they dealt with other laws they
didn't like: they blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal
opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal
basis of the operations.''
Think about that as well. The President's own head of the Office of .
Legal Counsel states that the administration's policy has been to
``blow through'' laws it doesn't like, in secret, so that its actions
cannot be challenged. The Bush White House has repeatedly failed to
understand that our Government is a government of laws, and not of men.
The administration's secret spying program has taken a heavy toll on
our country. Its failure to follow the law has made it more difficult
for prosecutors to put terrorists behind bars; for intelligence
professionals to avoid civil and criminal lawsuits; and for the public
to trust its Government. In the name of making us safer, the
administration's reckless disregard for the law has made us less safe,
and countless Americans fear their rights have been endangered. That
sorry record demands accountability, not immunity.
Here is another fact that no one should lose sight of. From the very
beginning, telecommunications companies have always had immunity under
FISA when they comply with lawful surveillance requests. In fact, the
Senate Judiciary Committee worked closely with AT&T, and the company
played a major role in drafting FISA's immunity provisions in the
1970s.
To be completely protected from any liability whatever, all a company
needs under FISA is a court order or an appropriate certification from
the Attorney General. That is it. Just get one of those two documents,
and you are off the hook.
So in this debate, let us be clear that we are not talking about
protecting companies that complied with lawful surveillance requests.
We are talking about protecting companies that complied with
surveillance requests that they knew were illegal.
Immunity for the phone companies would be bad policy on many levels.
First, it is premature even to be talking about this subject. Even
though the President is demanding immunity for companies that may have
broken the law, he will not tell all Members of Congress which
companies broke the law, how they broke the law, or why they broke the
law. He is asking us to legislate in the dark.
Immunity for the telecoms for warrantless wiretapping violates the
basic structure and purpose of FISA. The industry helped draft FISA,
and they perform a major role under it. Here is how this system was
explained in the House Intelligence Committee report on the original
legislation:
Requiring the court order or certification to be presented
[to the carrier] before the assistance is rendered serves two
purposes. It places an additional obstacle in the path of
unauthorized surveillance activity, and, coupled with the
provision relieving the third party from liability if the
order or certification is complied with, it provides full
protection to such third parties.
If phone companies can ignore these requirements, this system of
checks and balances collapses. That is exactly what happened here. The
telecoms are supposed to provide an essential safeguard for protecting
Americans' private information. Because Congress and the courts usually
don't know about wiretapping activities, this role of the telecoms is
crucial. Immunity for the telecoms undermines the basic design of our
surveillance laws.
Instead of undermining those laws, we should apply them in a court of
law to discover and punish illegal activities. The administration has
used the scare tactic of claiming that lawsuits will jeopardize
national security by leaking sensitive information. That argument
ignores the fact that the media have already exposed the existence of
its warrantless surveillance program and the role of some telecoms in
assisting this program. In addition, it would be foolish to assume that
the terrorists don't already know that we are trying to intercept their
phone calls and e-mails.
The administration's argument also ignores the numerous safeguards
used by courts to protect sensitive information. No one is advocating
that the NSA disclose its specific methods or targets in open court.
Even if someone did seek such disclosure, the Federal courts have
procedures that have protected Government secrets for generations.
The administration has also suggested that allowing these lawsuits to
proceed might jeopardize national security by deterring phone companies
from future cooperation with surveillance requests. This too is sheer
nonsense. Under FISA, companies already have absolute immunity for any
lawful cooperation. Future companies will be deterred only from
cooperating with illegal surveillance requests, which is the whole
point of the law. We do not want this shameful episode to happen again.
The phone companies will suffer only the same harm that befalls any
company that violates the law. The administration contends that the
telecoms may be bankrupted if the lawsuits continue. In other words,
the administration is telling us these companies may have engaged in
lawbreaking on a scale so massive they could not afford the penalty if
they are brought to justice. But massive law breaking is an argument
against immunity, not for it. If the concern is the companies'
financial health, the answer is not to throw out the rule of law but to
legislate reasonable remedies, such as damage caps.
Immunity for the telecoms would also violate basic principles of
fairness and justice. The administration repeatedly claims immunity is
``a matter of basic fairness'' because the companies were doing their
patriotic duty. That is a strange conception of fairness.
Telecom companies have clear duties under the law. They also have
highly sophisticated lawyers who deal with these issues all the time.
If a company violated its clear duties and conducted illegal spying,
fairness demands it face the consequences.
It is precisely because fairness and justice are so important to the
American system of government that we ask an independent branch--the
judiciary--to resolve such legal disputes. There is nothing fair or
just about Congress stepping into ongoing lawsuits to decree victory
for one side and deny injured parties their day in court.
Frankly--frankly--the whole ``patriotic duty'' argument we have been
hearing from the White House is hard to take seriously. If the
allegations against the telecoms are true, then we are not talking
about ambiguous points of law. As a Federal judge remarked in one of
the leading cases:
AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in
its position could have believed that the alleged domestic
dragnet was legal.
We are not talking about what happened in the frantic weeks and
months immediately following 9/11. We are talking about alleged
violations of Americans' rights that went on for 5 years--5 years--in
total secrecy, on a
[[Page 34565]]
scale that has never been approached in our history.
If the telecoms had followed the law instead of the Bush
administration, the administration could have come to Congress and
obtained any needed changes in the law. In a democracy, it is the job
of the legislature to amend laws to fit new circumstances. It is not
the job of the legislature to rubberstamp illegal conduct by the
Executive.
Some of the telecoms might have been doing what they thought was good
for the country. Some of them might simply have been doing what they
thought would preserve their lucrative Government contracts. We simply
do not know. But either way, it is not the role of the
telecommunications companies to decide which laws to follow and which
to ignore. FISA is a law that was carefully developed over many years
to give the executive branch the flexibility it needs, while protecting
the rights of Americans. It is the companies' legal duty--and their
patriotic duty--to follow that law.
Nothing could be more dangerous for Americans' privacy and liberty
than to weaken that law, which is precisely what retroactive immunity
is meant to do. Yesterday's newspapers disclosed that in December of
2000, the National Security Agency sent the Bush administration a
report asserting that the Agency must become a ``powerful, permanent
presence'' on America's communications network--a ``powerful, permanent
presence'' on America's communications network. Under this
administration, that is exactly what the NSA has become. If the phone
companies simply do the NSA's bidding in violation of the law, they
create a world in which Americans can never feel confident that their
e-mails and phone calls are not being tapped by the Government.
Finally, amnesty would stamp a congressional seal of approval on the
administration's warrantless spying. If Congress immunizes the telecoms
for past violations of the law, it will send the message Congress
approves what the administration did. We would be aiding and abetting
the President in his illegal actions, his contempt for the rule of law,
and his attempt to hide his lawbreaking from the American people.
Voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy, and
illegality. There would be no accountability, no justice, no lessons
learned.
The damage will not stop there. The telecommunications companies are
not the only private entity enlisted by this administration in its
lawbreaking. Think about Blackwater and its brutal actions in Iraq, or
the airlines that have flown CIA captives to be tortured in foreign
countries. These companies may also be summoned to court one day to
justify their actions. When that day comes, the administration may call
yet again for retroactive immunity, claiming the companies were only
doing their patriotic duty as ``partners'' in fighting terrorism.
The debate we are having now about telecom amnesty is not likely to
be the last round in the administration's attempt to immunize its
private partners. It is only the opening round. In America, we should
be striving to make more entities subject to the rule of law, not
fewer. Giving in to the administration now will start us down a path to
a very dark place.
Think about what we have been hearing from the White House in this
debate. The President has said American lives will be sacrificed if
Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said he will veto any
FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity--no immunity, no
FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to
let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President's
insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet
another example of disrespect for honest dialog and the rule of law.
It is painfully clear what the President's request for retroactive
immunity is about. It is a self-serving attempt to avoid legal and
political accountability and keep the American people in the dark about
this whole shameful episode. Similar to the CIA's destruction of
videotapes showing potentially criminal conduct, it is a desperate
attempt to erase the past.
The Senate should see this request for what it is and reject it. We
should pass this amendment to strike title II from the FISA bill. Our
focus should be on protecting national security, our fundamental
liberties, and the rule of law, not protecting phone companies that
knew they were breaking the law.
I am second to no one in wanting to make sure our intelligence
agencies have all the flexibility and authority they need to pursue the
terrorists. We need to pass a FISA bill that will keep America strong
and protect our liberty. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee
will do that.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from
Massachusetts for his statement this afternoon. He has captured the
essence of all this and the importance of the issue in Title II. He
made very many good points. But one point he made said it all: that the
President of the United States would veto the FISA legislation if he
does not get immunity for the phone companies. This administration
would risk the entire law--a law designed to improve our surveillance
of terrorists, while respecting privacy--simply to protect a handful of
companies. Those are the lengths to which President Bush is prepared to
go.
I think the Senator from Massachusetts made this point, but it is
worth repeating: Not every company did what the administration asked
them to do. There were those that stood up and said: ``No. Give me a
court order, and I will comply under the law.'' They should be
commended for what they did.
For those that said, ``We were just doing our patriotic duty,'' their
legal departments were not made up of first-year law students. They
knew what the law was. Yet they may have violated it and are now
seeking immunity.
So I commend my colleague. I am going to offer--when I get a chance--
an amendment that strikes title II from the legislation. I hope every
Senator here supports it. This ought not be about party or ideology. It
is about our Constitution.
The FISA law is a good law. It has protected us for almost 30 years.
But it should not sanction retroactive immunity for a handful of phone
companies that eavesdropped on millions of people's conversations.
So I commend my colleague for his words.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. I
agree it never had to be this way. I can remember back in 1976
President Ford was President of the United States. He had Edward Levi
as Attorney General, who was a distinguished Attorney General. This was
in the wake of a good deal of abuse we had seen during President
Nixon's period of wiretap abuse taking place in this country, which
shocked the Nation.
At that time, the Attorney General insisted that we work together,
that Congress work together. He called members of the Judiciary
Committee down to the Justice Department and took their views into
consideration. There was a variety of very sensitive issues about
activities involving the Soviet Union and a good deal in terms of
embassies in Washington, DC. There was very sensitive information. All
of that was worked out with the Republicans and Democrats in the
Judiciary Committee, and they passed the FISA bill. There was only one
dissenting vote in the Senate--only one dissenting vote--on this
proposal.
I must say many of us were enormously disappointed at the beginning
of this whole pathway when Attorney General Gonzales came up before the
committee and indicated: No, there was not any role to try to work in a
constructive way and on a constructive path on this mission. No, there
was no place for anyone to get adequately briefed. No, there was no
sharing of information. No, there was going to be no--they understood
what was going to happen. They understood what was going on. They had
all the authority and the power under the executive branch. No, there
was not going to be
[[Page 34566]]
any activity whatsoever in trying to work together.
I have mentioned a variety of different points. But one of those we
ought to keep in mind is that with the abuses that have taken place, we
are endangering the prosecution of many of these terrorists. This is a
real danger. Rather than trying to work that out through a process,
with give-and-take, with Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan
way, working with the Judiciary Committee--the Intelligence Committee
obviously has enormous interest and experience; I see my friend and
someone we all have such a high regard for, Senator Rockefeller, who
has done such a commendable job in this whole area--but not working it
out and running off on this pathway, which is gradually being revealed
through the national media and the press and through other activities,
I think, rather than enhancing our national security, has indeed
threatened it.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may further inquire of my colleague
from Massachusetts, I was intrigued to learn how many the Washington
Post recorded. I heard no one argue with these numbers. One of the
arguments we have heard is that the FISA Court may not have been
willing to agree with these court orders to the phone companies--not
that that argument was even remotely legitimate.
The Washington Post reports that over the years, there have been over
18,000 requests for FISA court orders. Of those more than 18,000
requests, 5 have been rejected--5. So with over 18,000 requests, for
99.9 percent of those requests, that court has acquiesced to
administration appeals 99.9 percent of the time.
So the idea this court was somehow going to serve as an obstruction
to the administration's desire to get legitimate information is
certainly belied by the statistics. I point that out to my colleague.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
In the committee, we had some of the members of the FISA Courts
testify. They indicated before the committee similar kinds of
cooperation they have had in reviewing this, making the Senator's point
even stronger. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. There may have
been others, but I did notice him to be the first one in the Senate who
spoke up on this issue when it first came up, and he has been a very
strong protector of our national security and our liberty, and we have
all benefited from his comments and his leadership in this area. I
thank him for all of his good work.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. I was in the midst of giving some remarks earlier, and my
colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, came on the Senate floor.
I know she wanted to share her thoughts, so I yielded the floor to her
to allow her to speak. I see my friend and colleague from Missouri is
here. I know we have gone back and forth. I understand how this works.
I don't know if he has some remarks he wants to give.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am a little bit confused. We certainly
don't want to cut short the remarks of our friend from Connecticut, but
I thought this was supposed to go back and forth. I believe there is an
hour limit under postcloture on time that can be consumed by any
Senator. I thought we would go back and forth to enable people on both
sides and let the chairman and me perhaps respond where necessary.
Mr. DODD. Fine.
Mr. BOND. I wanted to know, through the Chair, what the procedure is
right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order of recognition at this time.
Mr. BOND. All right. Again, I seek recognition, and I thank my
colleagues for sharing their views.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wanted to share a few views on matters
that have been just raised. I thought it was important to bring these
up. I will have longer remarks when we actually get on the bill.
I appreciated hearing from our colleague, who is an original
cosponsor of the first FISA bill, and to learn about the negotiations
which went on then. But I was a little puzzled to hear how this bill--
this bill, which includes significantly more protections for Americans'
civil liberties and constitutional rights--somehow goes back on the
original FISA. The original FISA required a court review of targeting
of U.S. persons. We have gone far beyond that in this bill. As a matter
of fact, the Protect America Act, which he decried, contained all of
the protections that were in the original FISA bill.
Now, we have, on a bipartisan basis--I keep emphasizing that the
Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis, after being fully
briefed--fully briefed--by several elements of the intelligence
community--and we asked them questions. We had briefings. We went to
the NSA to see how it worked. We went through all of these ideas with
them. They said: We understand your objective. Here is how to
accomplish it.
I think we have prepared a very good bill that by any fair reading--
any fair reading--will extend the protections beyond what the original
FISA, and even the Protect America Act, had for the surveillance,
electronic surveillance of anybody either in the United States or a
U.S. person abroad. I am very much surprised that he says somehow, this
bill, which provides more protection, doesn't provide the basic
protections of FISA. I regret to say that is just not right.
I also want to address some questions about immunity which have been
brought up. I thought our committee report, a bipartisan product, said
it pretty well when talking about why providing immunity--and it is not
amnesty because these companies, the companies alleged to have done
wrong, did nothing wrong. This is what the Intelligence Committee said.
We concluded:
The providers had a good faith basis for responding to the
request for assistance they received. The intelligence
community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without
assistance from these companies. Companies in the future may
be less willing to assist the government if they face the
threat of private lawsuits each time they are alleged to have
provided assistance. The possible reduction in intelligence
that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for
the safety of our Nation. Allowing continued litigation also
risks the disclosure of highly classified information
regarding intelligence sources and methods. In addition to
providing an advantage to our adversaries by revealing
sources and methods during the course of litigation, the
potential disclosure of classified information puts both the
facilities and personnel of electronic communications service
providers and our country's continued ability to protect our
homeland at risk. It is imperative that Congress provide
liability protection to those who cooperated with our country
in the hour of need.
Now, there was some talk about article II, and some suggested that
the FISA Court would not have--this could not have been approved by the
FISA Court. Well, my understanding is the FISA Court knew about it. The
FISA Court has acted on this measure, and in one of the few published
reports of the FISA Court of Review, In Re: Sealed Case--that is a very
compelling and provocative title, but that is the name of the case--it
is stated in one of the footnotes dealing with the case that: The
Truong case, where a warrantless search of U.S. persons in the United
States was approved by the court, the FISA Court of Review said:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have
decided this issue, held that the President did have the
inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain
foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the
court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that
constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for
granted that the President does have that authority and,
assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the
President's constitutional power.
The court went on to say:
The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify
the President's power by providing a mechanism that at least
approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the
government's contention that FISA searches are
constitutionally reasonable.
That is the view of the FISA Court of Review. Everybody is saying,
well, we need to find out what the FISA Court
[[Page 34567]]
of Review has to say about these certifications, about the
authorizations. What I just read is what the FISA Court has said. The
President does have the power under article II of the Constitution to
conduct warrantless surveillances. Once that determination is made,
then to go back and say that any company, any U.S. person, or any
corporation that got a notice from the Attorney General to carry out an
order of the President through the Intelligence Committee to conduct
foreign intelligence surveillance is breaking the law is just
absolutely beyond the bounds.
I am very sorry we have such a disjoint in the reading and
understanding of the constitutional powers. And to say now that these
people should be dragged back into court where they will be subjected
not only to the potential of large legal bills, the potential loss in
terms of any judgment--although I think that is minimal; I don't think
anybody is going to be able to show any harm that would warrant the
court to grant a monetary recovery--but what they will find, what they
will find is great damage to their reputation, as the people who are
enemies of the United States go out actively and trash any company or
any individual who cooperates with the United States.
There are evil people out there who would love to be able to get
information and confirm what companies may have participated. Once that
happens, those companies would be at great risk abroad. Their
reputations would suffer, and they and their personnel could be at
great risk of physical harm.
So there are many good reasons not to bring these cases in court
against the providers. Please note, as we have stated before, that this
measure only protects the private sector people who might have
cooperated. It does not protect Government employees. I hope by
clarifying this, people will get a better understanding of why immunity
is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the United States
in collecting foreign information.
Many of my colleagues want to speak, so I appreciate the opportunity
to clarify the question of immunity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman
and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for
what I think is an outstanding product--a bipartisan product. I can't
think of an area that is more important for us to act in the interests
of our national security in a bipartisan manner than the subject before
us today. We should resist with all of our might any impulse or tug
that we might feel to emphasize partisan differences, but instead we
ought to pull together to try to do what is necessary to keep our eyes
open and our ears to the ground when it comes to the collection of
foreign intelligence.
Of course, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in
1978 to ensure that Americans' civil liberties were being protected. At
the same time, we made sure we were able to listen to our enemies,
which has become even more important today with terrorists taking
advantage of the Internet, cellular phones, and other means of
communications, and it is critical that we continue to take advantage
of every opportunity to detect and deter future terrorists attacks on
our own soil.
We were told last August by the Director of National Intelligence--
this has been widely published since--that because of some of the
archaic provisions in the FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, and because it had not kept up with changes in modern
technology, that we were being blocked from receiving as many as two-
thirds of the communications of one foreign terrorist to another
foreign terrorist because of the way these calls were being routed. We
were told time and time again that the burdensome requirement of
getting the paperwork necessary in order to get a FISA authorization in
cases where the Congress never intended to require that sort of
authorization, which was required because of these changes in
technology, that it was actually causing delays in our ability to get
timely information in a way to protect our country and our men and
women in uniform serving in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
We know the ability to obtain the right information at the right time
is of critical importance in our struggle against radical Islamic
terrorists who hide among civilian populations and who don't abide by
the Geneva Conventions. They don't wear a uniform. They don't recognize
a chain of command or the laws of war. They hide among civilian
populations and quietly plot deadly attacks against civilians--innocent
men, women, and children--as they did on September 11, 2001.
I serve on the Judiciary Committee, so I am very much aware of some
of the arguments made during the time we considered this bill on a
serial referral against providing immunity to the telephone companies
that have cooperated with the President of the United States, the
Attorney General, and the intelligence community in facilitating the
collection of this actual intelligence.
Mr. President, I think the Intelligence Committee version got it
about right. Why in the world would we want to do anything to
discourage private citizens, whether they be individuals or corporate
citizens, from cooperating in the security interests of our country?
This is perhaps analogous to a police officer who knocks on your window
and says, I need your car to go capture a dangerous criminal before
they do harm to somebody else. Well, if an individual were worried that
they would be sued as a result of their being a good volunteer and a
good member of the community in allowing a law enforcement officer the
use of their car to capture a dangerous criminal, do you think they
would be more inclined or less inclined to cooperate with the lawful
authorities? I think it is pretty clear that they would be far less
inclined.
If we don't do everything in our power--and it is within our power--
to encourage individual and corporate citizens to cooperate in the
security interests of our country, then shame on us. To tell them that
you are going to have to endure ruinous litigation costs, that you are
not even going to be able to defend yourself because some of the
evidence is the subject of a State secrets privilege, and you are not
even going to be able to explain what you did, while at the same time
suffering the reputation damage that they could very well suffer if
their participation was known in other parts of the world, is not fair.
It is not fair to them and, even more importantly, it is not fair to us
because to fail to give them the immunity for their cooperation with
the lawful request of the President of the United States, after the
Attorney General, the country's chief law enforcement officer, has said
this is a lawful request, to fail to give them immunity and protection
against that ruinous litigation and damage to their reputation is less
than responsible.
I think the thing more likely to protect our security from this point
forward is to show citizens who cooperate with the lawful authorities
of the U.S. Government to help keep us safe that they are going to be
protected against litigation and the vast costs that could be
associated with it--not to mention the potential that classified
information might become public and be known to our enemies. It makes
absolutely no sense not to give that immunity to these individuals and
these corporations.
The Protect America Act, which is scheduled to sunset in February,
moved our intelligence capabilities in the right direction. But now we
need to make those tools permanent. Changes in technology, combined
with a court ruling that hampered the intelligence community, required
that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be updated. That is what
the Protect America Act was, although it was a temporary patch of about
6 months. Now we need to make those provisions permanent and take this
opportunity to further expand and enhance the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act to make sure it works in the security interests of the
American people, while taking the appropriate protections on American
citizens here at home.
[[Page 34568]]
In the period between the court ruling that required the Government
to obtain FISA orders for foreign intelligence that happened to pass
through the infrastructure in the United States and the passage of the
Protect America Act, collection of foreign intelligence information
decreased by two-thirds. That is what prompted Congress to act in
August without further delay, the likelihood that being blind to two
out of every three communications between terrorists would likely make
us less safe and would make it more likely that they would be
successful in killing innocent Americans and our allies. Common sense
informs us that this great drop in the percentage of intelligence
collection harms our national security efforts.
Of course, as I mentioned, in August we took a temporary patch to
close these intelligence gaps and clarify that the intelligence
community does have the authority to monitor communications of foreign
individuals without receiving a court approval first.
Now is the time for us to make that authority permanent. It has never
been required, in listening in to foreign subjects talking to other
foreign subjects, to get a court order, and the Protect America Act
made that temporary fix. We need to make that permanent.
Some have made arguments which, in the end, would hamper our
intelligence capabilities, requiring procedures never before in place.
Intelligence community resources--both funding and expertise--are
scarce and should be focused in the manner that best protects our
national security. Our intelligence analysts should not be distracted
from the important job of listening in and using information to deter
further attacks by having to fill out a bunch of paperwork,
particularly in areas that Congress never intended that they would have
to do so.
The Senate and House Democratic Judiciary Committee proposals, I am
sorry to say, would greatly hamper our intelligence community. As I
mentioned a moment ago, I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and proudly
so. Unfortunately, in voting this alternative out of the Judiciary
Committee--along strictly partisan lines--I think we failed to meet the
standards that were set by the Intelligence Committee version of this
bill. Although there are changes that I think need to be made, by and
large, the bipartisan vote in the Intelligence Committee--their product
was superior to the product out of the Judiciary Committee.
The House bill would require court orders for foreign targets in
foreign lands--something that has never been required in the 30 years
since FISA was enacted and would completely reverse the important
reforms, albeit temporary, we made a few months ago.
Delays inherent in obtaining court approval could, in fact, put
American security interests in jeopardy.
Here is a concrete example. This last summer, three American soldiers
were thought to be kidnapped by al-Qaida in Iraq. Because of delays in
obtaining emergency authorization under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, our intelligence community was unable to set into
place surveillance that may have saved the lives of these soldiers on
May 12, 2007. There was a 10-hour delay while the authorities did the
paperwork necessary for them to listen in on communications they never
should have been required to get a FISA order to listen to in the first
place--clearly, foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, PFC Joseph
Anzack was found dead a few weeks later in the Euphrates River, and an
al-Qaida subsidiary claims to have killed and buried SPC Alex Jiminez
and PFC Byron Fouty. Those 10 hours of delay, I believe, contributed to
the deaths of these 3 American soldiers. If they hadn't been required
to wait 10 hours to do the paperwork, I think there was a better chance
that they could have been found safely and returned to the arms of
their loved ones.
One of the key lessons the 9/11 attacks taught us was that we have to
do a better job of connecting the dots. Erecting more walls and
barriers to the collection and sharing of intelligence material ignores
this important lesson and gives our adversaries an unacceptable
tactical advantage, needlessly placing Americans in greater danger of
another attack instead of doing everything within our power to keep
them safe.
Unlike members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am sorry to
say that House Democrats refused to work with committee Republicans, or
with the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of
Justice. How the House committee--or for that matter, the Senate
Judiciary Committee--could hope to fashion a sensible, workable product
without consulting with either the Department of Justice or the
Director of National Intelligence is beyond me. I congratulate the
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on working so carefully,
over a long period of time, in consultation with the appropriate
authorities, to come up with a bipartisan product--one that I concede
is not perfect, but no legislation is perfect.
We are going to be talking about ways that I think we can improve
even that bill. But the Senate, unfortunately--the Judiciary
Committee--saw important suggestions from the Intelligence Community
rejected, again, along partisan lines. No attempt was made to craft a
bipartisan proposal. Instead, the committee chose to come up with a
party-line vote that raised serious operational concerns.
By working with the intelligence community, the Senate Intelligence
Committee was able to provide the intelligence community with more
flexibility in gathering foreign intelligence. This Senate bill will
allow the Attorney General to authorize targeting persons outside of
the United States to acquire this necessary information. No longer will
they be required to go to the FISA Court for an approval to target
foreign terrorists and spies overseas. This will ensure that our
intelligence community has the agility and the speed it needs to
collect actionable intelligence at a time when it counts.
The Senate bill does not restrict the types of foreign intelligence
that may be collected. It also streamlines the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, providing for more efficient, timely processing of
FISA applications.
These are only a few examples of the tools the authors of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence learned that the intelligence
community needs to make our country safer, simply by working together
across the aisle in a way that protects the American people more. They
are to be applauded and congratulated for that effort.
When the security of our country is at stake, we should consult the
very people in the best position to know what they need to make sure
that they have the tools necessary, without causing unintended negative
consequences.
We should learn from the bipartisan lead of the Senate Intelligence
Committee and work with them to craft a responsible, bipartisan bill
that keeps our eyes and our ears open, allows us to listen to our
enemies, and will help us protect Americans against future terrorist
attacks on our own soil and in places where Americans are located
around the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, I am aware that down at the Old Executive Office Building
there are large stacks of documents, including the Justice Department
legal opinions, that relate to the warrantless wiretapping program and
letters from our Government to the telecommunications companies.
I have read these materials. But most Members of the Senate have been
prohibited from being able to read these vital documents. I believe
that a Senator who was allowed to read these materials would be
astounded to see how flimsy the Government's case is on behalf of the
warrantless wiretapping program.
The administration has fought tooth and nail to keep almost every
Member of this body, and the entire membership of the other body, from
being able to read these materials. I believe every Senator who has not
read these documents ought to insist on their right to be able to read
them before the Senate casts this critical vote. Having read
[[Page 34569]]
these documents, I can say, as one Member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, that nothing in any of these opinions has convinced me that
the administration's warrantless wiretapping program was legal. Now
that the existence of the program has been confirmed, I can see no
national security reason to keep most Members of the Senate from being
able to see these materials. As far as I can tell, these materials are
being classified in order to protect the President's political
security, not our national security.
The Intelligence Committee has also reviewed written correspondence
sent to certain telecommunications companies by the Government. I
cannot get into the details of this correspondence, but I can say I am
totally unconvinced, on the basis of having read these materials, that
Congress should grant total immunity to the companies.
For years, there have been a number of laws on the books, such as the
Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and, of course,
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Together, they make it very
clear that participating in a warrantless wiretapping program is
against Federal law.
Many of my colleagues have argued that any companies that were asked
to provide assistance after September 11 should be treated leniently
since that was a period of national confusion and great fear. I think
this argument personally has some merit, but the bill that was reported
by the Intelligence Committee would not just grant immunity for 6
months or 1 year after September 11; it would grant immunity for
actions taken up to 5 years after the attack. I think that is far too
long, and I am going to briefly explain why.
If a phone company was asked to participate in warrantless
wiretapping in the weeks after September 11, it is understandable that
executives might not have had the time to question assertions from the
Government that the wiretapping was legal. But that doesn't give the
executive a free pass to participate in warrantless wiretapping forever
and forever. At some point over the following months and years, this
phone company executive has an obligation to think about whether they
are complying with the law, and as soon as they realize they have not
been in compliance, they have an obligation to stop it.
In the months and years following September 11, it should have been
increasingly obvious to any phone company that was participating in the
program that it just might not be following the law. For starters, in
the week after September 11, Congress and the President got together to
revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including the
wiretapping provisions. But the Congress did not change the sections of
the statute that state warrantless wiretapping is illegal. That, in my
view, should have been a huge red flag to any phone company that was
participating in this program.
Next, in the summer of 2002, the Director of the NSA, General Hayden,
appeared before the Intelligence Committee in open session and
testified about the need to get warrants when someone was inside the
United States. I am sure General Hayden would argue that he was parsing
his words carefully, but at a minimum, it was clear at this point that
most of the Congress and most of the American people believed
warrantless wiretapping was illegal.
The President has argued that the program was authorized through his
Commander in Chief authority. But in the spring of 2004, the Supreme
Court issued multiple rulings clearly rejecting this idea, and the
President cannot do whatever he chooses to do. These rulings also have
been giant red flags for any phone company engaged in warrantless
wiretapping.
Finally, as the Intelligence Committee's recent report noted, most of
the letters requesting assistance stated that the Attorney General
believed the program was legal. But, as our report points out, one of
the letters did not even say the Attorney General had approved. I have
read this letter, and I believe that once again it should have set off
loud alarm bells in the ears of anybody who received it.
In my view, as the years rolled by, it became increasingly
unreasonable for any phone company to accept the Government's claim
that warrantless wiretapping was legal. By 2004, at the very latest,
any companies involved in the program should have recognized that the
President was asking them to do things that seemed to be against the
law.
The former CEO of Quest has said publicly that he refused requests to
participate in warrantless surveillance because he believed it violated
privacy statutes. I cannot comment on the accuracy of this claim, but I
hope our colleagues will stop and think about its implications.
I also encourage my colleagues to insist on their right to see the
communications that were sent to the telecommunications companies. My
own view is, when they read these letters, if they are given a chance
to read them, these letters seriously undermine the case for blanket
retroactive immunity.
The legislation that passed the Intelligence Committee would grant
immunity long past the point at which it was reasonable for the phone
companies to believe the Bush administration. It would even grant
immunity stretching past the point at which the program became public.
By the beginning of 2006, the program was public and all of the legal
arguments for and against warrantless wiretapping were subject to open
debate. Clearly, any companies that participated in this program in
2006 did so with full knowledge of the possible consequences.
I cannot see any reason at all why retroactive immunity should cover
this time period. When the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to grant
total retroactive immunity, I voted no because I believed it was
necessary to take more time to study the relevant legal opinion as well
as the letters that were sent to the communications companies.
I have long felt that it is possible to fight terrorism ferociously
and still address the civil liberties needs of our citizens. Now that I
have studied these documents, I am convinced that granting 6 years of
total retroactive immunity is not justified and it is not justified in
the name of striking that crucial balance between fighting terrorism
aggressively and protecting the individual liberties of our citizens.
I very much want to support this essential legislation. Chairman
Rockefeller is here. He has done very good work, along with the
distinguished vice chairman, Senator Bond, on what I think is the
central issue of this debate, and that is modernizing the FISA law to
make sure that now it is possible to apprehend the communications of
dangerous individuals overseas who are foreigners.
The administration came to our committee and made a very reasonable
case that the statute has not kept up with the times. Under the
leadership of Chairman Rockefeller and the vice chairman, Senator Bond,
we went to work, and we went to work in a bipartisan way to address
that concern. That was the original concern of the Bush administration,
that the statute had not kept up with the times and it wasn't possible
to get the communications of foreigners overseas. Under the leadership
of Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond, that issue was dealt
with, and it was dealt with to the satisfaction of the Bush
administration.
But the Bush administration wouldn't take yes for an answer. After
the distinguished chairman of the committee and the vice chairman and
all of us on a bipartisan basis went to work to try to address the
reasonable concern of the Bush administration--that the statute had not
kept up with the times--that wasn't good enough for the Bush
administration. So that is when we were presented with the proposition
that we had to have total retroactive immunity for the phone companies.
Years after the administration had said how legal the program was,
after we dealt with the administration's original concern about the
surveillance statute, they came in and asked for something else--this
total grant of immunity. In fact, most members of the Intelligence
Committee would not even
[[Page 34570]]
have gotten to see the documents I had seen had it not been for the
fact that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond insisted on our
right to do so.
This is an issue of enormous importance. I am very glad our
colleagues have come to the floor to take the time to go through it. I
suggest that every Member of the Senate who has not had the right to
see those documents at the Old Executive Office Building ought to
insist on their right to see those documents before they cast this
vote. I think they will be flabbergasted at how flimsy the legal
analysis is to justify this program.
Mr. President, I see my colleague, the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut, on his feet. If I might, I would like to make one
additional point, and then I will be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on this last point: obviously we are in
public session, and the last thing I want to do is have the Senator
from Oregon talk about what is in these documents; he cannot do that.
But I am struck by the passion with which he just spoke about those
documents and the value of having Members of this body see them,
particularly considering the vote we are about to cast.
If this bill is adopted with retroactive immunity, then this issue
disappears; it goes away forever. There will be no court proceedings,
nothing. We will never have the opportunity to know until, perhaps,
some of these documents might be released decades down the road under
the Freedom of Information Act.
But I am struck by the Senator's passion in arguing that if people
read these documents and saw them, they would have a very difficult
time supporting the provision in this bill that grants retroactive
immunity. Is that the suggestion the Senator has made by those
comments?
Mr. WYDEN. That is my view, and I find particularly objectionable--
and the Senator from Connecticut has touched on it--you would
automatically assume that every Member of this body--we know all of our
colleagues; I trust all of them explicitly with respect to protecting
our national security--you would think they would certainly have a
right to see those documents before this vote is to be cast. That is
not the case. In fact, the only reason members of the Intelligence
Committee got to see them was because of the outstanding work of
Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Bond, who battled for my right to see
those documents.
Mr. DODD. As a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I do
not have the right to see these documents?
Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with 26 years in the Senate and as a senior
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I do not have the right to
see these documents?
Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right. And we have in the chair serving as
Presiding Officer of our distinguished body the Senator from Virginia,
a decorated veteran. My understanding is he does not have the legal
right to see these documents prior to the vote; that they were only
made available to members of the Intelligence Committee and perhaps
several others in the leadership. I think that is wrong. I think every
Member of this body ought to insist on their right to be able to go
down to the Old Executive Office Building and read the documents I have
read, which I believe offer an extraordinarily skimpy case for total
retroactive immunity.
I hope we will have a chance to discuss this issue further. I
appreciate the Senator from Connecticut making the point that he has
with respect to his seniority in the body, his membership on key
committees, such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he is
not provided the legal right to see these documents before he casts
this vote.
I wish to discuss briefly one other amendment which has come up
during the course of the morning, and that is an amendment I offered in
the Senate Intelligence Committee which won bipartisan support in the
Intelligence Committee addressing the rights of Americans who travel
overseas. I offered it with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin,
Mr. Feingold, and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr.
Whitehouse. It was approved when the Intelligence Committee voted on
that matter on a bipartisan basis.
Most of our citizens are probably not aware that the original Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act only provided protections for Americans
inside the United States and that it does not cover Americans who
travel overseas. So if the Government wants to deliberately tap the
phone calls of a businesswoman, for example in Roanoke, VA, or an armed
services member in Pendleton, OR, the Government has to go to a judge,
present evidence, and get a FISA warrant. But if that businesswoman or
that serviceman is sent overseas, the Attorney General can personally
approve the surveillance by making his own unilateral determination of
probable cause. In my view, this formulation makes no sense at all. In
the digital age, the rights and freedoms of individual Americans should
not be dependent on physical geography. That is why I offered the
amendment in the Intelligence Committee that would make it clear that
Americans have the same rights when they travel overseas as they do
inside the United States.
Now, some have raised concerns that my amendment may have unintended
consequences. I certainly don't want to see that, and so I have worked
with Members of this body, particularly Senators Rockefeller and Bond,
to address those concerns. We have made it clear that we are open to
technical changes in the proposal so that there will not be the
prospect of any unintended consequences, while at the same time
protecting the rights of our citizens who travel overseas. Our staffs
have been working for many weeks on a potential managers' amendment
which would preserve the original intent of the provision, which is
very straightforward, and that is to give Americans overseas the same
legal protections they have in the United States to the maximum extent
possible and to the maximum extent consistent with national security.
We have made progress, Mr. President, on this issue, but we are not
quite there yet. I have gotten varying reports as to what may
constitute a managers' package with respect to this legislation, but I
consider the matter of the travel rights of Americans so fundamental in
the digital age, it would be my intent to object to any unanimous
consent agreement that waters down these travel rights of law-abiding
Americans during these crucial days.
I continue to remain hopeful that, working closely with the
distinguished chairman of our full committee, Senator Rockefeller, and
the vice chairman, Senator Bond, who is not on the floor, we can reach
an agreement. All sides are working in good faith, but without the
proper language on this matter, which I do think is once again
fundamental to striking that balance between fighting terrorism
aggressively and protecting individual liberty, without this amendment
I would have to object to any unanimous consent agreement in a
managers' package which didn't address the amendment that won
bipartisan support in the committee. I hope it will not come to that,
and I want to make it clear again to the chairman of the full
committee, Senator Rockefeller, and to the vice chairman that I intend
to work very closely with them in the upcoming hours to see if we can
work this out so I will not have to object to the managers' amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Burma Democracy Promotion Act of 2007
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later today we hope to clear the Burma
Democracy Promotion Act of 2007. This legislation, which ratchets up
our already tight sanctions against the Burmese junta, has bipartisan
support in the House and Senate and comes at a critical time for the
suffering people of Burma.
I am pleased to be joined by Senator Biden, the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, on this legislation, who has been an ally
of mine on other
[[Page 34571]]
sanctions legislation, and by Senator Feinstein, as always in the
forefront of any issue related to Burma. The Burmese people have no
greater friend than Senator Feinstein. Sixteen other cosponsors have
offered their support to this important and timely bill.
The Senate bill would take a number of steps. It would first put in
place new financial sanctions and an extended visa ban on senior junta
officials. It would close existing loopholes that allow indirect
importation of Burmese gems and timber, and it urges an international
arms embargo on Burma, which faces no external military threats.
This legislation would also establish a special representative and
policy coordinator for Burma, appointed by the President and subject to
Senate confirmation. The United States is fortunate to already have a
stellar charge d'affaires in Rangoon. However, her focus is, as it
should be, on bilateral relations with Burma. The new envoy would help
to ensure that U.S. diplomacy is multilateral in scope, sustained, and
fully coordinated with other international efforts.
Now, the House passed its version of enhanced Burma sanctions last
week. I am hopeful the two bodies will soon reconcile these bills so we
can get this legislation signed into law.
Mr. President, the entire world was inspired by the brave Burmese
protesters who peacefully protested for justice earlier this year, and
we were appalled at the violent Government reprisals that followed. We
mourn the dead, and we pray for those who are still missing.
Since those sad days, a fickle news cycle has moved on to other
matters. But with this legislation, we show that the U.S. Congress has
not forgotten the people of Burma, and neither has the administration,
as witnessed by the strong leadership of the First Lady on this issue.
It is my hope the U.N. Security Council has an equally long memory and
will soon take up and pass an arms embargo against the Burmese regime.
In the end, multilateral sanctions are the most effective means of
pressuring this regime to change its misbegotten course. With this
legislation, we aim to lead by example. Our hope is that others will
soon follow.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 39 minutes remaining under
cloture.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I choose to yield the remainder of my time
to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon. I thank
him for his eloquent statement and for his admonition as well about the
importance of these documents and how relevant they are to the
discussion--and the inability of most of us here to have any idea what
is in them. I admire the Senator from Oregon for insisting on his right
to see them and therefore sharing with us at least in general terms the
substance of those documents and their relevance to the request for
seeking retroactive immunity, going back 5 years. I think his comments
should carry great weight with our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. As he has pointed out so many times, these issues should never
be associated with partisan debate.
The idea of striking that balance between security and protecting the
rights of individuals was exactly the motivation for the original FISA
legislation almost 30 years ago. As the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Kennedy, pointed out, there have been 30 modifications to that
legislation over 30 years in order to make it relevant. As the world
changed and technology improved, it was important to modify that
legislation so we would have the capacity to minimize the threats
against our Nation.
Earlier today, Mr. President, I began some comments and interrupted
them when I allowed the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to
make her remarks. I want to pick up where I left off.
Mr. President, both versions of the bill--that is, the version
prepared by my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and
Senator Bond, and the version prepared by the Senate Judiciary
Committee--authorize the President of the United States to conduct
overseas surveillance without individual warrants. I think that needs
to be repeated. You can conduct overseas surveillance without
individual warrants. That is not the subject of the debate here at all.
Both of these bills allow the President to submit his procedures for
this new kind of surveillance for the review of the FISA Court--after
those procedures are already in place. But only one version of the bill
balances these significant new procedural powers with real oversight
from the Congress and the courts, and that is the Judiciary Committee
version.
I say respectfully that the version by the Intelligence Committee, I
am afraid, is a bill of token oversight and weak protections for
innocent Americans, and the Senate ought to vote it down. Specifically,
the bill fails on five counts.
First, its safeguards against the targeting of Americans--its
minimization procedures--are insufficient. It significantly expands the
President's surveillance power, while leaving checks on that power
unchanged. This version of the bill provides practically no deterrent
against excessive domestic spying--no consequences if the court finds
the President's minimization procedures, in fact, lacking. If his
targeting procedures are found lacking, the President hardly has to
worry; he can keep and share all the information he obtained, and he
can continue his actions all the way through the judicial review
process, which could take, of course, months.
It should be clear to all of us that real oversight includes the
power to enforce. The Intelligence Committee's version of this bill
offers us the semblance of judicial oversight but not the real thing.
Imagine a judge convicting a bank robber and then letting him keep the
loot as long as he promises to never, ever, ever do it again. That
might as well be the bill before us. In fact, the bill before us would
allow the President to immediately target anybody on a whim.
Wiretapping could start even before the court has approved it. In this
bill, oversight is exactly where the President would like it--after the
fact.
Don't get me wrong: when a President needs immediate emergency
authority to begin wiretapping, he should have it. If you need it
immediately, you ought to get it immediately. I think all of us find
that obvious. The question is what to do in those cases that aren't
emergencies. In those cases, I believe there is no reason the court
shouldn't give advice and approval beforehand. President Bush
disagrees. He believes in a permanent emergency.
Second, the Intelligence Committee bill fails to protect American
citizens from reverse targeting--the practice of targeting a foreign
person on false pretenses, without a warrant, in order to collect the
information of the American on the other end of the conversation.
Admiral McConnell said:
Reverse targeting is not legal. It would be a breach of the
Fourth Amendment.
He is absolutely correct, of course, which is why it is so vital that
this bill contain strong, enforceable protection against it. This bill
doesn't have one.
Thirdly, this bill, while purporting to end warrantless wiretapping
of Americans, might actually allow it to continue unabated. That is
because it lacks strong exclusivity language--language stating that
FISA is the only controlling law for foreign intelligence surveillance.
With that provision in place, surveillance has a place inside the rule
of law. Without it, there is no such guarantee.
Who knows what specious rationale of this or any other future
administration might cook up for lawless spying? The last time, as we
have seen, Alberto Gonzales laughably tried to find grounds for
warrantless wiretapping on the authorization of force against
Afghanistan. Those are the legal lengths to which the administration
has proved it is willing and able to go.
[[Page 34572]]
What next? Without strong exclusivity language, that question will
remain hanging over all our heads.
Fourth, unlike the Judiciary version of the bill, the Intelligence
version lacks strong protections against bulk collection--the
warrantless collection of all overseas communications, a massive
dragnet with the potential to sweep up thousands or millions of
Americans without cause. Today, bulk collection is infeasible, but
Admiral McConnell said:
It would be authorized, if it were physically possible to
do so.
Before any administration has that chance, we should clearly and
expressly prohibit such an unprecedented violation of privacy. This
bill fails to do that.
Fifth and finally, this bill stays in effect until 2013, through the
next Presidential term and into the next one. Compare that to the 4-
year sunset in the Judiciary version. I believe that, when making such
dramatic changes to the Nation's terrorist surveillance regime, we
should err on the side of caution. Once the new regime has been tested,
once its effectiveness against terrorism and its compromises of privacy
have been weighed, we deserve to have this debate again. It will, I
predict, be a much less speculative and more informed debate. The
Judiciary bill is wise not to put it off any longer than necessary.
I oppose this legislation on these five counts for the same reason I
oppose retroactive immunity--because when the President's power is
strongest, the rule of law should be the strongest, as well. The
Intelligence Committee's bill means more power and less law. It reduces
court oversight nearly to the point of symbolism. It would allow the
targeting of Americans on false pretenses. It opens us to new, twisted
rationale for wireless wiretapping, the very thing it seeks to prevent.
It could allow bulk collection as soon as the administration has the
wherewithal to build such an enormous dragnet. And it sets all of these
deeply flawed provisions in stone for the next 6 years.
In sum, this is entirely too trusting a piece of legislation. With
its immunity, with its wiretapping provisions, it answers George
Bush's, ``Trust me,'' with an all too eager ``Yes!''
I leave my colleagues with a simple question: Has that trust been
earned?
I don't know how many of my colleagues have ever seen the wonderful
movie ``A Man For All Seasons,'' the story of St. Thomas More. There is
a wonderful scene in that movie in which More is asked whether he'd be
willing to cut down every law in England to get his hands on the devil.
And More replies, absolutely not. ``When the last law was down, and
the Devil turned 'round on you, where you hide, the laws all being
flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast--
Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down . . . do you really
think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?''
Maybe we could find excuses for every one of this president's abuses
of power: ``It was just a little overreach.'' ``You just have to give a
little.''
But if you do that day after day, week after week, month after month,
year after year, all of a sudden you look up to find that all of the
laws have been cut down, that there is nothing to protect us from the
winds. Before that day comes, Mr. President, we must draw a line. I am
here today to draw it.
So I will do everything I can to see to it that this bill does not go
forward. Unless retroactive immunity is struck, I will resist this bill
with all the tools available to me as one Member of this body. We can
do better than this.
This goes beyond ideology--or at least it should. We all care about
the security of our country; the FISA law protects that security, and
it protects our privacy at the same time, from those who would
overreach.
We have struggled to strike that balance throughout our history.
Today, it is more important than ever that we stand firm in our
determination not to give up or erode these very rights that are
critical for our security.
The idea that we can become more secure by giving up rights is
fundamentally flawed. It needs to be addressed on every possible
occasion. It is a dangerous notion. It is a totally false dichotomy. It
needs to be defeated as an idea.
When we insist upon our rights, we only grow stronger. We know it can
be done. For 30 years now, this law has worked well. It needs to be
modernized, clearly, to protect us against those who also have access
to modern techniques to do us great harm and injury. But this is not a
battle between those who want to keep us secure and those who want to
keep our rights. It is a battle about whether we understand that we are
more secure precisely when we protect these rights.
A year ago, when the Military Commissions Act came up for a vote, I
felt very strongly about it. I spoke against it. I voted against it.
The idea of walking away from habeas corpus, the idea of allowing
torture, the idea of walking away from the Geneva Conventions--I
regretted deeply then that I didn't do what I am prepared to do today,
and that is to vigorously fight against that legislation.
I think most of us today recognize what a great mistake that was, to
give away those rights. I think most of us recognize how it hurt our
country. I am determined not to let that happen again. As long as it
takes, I will stand here and insist that we need to strip immunity out
of this bill.
I am prepared to listen to ideas about putting caps on liability, to
prevent the telecom companies from paying outrageous fees. But if we
grant this immunity, we will never know whether their actions were
right or wrong.
Then why not your medical records the next time? Why not your
financial records? What is the difference? If I can reach in and listen
to your phone conversation, why not grant immunity to someone who would
like to know your medical records or financial records? Why not grant
immunity to companies that would turn over those documents? Where do
you stop? Where do you put your foot down and say, ``That is not
right''?
Today it is the phone records. Today it is the phone conversations.
It is e-mail traffic--without a warrant. So why not the next step? If
we don't put our foot down and stand up, we will be faced with the
argument that we have already granted it. We established the precedent;
75 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, agreed we ought to provide that
immunity. That argument will be heard, as it has been heard on the
Military Commissions Act.
I respect immensely the work of the people who spent a lot of time on
these issues. But this is a critical moment. They don't happen every
day; but this is an important one. This goes right to the heart of who
we are. This is not about selling our souls. It is about giving them
away, if we don't stand up for these rights.
So I look forward to continuing debate and discussion on this vital
issue.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened very closely to the remarks
of my dear friend from Connecticut. I have a lot of respect for him.
However, it was an easy thing for 13 members of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence to vote to grant retroactive immunity to
companies that patriotically adhered to legal letters to provide the
means whereby we might be able to protect citizens in this country and
perhaps all over the world.
Because of that work, we have been able to protect this country in
ways that most people will never know because this area is one of the
areas that we don't talk about. It is, this whole area, highly
classified. We can talk about the law here.
Close inspection of the lawsuits against the telecoms reveals dubious
claims. The plaintiffs have confused speculation for established facts.
This is dangerous and the continuation of these lawsuits could lead to
serious consequences for our national security.
It is very simple--Congress should not condone oversight through
litigation.
A quick scan of what plaintiffs seek in many of these cases should
send a chill down our spine. They are not, as many are suggesting,
simply saying:
[[Page 34573]]
``You went along with the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program,
now give us money.'' Rather, the lawsuits seize on the President's
brief comments about the existence of a limited program to go on a
fishing expedition of NSA activities. But this is really worse than a
fishing expedition; this is draining the Loch Ness to find a monster.
Sometimes what you are looking for just doesn't exist.
The lawsuits represent irrational fears of Government conspiracy, and
seek to expose classified information, regardless of who is harmed in
the process.
We all realize that the sources and methods our intelligence
community utilizes to conduct surveillance are highly classified. The
risks that classified details could be revealed through these lawsuits
are severe. Remember, the very point of these lawsuits is to prove
plaintiffs' claims by disclosing classified information.
Our enemies have tough decisions to make regarding how they
communicate. They can't stay silent forever, and they have to weigh the
need to communicate against the chance that their communications are
intercepted. Given this, they are carefully watching us and reading
every proceeding to see how our government collects information. If
they think they see a weakness in our collection capabilities, they
will certainly try and take advantage of it.
Given the legitimate problems that these lawsuits pose, the Senate
Intelligence Committee adopted a bill which will alleviate them. The
committee worked in a bipartisan manner to craft an immunity provision
that met the needs of Congress, the Government, and the American
people.
In an overwhelmingly bipartisan tally, the committee voted to include
retroactive immunity for service providers that were alleged to have
cooperated with the intelligence community following 9/11. Senators
from both sides of the aisle, after careful consideration, came to this
conclusion. Make no mistake, this was the right conclusion.
It was the right conclusion for the Intelligence Committee, and it
should be the right conclusion for the full Senate today.
Our Senate Intelligence Committee has already noted that the
intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without
the assistance of these companies. It goes without saying, companies in
the future will certainly be less willing to assist the Government if
they face the threat of extremely costly lawsuits each time they are
alleged to have provided assistance.
The companies will shy away. Their attorneys will scour future
Government requests, feverishly looking for any technicality to avoid
compliance. And even if these private attorneys approve future
participation, the company will have to listen to cautious
stockholders, whose financial interests will undoubtedly make them
adamantly opposed to situations which could lead to any financial risk
or exposure.
But let's be clear: The telecoms are not threatening anyone. They are
not saying ``do this, or we will never help you again.'' But, they
don't need to say these things for us to understand the obvious. If the
financial foundations of these companies crumble due to frivolous
litigation, they will rebuild it to withstand future Government
requests that may again lead to their collapse.
Now some have asked a valid question: If the companies did not break
the law, why do they need immunity? Quite simply, the Government's
assertion of the state secrets privilege prevents these companies from
defending themselves.
This assertion by the Government is absolutely essential, as the
possible disclosure of classified materials from ongoing court
proceedings is a grave threat to national security. Simply put, you
don't tell your enemies how you track them. This is why the NSA and
other Government agencies won't say what they do, how they do it, or
who they watch. Nor should they! To confirm or deny any of these
activities, which are at the heart of the civil lawsuits, would harm
national security. We should not discuss what our capabilities are.
Given the necessity for the state secrets privilege, the drawback is
that the companies being sued are forbidden from making their case. In
fact, the companies cannot even confirm or deny any involvement in the
program whatsoever. They have no ability to defend themselves, and that
is after patriotically doing what has to be done to protect each and
every citizen in this country.
Ordinarily, these companies would be able to address allegations and
make their case. However, the classified nature of the topic means the
companies are not free to do so. They cannot even have discussions with
shareholders or business partners.
But we need to remember, lawful silence does not equate to guilt.
There is no guilt here. These are companies that cooperated with the
Federal Government in helping us track terrorists to protect our
citizens.
The identities of any company that assisted the Government following
the attacks of September 11 are highly classified. While there have
been numerous allegations, they are nothing more than accusations. If
the identities of these companies are revealed and officially confirmed
through litigation, they will face irreversible harm: harm in their
business relations with foreign governments and companies and possible
harm to their employees both here and abroad, who are truly soft
targets for terrorist attacks.
My admiration and respect for the companies that did their part to
defend Americans is well known. As I have said in the past, any company
that assisted us following the attacks of 9/11 deserves a round of
applause and a helping hand, not a slap in the face and a kick to the
gut.
When companies are asked to assist the intelligence community based
on a program authorized by the President and based on assurances from
the highest levels of Government that the program has been determined
to be lawful and necessary, they should be able to rely on those
representations. For those who argue we need a compromise, let me be
clear: We already have a compromise. The Government certainly wanted
more than what is represented in this Intelligence Committee bill. And
they did not get all they wanted. I think they should have. The
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated the
following in the Intelligence Committee report:
This immunity provision is not the broad and vague immunity
sought by the administration. The committee did not endorse
the immunity provision lightly. It was the informed judgment
of the Committee after months in which we carefully reviewed
the facts in this matter. The Committee reached the
conclusion that the immunity remedy was appropriate in this
case after holding numerous hearings and briefings on the
subject and conducting a thorough examination of the letters
sent by the U.S. Government to the telecommunications
companies.
That is after numerous top-secret Intelligence Committee hearings.
The immunity provisions in this bill are limited in scope. Not everyone
will be happy with them, and that is the whole point. I, for one,
wanted to see more protections for companies and Government officials
in this bill. But I am willing to accept a compromise. My colleagues
should be willing to do the same.
We are not all getting what we want. We are getting what the public
needs for its protection. I will continue to oppose any efforts to
weaken the Rockefeller-Bond immunity provision.
For nearly 2 months, Congress and the public have had the ability to
review the immunity provisions in this bill. Today we are hearing a
great deal about how the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees handled
the immunity provision. So let's look at how they voted.
The Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment to strip immunity
from the bill, 12 to 3, and the committee voted to favorably report the
bill, including the immunity provision, 13 to 2.
In addition, the Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment to strike
the immunity provision from the bill, 12 to 7. What do all those votes
have in common? They supported immunity and
[[Page 34574]]
they were bipartisan. How many times are we going to hear about
alternatives to S. 2248 which simply do not address the problem? How
many trial balloons are going to be released? The first alternative we
heard was the Government should indemnify the companies following
possible adverse rulings in the cases.
There are myriad reasons why this option was lacking. The idea of
indemnification apparently was not well received, as we now hear very
little discussion of it. So let us call indemnification the first trial
balloon to pop.
The next alternative we heard was the Government should be
substituted in place of the companies being sued. But this alternative
was full of problems, given that there is no way to remove the
companies from the litigation. Remember, it is their very conduct that
is in question. In order to try to prove their claims, plaintiffs will
continue to seek discovery, including: document requests, depositions,
interrogatories, technical data, trade secrets, proprietary company
information and confidential, secret and highly classified information
and the list goes on and on.
Obviously, the companies would still face many burdens of litigation,
even though they are not parties because the Government is substituted
for them.
This idea has also been skeptically viewed and the Judiciary
Committee on Thursday rejected an idea in a resounding 13 to 5
bipartisan vote. So let's call Government substitution the second trial
balloon to pop.
Now we are hearing another alternative which would dramatically
expand the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
and utilizes ambiguous terms such as ``objectively reasonable belief.''
The FISA Court was not created to review classified programs or the
conduct of private companies. This new proposed alternative would
completely revise the mission of the FISA Court, putting them in a role
they have not had in their nearly 30 years of existence. This judicial
expansion should be the third trial balloon to pop.
How long are we going to entertain inadequate alternatives and
appease fringe political groups? Is it not time that we embrace the
bipartisan compromise that puts the interest and safety of Americans
over political interests? How long will it take? Are we willing to take
that stand?
Let me also take a few minutes to unequivocally state my opposition
to the Judiciary substitute. One of the basic requirements of any FISA
modernization proposal is we should not have any provisions which could
be interpreted as requiring warrants to target foreign terrorists
overseas.
Quite simply, foreign terrorists living overseas should never receive
protections provided by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. The
Constitution never contemplated that. One of the controversial
provisions added in the Judiciary Committee relates to ``reverse
targeting.'' Reverse targeting is the practice of targeting a foreign
person when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, thus
circumventing the need to get a warrant for the U.S. person.
Reverse targeting has always been unlawful, in order to protect the
communications of U.S. persons. Now, contrary to what most people
believe, the legal definition of ``U.S. person,'' is not limited to
U.S. citizens. See this chart: What is a U.S. person?
An ``alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,'' a
``corporation which is incorporated in the United States.''
Now, that is according to 50 U.S.C. 1801. The U.S. person definition
includes aliens lawfully admitted, legal residence, legal permanent
residence. A U.S. person is also defined as a business incorporated
within the United States.
From an intelligence-gathering standpoint, reverse targeting makes no
sense. From an efficiency standpoint, if the Government was interested
in targeting an American, it would apply for a warrant to listen to all
the American's conversations, not just his conversations with a
terrorist overseas.
But let's not let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Even though reverse targeting is already considered unlawful, a
provision is included in the Intelligence bill which makes it explicit.
This provision is clearly written and universally supported. However,
the Judiciary Committee passed an amendment by a 10-to-9 partisan
party-line vote which altered the clear language of that provision.
Now, where before the provision said you cannot target a foreign
person if the purpose is to target a U.S. person, the new language adds
the ambiguous term ``significant purpose.''
Now, words have meaning and in this context have very serious
meaning. If this amendment becomes law, an analyst would now have to
ask himself this question when targeting a terrorist overseas: Is a
``significant purpose'' of why I am targeting this foreign terrorist
overseas the fact that the terrorist may call an airline in America to
make flight reservations or a terrorist with a green card living in the
USA?
If the answer is yes, then the language in this amendment would
require the analyst to get a warrant to listen to that foreign
terrorist overseas.
Now, if there is one thing we can all agree on, it is we should
never, ever need a warrant to listen to a foreign terrorist overseas.
The ambiguous and unnecessary text of this amendment should not be left
up to judicial interpretation. Enactment of this amendment could lead
to our analysts seeking warrants when targeting any foreign terrorists,
since the analyst may be afraid he or she is otherwise breaking our new
law.
Now, remember, the Intelligence Committee spent months working on a
bipartisan compromise bill. This amendment I have been talking about
was not in the Intelligence bill. So people should assume the Judiciary
Committee spent a great deal of time debating this amendment, right?
Wrong. The Judiciary Committee spent 7 minutes debating this amendment
before it was adopted, again, on a 10-to-9 partisan vote, party-line
vote.
Let me repeat that. Seven minutes on something that is this
important. The Intelligence Committee spent months coming up with a
compromise that the leaders of the intelligence community say is the
minimum--minimum--they need to have.
We are enacting national security legislation, and it is our
responsibility to ensure this bill does not lead to unintended
consequences which provide protections to terrorists. This provision is
one example of an amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee which
could and probably would, if it were enacted, harm national security.
It also serves as yet another reason why we should not support the
Judiciary substitute or any aspect of it.
I am a member of both committees. In fact, I believe I am probably
the longest serving member on the Intelligence Committee. The Judiciary
bill includes provisions that could weaken national security. Why are
we thinking of handcuffing ourselves? We should not blindfold our
intelligence agencies, spin them around to disorient them, and then
send them out to find terrorists. We are not playing pin the tail on
the donkey. We are legislating on national security, and the stakes are
too high to allow legal loopholes in the Judiciary substitute to go
forward.
Now, I am not alone in this view, as the Executive Office of the
President today released a statement of administration policy which
stated:
If the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment is part of
the bill that is presented to the President, the Director of
National Intelligence, the Attorney General of the United
States, and the President's other senior advisers will
recommend that he veto this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 34575]]
Statement of Administration Policy
S. 2248--To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to
modernize and streamline the provisions of that act and for other
purposes
Protection of the American people and American interests at
home and abroad requires access to timely, accurate, and
insightful intelligence on the capabilities, intentions, and
activities of foreign powers, including terrorists. The
Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA), which amended the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) this past
August, has greatly improved the Intelligence Community's
ability to protect the Nation from terrorist attacks and
other national security threats. The PAA has allowed us to
close intelligence gaps, and it has enabled our intelligence
professionals to collect foreign intelligence information
from targets overseas more efficiently and effectively. The
Intelligence Community has implemented the PAA under a robust
oversight regime that has protected the civil liberties and
privacy rights of Americans. Unfortunately, the benefits
conferred by the PAA are only temporary because the act
sunsets on February 1, 2008.
The Director of National Intelligence has frequently
discussed what the Intelligence Community needs in permanent
FISA legislation, including two key principles. First,
judicial authorization should not be required to gather
foreign intelligence from targets located in foreign
countries. Second, the law must provide liability protection
for the private sector.
The Senate is considering two bills to extend the core
authorities provided by the PAA and modernize FISA. In
October, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)
passed a consensus, bipartisan bill (S. 2248) that would
establish a sound foundation for our Intelligence Community's
efforts to target terrorists and other foreign intelligence
targets located overseas. Although the bill is not perfect
and its flaws must be addressed, it nevertheless represents a
bipartisan compromise that will ensure that the Intelligence
Community retains the authorities it needs to protect the
Nation. Indeed, the SSCI bill is an improvement over the PAA
in one essential way-it would provide retroactive liability
protection to electronic communication service providers that
are alleged to have assisted the Government with intelligence
activities in the aftermath of September 11th.
In sharp contrast to the SSCI's bipartisan approach to
modernizing FISA, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported an
amendment to the SSCI bill that would have devastating
consequences to the Intelligence Community's ability to
detect and prevent terrorist attacks and to protect the
Nation from other national security threats. The Judiciary
Committee proposal would degrade our foreign intelligence
collection capabilities. The Judiciary Committee's amendment
would impose unacceptable and potentially crippling burdens
on the collection of foreign intelligence information by
expanding FISA to restrict facets of foreign intelligence
collection never intended to be covered under the statute.
Furthermore, the Judiciary Committee amendment altogether
fails to address the critical issue of liability protection.
Accordingly, if the Judiciary Committee's substitute
amendment is part of a bill that is presented to the
President the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney
General, and the President's other senior advisors will
recommend that he veto the bill.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence bill
Building on the authorities and oversight protections
included in the PAA, the SSCI drafted S. 2248 to provide a
sound legal framework for essential foreign intelligence
collection in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
As in the PAA, S. 2248 permits the targeting of foreign
terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets outside the
United States based upon the approval of the Director of
National Intelligence and the Attorney General.
The SSCI drafted its bill in extensive coordination with
Intelligence Community and national security professionals--
those who are most familiar with the needs of the
Intelligence Community and the complexities of our
intelligence laws. The SSCI also heard testimony from privacy
experts in order to craft a balanced approach. As a result,
the SSCI bill recognizes the importance of clarity in laws
governing intelligence operations. Although the
Administration would strongly prefer that the provisions of
the PAA be made permanent without modification, the
Administration engaged in extensive consultation in the
interest of achieving permanent legislation in a bipartisan
manner.
The SSCI bill is not perfect, however. Indeed, certain
provisions represent a major modification of the PAA and will
create additional burdens for the Intelligence Community,
including by dramatically expanding the role of the FISA
Court in reviewing foreign intelligence operations targeted
at persons located outside the United States, a role never
envisioned when Congress created the FISA court.
In particular, the SSCI bill contains two provisions that
must be modified in order to avoid significant negative
impacts on intelligence operations. Both of these provisions
are also included in the Judiciary Committee substitute,
detailed further below.
First, as part of the debate over FISA modernization,
concerns have been raised regarding acquiring information
from U.S. persons outside the United States. Accordingly, the
SSCI bill provides for FISA Court approval of surveillance of
U.S. persons abroad. The Administration opposes this
provision. Under executive orders in place since before the
enactment of FISA in 1978, Attorney General approval is
required before foreign intelligence surveillance and
searches may be conducted against a U.S. person abroad under
circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy. More specifically, section 2.5 of Executive Order
12333 requires that the Attorney General find probable cause
that the U.S. person target is a foreign power or an agent of
a foreign power. S. 2248 dramatically increases the role of
the FISA Court by requiring court approval of this probable
cause determination before an intelligence operation may be
conducted beyond the borders of the United States. This
provision imposes burdens on foreign intelligence collection
abroad that frequently do not exist even with respect to
searches and surveillance abroad for law enforcement
purposes. Were the Administration to consider accepting FISA
Court approval for foreign intelligence searches and
surveillance of U.S. persons overseas, technical corrections
would be necessary. The Administration appreciates the
efforts that have been made by Congress to address these
issues, but notes that while it may be willing to accept that
the FISA Court, rather than the Attorney General, must make
the required findings, limitations on the scope of the
collection currently allowed are unacceptable.
Second, the Senate Intelligence Committee bill contains a
requirement that intelligence analysts count ``the number of
persons located in the United States whose communications
were reviewed.'' This provision would likely be impossible to
implement. It places potentially insurmountable burdens on
intelligence professionals without meaningfully protecting
the privacy of Americans, and takes scarce analytic resources
away from protecting our country. The Intelligence Community
has provided Congress with a detailed classified explanation
of this problem.
Although the Administration believes that the PAA achieved
foreign intelligence objectives with reasonable and robust
oversight protections, S. 2248, as drafted by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, provides a workable alternative and
improves on the PAA in one critical respect by providing
retroactive liability protection. The Senate Intelligence
Committee bill would achieve an effective legislative result
by returning FISA to its appropriate focus on the protection
of privacy interests of persons inside the United States,
while retaining our improved capability under PAA to collect
timely foreign intelligence information needed to protect the
Nation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee proposal
The Senate Judiciary Committee amendment contains a number
of provisions that would have a devastating impact on our
foreign intelligence operations.
Among the provisions of greatest concern are:
An Overbroad Exclusive Means Provision That Threatens
Worldwide Foreign Intelligence Operations. Consistent with
current law, the exclusive means provision in the SSCI's bill
addresses only ``electronic surveillance'' and ``the
interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic
communications.'' But the exclusive means provision in the
Judiciary Committee substitute goes much further and would
dramatically expand the scope of activities covered by that
provision. The Judiciary Committee substitute makes FISA the
exclusive means for acquiring ``communications information''
for foreign intelligence purposes. The term ``communications
information'' is not defined and potentially covers a vast
array of information--and effectively bars the acquisition of
much of this information that is currently authorized under
other statues such as the National Security Act of 1947, as
amended. It is unprecedented to require specific statutory
authorization for every activity undertaken worldwide by the
Intelligence Community. In addition, the exclusivity
provision in the Judiciary Committee substitute ignores
FISA's complexity and its interrelationship with other
federal laws and, as a result, could operate to preclude the
Intelligence Community from using current tools and
authorities, or preclude Congress from acting quickly to give
the Intelligence Community the tools it may need in the
aftermath of a terrorist attack in the United States or in
response to a grave threat to the national security. In
short, the Judiciary Committee's exclusive means provision
would radically reshape the intelligence collection framework
and is unacceptable.
Limits on Foreign Intelligence Collection. The Judiciary
Committee substitute would require the Attorney General and
the Director of National Intelligence to certify for certain
acquisitions that they are ``limited to communications to
which at least one party is a specific individual target who
is reasonably believed to be located outside the
[[Page 34576]]
United States.'' This provision is unacceptable because it
could hamper U.S. intelligence operations that are currently
authorized to be conducted overseas and that could be
conducted more effectively from the United States without
harming U.S. privacy rights.
Significant Purpose Requirement. The Judiciary Committee
substitute would require a FISA court order if a
``significant purpose'' of an acquisition targeting a person
abroad is to acquire the communications of a specific person
reasonably believed to be in the United States. If the
concern driving this proposal is so-called ``reverse
targeting''--circumstances in which the Government would
conduct surveillance of a person overseas when the
Government's actual target is a person in the United States
with whom the person overseas is communicating--that
situation is already addressed in FISA today: If the person
in the United States is the target, a significant purpose of
the acquisition must be to collect foreign intelligence
information, and an order from the FISA court is required.
Indeed, the SSCI bill codifies this longstanding Executive
Branch interpretation of FISA. The Judiciary Committee
substitute would place an unnecessary and debilitating burden
on our Intelligence Community's ability to conduct
surveillance without enhancing the protection of the privacy
of Americans.
Part of the value of the PAA, and any subsequent
legislation, is to enable the Intelligence Community to
collect expeditiously the communications of terrorists in
foreign countries who may contact an associate in the United
States. The Intelligence Community was heavily criticized by
numerous reviews after September 11, including by the
Congressional Joint Inquiry into September 11, regarding its
insufficient attention to detecting communications indicating
homeland attack plotting. To quote the Congressional Joint
Inquiry: ``The Joint Inquiry has learned that one of the
future hijackers communicated with a known terrorist facility
in the Middle East while he was living in the United States.
The Intelligence Community did not identify the domestic
origin of those communications prior to September 11, 2001 so
that additional FBI investigative efforts could be
coordinated. Despite this country's substantial advantages,
there was insufficient focus on what many would have thought
was among the most critically important kinds of terrorist-
related communications, at least in terms of protecting the
Homeland.'' (S. Rept. No. 107-351, H. Rept. No. 107-792 at
36.) To be clear, a ``significant purpose'' of Intelligence
Community activities is to detect communications that may
provide warning of homeland attacks and that may include
communication between a terrorist overseas who places a call
to associates in the United States. A provision that bars the
Intelligence Community from collecting these communications
is unacceptable, as Congress has stated previously.
Liability Protection. In contrast to the Senate
Intelligence Committee bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee
substitute would not protect electronic communication service
providers who are alleged to have assisted the Government
with communications intelligence activities in the aftermath
of September 11th from potentially debilitating lawsuits.
Providing liability protection to these companies is a just
result. In its Conference Report, the Senate Intelligence
Committee ``concluded that the providers . . . had a good
faith basis for responding to the requests for assistance
they received.'' The Committee further recognized that ``the
Intelligence Community cannot obtain the intelligence it
needs without assistance from these companies.'' Companies in
the future may be less willing to assist the Government if
they face the threat of private lawsuits each time they are
alleged to have provided assistance. The Senate Intelligence
Committee concluded that: ``The possible reduction in
intelligence that might result from this delay is simply
unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'' Allowing
continued litigation also risks the disclosure of highly
classified information regarding intelligence sources and
methods. In addition to providing an advantage to our
adversaries by revealing sources and methods during the
course of litigation, the potential disclosure of classified
information puts both the facilities and personnel of
electronic communication service providers and our country's
continued ability to protect our homeland at risk. It is
imperative that Congress provide liability protection to
those who cooperated with this country in its hour of need.
The ramifications of the Judiciary Committee's decision to
afford no relief to private parties that cooperated in good
faith with the U.S. Government in the immediate aftermath of
the attacks of September 11 could extend well beyond the
particular issues and activities that have been of primary
interest and concern to the Committee. The Intelligence
Community, as well as law enforcement and homeland security
agencies, continue to rely on the voluntary cooperation and
assistance of private parties. A decision by the Senate to
abandon those who may have provided assistance after
September 11 will invariably be noted by those who may
someday be called upon again to help the Nation.
Mandates an Unnecessary Review of Historical Programs. The
Judiciary Committee substitute would require that inspectors
general of the Department of Justice and relevant
Intelligence Community agencies audit the Terrorist
Surveillance Program and ``any closely related intelligence
activities.'' If this ``audit'' is intended to look at
operational activities, there has been an ongoing oversight
activity by the Inspector General of the National Security
Agency (NSA) of operational activities and the Senate
Intelligence Committee has that material. Mandating a new and
undefined ``audit'' will divert significant operational
resources from current issues to redoing past audits. The
Administration understands, however, the ``audit'' may in
fact not be related to technical NSA operations. If it is the
case that in fact the Judiciary Committee is interested in
historical reviews of legal issues, the provision is
unnecessary. The Department of Justice Inspector General and
the Office of Professional Responsibility are already doing a
comprehensive review. In addition, the phrase ``closely
related intelligence activities'' would introduce substantial
ambiguities in the scope of this review. Finally, this
provision would require the inspectors general to acquire
``all documents relevant to such programs'' and submit those
documents with its report to the congressional intelligence
and judiciary committees. The requirement to collect and
disseminate this wide range of highly classified documents--
including all those ``relevant'' to activities ``closely
related'' to the Terrorist Surveillance Program--
unnecessarily risks the disclosure of extremely sensitive
information about our intelligence activities, as does the
audit requirement itself. Taking such national security risks
for a backwards-looking purpose is unacceptable.
Allows for Dangerous Intelligence Gaps During the Pendency
of an Appeal. The Judiciary Committee substitute would delete
an important provision in the SSCI bill that enables the
Intelligence Community to collect foreign intelligence from
overseas terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets
during an appeal. Without that provision, we could lose vital
intelligence necessary to protect the Nation because of the
views of one judge.
Limits Dissemination of Foreign Intelligence Information.
The Judiciary Committee substitute would impose significant
new restrictions on the use of foreign intelligence
information, including information not concerning United
States persons, obtained or derived from acquisitions using
targeting procedures that the FISA Court later found to be
unsatisfactory for any reason. By requiring analysts to go
back to the databases and pull out certain information, as
well as to determine what other information is derived from
that information, this requirement would place a difficult,
and perhaps insurmountable, burden on the Intelligence
Community. Moreover, this provision would degrade privacy
protections, as it would require analysts to locate and
examine U.S. person information that would otherwise not be
reviewed.
Requires FISA Court Approval of All ``Targeting'' for
Foreign Intelligence Purposes. The Judiciary Committee
substitute potentially requires the FISA Court to approve
``[a]ny targeting of persons reasonably believed to be
located outside the United States.'' Although we assume that
the Committee did not intend to require these procedures to
govern all ``targeting'' done of any person in the world for
any purpose--whether it is to gather human intelligence,
communications intelligence, or for other reasons--the text
as passed by the Committee contains no limitation. Such a
requirement would bring within the FISA Court a vast range of
overseas intelligence activities with little or no connection
to civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans.
Imposes Court Review of Compliance with Minimization
Procedures. The Judiciary Committee substitute would require
the FISA Court to review and assess compliance with
minimization procedures. Together with provisions discussed
above, this would constitute a massive expansion of the
Court's role in overseeing the Intelligence Community's
implementation of foreign intelligence collection abroad.
Amends FISA to Impose Burdensome Document Production
Requirements. The Judiciary Committee substitute would amend
FISA to require the Government to submit to oversight
committees a copy of any decision, order, or opinion issued
by the FISA Court or the FISA Court of Review that includes
significant construction or interpretation of any provision
of FISA, including any pleadings associated with those
documents, no later than 45 days after the document is
issued. The Judiciary Committee substitute also would require
the Government to retrieve historical documents of this
nature from the last 5 years. As drafted, this provision
could impose significant burdens on Department of Justice
staff assigned to support national security operational and
oversight missions.
Includes an Even Shorter Sunset Provision Than That
Contained in the SSCI Bill. The Judiciary Committee
substitute and the SSCI bill share the same flaw of failing
to achieve permanent FISA reform. The Judiciary Committee
substitute worsens this flaw, however, by shortening the
sunset provision
[[Page 34577]]
in the SSCI bill from 6 years to 4 years. Any sunset
provision, but particularly one as short as contemplated in
the Judiciary Committee substitute, would adversely impact
the Intelligence Community's ability to conduct its mission
efficiently and effectively by introducing uncertainty and
requiring re-training of all intelligence professionals on
new policies and procedures implementing ever-changing
authorities. Moreover, over the past year, in the interest of
providing an extensive legislative record and allowing public
discussion on this issue, the Intelligence Community has
discussed in open settings extraordinary information dealing
with intelligence operations. To repeat this process in
several years will unnecessarily highlight our intelligence
sources and methods to our adversaries. There is now a
lengthy factual record on the need for this legislation, and
it is time to provide the Intelligence Community the
permanent stability it needs.
Fails to Provide Procedures for Implementing Existing
Statutory Defenses. The Judiciary Committee substitute fails
to include the important provisions in the SSCI bill that
would establish procedures for implementing existing
statutory defenses and that would preempt state
investigations of assistance allegedly provided by an
electronic communication service provider to an element of
the Intelligence Community. These provisions are important to
ensure that electronic communication service providers can
take full advantage of existing liability protection and to
protect highly classified information.
Fails to Address Transition Procedures. Unlike the SSCI
bill, the Judiciary Committee bill contains no procedures
designed to ensure a smooth transition from the PAA to new
legislation, and for a potential transition resulting from an
expiration of the new legislation. This omission could result
in uncertainty regarding the continuing validity of
authorizations and directives under the Protect America Act
that are in effect on the date of enactment of this
legislation.
Fails to Include a Severability Provision. The Judiciary
Committee substitute, unlike the SSCI bill, lacks a
severability provision. Such a provision should be included
in the bill.
The Administration is prepared to continue to work with
Congress towards the passage of a permanent FISA
modernization bill that would strengthen the Nation's
intelligence capabilities while protecting the constitutional
rights of Americans, so that the President can sign such a
bill into law. The Senate Intelligence Committee bill
provides a solid foundation to meet the needs of our
Intelligence Community, but the Senate Judiciary Committee
bill represents a major step backwards from the PAA and would
compromise our Intelligence Community's ability to protect
the Nation. The Administration calls on Congress to forge
ahead and pass legislation that will protect our national
security, not weaken it in critical ways.
Mr. HATCH. To my distinguished colleagues, I urge you to support the
bipartisan Rockefeller-Bond compromise bill, one that has been superbly
debated within the Intelligence Committee and has been carefully
thought out.
It provides protections to civil liberties and ensures that
technological changes do not outpace our laws.
I wanted to personally pay tribute to the distinguished Chairman of
the Intelligence Committee and the distinguished Vice Chairman. They
know what they accomplished in the Intelligence Committee was very
important, and it should be followed by us on the floor.
We cannot even begin to talk about some classified issues on this
floor. We cannot even begin to talk about the dangers that will come
from going beyond that bill that passed 13 to 2 in the Senate
Intelligence Committee. I refuse to place our country at risk. I refuse
to do anything that would make our country be at risk. I suggest to you
that if we follow the Judiciary Committee bill, I think we would be
doing exactly that.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the bill and
ask for approximately 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have a great country. Here we are, we
are debating essentially what is going to be the Federal statute on
electronic surveillance on the American people and on those who might
have predatory intent toward us.
We are doing it in an open, public session, with the world to watch
on C-SPAN and talking about what are the right parameters to be able to
protect the American people and yet protect the American Constitution.
I think this shows the strength of our democracy and also calls upon
us, as we deliberate, to come up with the widest and most prudent
choice. For those who are following this debate, I would encourage them
to turn to the report that has been put out by the committee, called
the Foreign--note it said ``Foreign''--Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, the amendments of 2007 to the act of 1978.
This report will go into detail about the deliberations of the
committee, the amendments that were offered, the debate we had, and
additional views offered by colleagues. I commend it to their attention
because it goes through the background in more detail. We are talking
about law, which can be quite technical, but we are also talking about
the consequences of the law which are quite important.
I sit on the Intelligence Committee. In that job, I have two
responsibilities: No. 1, to protect the American people and, No. 2, to
protect the Constitution of the United States. Implicit in that is the
right of privacy and explicit in that is their civil liberties. The
Intelligence Committee's job was to modernize FISA in a way that would
do both--protect the American people against predatory attacks and yet
at the same time protect their constitutional rights, explicit and
implicit. What this legislation does is gives our intelligence
community the tools it needs to prevent, disrupt, detect, and derail
terrorist plots while at the same time safeguarding the rights of
American citizens.
The FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was created
in 1978. Since then, technology has changed with great speed and
sophistication. I have at my home in Baltimore a rotary phone. I bought
it in 1977, when I remodeled my home in Fells Point. My nieces and
nephews are regaled with laughter when they say: Oh, Aunt Barb, how
'70s. But when we look at the rotary phones and a blackberry was
something you ate with cereal, look how far we have come since 1978.
Technology has changed with speed and will continue to change with ever
increasing sophistication. At the same time we are facing constantly
emerging, radical, and treacherous threats that demand a new reform of
the FISA law. Yet while technology and the nature of the threats have
changed, we have to be very clear that our democratic values and the
Constitution have not. It is an imperative that this Congress uphold
both, our Constitution and our democratic values.
I believe our Intel Committee bill will do exactly that. It will make
America safer. It does this by giving the U.S. intelligence
professionals the tools they need to safeguard and protect against
predatory attacks. Six years ago, after September 11, terrorists
remained--and continue to remain--on the hunt for U.S. vulnerabilities.
They use now disposable phone cards, laptop computers, and different e-
mail addresses. They are always on the run, and they are always probing
to find our vulnerabilities. The old FISA law made it impossible for
the U.S. intel community to engage in any kind of realistic techno hot
pursuit, unless we change the law. This bill enables intel
professionals to keep pace with those who have this predatory intent.
They have to be able to monitor terrorists overseas with speed and
flexibility.
This reform legislation empowers the intel community to detect,
disrupt, and prevent terrorist attacks. It does it, though, in a way
that protects the constitutional rights of American citizens, both in
the United States and when they travel overseas.
This bill protects their privacy in two important ways. First, it
strengthens the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The Intel Committee requires a FISA court to approve a warrant in order
for a U.S. person to be monitored in the United States. Let me repeat
that. If a U.S. person is at home in the United States, not only their
home address but on the physical territory of the United States, any
surveillance of them requires a warrant that is approved by the FISA
[[Page 34578]]
Court. This means the FISA Court determines whether the surveillance is
legal and necessary. The FISA Court must also judge the procedures
used. The FISA Court, also looking at terrorists, takes a look at the
procedures used to target them to be sure there is no reverse targeting
of U.S. citizens.
Second, this bill protects the privacy rights of all Americans,
whether or not they are in the United States. One can ask: What about
those U.S. citizens who are traveling overseas or who are actually
living overseas? What about people who are students? What about those
conducting business? What about those on the cruise of a lifetime? Our
good colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, offered a terrific amendment
which said: Your privacy rights as an American don't stop when you
leave the borders of the United States. I am giving plain English. I am
using Barbara Mikulski language rather than committee language. In a
nutshell, the Wyden amendment requires the FISA Court to approve any
targeting of Americans overseas. The FISA Court approval is required in
order to do this. It means your constitutional rights are based on your
citizenship, not your geographic location. It is your right as a
citizen that gives you the right of constitutional protections, not
what ZIP Code or area code you are in at any given time. The
Constitution travels with you wherever you go. This is absolutely
important. I believe the Wyden amendment sets out very clear language
about this.
Let's talk about the immunity for the telecommunications industry.
Ordinarily I am skeptical of any giveaway to these corporations,
whether tax breaks or whatever. But this is one I do support. I
understand there are a lot of concerns about that, and they have been
raised by my colleagues in a very eloquent way. But let's examine what
the telecom community was asked to do, what legal assurances they were
given and by whom, and the context in which they acted. Think about
where we were on September 11. There had been an attack on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. The people of Flight 93 had given their
lives in the most gallant kind of way, ostensibly to protect us against
a plane that was heading to the Capitol. All of us will tell you where
we were that day. Quite frankly, I was in a meeting with Senator
Daschle when the Pentagon was hit. Sixty Marylanders died, and I
thought I might die that day. I think there were a lot of other people
here who worried about that as well. We got through that day, and we
stood on the Capitol steps and linked arms and said: God bless America.
But we were filled with fear and apprehension. We were concerned that
other attacks were being planned, that another attack might even be
imminent. We were worried about the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Golden
Gate bridge, about getting on planes, about getting on trains, about
riding subways. We were even worried about going to football games.
I remember on the eve of the Army-Navy game, wondering what would
that mean with the best and brightest of our leadership, would even the
Army-Navy game be attacked? The U.S. Capitol at that same time was hit
by an anthrax attack. Don't you remember the wonderful day when they
sealed the Hart Building, when I was told that my office was a crime
scene and a public health incident? My chief of staff, who was a new
nursing mother, was filled with fear that she might have anthrax. I
remember taking that little swab with the Navy medic who shook my hand
and said: Good luck. Good luck? I wanted Cipro. I didn't want good
luck. We were scared to death. People were snapping up gas masks and
survival kits. You walk around this Capitol today, you see all of that.
So every single American was clear that they wanted to do anything to
prevent or disrupt the next attack. We were all asked to do our part.
It was in this context, then, that the Bush administration went to the
telecom companies. These companies were asked to assist with a
communications program to prevent further attacks. They were given
letters of assurance that essentially said: The Attorney General of the
United States, then John Ashcroft, deemed what they were being asked to
do legal and necessary. There was a subsequent letter where then White
House counsel Alberto Gonzales also assured these companies that what
they were doing was legal and necessary. The correspondence declares
that these activities were also authorized by the President of the
United States during this time of anxiety.
I know my colleagues would say the lawyers knew that and it was law
school and so on. But what would you have done if you headed up a
company in the law department? Would you have fretted over the law or
would you look at how maybe you could cooperate, how maybe when you see
the Beamer family on TV and they said they were ready to roll and we
all felt as though we were ready to roll, maybe if you were a telecom
company, you were ready to roll too? Maybe you were rolling the dice.
But you did have a letter that assured you what was legal and necessary
from the Attorney General, the White House, and that also had been
authorized by the President.
Within this context, the telecom companies thought what they were
doing was patriotic and legal. At a time when the United States felt it
was under imminent threat of an attack by a new kind of emerging
threat, they were given these assurances. That is why I support giving
them focused immunity, because they thought what they were doing was
patriotic. Look at the context. At the same time they had these letters
of assurance. What I do not support is what the Government additionally
wanted, which was to give immunity to all persons connected to this,
which means essentially the Bush officials, officials in the Bush
administration who either knowingly broke or sidestepped the law. That
is not what the committee bill would do. What the committee bill does
is focus only on the telecom community. It does not give immunity to
these Bush administration people.
When we look at this, I ask everybody to remember what this was. This
bill also has a sunset of 6 years which I think we need. We are now in
the heat of war, and we must continue to reevaluate and improve this
law when cool heads will prevail.
I know others want to speak. I will speak later on on this bill in a
more amplified and legal way. But I think the time has come to reform
FISA, to make ourselves modern and contemporary and, at the same time,
not to punish those who thought they were working with us; last, but
not at all least, to protect the American people, both in terms of
their safety but also their constitutional rights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would first just express my
appreciation for the thoughtfulness and eloquence of the Senator from
Maryland. I think she has analyzed the matter very well and has called
us to a compromise agreement that we should rally around and pass--an
agreement that will protect our country and also protect our liberty;
and that is, the agreement that came out of the Intelligence Committee
13 to 2. It is the kind of agreement that reflects weeks, even months,
of study, both of law and of technology.
Our Intelligence Committee, more than our Judiciary Committee, of
which I am a member, was deeply involved in exactly what is being done
in foreign intelligence and how it was being done. They studied it
carefully. There are a lot of members of the Intelligence Committee who
would not hesitate to object if they thought what was being done was in
error or certainly if it violated our Constitution. As a result, we
have moved forward with their bill.
Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee that had referral on
the matter has now come forward with additional ideas and proposals
that are not wise, in my view. We did not spend nearly as much time on
the matter. We are not nearly as involved and knowledgeable of the
details of what has gone on as the Intel Committee is. I believe we
should not move forward on the Judiciary Committee bill. I opposed it
in committee and remain in opposition to it.
[[Page 34579]]
With regard to this matter of immunity for our telecom companies that
cooperated with the President, the Senator from Maryland has explained
how we got to this point. Mr. President, 9/11 occurred. We had a 9/11
Commission that said we did not have good intelligence, we did not
share the intelligence we had correctly, we were not analyzing properly
the intelligence we had, and we ought to do much better with regard to
intelligence.
That was a uniform view, and the President authorized these programs,
some of which basically had been authorized for years and had never
been considered to be improper in any way. Government officials met
with the telecom providers and asked for their assistance because the
Government does not handle these communications systems. It is private
companies that do. These companies were given a legal statement from
the Attorney General that said the President had declared their
cooperation to be important to national security, that it was legal,
and asked them to help.
Now, we discussed the basic principle in the Judiciary Committee at
some length, and I would like to go back to it. The basic principle
that has been embedded in our law for hundreds of years, from our
British heritage, is that a citizen--when called upon by a law officer,
the gendarme, the Federal official, or the State law officer who has
apparent legal authority, to help in a situation involving a danger in
the community--that citizen should respond. OK. How have we dealt with
that?
We are so committed to that fundamental principle that we have
embedded in our common law the concept that if the Government official
was in error and should not have asked the citizen to do something--an
example would be where somebody is running from a building, and
apparently, a burglary has occurred. Several uniformed police officers
are chasing the apparent burglar. They ask a citizen to help. The
citizen assaults, tackles, and holds the person he has been told to try
to capture. He helps the police officers capture that person, and it
turns out he is not the burglar, but an innocent person.
It is absolutely clear as a matter of Anglo-American law--this is not
some new deal; this is our heritage--that the citizen is not
responsible and cannot be held legally liable because the only question
is: Was he or she responding to what appeared to be a legitimate
request by the Government to assist them?
So that is the deal. That is what our telecom companies did. More
than that, they did not just respond to some police officer in uniform,
they did not just respond to a military officer or a National Guardsman
or a Coast Guardsman to help, they responded to the Attorney General of
the United States of America requesting in a formal letter saying that
he was authorized by the President of the United States to ask for
their assistance to preserve and protect the safety of American
citizens. They were given assurance that what they were being asked to
do by the Attorney General was lawful.
How could we possibly suggest that these companies now are going to
be rightfully sued for money damages? It is unthinkable we would allow
that to happen. It would contradict our fundamental principles as a
country.
They say: Well, how do we know? We need to have a lawsuit. Well, we
have all kinds of telecom communications statutes that we have imposed
over the years. Apparently, a court, in reviewing these matters,
interpreted one of these statutes in a way that rendered the procedures
then utilized under the request of the White House incorrect. The court
did not say that the program could not be done, but that it had to be
done using different techniques and different procedures. But the
practical effect of that decision, it turns out, was to make it
impossible for those techniques to be continued to be used. You just
could not do it. As a practical matter, you could not continue to
conduct the surveillance the Intelligence community said was required.
So the net result was we passed the Protect America Act this summer
so the surveillance could continue because we, after great study,
concluded it was needed and basically a lawful procedure. We passed the
Protect America Act that allowed it to continue.
So I want to go back to say, the fact there was an alteration in the
way this process was ongoing does not mean American companies that
agreed to be supportive of the Attorney General and the President of
the United States in a time of national emergency ought to have been
sued. The person responsible if there was an error was the Government,
not the companies--the Government. And many of these matters are very
complex.
If we now are going to place the burden on the CEO or the legal
counsel of every company in America to conduct their own independent
research as to whether a request to participate in helping to defend
America is constitutional, and they now are required to go beyond a
certified letter from the Attorney General of the United States and
have their lawyers express their own opinion, we are at a point where
we are not going to get help in the future. It is just that simple.
So I think we ought to be careful about it. In fact, in the letter
Senator Hatch has referred to, which is a Statement of Administration
Policy--what they call a SAP--issued today by the Executive Office of
the President, the President's advisors indicate they would recommend
to the President that this important, critical legislation be vetoed if
certain objectionable matters are in it.
One of the matters they are concerned about is this question of
liability. I would like to read from page 4 from that SAP that deals
with this issue. It sets out the question clearly. It says:
In contrast to the Senate Intelligence Committee bill, the
Senate Judiciary Committee substitute would not protect
electronic communication service providers who are alleged to
have assisted the Government with communications intelligence
activities in the aftermath of September 11th from
potentially debilitating lawsuits. Providing liability
protection to these companies is a just result. In its
Conference Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee
``concluded that the providers . . . had a good faith basis
for responding to the requests for assistance they
received.''
That was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 2. Senator Rockefeller, the
Democratic chairman, and Senator Bond, the ranking Republican, and all
members voted on that language.
I am still quoting now from this SAP:
The Committee further recognized that ``the Intelligence
Community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without
assistance from these companies.''
In other words, we cannot get this intelligence without the
cooperation of these companies, for heaven's sake. This is not a matter
of dispute. This is an absolutely undeniable fact. It goes on to say:
Companies in the future may be less willing to assist the
Government if they face the threat of private lawsuits each
time they are alleged to have provided assistance. The Senate
Intelligence Committee concluded that: ``The possible
reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay
is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.''
It is unacceptable. This SAP goes on to say:
Allowing continued litigation also risks the disclosure of
highly classified information regarding intelligence sources
and methods. In addition to providing an advantage to our
adversaries by revealing sources and methods during the
course of litigation, the potential disclosure of classified
information puts both the facilities and personnel of
electronic communication service providers and our country's
continued ability to protect our homeland at risk. It is
imperative that Congress provide liability protection to
those who cooperated with this country in its hour of need.
It goes on to say this:
The ramifications of the Judiciary Committee's decision to
afford no relief to private parties that cooperated in good
faith with the U.S. Government in the immediate aftermath of
the attacks of September 11 could extend well beyond the
particular issues and activities that have been of primary
interest and concern to the Committee. The Intelligence
Community, as well as law enforcement and homeland security
agencies, continue to rely on the voluntary cooperation and
assistance of private parties. A decision by the Senate to
abandon
[[Page 34580]]
those who may have provided assistance after September 11
will invariably be noted by those who may someday be called
upon again to help the Nation.
I think that is indisputable. So I do not know how we got to a place
where we are supporting an effort by some to allow these companies,
these good corporate citizens, to be sued. I know it is being driven by
a lot of leftist, the ``blame America first'' folks who seek to undo
every single thing that is done to protect America from attack by
foreign adversaries. They go through it. They attempt to find anything
that can be complained about, and we end up having a big debate on
these issues. But these matters have serious consequences.
So I would say to my colleagues, we did not deny moveon.org any right
to be heard. They have been heard--moveon.org, that's the organization
that declared our fabulous General Petraeus to be a betrayer. But we
have listened to all of their complaints. We have listened to the ACLU.
The Intelligence Committee has spent months looking at it. The
Department of Justice has been involved in it. The Senate Judiciary
Committee has been involved in it. I would submit we have found that
these surveillance procedures are not an extreme thing, that this is
all consistent with the law of America and that it is legitimate in the
way it was done. We ratified these procedures just this summer in the
Protect America Act. I said a little earlier this morning that I know
it is too much to expect that we would apologize to our security
officers and the President for saying--as some have done--that they
violated our Constitution to do these procedures because, after all
this debate and effort, we have now passed laws, including the Protect
America Act, that allows them to continue. If they are so horrible, why
did we overwhelmingly vote to allow them to continue? I would say there
was nothing fundamentally wrong with what was being done to begin with.
This was necessary and legitimate.
One more thought I wish to share on the basic question of
surveillance abroad is this: American citizens abroad are protected by
a rather strong Presidential order--Executive Order 12333--that
protects them from surveillance without probable cause having been
shown. It is a pretty strong order. Why have we never had the Supreme
Court, which has ruled on surveillance in the United States, declare
its power on the issue of surveillance abroad? Think about this: Can
the Supreme Court--can a Federal judge in America approve a
surveillance, electronic surveillance in a foreign country of an
American citizen? The answer is, no, because they don't have
jurisdiction. Federal judges don't have jurisdiction in France or
Russia or Afghanistan. If you don't have jurisdiction to authorize a
surveillance, you don't have jurisdiction to issue warrants or to
assert jurisdiction at all, and that is the way it has always been
interpreted. But because people were concerned about American citizens
abroad, President Reagan issued an Executive order that controls those
situations and that is being followed today.
So I wish to say we need to be careful about our thought processes as
we go forward. There has never, ever been any doubt that an American
intelligence operative can surveil foreign persons abroad whom they
believe may pose a threat to the United States or may possess
information valuable to the United States. That has never been in
doubt.
So as we go through with this, I hope we will listen to the work of
the Intelligence Committee. I think, for the most part, it is a pretty
good bill. Their bill is something I can support. It has some things in
it I don't believe are necessary that put restrictions on our efforts
to make sure our officials don't overreach. We can create safeguards in
a bipartisan way, and I hope we will. But in truth, we need to pass
legislation soon because the current bill, the Protect America Act,
expires in February.
I went out a few weeks ago to the National Security Agency and got a
full briefing, as a number of Senators have, on what is being done
there. I was so proud of our personnel. These are fabulous Americans.
The suggestions that have been made by some that they are sitting out
there trying to listen in on somebody's private conversation about
Christmas from Paris or Afghanistan is beyond reality. They are out
there trying to protect America. They are looking to see if they have
any information that they can legally pick up that would indicate an
attack may be imminent or that people are plotting to attack the United
States.
So I thank the Chair. I hope we will move forward with this
legislation based on the Intel bill and that we will reject efforts to
deny liability protection to Americans who serve our country. Also, I
hope we will reject the Wyden language in the Intel bill because I
think it goes far too far in constricting the ability of our
intelligence personnel to do their job, and it is not legally or
constitutionally required.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Landrieu). The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to take this time to talk a
little bit about the FISA bill we are considering today. I heard my
friend from Alabama talk about the work that is being done at the
National Security Agency. I have also taken the opportunity to visit
with NSA to see firsthand the work they are doing. It wasn't my first
visit. NSA, as my colleagues know, is located in Maryland. I have been
there on numerous occasions. I had an opportunity to observe the manner
in which our security intelligence agencies operate, and I must tell my
colleagues these men and women are dedicated public servants doing a
great job on behalf of their country and trying to get it done right.
They are trying to do it the way it is supposed to be done and
complying with laws, but they need the right legal basis, and it is our
responsibility in Congress to get the statutes right to allow them to
obtain the information they need in order to keep us safe. There is a
right way of doing it. Congress needs to get this bill done right.
We passed this bill in a hurry in August. We didn't have an
opportunity at that time to review the classified information about the
advice that was given in regard to the collection of data. Since that
time, some of us have had that opportunity. I regret all of us have not
had that opportunity. I have taken advantage of that opportunity as a
member of the Judiciary Committee, and I have seen the information. I
have seen the opinions of counsel. I have seen the information the
telecommunications companies operated under. I have had a chance to
review that information. It makes it a lot easier for me now to
evaluate what we should do.
I will tell my colleagues I wish to get this bill done. I think it is
important that our intelligence community have the legal authority to
be able to intercept communications that are foreign to foreign. That
was the basic reason why they asked for us to modify the FISA law,
because technology changed and we had a lot of foreign-to-foreign
communications. But it was through facilities that were located within
the jurisdiction of the United States; therefore, the FISA laws
applied. The administration thought originally they didn't apply, but
then the court said: Hey, wait a minute. Read the statute. It does
apply. You have to come to Congress and get it done right. That is why
they came to us. They wouldn't have come to us if the courts didn't
demand they come to us. Now it is our responsibility to get the statute
right.
I wish to thank Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond for the work
they did in the Intelligence Committee. I serve on the Judiciary
Committee. I can tell my colleagues, Senator Leahy, Senator Specter,
and every member of our committee has taken our responsibility very
seriously to try to understand the circumstances. But I can tell my
colleagues it is important we modify the bill that has come out of the
Intelligence Committee. I call my colleagues' attention to the work of
the
[[Page 34581]]
Judiciary Committee because we wanted to make sure the bill we
recommended gives the intelligence community the tools they need,
particularly as it relates to foreign-to-foreign communications but
also protects the constitutional rights of the citizens of our own
country, and it will be defensible before our courts. That is our
responsibility. I think we got it right.
So we are going to see some differences between these two bills,
besides the big difference which is the immunity. I am going to get to
the retroactive immunity in a moment. However, there are other
differences which are very important, including exclusivity, to make it
clear this statute controls so the administration can't say: Well, we
have additional authority and we are going to do it our way, regardless
of what the Congress says. That is an important provision. It is in the
Senate bill. We need to make sure it is in the final bill that is sent
to the President.
There are other provisions that are important that are in the Senate
bill but not in the House bill: Changes in minimization rules; changes
in how--when we target an American overseas--we do, in fact, get
appropriate court authorization to do it. I thank Senator Whitehouse
for his contributions in that regard. These might be technical changes,
but they are important to make sure they get into the bill that is
finally passed and sent to the President.
Let me talk for a moment, if I might, about the retroactive immunity
because there has been a lot of conversation about retroactive
immunity. I oppose retroactive immunity. I think it is the wrong way to
help the carriers. Retroactive immunity, to me, violates our
responsibility to respect each branch of Government. I want the courts
to be able to look at what the executive branch is doing. I want the
courts to protect individual rights. I think that when we start looking
at retroactive immunity, we start violating the basic separation of
powers.
I must tell my colleagues that the telecommunications carriers that
cooperated with the Government, believing that the authority was there
and operating in good faith, are entitled to relief. But they shouldn't
be given retroactive immunity.
There are other suggestions which have been made. I hope my
colleagues will listen to some of the amendments that are being
offered. Senator Specter has an amendment that I call to the attention
of my colleagues. Because if you believe that Government is
responsible--and I have heard many of my colleagues say this--that if
the Government was wrong, let them be sued and held accountable. That
is exactly what Senator Specter's amendment does. It substitutes the
Government for the carriers in the same position that the carriers
would be so we can get the protection of the courts and the carriers
get the protection they need, and the Government can control the case
for national security purposes. It seems to be a compromise that if, in
fact, the carriers were operating in good faith, then let the
Government be there to take its responsibility in this matter.
I call my colleagues' attention to another amendment offered by
Senator Feinstein. I think it is a good amendment on this issue. It may
be able to help us in trying to find common ground. Her amendment says:
Look, the bill we passed that is supported by the Intelligence
Committee--the bill we passed last August, now amended by the
Intelligence Committee, would say: OK, we are going to grant
retroactive immunity, and guess who is going to make the decision as to
whether the carrier operated in good faith according to law. It is
going to be the Attorney General, the administration. Well, to me, that
doesn't sound quite objective. After all, we know it was the Attorney
General who gave the advice. So at least let's have an objective
review. The Feinstein amendment says: Let the FISA Court, which was set
up for this purpose and which has the expertise in this area, make the
judgment as to whether the carriers followed the law in good faith.
Because I tell my colleagues, if they did, I believe they are entitled
to relief. I do. But I don't think we should strip the court of its
jurisdiction in solving that problem. I think there are better ways to
do it. I urge my colleagues to look at the work of the Judiciary
Committee because I think they will find some help in a product that
will be submitted vis-a-vis amendments as we consider this legislation.
I wish to mention one additional item I am going to bring to the
attention of my colleagues, and that is an amendment I offered in the
Judiciary Committee that was approved and one I hope will have
bipartisan support: A 4-year sunset on the legislation. Why do I want
to see this sunset in 4 years? The Intelligence bill has 6 years. I
want the next administration to focus on this issue. I want them to
come to Congress and cooperate with us on how they are using this
power. It is interesting we have gotten tremendous cooperation, since
August, from the administration because they knew they had to come back
here in February, so we got their cooperation. We got the information
we needed. But I don't know if we are going to see any information from
the next administration. When they know they have the authority during
the entire time, they don't have to come back to us.
So I hope this 4-year sunset provision will be agreed to by all of
us, so this Congress can exercise its appropriate oversight as to how
this administration and the next administration use this extraordinary
power.
FISA is extraordinary power. These are secret courts. These aren't
courts that issue written opinions that people can attend. These are
secret courts, in order to protect the security of America but also the
rights of the people of our Nation. They should at least have the
ability for Congress to exercise appropriate oversight responsibility.
A 4-year sunset will give us that opportunity in the next
administration, and I hope that will be improved.
So this is an important bill. This is a bill I hope will reach the
President's desk and will be signed into law. But let's make sure we
get it right. Let's make sure it is legislation we are proud of to
protect the safety of the people of America and our civil liberties and
legislation that can withstand the review of our courts as to
constitutionality.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this morning I laid out the reasons
why I opposed cloture on the motion to proceed. Now I would like to
describe in more detail the reasons that the Senate should be
considering the Judiciary bill rather than the Intelligence Committee
bill. And I will lay out again why I strongly oppose the immunity
provision in the Intelligence Committee bill.
There are a number of similarities between the bills reported by the
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Their basic structure is the
same. Both bills authorize the Government to conduct surveillance of
individuals reasonably believed to be overseas without court approval
for individual warrants. Both bills authorize the Government to develop
and implement procedures to govern this new type of surveillance, and
provide the procedures to the FISA Court for review after they have
gone into effect.
But in critical ways, the bills take different approaches. The
Judiciary bill contains a number of important changes to improve court
oversight of these broad new executive branch authorities, and to
protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
Let me be clear: The differences between these two bills have nothing
to do with our ability to combat terrorism. They have everything to do
with ensuring that the executive branch adheres to the rule of law and
doesn't unnecessarily listen in on the private communications of
Americans.
This debate is about whether the court should have an independent
oversight role, and what protections should apply to the communications
of Americans that get swept up in these broad new surveillance powers.
If you believe that courts should have a meaningful oversight role
with respect to Government surveillance,
[[Page 34582]]
then you should support the Judiciary bill. And if you believe that
Congress should try to limit the number of communications of Americans
here at home that will be swept up in a broad new surveillance program
that is supposed to be focused on foreigners overseas, then you should
support the Judiciary bill.
That said, the Judiciary bill is not perfect. More still needs to be
done to protect the privacy of Americans. But that is why it should be
such an easy decision to support the Judiciary bill as a starting
point.
Let me also remind my colleagues that the process by which the
Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its
bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large
the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so
directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the
results of this open process should be accorded great weight,
especially in light of the Judiciary Commiittee's unique role and
expertise in protecting those rights.
So what are the differences between the two bills?
First, the Judiciary bill gives the secret FISA court more authority
to operate as an independent check on the executive branch.
One provision in the Judiciary bill fixes an enormous problem with
the Intelligence Committee bill--the complete lack of incentives for
the Government to do what the bill tells it to do, which is target
people overseas rather than people here in America. The Judiciary bill
solves this problem by limiting the use of information concerning
Americans when that information is obtained through procedures the FISA
Court ultimately finds are not reasonably designed to target persons
overseas.
The Judiciary bill states that if the court determines that the
Government has been using unlawful procedures, then its use of that
information is limited--in exactly the same way that it is limited
under FISA today if the Government starts surveillance in an emergency
and is later turned down for a court order. But the new provision in
the Judiciary bill is more flexible: It gives the court the option to
allow the use of the information the Government collected the first
time around, depending on the circumstances.
Another provision of the Judiciary bill ensures that the FISA Court
has the authority to oversee compliance with minimization procedures.
Minimization procedures have been held up as the primary protection
for the privacy of Americans whose communications get swept up in this
new surveillance authority.
I don't think current minimization procedures are strong enough to do
the job. But to the extent that minimization can help protect
Americans' privacy, its implementation needs to be overseen by the
court. That means giving the court the authority to review whether the
Government is complying with minimization rules and to ask for the
information it needs to make that assessment. Without this provision
from the Judiciary bill, the Government's dissemination and use of
information on innocent, law-abiding Americans will occur without any
checks and balances whatsoever. Once again, ``trust us'' will have to
do. I believe in this case, as in so many others, ``trust us'' is not
enough.
The Judiciary bill furthers other types of oversight, as well. It
requires relevant inspectors general to conduct an audit of the
President's illegal wiretapping program, which is long overdue.
And it improves congressional access to FISA Court orders. The
Intelligence Committee bill requires that Congress be provided with
orders, decisions and opinions of the FISA Court that include
significant interpretations of law within 45 days after they are
issued. That is good as far as it goes, but the Judiciary bill adds
that Congress should be provided with pleadings associated with
opinions that contain significant interpretations of law. These
pleadings may be critical to understanding the reasoning behind any
particular interpretation as well as how the Government interprets and
seeks to implement the law. It also requires that significant
interpretations of law not previously provided to Congress over the
past 5 years be provided.
The Judiciary bill also does a better job of protecting Americans
from widespread warrantless wiretapping.
First, it protects against reverse targeting. It ensures that if the
Government is wiretapping a foreigner overseas in order to collect the
communications of the American with whom that foreign target is
communicating, it has to get a court order on the American. This is
very reasonable. Specifically, the Judiciary bill says that the
Government needs an individualized court order when a significant
purpose of its surveillance is listening to an American at home. The
DNI himself said that reverse targeting violates the Fourth Amendment;
this provision simply codifies that principle. The administration
continues to oppose this provision, and I have a simple question for
it: ``Why?'' Why is it opposed to a provision that prohibits a practice
that its own Director of National Intelligence says is
unconstitutional?
The Judiciary bill also prohibits bulk collection--that is, the
sweeping up of all communications between the United States and
overseas. The DNI said in public testimony that this type of massive
bulk collection would be permitted by the Protect America Act. But he
has also said that what the Government is seeking to do with these
authorities is something very different. It is ``surgical. A telephone
number is surgical. So, if you know that number, you can select it
out.'' If the DNI has said it doesn't even need broader authorities, we
should certainly should not be providing them.
All this modest provision does is hold the DNI to his word. It
ensures that the Government has some foreign intelligence interest in
individual targets, and is not just vacuuming up every last
communication between Americans and their friends and business
colleagues overseas. Targets do not need to be known or named
individuals; they can be anonymous phone numbers, which is how the DNI
has described how the Government collects. And the Government does not
have to identify or explain its interest in the targets to the FISA
Court; it merely has to make a general certification that individual
targets exist. Again, why does the administration oppose this
provision? I have yet to hear a convincing answer.
The Judiciary bill also has a sunset of 4 years rather than 6 years,
ensuring that Congress will reevaluate this law before the end of the
next Presidential administration. And, critically, it contains a strong
statement that Congress intends for FISA to be the exclusive means by
which foreign intelligence surveillance is conducted. It closes
purported statutory loopholes that the Justice Department relied on to
make its tortured arguments that the congressional authorization for
use of force against al-Qaida somehow authorized the President's
illegal wiretapping program. The Judiciary bill makes clear, once and
for all, that the President must follow the law.
Madam President, the Judiciary bill also does not contain the
provision in the Intelligence Committee bill granting automatic,
retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly cooperated with the
President's illegal NSA wiretapping program. I supported an amendment
to strike the immunity provision in the Intelligence Committee when it
was offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson--I offered an
amendment to strike the immunity provision in the Judiciary Committee--
and I will cosponsor Senator Dodd's amendment to strike the immunity
provision on the Senate floor. The immunity provision does not belong
in this bill.
Granting immunity, first of all, is unnecessary. Current law already
specifically provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that
cooperate with the Government's request for assistance, as long as they
receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney
General that no court order is needed and the request meets all
statutory requirements. This current FISA immunity provision, contained
in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511, already protects companies that act at the
request
[[Page 34583]]
of the Government, while also protecting the privacy of Americans'
communications by assuring that immunity is granted only if the law is
followed.
Some supporters of immunity argue that companies should not be
penalized for relying in good faith on the legality of a request from
the executive branch. This argument ignores the history of FISA.
Private companies have a long history of receiving requests for
assistance from the Government, and they worked with Congress when FISA
was first enacted to devise a law that tells them exactly which
Government requests they should honor. They also have experienced,
well-trained lawyers to examine the written requests they receive from
the Government and determine whether those requests comply with the
clear requirements of the law or not.
The idea that telephone companies could not have foreseen that the
Government might overstep the law makes no sense. FISA's requirement of
a court order or a valid certification was designed precisely to
respond to Government abuses that took place in the 1960s and 1970s,
and to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future.
The Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Mort Halperin, a former
Nixon administration official who had himself been the subject of a
warrantless wiretap, and was involved in drafting FISA in the 1970s. He
testified that before FISA:
Government communication with the telephone company . . .
could not have been more casual. A designated official of the
FBI called a designated official of [the company] and passed
on a phone number. Within minutes all of the calls from that
number were being routed to the local FBI field office and
monitored.
Not surprisingly, this casual, ad hoc system failed to protect
Americans' privacy; the abuses that took place are well documented and
quite shocking. FISA was supposed to give everyone involved a level of
certainty about what was permitted and what was not. And the provision
specifying the circumstances under which a Government request could be
honored, in particular, was supposed to play a significant role in
ensuring that certainty. AT&T, which was the only telephone company in
existence at the time, was at the table when this provision was
drafted. As Halperin described it in his testimony, the company:
received the clarity that it sought and deserved. The rule,
spelled out clearly in several places in the legislation and
well understood by all, was this: If [the phone company]
received a copy of a warrant or a certification under the
statute, it was required to cooperate. If it did not receive
authorization by means outlined in the statute, it was to
refuse to cooperate and was to be subjected to State and
Federal civil and criminal penalties for unlawful acquisition
of electronic communications.
This is the history. This is why we have the FISA statute. This is
the whole point.
This history should give all of us pause as we consider the immunity
provision in this bill. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated
with an illegal program this new form of automatic, retroactive
immunity undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a
law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of actions that
allegedly occurred here. Perhaps more importantly, it will undermine
any new laws that we pass to govern Government surveillance.
If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a
terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to grant a new form of
retroactive, blanket immunity for alleged cooperation with an illegal
program. We not only want companies to follow the law, we want the
Government to follow the law. If we don't give the companies a solid
basis for refusing to respond to a Government request that falls short
of statutory requirements, we take away the incentive for the
Government to follow the law. It would be irresponsible for Congress to
allow this to happen.
It is time for Congress to state clearly and unequivocally: ``When we
pass a law, we mean what we say and we expect the law to be followed.''
But if we grant immunity to companies that may have broken the law, the
message we send will be quite the opposite. We will be effectively
making compliance with the law optional. We will be saying: ``If a high
Government official asks you to ignore the law, go ahead. Congress can
always change the law retroactively so you won't pay any penalty for
your lawbreaking.'' I ask my colleagues to think long and hard about
this as they consider this amendment. Is that the message that we
really want to send?
This retroactive immunity provision presents another serious problem.
It could very well prevent the courts from ruling on the
administration's warrantless wiretapping program. That may explain why
the administration is pushing so hard for this part of the bill. This
program is one of the worst abuses of executive power in our Nation's
history, and the courts should be able to rule on it once and for all.
For Congress to step in and likely wipe out the pending court cases,
when the administration has stonewalled congressional oversight efforts
for so long, would be an unacceptable capitulation to an administration
that thinks it is above the law.
Finally, I must emphasize that a vote to strike immunity is not a
vote to hold telephone companies liable. Rather, it is a vote to let
the courts decide whether the existing immunity provisions apply. If
telephone companies received a directive from the Government and
complied with well-established law, the courts will find that they are
entitled to immunity and these cases will be dismissed. But if they
failed to follow the law that applied specifically to them--a law they
helped create and a law that their lawyers knew inside and out--we will
have done American citizens a grave injustice by saying that sometimes
it is just plain OK to break the law.
In other words, Congress should not prejudge the guilt or innocence
of the companies, especially without knowing the facts. Unfortunately,
most of the Members of this Chamber have not had access to those facts.
The members of only two committees have had the opportunity to study
what happened. I happen to sit on both committees, and after seeing all
the evidence, my firm view is we should leave this to the courts to
decide under existing law. But it is wrong for the administration to
ask my colleagues who do not serve on these committees to vote for
immunity. They are effectively being asked to grant immunity without
being told for what they are granting immunity. This is fundamentally
unfair.
The Senate can stand up for the rule of law and let the courts handle
these cases as they see fit, or it can decide to change the rules in
the middle of the game and block accountability for possible past law
breaking. Voting to preserve retroactive immunity means they are
blessing the behavior of the administration and the companies that
allegedly cooperated with it. I urge my colleagues not to take that
step.
Before I close, I wish to respond briefly to the comments made by the
vice chair of the Intelligence Committee concerning the President's so-
called inherent constitutional power to order surveillance. Relying on
a nonbinding statement made in passing in a FISA Court of Review
decision on another issue and a 1980 circuit court case that addresses
surveillance before FISA was passed, the vice chairman asserts that the
President has inherent constitutional authority to wiretap without a
court order.
I am afraid to say that argument is an invitation to lawlessness.
What he basically said is that because in his view the President has
wiretapping authority that cannot be limited by statute, a company that
complies with his request for assistance cannot be held accountable, no
matter how unreasonable the request was. If that is the case, then
Congress may as well pack up and go home because the laws we pass don't
matter.
Congress has spoken very clearly in FISA and limited Presidential
power to conduct surveillance. Congress had the authority to take this
action, and the courts have never upheld an assertion of Presidential
power over statutory restriction in a case where Congress has acted
within its authority. In this
[[Page 34584]]
case, the President must follow the law that Congress passes, and so
should the telecommunications companies.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Forty-one minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to yield my remaining time to
Senator Dodd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, before my colleague leaves, I thank my
colleague Senator Feingold for not only his statements today but for
speaking eloquently about this issue, with which he has been deeply
involved with for a long time. Drawing on his service on both the
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, he eloquently pointed out that
these provisions are designed to guarantee exactly what FISA intended
to provide the security of our country and the sanctity of our rights,
simultaneously.
And the idea that these companies were acting out of patriotism and
naive to the provisions of the law when the very same companies were
involved in crafting that law 30 years ago says volumes. I thank
Senator Feingold immensely for his work.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut
for his kind words, and I thank him for his important leadership on
this issue. What he is doing today is extremely helpful to the
preservation of the rule of law in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the time is such, I understand from the
Senator, that I may deliver a few remarks to the Senate; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed under cloture. The
Senate is operating under cloture.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today because of the timely and
critical importance of the issue before us. It is absolutely vital that
we reform FISA, and we must do so quickly because the Protect America
Act passed in August to close a dangerous intelligence gap is set to
expire shortly. We must keep this gap closed, and we must do it in a
way that protects civil liberties, protects telecommunications
companies from unnecessary and costly lawsuits, and ensures that our
hard-working and dedicated intelligence professionals have the tools
they need to protect the Nation.
I have been privileged these 29 years I have been in the Senate to
represent the Commonwealth of Virginia in which largely the
intelligence community and the professionals therein have their base of
operations. I have had the privilege of knowing these people. Stop to
think: They have children in the schools in which our children are in,
they attend the churches, they live in the communities. It has been my
privilege to get to know many of them throughout the course of my
career in the Senate and some 5 years plus previous that I had in the
Department of Defense where I worked with these professionals. They are
among America's finest individuals. They are dedicated. They take
risks, great risks, so often when they are abroad. Indeed, we have lost
them at home right at the gateway to the entrance of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
I was somewhat discouraged recently to hear broad accusations against
the intelligence community, a lack of confidence that certain
individuals in the Congress profess publicly to have. I assure them,
based on my rather lengthy career and the good fortune to have worked
with these professionals for so many years, I rank them among America's
finest and most dedicated. It has been my privilege to take this floor
many times in the past quarter century to speak on their behalf and to
advocate causes which I think were in the best interests of the United
States and which could, in many ways, affect their careers.
So I do so again today because reforming FISA has not been an easy
process. I thank Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond for the
work they have done to garner bipartisan support for the Senate
Intelligence Committee bill, the FISA Amendments Act.
The committee members and staff have worked together for many months
to produce this responsible bipartisan legislation that strikes the
right balance between civil liberties and foreign surveillance. All of
the parties involved had to make compromises, but the 13-to-2--I
repeat, 13-to-2--vote in the committee on which I am privileged to
serve in favor of this bill shows that the bill will protect America's
private civil liberties without unnecessarily hindering the ability of
our intelligence professionals to intercept terrorist communications.
In addition to bipartisan congressional support, the FISA Amendments
Act has, after consultation, the support of Admiral McConnell, the
Director of National Intelligence. I have known this fine public
servant for many years. When I was privileged to serve as Secretary of
the Navy, he was on the staff of the Navy at that time. As a junior
officer, he would often brief me in my capacity as Secretary early in
the morning. I have enjoyed our friendship through the years and had
the privilege to introduce him to the Senate for purposes of
confirmation on several occasions.
History has ranked and will continue to rank Admiral McConnell among
the foremost of those who stepped forward in my time for public
service.
As I say, I have deep admiration and respect for Admiral McConnell's
continued public service to the Nation and for the work of thousands of
dedicated intelligence community professionals that he leads. His
efforts to work with the Congress to formulate this bipartisan and
complicated set of solutions to this serious national security issue
are to be commended.
The committee was uniquely positioned to weigh and assess the many
highly classified aspects of our foreign intelligence surveillance
operations and to discuss and debate those sensitive issues before we
drafted this legislation. The result is a bill that has the support of
those valued public servants trusted to follow the law and a bill that
will protect national security and will protect America's privacy.
The bill allows the intelligence community, through a joint
certification by the Attorney General of the United States and the
Director of National Intelligence, to target the communications of
foreign overseas targets without the necessity of the FISA Court
approval. This provides the speed and the agility the intelligence
community needs--I emphasize ``the speed and the agility''--and keeps
the foreign intelligence targets outside the purview of the FISA Court,
which was the original intention of Congress when it drafted the FISA
bill in 1978.
The FISA amendments also ensure the protection of America's civil
liberties by providing that acquisition may only be conducted in
accordance with targeting and minimization procedures adopted by the
Attorney General of the United States and reviewed by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court. Targeting must be consistent with the
fourth amendment, and reverse targeting is specifically prohibited.
There is also enhanced oversight by Congress, the Attorney General, the
Director of National Intelligence, and inspectors general.
One of the most important provisions in this bill is the retroactive
carrier liability protection for those telecommunications carriers
alleged to have assisted the Government with the terrorist surveillance
program, known as TSP. While I believe that TSP was legal, essential,
and contributed to preventing further terrorist attacks against our
homeland, others may disagree.
There is no doubt, however, that the carriers that have participated
in the program relied upon our Government's assurances that their
actions were legal and in the best interests of the security of the
United States of America.
These companies deserve and must be protected from costly and
damaging lawsuits. The boards of directors have a fundamental
obligation, as they do in all public corporations, to shareholders of
these publicly owned institutions. Those who ask why the companies need
such protection if they did not do anything illegal do not grasp the
point
[[Page 34585]]
that the Government's invocation of state secrets precludes companies
from providing a court of law with any factual evidence confirming or
denying their involvement in the program. That is to prevent sources
and method. Sources and methods are the very heart of America's
intelligence operations, as they are the world over. Some companies
facing lawsuits, even if they never participated in the program, can
likewise not defend themselves.
Some Senators have suggested Government substitution or
indemnification of these companies, as the ones who did work in the
program, as an alternate to the retroactive liability language in the
bill. These are not suitable alternatives, in my judgment, for the
companies or the intelligence community.
It is a recognized fact that lawsuits are most often extremely costly
to a company in terms of damage to the business reputation and stock
valuation could fluctuate. Even if a company ultimately prevails, they
will suffer not only money damages possibly, costs possibly, in all
probability even though there may be Government reimbursement, but
damage which is incalculable in amount to their reputation and standing
in their community. Again, if the Government pays the legal bill, that
will not erase other injurious consequences that come about as a result
of court proceedings. I myself engaged in the practice of law before I
entered public service many years ago, and not much has changed.
Further, the Government being substituted as the defendant in a trial
opens evidentiary problems regarding, again, sources and methods, which
is the vital ingredient of all our intelligence collecting processes.
Individuals who believe the Government violated their civil liberties
can pursue legal action against the Government--the United States
Government--and the FISA Amendments Act does nothing to limit the legal
recourse.
The bottom line, companies that participate in this program do so to
help America protect its freedom and the safety, individually and
collectively, of our citizens. Without this retroactive liability
provision, I believe companies will no longer, and understandably,
voluntarily participate in this program. The consequence of the loss of
those companies stepping up--solely in the security interests of the
United States, solely in the interests of protecting our citizens--to
offer their services will result in irreparable damage to our
collection of vital intelligence. It is as simple as that.
It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to support the
Intelligence-Committee-passed FISA Amendments Act and grant the men and
women of the intelligence community the tools they need to protect the
country and, indeed, the respect and admiration they deserve.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, first of all, I know others may want to
speak as well, but let me take a few minutes, if I can, to share with
my colleagues some of the background and information concerning my
concern with Title II of this legislation.
I certainly agree with my friend and colleague from Virginia, the
former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that it is critically
important we modernize FISA. The 30-year-old piece of legislation has
served our country well, striking a balance between acquiring the
intelligence we need to protect our country and protecting us against
the erosion of our rights. My main concern with the proposal, as many
know, is Title II, the retroactive immunity provision. I am deeply
concerned about the precedent it would set.
The telecoms' 5-year-old program only became public information
because there was a whistleblower, Madam President, a gentleman by the
name of Mark Klein, who was an employee of AT&T for more than 20 years.
He was really responsible for us being aware of this program. Had it
not been for Mark Klein stepping up, this story might have remained
secret for years and years, causing further erosion of our rights. Mark
Klein and others were principally responsible for coming forward and
expressing their deep concerns.
I think it is important for my colleagues in this body to understand
precisely what these telecom communities are doing at the behest of the
Bush administration. Mark Klein was courageous enough to blow the
whistle on one such program at AT&T's facility at 611 Folsom Street in
San Francisco. When the government's warrantless surveillance program
came to light in December of 2005, Mr. Klein realized he had
unwittingly aided and abetted an extensive, untargeted spying program
that may have violated the civil liberties of millions of Americans. In
early 2006, Mr. Klein went public with evidence of this program,
providing over 100 pages of authenticated schematic diagrams and tables
detailing how AT&T diverted its customers' communications to a room
controlled by the NSA, with sophisticated equipment inside capable of
analyzing millions of customers' Internet activities and e-mails in
real time. The following are Mr. Klein's own words as to what he saw.
For 5 years, the Bush administration's National Security
Agency, with the help of the country's largest
telecommunication companies, has been collecting your e-mail,
accumulating information on your web browser, and gathering
details on your Internet activity, all without warrants and
in violation of the United States constitution and several
Federal statutes and State laws. Even after the program was
exposed by The New York Times in December of 2005, the
President and other government officials consistently
defended the NSA's activities, insisting that the NSA only
collects communications into or from the United States where
one party to the communication is someone they believe to be
a member of al-Qaida or an associated terrorist organization.
But these claims are not true. I know they are not true,
because I have firsthand knowledge of the clandestine
collaboration between one giant telecommunications company
and the NSA to facilitate the most comprehensive spying
program in history. I have seen the NSA's vacuum cleaner
surveillance infrastructure with my own eyes. It is a vast
government-sponsored warrantless spying program. For over 22
years, I worked as a technician for AT&T. While working in
San Francisco in 2002, I learned that a management level
technician, with AT&T's knowledge, had been cleared by the
NSA to work on a special but secret project--the installation
and maintenance of Internet equipment in a newly constructed
secure room at AT&T's central office in San Francisco. Other
than the NSA cleared technician, no employees were allowed in
that room. In October of 2003, I was transferred to that
office and was in particular assigned to oversee AT&T's
operations. As part of my duties, I was required to connect
circuits carrying data to optical splitters, which made a
copy of the light signal. But the splitters weakened the
light signal causing problems I had to troubleshoot. After
examining engineering documents given to the technicians
which showed the connections of the splitters, I discovered
they were hard wired to a secret room. In short, an exact
copy of all traffic that flowed through critical AT&T cables,
e-mails documents, pictures, web browsers, voice-over-
Internet phone conversations, everything, was being diverted
to equipment inside the secret room. In addition, the
documents revealed the technological gear used in their
secret project, including a highly sophisticated search
component capable of quickly sifting through huge amounts of
digital data, including text, voice, and images in real time
according to preprogrammed criteria. It is important to
understand that the Internet links connected to the splitters
contained not just foreign communications but vast amounts of
domestic traffic, all mixed together. Furthermore, the
splitter has no selectively abilities. It is just a dumb
device which copies everything to the secret room, and the
links going through the splitter are AT&T's physical
connections to many other Internet providers--Sprint, Quest,
Global Crossing, cable and wireless, and the critical West
Coast exchange point known as Mae West. Since these networks
are interconnected, the government surveillance affects not
only AT&T customer matters but everyone else--millions of
Americans. I also discovered in my conversations with other
technicians that other secret rooms were established in
Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego. One of the
documents I obtained also mentions Atlanta, and the clear
inference and the logic of this setup and the language of the
documents is that there are other such rooms across the
country to complete the coverage, possibly 15 or 20 more. So
when reports of the government's extensive wiretapping
program surfaced in December 2005, after I had left AT&T, I
realized two things: First, that I had been a witness to a
massive spying effort that violated the
[[Page 34586]]
rights of millions of Americans; and, second, that the
government was not telling the public the truth about the
extent of their unconstitutional invasion of privacy. In the
spring of 2006, I became a witness for the Electronic
Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T. The New York
Times, on April 13, 2006, reported that four independent
technical experts examined the AT&T documents. All said that
the documents showed that AT&T had an agreement with the
Federal Government to systematically gather information
flowing on the Internet.
Now, Madam President, there is a further statement of
telecommunication expert Brian Reid on AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein's
revelations. Dr. Reid is currently the Director of Engineering and
Technical Operations at Internet Systems Consortium, a nonprofit
organization devoted to supporting a nonproprietary Internet.
Dr. Reid, who has taught at Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon
Universities, was an early pioneer in the development of Internet and
network technology and received numerous awards for his work in the
field of information technology. I think Dr. Reid's expertise in
telecommunications is vital to understanding the depth and breadth of
the program found at AT&T's Folsom Street facility in San Francisco.
Let me read from Dr. Reid's testimony.
I am a telecommunications and data networking expert who
has been involved in the development of several critical
Internet technologies. I was a professor of electrical
engineering at Stanford University and in computer science at
Carnegie-Mellon university west. I have carefully reviewed
the AT&T authenticated documents and declaration provided by
Mark Klein and the public redacted version of the expert
declaration of J. Scott Marcus both filed in the Hepping vs.
AT&T litigation. Provided the information contained in those
declarations and documents, with my extensive knowledge of
the international communications infrastructure and the
technology regularly used for lawful surveillance pursuant to
warrants and court orders, I believe Mr. Klein's evidence is
strongly supported of widespread untargeted surveillance of
ordinary people, both AT&T customers and others. The AT&T
documents describe a technological setup at the AT&T facility
in San Francisco. This setup is particularly well suited to
wholesale dragnet surveillance of all communications passing
through that facility, whether international or domestic.
These documents describe how the fiber-optic cables were cut
and splitters installed at the cut point. Fiber-optic cables
work just like ordinary TV splitters. One cable feeds in and
two cables feed out. Both cables carry a copy of absolutely
everything that is sent, and if the second cable is connected
to a monitoring station, that station sees all traffic going
over the cable. Mr. Klein stated the second cable was routed
into a room at the facility whose access was restricted to
AT&T employees having clearances from the NSA. The documents
indicate that similar facilities were being installed in
Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and also a
reference to a somewhat similar facility in Atlanta. This
infrastructure is capable of monitoring all traffic passing
through the AT&T facility, some of it not even from AT&T
customers, whether voice or data or fax or international or
domestic. The most likely use of this infrastructure is
wholesale untargeted surveillance of ordinary Americans at
the behest of the NSA. NSA involvement undermines arguments
the facility is intended for use by AT&T in protecting its
own network operations. This infrastructure is not limited
to, nor would it be, especially efficient for target
surveillance or even untargeted surveillance aimed at
communications where one of the ends is located outside of
the United States. It is also not reasonably aimed at
supporting AT&T operations in security procedures. There are
three main reasons. The technological infrastructure is far
more powerful and expensive than that needed to do targeted
surveillance or surveillance aimed only at international or
one-end foreign communications. For example, it includes a
NARUS Norris 6400, a computer that can simultaneously analyze
huge amounts of information based on rules provided by the
machine operator, analyze the content of messages and other
information--not just headers or routing information--conduct
the analysis in real time, rather than after a delay, and
correlate information for multiple sources, multiple formats,
over many protocols and through different periods of time in
that analysis. The document describes a secret private
backbone network, separate from the public network where
normal AT&T customer traffic is carried and transmitted. A
separate backbone network would not be required for
transmission of the smaller amounts of data captured by a
targeted surveillance. You don't need the magnitude of
capacity doing targeted surveillance. The San Francisco
facility is not located near an entry point for international
communications that happen to be transmitted through the
United States, either through undersea cable or via
satellite. As a result, it would not be a sensible place to
locate a facility aimed at simply monitoring traffic to or
from northern countries.
I apologize for those rather elaborate statements from two rather
technical people, but I thought it was important for our colleagues
considering the matter before us that the information that broke this
story did not just come from casual observers, but from highly skilled
people who could comment on the rather broad use of this information.
The idea that we are just focusing our attention on foreigners who
might be engaged in activities threatening our existence of course is
belied by the evidence provided by both of these very substantial
witnesses.
I would like to maybe take another few minutes, if I can, to address
some of the questions that have been raised by a number of people today
in support of the retroactive immunity.
Let me state again, it is very important that we have the FISA
legislation. It is very important that we have the modern means to
maintain the technological advances to be able to trap and capture
information that poses a risk to our country. No one here, I believe,
is arguing against that. The question simply was, For 5 years, why
didn't the telecommunications industry and why didn't the individuals
in the Bush administration simply do what had been done more than
18,000 times before, and that is go and get a court order from the FISA
Court?
Don't blame the NSA here. I have talked about them. The NSA is a
Federal Government agency responsible for collecting the data. It was
the administration officials here and the lawyers within these
telecommunications companies who decided to avoid the law. The NSA
officials whom I have dealt with over the years want to be able to
operate within Federal statutes. Their job is not to draft the law but
to gather intelligence.
The responsibility is on those in the administration responsible for
granting this kind of legal authority without going to the FISA Court.
And it is on the legal departments in these major communications
companies for not understanding what they should know--and did know, I
believe--and that is that they merely had to go to the FISA Court and
get a court order, and the information sought by the NSA would be
immune from any further legal proceedings. That is the issue. The law
had been in place for three decades.
Those who are fighting immunity want an open debate on the balance of
security and civil liberties. The President disagrees. He is saying: If
you strike the immunity for these corporations, I will veto the bill. I
find it remarkable that Members have worked hard over weeks to craft a
bill to balance the needs of civil liberties and the ability to gather
information, and the President is saying: I don't care if you have done
all of that; if you don't protect these corporations from lawsuits, I
am going to put the whole legislation at risk. It seems to me the
immunity issue ought not dominate the decision the committees have made
about what needs to be done to balance civil liberties and the need to
gather information.
Mr. President, I see great danger in this immunity. It would replace
the rule of law with the rule of secrecy.
Those who are fighting immunity offer open debate on the balance of
security and civil liberties. But this President tells us that he knows
best, that he has set the balance already and the rest of us do not
need to worry our heads about it. I oppose immunity because I find that
thinking to be dead wrong. The power at stake today--the power to spy,
the power to invade privacy, the power to put one's friends outside the
law--does not belong in the hands of any one individual, no matter how
wise--and certainly not the hands of a President whose contempt for the
law has been too obvious for too many years.
As we fight this immunity, that is what is at stake today. Not
punishment. Not payback. Openness. Americans deserve to know what this
President and these corporations have done to them, and we are never
going to know that if this immunity is granted.
[[Page 34587]]
We are never, ever going to know. It will be as if it never happened.
As a Member of this body for 26 years, a senior member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, I don't have the right to even look at the
relevant documents. Only a handful of people have the right to do it.
So I am being asked, as a 26-year veteran of this Senate, serving on
the Foreign Relations Committee, to grant blanket immunity to the
President's favored corporations. I find that rather remarkable.
As you know, I have serious doubts about the legality of the
corporations' actions, but I would never presume to come to this floor
and render a verdict on them. I am not a judge. None of my colleagues
are, either, nor is the President of the United States. Just as it
would be absurd for me to declare the telecoms clearly guilty, it is
equally wrong to declare them effectively innocent. That power belongs
to the courts, to the coequal branch of government, the judiciary. To
slam the courthouse door shut on American citizens seeking redress
would be to forget the meaning of checks and balances in our system of
governance altogether.
I believe in letting the courts do their job. It seems the
President's allies only believe in the courts when the verdict goes
their way. They offer any number of arguments for immunity, but one by
one, they fail. They are false and often misleading. I would like to
take a few minutes to look at those claims and their failures one by
one.
First of all, immunity supporters argue that granting immunity is a
Presidential prerogative. That was one of the arguments made by Alberto
Gonzales. The answer to that is, of course, the fact is that this case
belongs in the courts. The judiciary should be allowed to determine
whether the President has exceeded his powers by obtaining wholesale
access to the domestic communications of ordinary citizens without a
court order. That is why the courts exist, to determine if the actions
by the Chief Executive or the Congress are, in fact, appropriate and
proper and legal.
Because the telecom corporations are intimately bound up with the
President's warrantless wiretapping, immunity supporters are proposing
that the President sit as a judge over himself. The administration's
original immunity proposal protected not just telecommunications but
everyone involved in the wiretapping program. In their original
proposal, they wanted to immunize themselves.
Think about that. It speaks to their fear and perhaps their guilt, as
well: their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in
the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted. They knew
better than anyone else what they had done--they must have had good
reason to be concerned!
Thankfully, executive immunity is not part of the bill before us, but
the origin of immunity tells us a great deal about what is at stake
here. That is, and always has been, a self-preservation bill.
Second, immunity supporters claim that only foreign communications
were targeted, not Americans' domestic calls. For those who were
listening, I just read two documents from an AT&T official of 22 years
who was deeply involved in helping set up the very systems, and from
Dr. Reid, who then analyzed all the materials that have been presented
by Mark Klein to determine exactly how the system worked. The fact is
clear: Firsthand evidence, authenticated by corporations in court,
contradicts the claim. Splitters at the AT&T Internet hub in San
Francisco diverted to a secret, NSA-controlled room every e-mail, every
text message, every phone call, foreign and domestic, carried over the
massive fiber-optic links of 16 separate companies.
Third, immunity supporters claim that the Intelligence Committee
version of this bill actually does preserve a role for the judiciary.
But, again, the fact is that the role would be empty. The Intelligence
version of this bill would require the cases to be dismissed at a word
from the Attorney General. The central legal questions raised by these
cases would never be heard in court. The cases would never be fully
closed. We would never truly know what happened.
The fourth argument is that a lack of immunity will make the telecom
industry less likely to cooperate with surveillance in the future.
However, in the 1970s, FISA compelled telecommunications companies to
cooperate with surveillance. In fact, AT&T helped write this law some
30 years ago. But they could only get that cooperation from the
telecommunications industry when it is warranted, literally where there
is a court order. But if the court order is given, the cooperating
telecom is immunized. No warrant, no immunity.
So cooperation in warranted wiretapping is not at stake today.
Collusion in warrantless wiretapping is--and the warrant makes all the
difference, because it is precisely the court's blessing that brings
Presidential power under the rule of law.
The fifth argument immunity supporters offer is that the telecoms
cannot defend themselves without exposing state secrets. But the fact
is that Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker--I might point out,
appointed by a Republican administration--has already ruled on this
matter that the issue can go to trial without putting state secrets in
jeopardy. Judge Walker reasonably pointed out that the existence of the
President's surveillance program is all hardly a secret at all today.
We are debating it here, and have been. It is has been in the
discussion for weeks on end. You can't claim there is a secret about
the surveillance program.
As Judge Walker said:
The Government has already disclosed the general contours
of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which requires the
assistance of a telecommunications provider.
The sixth argument offered by supporters of immunity claims that
telecom companies are already protected by common law principles.
But again, the fact is that common law immunities do not trump
specific legal duties imposed by statute, such as the specific duties
to protect customer privacy that Congress has long imposed on these
telecommunication companies, going back almost 30 years.
In the pending case against AT&T, the judge has already ruled
unequivocally, and I quote:
That AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity
in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic
dragnet was legal.
Even so, the communication company defendants can and should, I
believe, have the opportunity to present these defenses to the courts.
I am not suggesting by that quote that there ought to be a
predetermined verdict. As I said a moment ago, I am not pretending I am
a judge here. All I am asking is that these cases go forward and a
determination made as to whether they were legal. The defendants can
and should have the opportunity to present these defenses to the
courts; and the courts, not the Congress preemptively, should decide
whether they are sufficient.
The seventh argument offered by the supporters of the retroactive
immunity says that leaks from the trial might damage national security.
We heard this argument from my good friend from Virginia, Senator
Warner. But the fact is, our Federal court system has already dealt for
decades with the most delicate national security matters, building up
expertise in protecting classified information behind closed doors in
what are called ex parte and in camera proceedings. We can expect, I
think, no less in these cases as well.
If we are worried about national security being threatened as a
result, we can simply get the principals a security clearance. No
intelligence sources need be compromised; no state secrets need to be
exposed. And we can say so with increasing confidence, because after
the extensive litigation that has taken place at both the district
court and circuit court levels on this matter already, no sensitive
information has leaked out. I think it is a red herring to suggest
somehow that you cannot go to court here when we have proved for
decades the courts' ability to handle national security matters without
leaking.
[[Page 34588]]
An eighth argument offered by immunity supporters claims that
litigation will harm the telecoms by causing them ``reputational
damage.'' The fact is there is no evidence that this legislation has
reduced or would reduce the defendant companies' bottom lines or
customer base. This morning I quoted from the Dow Jones Market Watch.
The date is October 23, 2007, well after the reports were out about
AT&T's involvement in the surveillance program.
Third quarter earnings rose 41.5 percent. Boosted by the
acquisition of BellSouth and the addition of 2 million net
wireless customers, AT&T's net income was $3.06 billion,
compared with $2.17 billion a year ago.
Hardly a company that is suffering reputational damage. AT&T has
posted these record profits during a time of very public litigation. So
the argument that reputational damage somehow prevents us from going
forward has no basis in fact.
But moreover, to claim that ``reputational damage'' ought to trump
our rights and liberties--I find it frightening that anyone in
government would even make that argument. To say that a violation of
millions of Americans' privacy over 5 years is outweighed by the
potential for reputational damage is to show a rather extraordinary
lack of balance when it comes to understanding the relative importance
of these issues.
A ninth argument made by those in favor of retroactive immunity
claims that these lawsuits could bankrupt the telecommunications
industry. But the fact is that only the most exorbitant and unlikely
judgment could completely wipe out such enormous corporations. To
assume that the telecommunications industry would lose and that the
judges would then hand down such back-breaking penalties is already to
take several leaps from where we are today.
The point, after all, has never been to cripple our
telecommunications industry; the point is to bring checks and balances
back to domestic surveillance. Setting that precedent would hardly
require a crippling judgment.
But on another level, immunity supporters are staking their claim on
a dangerous principle: that a lawsuit can be stopped simply on the
basis of how much a defendant stands to lose. The larger the
corporation, in other words, the more lawless it could be. If we accept
the immunity supporters' premises, we could conceive of a corporation
so wealthy, so integral to our economy, that its riches place it
outside the law altogether. And if the administration's thinking even
admits that possibility, we know instinctively how flawed it is.
We see then none of those arguments for immunity stand up to the
test. All nine of them fail.
I am not here again to render judgment on the telecom corporations. I
have my doubts, but that's not why I'm here. All I am suggesting is
that when you grant this kind of immunity once, what is to stop someone
from making that argument again, in a later debate, when maybe someone
will be asked to collect information about our medical histories or our
financial records or some other personal matters? They would wave that
vote back in our face: Democrats, Republicans found no difficulty in
granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications surveillance; why
would you object today when it comes to people's medical records, or
their financial records, or other private information?
You start down that slippery slope, and nothing good can come of it.
This ought not be a difficult debate.
So I am surprised and stunned to listen to some of my more
conservative colleagues here. I used to associate conservative
principles with standing up for privacy, a principle once held
sacrosanct. It is rather stunning to me today to listen to some of the
more conservative Members argue for retroactive immunity, that somehow
it was all right for those companies to do what they did. I hear that
they did not know any better, that somehow they got drawn into this by
mistake. If that were true of every one of them, well, maybe that point
would have a little more weight. But there were companies such as Qwest
that said, ``No, give me a court order, and then I will comply.'' Why
did the Qwest lawyers arrive at a different decision? Was it a great
secret within the telecommunications industry that there were those who
said no? Why did Qwest say no and others say yes? I believe they
understood the law, and they realized that without a court order they
could not legally comply with that request.
I might point out that no court order was ever forthcoming. Why did
not the administration seek that court order for Qwest to get
additional information? Why did they drop that kind of request? I might
point out, as I did earlier today, that over the years, I am told by
The Washington Post, there have been over 18,000 requests of the FISA
Court for court orders, and of more than 18,000 requests, only 5 have
been rejected. 99.9 percent of the requests by administrations for
court orders over the years in the FISA Court have been granted.
Why would you not ask? Why did they not go forward and make that
request? Why did Qwest say no? Why did the others say yes? Why are we
granting immunity to these companies, without going through the courts
of law to determine what is right?
Again, this ought not be a debate between Democrats and Republicans
and conservatives and liberals. It ought to be a debate about defending
these basic rights we have here in America. Companies that may have
violated them deserve their day in a court of law. But immunizing them
for a program that went on for not for a day or two or a week or 6
months or even a year, but for 5 years and only stopped when exposed by
a whistleblower ought to cause all of us to pause. Clearly we want to
keep our country safe, but if we are being asked to keep our country
safe by giving up our rights, then we are granting these jihadists and
terrorists victories far beyond anything they have yet achieved.
As tragic as the events of 9/11 were, if we begin to undo our own
liberties and rights, we give them a success far beyond anything they
could have ever imagined. I have been here today for the last 8 hours,
and I will stay here for as long as it takes.
At the appropriate time, when we have exhausted the ability to talk
about it generally, I will offer the language to strike it, and I hope
my colleagues will join me in that effort. But I am determined not to
let this go forward, because I think we have done that too often. I
myself have been guilty of accepting far too much from this
administration. Just one small thing is at issue today. But then I
start to look back at all of the small things that have been done, so-
called ``small things'' over the last 5 or 6 years--most recently, the
destruction of interrogation tapes at the CIA. And the combined weight
of these ``small things'' truly frightens me.
What was going on at the CIA? Why did that happen? Why Abu Ghraib?
Why Guantanamo? Why get rid of habeas corpus? Why bring back
waterboarding? Why do away with the Geneva Conventions? Why nominate
someone to be the Attorney General who believes that Presidents have
the right to violate Federal statutes here under the guise of
protecting the Nation's security?
Why, after each one of those these things? Why the Military
Commissions Act? In case after case after case, we see the slow erosion
going on. And again, regardless of what your politics are, regardless
of where you find yourself on the spectrum, when our basic rights are
involved, we must stand up and say, ``Enough!''
A generation ago, Members of this body sat here, and had only one
negative vote as they worked out the original FISA law, that balance
between our needs to protect our security and to protect our rights.
Here we are about to make a major step in the opposite direction. And
those gentlemen faced tough times. They were wrestling with the threat
of nuclear war in the 1970s. The Soviet Union still existed. They had
been through World War II, many of them, Korea and Vietnam. They knew
what hostility and difficulty were like. And yet Democrats and
Republicans came together and wrote that legislation. On 30 separate
occasions since then they modernized
[[Page 34589]]
it to keep pace with the changes occurring throughout the world, where
new risks and new dangers are posed every day. So yes, we should
modernize FISA and bring it up to date. I applaud the committees'
efforts to do so. But to add retroactive immunity, to grant blanket
immunity to companies that listened in on millions of people in this
country without a court order, is a step too far.
Listen to the remarks of our colleague from Massachusetts today in
talking about the legal counsel of this administration. Their words: to
blow through these laws. They did not like them? Blow through them!
That was their attitude. Well, I am going to stop the blowing through.
No more blowing through the laws. Not here, not tonight, not this
Member, not on this bill. No more blowing through the law!
You do not get immunity, not as long as I can stand here and fight
this. I intend to do just that.
Madam President, I withhold the remainder of my time, and I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. It is not
counted against the time.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on numerous occasions in the FISA debate,
we have seen dramatic fear mongering. Many individuals, particularly on
partisan blogs, are spreading misleading and malicious information in
order to incite fear of alleged governmental activities. This bill
should not include text which panders to people who believe in
imaginary Government conspiracies. There is such a thing as irrational
fear of Government.
Let's not forget, our Government did not kill thousands of innocent
Americans on September 11. Our Government did not kill hundreds of
people in car bombings in U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Our
Government did not kill 191 people in the Madrid train bombings. Our
Government did not kill 52 people in the London train bombings. Our
Government did not kill 202 people in suicide bombings Bali, Indonesia.
The indisputable fact is terrorists have committed heinous attacks on
Americans and have pledged themselves to conduct more. It is not
politics of fear to acknowledge this. If we bury our heads in the sand
and pass legislation that ignores these risks, we make ourselves and
all our people more vulnerable. I will not stand by and see Congress
pass laws which could create vulnerabilities for our people,
vulnerabilities which expose our families and our friends to danger.
Let me tell you what our Government does to protect us. It hires the
finest men and women of this great country to utilize their skills to
help prevent these types of attacks. Our job in Congress is to make
sure these people who have sworn to defend us have the necessary tools
to try and prevent terrorist attacks. What they don't need are laws
with ambiguous language, as has been proposed, making their jobs more
difficult.
One of my colleagues previously stated:
The authority in this bill greatly expands the Government's
ability to conduct surveillance of foreign targets.
How in the world he can make that statement, I don't understand. The
only great expansion I see in this bill is judicial jurisdiction. In
fact, I am amazed we don't rename the bill the unlimited expansion of
judicial authority act. We have advocated so much new responsibility
for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that I wonder whether
people realize that court is composed of only 11 judges. Where is this
great expansion in surveillance authority that has been argued on the
floor?
Since FISA was passed in 1978, the Government has been able to target
terrorists overseas. This bill amends FISA so we can continue to target
foreign terrorists when they utilize communications over a wire, not
just communications over radio or satellite. This does not sound to me
like a great expansion. Maybe that is why the Government has continued
to say FISA needed to be ``modernized,'' not that it needed to be
greatly expanded. There is, however, a key expansion in the bill. It is
a statutory warrant requirement when targeting U.S. persons, regardless
of who they are, what they have done or where they are located. Notice
I said U.S. persons, not U.S. citizens. This idea may sound great to
everyone, but we should realize, with eyes wide open, what this means.
We have heard some individuals claim the Government could use the power
of the Protect America Act to spy on innocent Americans. We have heard
the fear mongering that the Government can spy on innocent Americans
when they travel overseas. We have heard all about American families on
vacation overseas in the Caribbean or in Europe. We have even heard our
Government could spy on American military members who are overseas
defending our country.
I find these scare tactics not only ridiculous but extremely
offensive. They walk a fine line in seemingly questioning the integrity
and the judgment of these fine men and women who work for us and who
don't have a political agenda, who have dedicated their professional
lives to prevent catastrophic attacks on Americans. Do we think our
intelligence analysts are sitting around waiting for the Smith family
to go on their family vacation to Italy so they can tap their cell
phones? Give me a break. To imply that our country's intelligence
analysts are more concerned with random innocent Americans than foreign
terrorists overseas is a slap in the face to the people who protect our
Nation. Our Government is focusing their attention on terrorists who
wish us death, not on innocent Americans.
When some decry the lack of statutory protection for Americans
overseas in the Protect America Act, I wonder if they realize the 1978
FISA law itself provides no statutory protections for Americans
overseas. Yet we have called that the gold standard all these years. I
would, however, tell my colleagues that Americans overseas are
protected by the most important document in the history of our great
Nation, and that is the U.S. Constitution. The fourth amendment to the
Constitution provides protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
That is the question. Is it always unreasonable for the Government to
target an American overseas without a court order? Of course not. I
would suggest the process that has worked for 26 years is the best
approach. It is Executive Order 12333. Since 1981, the Government could
only target Americans overseas if the Attorney General determined via
probable cause that the American was an agent of a foreign power. Do we
think an intelligence analyst is going to disregard an executive order
and wiretap innocent Americans overseas? Of course not.
Now, with the policy change included in both the Intelligence and
Judiciary bills, I want to give an example of how this provision will
apply in real life.
Adam Gadahn is an American citizen from Orange County, CA. He is also
one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists now believed to be living
overseas. He has been indicted for treason and providing material
support to al-Qaida. Here is what he said:
The streets of America shall run red with blood . . .
casualties will be too many to count and the next wave of
attacks may come at any moment.
He has appeared on multiple al-Qaida propaganda tapes. Here is
another quote:
The magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will
make you forget all about September 11.
Here is something that should make all Americans scratch their heads.
Before September 11, the Government would not need a warrant to target
this criminal. After September 11, the Government would not need a
warrant to target Gadahn. But after this bill is signed, the Government
will be required to get a warrant to target Gadahn. This bill does
require that.
Let's explain that one to the American public.
[[Page 34590]]
Would a warrantless interception of Gadahn's communications be
``unreasonable'' under the fourth amendment? Of course not. But we are
requiring something that even the Founding Fathers did not--a warrant
for all electronic searches of U.S. persons.
Now I understand the administration is willing to accept a modified
version of this amendment that does not include unintended
consequences. It is yet another example of how far this proposal goes
to satisfy determined detractors who never seem to be satisfied that we
are doing enough to ``protect'' innocent Americans.
I am also amazed at the false descriptions floating around the
Internet of the program which the President described on December 17,
2005, during a radio address. We have all heard the terms:
``warrantless wiretapping'' or ``domestic spying.'' But let's look at
what the President actually said during his radio address on December
17, 2005. This is what he said:
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our Nation,
I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with
U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international
communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and
related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these
communications, the government must have information that
establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
Now I do not see anything in this statement about domestic spying. I
thought the definition of the word ``domestic'' was pretty clear. If
the program intercepted communications in which at least one party was
overseas, not to mention a member of al-Qaida, then it seems fairly
obvious that the calls were not domestic.
Here, as shown on this chart, is a call from the United States of
America to overseas; or a call from overseas to the United States of
America. Is that a domestic call? I hardly think so. Is this such a
hard concept to grasp? The last time I flew overseas, I did not fly on
a domestic flight. I flew on an international flight. ``Domestic
spying'' may sound catchy and mysterious, but it is a completely
inaccurate way to describe the terrorist surveillance program. Why
don't the partisan blogs describe it as ``international spying''? Isn't
that a more accurate description? I guess accurate descriptions take a
back seat to terms which incite fear and distrust in our Government.
Since so many are so interested in the opinion of the FISC, or the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on these matters, I wish to
draw attention to a recent decision. On Tuesday, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court denied a motion by the ACLU for release
of court records related to alleged NSA surveillance programs. This
FISC opinion was publicly released, which is only the third time in the
entire history of the FISC in which this has occurred.
Given the rarity of this event--this issued public opinion that
denied a motion by the ACLU for the release of court records related to
alleged NSA surveillance programs--I want to highlight a few sentences
from that ruling:
[T]he identification of targets and methods of surveillance
would permit adversaries to evade surveillance, conceal their
activities, and possibly mislead investigators through false
information. Public identification of targets, and those in
communication with them, would also likely result in
harassment of, or more grievous injury to, persons who might
be exonerated after full investigation. Disclosures about
confidential sources of information would chill current and
potential sources from providing information, and might put
some in personal jeopardy. Disclosure of some forms of
intelligence gathering could harm national security in other
ways, such as damaging relations with foreign governments.
All these possible harms are real and significant, and, quite
frankly, beyond debate.
Now, that is in re: Motion for release of court records of the U.S.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, December 7 of this year.
I think we can all agree this is a vitally important public opinion
from the FISA, and I commend it to my colleagues.
Regardless of how we came to this moment, it is time to do what is
right for our country. The time has come for us to work together. We
all know it is going to take bipartisan support to get this legislation
passed. Let's represent our constituents with our heads held high,
knowing we are doing our very best to balance the necessity for
protections of civil liberties with the need to keep American families
safe from deadly attacks. We owe our people this much.
I hope we can continue to work, as the Intelligence Committee did, in
a bipartisan way to resolve these very difficult problems. I have to
say that the 13-to-2 bipartisan approach is one of the highlights of
this year. It is probably the best example of bipartisanship we have
this year. I have to tell you, to try to change that with some of the
language from the Judiciary Committee--where it was a pure partisan
vote on both sides--to try to change that is not the way to do it.
So I hope our colleagues will realize that in the Intelligence
Committee, in a bipartisan way, we have worked together to come up with
the ways of solving these very technical and difficult problems, and to
do so in the best traditions of the intelligence community, in the best
traditions of gathering intelligence information, and in the best
traditions of protecting our country that this country has ever known.
Frankly, I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, the distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, and my fellow Senators on the committee, Democrats and
Republicans, who were willing to put partisanship aside and pass that
bill 13 to 2 out of that committee.
Mr. President, I notice my dear friend from Florida is desirous to
speak on the floor, so I will withhold my further remarks and turn the
time over to him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from
Utah, who has been a member of the Intelligence Committee for years and
years, and who brings a lot of good common sense to the committee. I
echo his comments about the bipartisan nature of Chairman Rockefeller
and Vice Chairman Bond working together. It was something that this
member of the Intelligence Committee had seen earlier this year break
down, and I must say this member of the Intelligence Committee
absolutely reminded everybody on the committee that the committee ought
to work of one accord, reaching consensus when we can reach that
consensus, and, at the end of the day, that the product not only be a
bipartisan product, it ought to be a nonpartisan product.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I certainly do yield to my friend.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks.
He was one of the Senators who helped to put this bill together, and a
distinguished Senator at that.
Would the Senator agree with me that should this bill pass, it would
be one of the best illustrations of bipartisanship in this whole
Congress so far?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Indeed, Mr. President, it would be. And we
have to pass a FISA bill. For many of the reasons you have heard--the
changing technology--we have to give the legal authorization to the
U.S. Government. That is another reason for having a clear delineation
in law of what the Government can do and what it cannot do. Because,
unfortunately, what we have seen over the last several years is the
intrusion into this murky area without the necessary legal binding,
that it was clearly legal as to what was being done. That is what is so
necessary about passing a piece of legislation such as we have before
us in the form of which we are just on the motion to proceed.
Now, I voted for closing off debate on the motion to proceed because
it is clearly important that we get a law and pass this legislation. It
improves on the legislation we passed last August, where it is going to
provide protections for Americans both in the United States and abroad.
But naturally in something as complicated as this, I am not satisfied
completely with what is in the bill. That is why we
[[Page 34591]]
ought to get to the bill, so we can start amending or considering
amendments.
For example, the Senator from Connecticut--when we ever get to the
bill--is going to offer the amendment that I offered in the
Intelligence Committee, which was the amendment to take away immunity
from the telephone companies. It was specifically targeted to strip the
provisions of the bill that provided immunity to the telecommunications
companies for assistance provided to the administration for warrantless
surveillance in a defined period of time--from September 11, 2001,
until January 17, 2007.
The reason I offered that in the committee was, I felt it was hugely
premature for our committee to grant that retroactive immunity to those
telecommunications carriers when, in fact, the White House had only
come forth with the documents that we could inspect only 48 hours prior
to when we were going to vote on it.
I am still troubled by the idea of a blanket retroactive immunity.
Whether they deserve a break for their cooperation with the
Government's warrantless program in the aftermath of September 11, that
is one thing. But this went on for 6 years.
I can certainly understand, in the aftermath of the horror of what we
saw on September 11, 2001, that a President would need, for the
protection of the country--and using his article II powers of the
Constitution as Commander in Chief to protect the country--that he
could say to telecommunications companies: We need this information.
There is a law over here called the FISA law that says if you want to
snoop on any American person, you have to do it by getting a court
order by a special Federal court that is organized under law to handle
these secret national security matters in secret.
I can see telecommunications companies going along, that in the
urgency of the aftermath of September 11--we do not know when the next
strike is coming; it may be the next day, it may be the next week--that
the telecommunications companies cooperated when the President said and
the communications come to them saying: This is under the legal
authority of the President. I can understand that. But after a year?
After 2 years? After 3 years? How about 4 years? How about 5 years,
when clearly there is a law on the books that if it is going to touch
Americans, you have to go to the special Federal court impaneled by
Federal judges who are cleared for top-secret information? Now, that is
what bothers me.
There is another part that bothers me, which is that in the
separation of powers envisioned in our Constitution, the first article
of the Constitution is setting up the legislative branch of Government.
The second article sets up the executive branch of Government--the
President. The Constitution envisioned that there is a check and a
balance of each of those on the other. For example, something doesn't
become law that the legislative branch--the Congress--passes. It can't
become law without the signature of the President. But if Congress
disagrees with the President, they can override the President's Veto
with a two-thirds vote. So there is this tension built into the system
of one branch overseeing the other. It is appropriate that the
legislative branch oversees the activities of the executive branch.
But that is not what was going on with this matter of surveillance
because the legislative branch was left in the dark. The President
ignored the Congress. The President ignored the courts when he
authorized the warrantless surveillance program and Congress's attempts
to conduct the oversight of the program. All those attempts were
constantly thwarted. So, therefore, I also have a problem with
retroactive immunity--that it would make a mockery of our separation of
powers.
Now, having said all that, as a member of the Intelligence Committee,
I have still a check in my gut as to whether there would be some lack
of cooperation among telecommunications companies with the executive
branch of government on a going-forward basis if there is not some form
of immunity that is given to these telecommunications companies. I know
that on a going-forward basis there cannot be any question that we have
the cooperation of those companies with the Government in order to
protect this country and to provide for the national security.
So I am looking forward to the debate continuing as we flesh out all
these ideas. I am particularly intrigued with an amendment that is
going to be offered by Senator Feinstein, of which I am a cosponsor,
which would provide a forum handling classified material in the FISA
court itself in order to consider the question of immunity and that
there would be a determination in this special Federal court as to
whether the immunity ought to be given. I think that is something we
ought to debate. We ought to get it clear when we get to the bill. But
in the meantime, I share with the Senate my reservations about this
part of the bill and about the immunity.
Let me say at the end of the day--whether we have immunity in the
bill or whether it is not in the bill or whether there is some hybrid
version such as the Feinstein amendment, at the end of the day, we are
going to need to make this FISA law permanent because it is going to
run out in February. We have to clearly have this etched into law so on
a going-forward basis we can provide for the security of this country.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I certainly will yield to my friend from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague from Florida, I appreciate immensely
his leadership on so many issues, but especially on the committee
itself. I was stunned by the number of requests made of the FISA Court
over the years for court orders to various entities. There have been
over 18,000 granted court order requests and 5 rejections in 25 years.
Some have argued a fear that we might not get an approval by the FISA
Court, but in 99.9 percent of the times that Presidents of both parties
over the years or administrations have sought the approval of the FISA
Court for a court order to seek information, in only 5 cases over more
than 25 years have those requests been rejected.
I thank the Senator from Florida for raising the point. This is not
about denying our agencies the opportunity, the ability, the means by
which they gather information to keep us secure; it is merely saying so
that in the process of doing so, there is a way of doing this, which
grants them the opportunity to do that while simultaneously protecting
our basic liberties. So I thank the Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would respond to the very
distinguished Senator from Connecticut that those kinds of reports have
been in the press for some time, and I think generally they are
considered to be true. However, a lot of that operated under the old
law, which had a 3-day limit, that in the case of a national emergency,
the President wouldn't have to first go and get a court order.
Instead, he could go on under the emergency conditions and surveil
the particular target, if it were an American person but, under the old
law, would have to go back to the court within 3 days to get that order
or else cease their surveillance. In the new law that was passed on a
temporary basis for 6 months, that we passed last August, that 3 days
has been extended to 7 days to give more leeway. Certainly, if someone
in the Government feels that a person--an American person--should be
surveilled in their communications but it was an emergency basis, that
they don't have time to go to the court, the law as it stands now and
under the new FISA bill we are considering on this floor would say that
within 7 days, the executive branch would have to go and get that court
order called a warrant or else cease the surveillance.
Now, that is very reasonable, and it is a lot of that kind of stuff
that is in this bill that is so necessary to have this etched into a
permanent law, not a law that is going to sunset in 6 months--next
February. That is part of the gravity of the legislation before us. Now
we have to get to this very sensitive issue of immunity and how to
[[Page 34592]]
handle it. Although I have stated I am certainly sympathetic; indeed,
the Senator's amendment he is going to offer is the one I offered and
that was defeated. It only got three affirmative votes in the
committee. So my amendment in the committee did not prevail.
Nevertheless, there are other amendments coming after the Senator's
amendment, if his is not--if the amendment of the Senator from
Connecticut is not adopted--that do take a very practical approach. The
Feinstein amendment which I have cosponsored is one where the issue of
immunity would be determined in the FISA Court itself that is set up in
order to handle these national security matters.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator in Connecticut in
rising in strong opposition to the retroactive immunity provisions
contained in the bill before us today. I thank Senator Dodd for his
strong opposition and leadership and courage to make this fight.
Earlier today, I opposed the cloture vote because I don't believe we
should consider providing immunity to corporations that broke the law,
breached the Constitution, and trampled on Americans' civil liberties.
It is pretty much as simple as that.
As Senators Dodd, Feingold, and others have made clear throughout
this day, this is a matter of law, this is a matter of basic civil
liberties, and this is a matter of accountability.
The decisions we make when we vote on this bill have bearing on every
single American because the rights and protections the Constitution
provides are precious to every single American. That is what we stand
for as a nation.
No individual or corporation can breach the Constitution and break
the law. No individual or corporation can breach the Constitution and
break the law, even if the Federal Government tells them to do it.
Corporations cannot rely on a piece of paper handed to them by the
administration that says that an act on the very face of it sounds
illegal but it is, in fact, legal. They have, and they had, an
independent obligation as corporations to assess the legality of
wiretapping before engaging in it. That is why some telecommunications
companies refused to comply when the administration asked them to
wiretap. All of them should have taken that step.
The Constitution does not allow companies to rely on the executive
branch to interpret the Constitution for them. When the fundamental
constitutional rights of Americans are at issue, corporations have
one--and only one--course of action: they must act in accordance with
the law; they must act in accordance with the Constitution.
Some in this body have suggested that these companies were compelled
to go along with the administration's illegal wiretapping program
because of 9/11 and because of the very real danger of foreign
terrorist attacks. Mr. President, while all of us--every 1 of the 100
Members of this body--wants to protect America at all costs, these
companies went along with this program absent a legal warrant or court
order for over 5 years after 9/11.
These multibillion-dollar corporations have teams of lawyers that
assess the meaning and implication of Federal law as it relates to
every move they make. But this time, now, we are asked to accept that
highly trained lawyers working for these companies could not clearly
understand and interpret the Constitution or interpret the requirements
of FISA, a law that is more than 30 years old.
It would be a total and absolute assault on the Constitution to allow
a small group of companies to ignore Federal law simply because they
were asked to by the President--whoever the President is.
It is important for all those listening to take a good look at whom
the administration is fighting for and whom it is representing.
President Bush has threatened to veto this bill unless it contains
the retroactive immunity provisions but not because the protections for
citizens are too weak. The President will veto this bill, he says,
frankly, because he is concerned about the bank accounts of a handful
of telecommunications companies.
Since when did money trump constitutional freedom? Since when did
corporate connections matter more than the rule of law?
Congress has the responsibility to protect the freedoms and the
rights of all citizens. Our Government should be open and transparent
and, when rights are infringed, there should be an opportunity to seek
legal redress in a court of law.
That is why our system of government contains a judicial branch: to
litigate infringements of rights, to assess the constitutionality of
laws and programs.
The retroactive immunity provisions in this bill will make it
impossible to hold those who broke the law accountable for their
illegal actions. That is wrong, Mr. President, and that is dangerous.
We must remember that by protecting our civil liberties we protect
our Nation and our values.
I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Dodd-Feingold amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his
continuing efforts here. He is not a newcomer at all to these issues. I
thank him for his words, support, and knowledge of the issue, and his
continuing efforts to see if we can get a good bill out of here and not
add extraneous matters such as this.
As I heard Senator Nelson of Florida talk earlier, I thought--I think
many of us thought that had this been a day or a week after 9/11, we
might have found the telecoms' actions more understandable. In the heat
of emergency, we might have accepted some excessive aggression. I can
understand people drawing that conclusion.
But this program went on for 5 long years. The idea that we grant
retroactive immunity for actions over 5 long years goes way beyond
anything anybody ought to accept in this body.
Retroactive immunity, under these circumstance, would be a massive
step backward in light of this administration's assault on the
Constitution and the rule of law. Again, I thank my colleague from
Ohio.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the motion
to proceed to S. 2248 as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee
because I believe that we should instead be taking up on the Senate
floor the far better bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee.
Congress has a duty to protect the American people--and to protect
the Constitution. That is the oath we take. It is a solemn pledge, and
in my judgment the Judiciary Committee bill better reflects the oath we
each swear to uphold. Why? The Judiciary Committee's bill gives the
President the added flexibility he needs to hunt and capture terrorists
who would strike our homeland--but it strikes an appropriate balance
between protecting the privacy rights of American citizens and
providing the President adequate tools to fight international
terrorism.
This is no small issue. It is the job of Congress to find the right
balance between protecting privacy and safeguarding national security.
The judiciary bill makes critical improvements to the Protect America
Act to ensure independent judicial oversight by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC. It allows the secret FISC
greater authority to act as an independent check on unfettered
Executive power. The judiciary bill provides the court the authority to
assess the Government's ongoing compliance with its wiretapping
procedures, places limits on the way the Government uses information
acquired about Americans, and lets the court enforce its own orders.
[[Page 34593]]
The judiciary bill also safeguards Americans against widespread
warrantless spying. It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive statutory
authority for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, prohibits
limitless ``fishing expeditions''--so-called ``bulk collection'' of all
communications between the United States and overseas, and ensures that
the Government cannot eavesdrop on Americans under the guise of
targeting foreigners--what is known as ``reverse targeting.''
Most importantly, unlike the Intelligence bill, the judiciary bill
does not provide retroactive amnesty to telecommunications providers
that were complicit in the administration's warrantless spying program.
I fear this administration is deliberately stonewalling to avoid an
adverse court decision finding its surveillance program to be
unconstitutional. It is seeking political security in the name of
national security.
The heart of the matter is that allowing Americans their day in
court--introducing some kind of accountability, affording some kind of
objective authority, in lieu of the Bush administration, to adjudicate
competing claims--will shed much-needed light on the administration's
secret surveillance program. If the lawsuits are shielded by Congress,
the courts may never rule on whether the administration's surveillance
activities were lawful. We must hold the administration to account. And
an impartial court of law insulated from political pressure is the most
appropriate setting in which to receive a fair hearing.
If the telecoms were following the law, they should get immunity, as
Congress explicitly provided under the original FISA law. But our
courts should decide, not Congress--and that is a matter of principle
protected in the judiciary bill, which is the bipartisan bill that
should be under consideration.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--
FISA--is intended to protect both our national security and the privacy
and civil liberties of Americans. We are considering amendments to that
important act that will provide new flexibility to our intelligence
community. I think we all support surveillance authority, and we have
joined together to update FISA dozens of times since its historic
passage after the intelligence abuses of earlier decades. I thank the
majority leader for his efforts in bringing this matter before the
Senate. He has consulted with me and with Chairman Rockefeller and is
proceeding by regular order to bring this legislation before the Senate
in a manner that allows deliberation of the many protections of
Americans' rights added to the bill during consideration by the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
It is vitally important that we correct the excesses of the so-called
Protect America Act that was rushed through the Senate in an atmosphere
of fear and intimidation just before the August recess after the
administration reneged on agreements reached with congressional
leaders. That bill was hurriedly passed under intense, partisan
pressure from the administration. It provided sweeping new powers to
the Government to engage in surveillance, without a warrant, of
international calls to and from the United States involving Americans,
and it provided no meaningful protection for the privacy and civil
liberties of the Americans who are on those calls.
Before that flawed bill passed, Senator Rockefeller and I, and
several others in the House and the Senate, worked hard and in good
faith with the administration to craft legislation that solved an
identified problem but also protected Americans' privacy and liberties.
Just before the August recess the administration decided, instead, to
ram through its version of the so-called Protect America Act with
excessive grants of Government authority and without accountability or
checks and balances. After almost 6 years of violating FISA through
secret warrantless wiretapping programs, that was wrong. A number of us
supported the better balanced alternative and voted against the Protect
America Act as drafted by the administration.
Fortunately, because the Protect America Act has a 6-month sunset, we
have a chance to revisit this matter and do it right. The Judiciary
Committees and Intelligence Committees in the Senate and the House have
spent the past months considering changes to FISA. In the Senate
Judiciary Committee, we held open hearings and countless briefings and
meetings to consider new surveillance legislation. We considered
legislative language in a number of open business meetings of the
committee and reported a good bill to the Senate before Thanksgiving.
The bill we are considering will permit the Government, while
targeting overseas, to review more Americans' communications with less
court supervision than ever before. I support this surveillance, but we
must also take care to protect Americans' liberties. Attorney General
Mukasey said at his nomination hearing that ``protecting civil
liberties, and people's confidence that those liberties are protected,
is a part of protecting national security.'' On that I agree with him.
That is what the Senate Judiciary bill does.
I commend the House of Representatives for passing a bill, the
RESTORE Act, that takes a balanced approach to these issues. It allows
our intelligence community great flexibility to conduct surveillance on
overseas targets, while providing oversight and protection for
Americans' civil liberties. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
has also worked hard. I know that Chairman Rockefeller was as
disappointed as I at the administration's partisan maneuvering just
before the August recess. I commended his efforts this summer and do
so, again, now. I believe that he and I both want surveillance with
oversight and accountability.
I also want to praise our joint members, Senators Feinstein,
Feingold, and Whitehouse, who as members of both the Judiciary
Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence contributed so much
to the work of the Judiciary Committee and who worked with me to author
many of the additional protections that we adopted and reported. These
Senators and others on the Judiciary Committee worked hard to craft
amendments that preserve the basic structure and authority proposed in
the bill reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence, while adding
crucial protections for Americans.
In my view, and I think the view of many Senators, we need to do more
than the bill initially reported by the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence to protect the rights of Americans. Indeed, Senator
Rockefeller joins with me to support many of the Judiciary Committee's
improvements.
The Judiciary bill, for example, makes clear that the Government
cannot claim authority to operate outside the law--outside of FISA--by
alluding to legislative measures that were never intended to provide
such exceptional authority. This administration has come to argue that
the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, AUMF, passed after
September 11, justified conducting warrantless surveillance of
Americans for more than 5 years. I introduced a resolution on this in
the last Congress, when we first heard this canard. When we authorized
going after Osama bin Laden, the Senate did not authorize--explicitly
or implicitly--warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Yet this
administration still clings to this phony legal argument. The Judiciary
bill would prevent that dangerous contention with strong language
reaffirming that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic
surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
The Judiciary bill would also provide a more meaningful role for the
FISA Court in this new surveillance. The court is a critical
independent check on Government excess in the very sensitive area of
electronic surveillance. The fundamental purpose of many of the
Judiciary Committee changes is to assure that this important,
independent check remains meaningful.
On one important issue, I strongly oppose the bill reported by the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That bill includes one
provision that goes beyond even the so-called Protect America Act. It
would grant blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications carriers
for their warrantless
[[Page 34594]]
surveillance activities from 2001 through earlier this year contrary to
FISA and in violation of the privacy rights of Americans.
This administration violated FISA by conducting warrantless
surveillance for more than 5 years. They got caught, and if they
hadn't, they would probably still be doing it. When the public found
out about the President's illegal surveillance of Americans, the
administration and the telephone companies were sued by citizens who
believe their privacy and their rights were violated. Now the
administration is trying to get this Congress to terminate those
lawsuits in order to insulate itself from accountability. We should not
allow this to happen.
The rule of law is fundamentally important in our system, and so is
protecting the rights of Americans from unlawful surveillance. I do not
believe that Congress can or should seek to take those rights and those
claims from those already harmed. Instead, I will continue to work with
Senator Specter, as well as with Senators Feinstein and Whitehouse, to
try to craft a more effective alternative to retroactive immunity. We
are working with the legal concept of substitution to place the
Government in the shoes of the private defendants that acted at its
behest and to let it assume full responsibility for the illegal
conduct.
I voted for cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure, just as
I would have supported proceeding to the House-passed bill, because I
believe it is important that we correct the excesses of the so-called
Protect America Act. The Judiciary Committee has done good work in
reporting protective measures to the Senate to add balance to the
surveillance powers of the Government and to better ensure the rights
of Americans. I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in favor of
accountability.
As we debate these issues, let us keep in mind the reason we have
FISA in the first place. Not so long ago, we painfully learned the hard
lesson that powerful surveillance tools, without adequate oversight or
the checks and balances of judicial review, lead to abuses of the
rights of the American people. I hope this debate will provide us an
opportunity to show the American people what we stand for, that we will
do all we can to secure our future while protecting their cherished
rights and freedoms.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, title II of the Intelligence Committee bill
provides retroactive immunity to companies that are alleged to have
cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping
program. When we are on this bill, we are going to have an opportunity
to vote on the amendment to strike title II so the actions of the
telephone companies will be subject to legal proceedings. I will
support this amendment, which insists on fair accounting for the
actions of the telephone companies and proper accountability if they
are found to have violated the law.
The Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was clearly
an illegal circumvention of the provisions included in FISA designed to
protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. I, once again, wish to
applaud Chairman Rockefeller's tireless work over the course of the
last several years to bring strong congressional oversight to the
illegal Bush administration's spying programs. This type of lawlessness
and misguided legal reasoning by the Bush administration will not be
looked upon kindly in the history books.
The amendment now before us can begin to right the injustices the
Bush administration has committed. I am pleased Chairman Rockefeller's
Senate Intelligence Committee rejected the administration's efforts to
provide immunity for the Government officials who conceived and
authorized this program. Democrats have made certain no one in the Bush
administration who broke the law will be let off the hook.
I am also sympathetic to the phone companies' compliance with
Government requests for assistance in the immediate aftermath of the
terrible attacks of September 11. I can understand the argument that in
a time of national emergency, they did their utmost to act in the best
interests of our country. But this illegal program continued for 5
years after the rubble of 9/11 had been cleared--5 years--5 years
during which the executive branch could have come to Congress and asked
for the program to be put on solid legal footing--all they would have
had to have done is come and tell us there were a few changes that
needed to be made--and 5 years that the phone companies could have
forced the administration to do a number of different things.
Public reports indicate that at least one phone company refused to
follow the administration's request. This fact appears to undermine the
argument for immunity of those who complied. When Congress drafted and
enacted FISA in 1978, it was responding to widespread and egregious
executive branch abuses of the power to spy on American citizens.
Liability protections were included for phone companies responding in
good faith to Government requests for assistance. But at the same time,
Congress set out specific statutory requirements for the form such
requests must take.
The intention was that the phone companies would have refused an
illegal request not in compliance with FISA requirements. In other
words, FISA's drafters intended for the phone companies to serve as an
active check, not as a rubberstamp, on an executive branch acting
outside the bounds of the law. It is not clear whether the telephone
companies fulfilled that responsibility.
In light of that, I believe it is more than appropriate to ask the
courts to examine the telephone companies' actions and to evaluate
whether they acted properly. It would certainly be within the power of
a judge to provide immunity if the telephone companies make a
compelling case their actions were appropriate and legal. But providing
immunity without ever undertaking such an evaluation would send a
dangerous signal that requirements we enact prospectively may be
ignored with impunity.
I appreciate the need for an intelligence community to gather
information that makes our country safer in a way that does not violate
the privacy of law-abiding Americans. In many cases, the telephone
companies played an important and responsible role in that process. It
is not my desire to bankrupt the industry. That is an understatement.
Should the courts determine their actions were illegal and impose a
potential bankrupting judgment, I would be inclined to support
congressional intervention, of course. But we must not attempt to
answer these questions prematurely. This process must be allowed to
work its way through the courts. It would be wrong to deny that
process.
I would also like to say again I believe this process deserves the
informed input of every Senator. To that end, last Friday, I sent a
letter to the Director of National Intelligence, strongly urging him to
make the documents previously provided to the Intelligence and
Judiciary Committees regarding retroactive immunity available in a
secure location to any Senator who wishes to review them during the
floor debate. This would also help every Senator reach an informed
decision on how to proceed. I am hopeful that decision will be to
support this amendment and allow the legal process to move forward,
which will give all Americans confidence that their safety and their
privacy are both respected and protected.
I wish to again outline briefly how much I appreciate the work of
Senator Rockefeller. It is a very difficult piece of work. He has done
it with integrity and with good judgment. I also wish to express my
appreciation for the
[[Page 34595]]
work done by the Judiciary Committee. It is not often we have
sequential referral on the bills, but we have had in this instance. The
Judiciary Committee will have, if they so choose, the first amendments
offered in this matter. They have done a good job. The title I work
they did was extremely good.
It is my understanding now that Senators Rockefeller and Leahy have
agreed with certain parts of the Judiciary Committee title I; that they
will offer amendments either en bloc or individual amendments jointly,
and that is a significant improvement. So in short, this legislation
has been handled very well by the Intelligence Committee and the
Judiciary Committee, and I look forward to hearing the response from
Admiral McConnell as to whether these documents that have been shown to
the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee will be
available to us, I assume, in room 407 in this building.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to
Admiral McConnell be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate.
Washington, DC, December 16, 2007.
Admiral John M. McConnell,
Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, Washington, DC.
Dear Admiral McConnell: As you know, the Senate will begin
debate on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 this week. Among
the issues the Senate will consider is whether to grant
retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that are
alleged to have assisted the government in its warrantless
wiretapping program. You recently wrote in the New York Times
that immunity is one of the three most critical issues in
this bill.
We appreciate that you have provided access to the
documents necessary for evaluation of this issue to the
Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, as each has in
turn considered it. As the debate now moves to the full
Senate, I believe it is of critical importance that all
Senators who will be called upon to vote on this important
question have an opportunity to review these key documents
themselves so that they may draw their own conclusions. In my
view, each sitting Senator has a constitutional right of
access to these documents before voting on this matter.
I strongly urge you to make the documents previously
provided to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committee
regarding retroactive immunity available in a secure location
to any Senator who wishes to review them during the floor
debate. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have tried to work through this process,
and it appears quite clear at this stage, on this bill, we are not
going to be able to do that. As everyone knows, we are in the last
hours, days, certainly, of this first year of this session of Congress,
and we have to take care of the domestic spending, we have the debate
coming up on funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the
supplemental, and I think it is very clear we are not going to be able
to move into these amendments.
We have had a number of suggestions by a number of different people
how we can move through this legislation, and it appears quite clear at
this stage that we can't. I have spoken to a number of the Senators,
and everyone feels it would be in the best interest of the Senate that
we take a look at this when we come back after the first of the year
and resume this. I have spoken to, for example, Senator Dodd, a few
minutes ago, and he and I have talked about ways to move forward--of
course, Senator Dodd can always speak for himself--but my feeling,
after having visited with him, is we would be better off moving into
this sometime after we come back after the holiday recess, after the
adjournment sine die of this year of the Congress.
So unless something untoward appears, which I doubt extremely
seriously, this is what we will do on FISA; that is, we will take it
back up when we return in January.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Before he leaves the floor, I wish to thank the Democratic
leader. He has a very difficult job under any circumstances. To people
who ask: What is it like to be the leader in the Senate, I often
describe it as trying to keep frogs in a wheelbarrow. It always gets a
pretty good reaction when I mention that. He has a lot of frogs to deal
with around here. Trying to keep us all moving in the same direction is
not easy.
Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend, at this stage, in Iowa,
they are laughing at just about all the jokes, aren't they?
Mr. DODD. As Mo Udall once said: I walked into a barber shop in New
Hampshire and said: I am Mo Udall, and I am running for President. And
the barber said: We were just laughing about that.
But I wished to thank the leader. This is an awkward time, obviously,
and I wanted to get the bill done. I think Senators Rockefeller and
Bond did a good part of this bill, and it is worthy of our support.
The leader knows my longstanding concerns over this retroactive
immunity. There is significant debate about this, and I feel strongly
about it. I will look forward to coming back in January, and hopefully
between now and coming back, maybe there would be some suggestions on
how we might ease some of the concerns people have and satisfy them,
without necessarily granting retroactive immunity.
I know there are various ideas kicking around, some sort of a
compromise idea that may be worked out. Certainly, there will be some
time to think about this so we can avoid this when it comes back again.
I appreciate the fact we are not going to proceed with it now. That
gives us a chance to work on this some more. We have at least some
time, I think the end of January or early February before the law will
expire, so we have some time to come back and deal with this again. I
appreciate the fact we are not going to have to go forward. I would
have been put in a position to contest this in every possible way,
utilizing all the tools available to us, and I am very grateful to the
leader for moving on. I promise I certainly will be willing to listen
to various ideas how we can resolve this, so when we come back here,
this will be a matter we can deal with more expeditiously, but I am
very grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to make my case.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the kind comments of my friend from
Connecticut. He is one of our most articulate spokespersons we have in
the Senate and always has been. I have enjoyed my work with him.
This is a very difficult issue. The American public is terribly
concerned about this issue because it is easy to focus on. What has
taken place in this country the last 7 years has really hurt the
confidence of the American people in their Government.
We have the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the
country in the invasion of Iraq. We are spending now $12 billion a
month there.
We have now a condition where much of the Government has been
contracted out. The poster for that, of course, is Blackwater. I heard
an account on the radio this morning that the Iraqis can't tell the
difference between the American troops and these contractors, and all
the contractors do is hurt them--not the troops but these contractors.
We have had this domestic surveillance situation, which is really
frightening to people. In Nevada, we don't like wiretaps. We don't like
lie detector tests. We are very private people. I think that is
basically where America is. They don't like their privacy invaded.
We all want to get the bad guys. We know there are evil people out
there trying to hurt us. The patriotism of the Senator from Connecticut
and the Senator from Nevada will compare to that
[[Page 34596]]
of anyone else in the Senate. Because we believe this retroactive
immunity is something that needs to be studied very closely, that
doesn't mean we are any less patriotic than anyone else.
This is an issue on which the American people are focused. I have
gotten, in the last week or so, thousands of inquiries from around the
country. This is an issue they understand and they do not like.
Hopefully, when we come back after the first of the year, we can figure
out a way to move through this. We know we have to do something, but we
can't continue to make mistakes in this regard that continually take
away the confidence of the American people in what we are doing back
here.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see the majority whip as well. I just want
to take a couple of minutes and conclude my thoughts on this matter,
since we will be moving on.
Americans have rightfully been concerned since before World
War II about the dangers of hostile foreign agents likely to
commit acts of espionage. Similarly, the violent acts of
political terrorists can seriously endanger the rights of
Americans. Carefully focused intelligence investigations can
help prevent such acts.
But too often intelligence has lost this focus and domestic
intelligence activities have invaded individual privacy and
violated the rights of lawful assembly and political
expression. Unless new and tighter controls are established
by legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to
undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its
nature.
____
A tension between order and liberty is inevitable in any
society. A Government must protect its citizens from those
bent on engaging in violence and criminal behavior, or in
espionage and other hostile foreign intelligence activity .
. . Intelligence work has, at times, successfully prevented
dangerous and abhorrent acts, such as bombings and foreign
spying, and aided in the prosecution of those responsible for
such acts.
But, intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too
often, exceeded the restraints on the exercise of
governmental power which are imposed by our country's
Constitution, laws, and traditions.
____
We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes
and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and
occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian
regimes. We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs
initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal
violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what
witnesses characterized as `vacuum cleaners,'' sweeping in
information about lawful activities of American citizens.
____
That these abuses have adversely affected the
constitutional rights of particular Americans is beyond
question. But we believe the harm extends far beyond the
citizens directly affected.
Personal privacy is protected because it is essential to
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution checks
the power of Government for the purpose of protecting the
rights of individuals, in order that all our citizens may
live in a free and decent society. Unlike totalitarian
states, we do not believe that any government has a monopoly
on truth.
When Government infringes those rights instead of nurturing
and protecting them, the injury spreads far beyond the
particular citizens targeted to untold number of other
Americans who may be intimidated.
____
Abuse thrives on secrecy. Obviously, public disclosure of
matters such as the names of intelligence agents or the
technological details of collection methods is inappropriate.
But in the field of intelligence, secrecy has been extended
to inhibit review of the basic programs and practices
themselves.
Those within the Executive branch and the Congress who
would exercise their responsibilities wisely must be fully
informed. The American public, as well, should know enough
about intelligence activities to be able to apply its good
sense to the underlying issues of policy and morality.
Knowledge is the key to control. Secrecy should no longer
be allowed to shield the existence of constitutional, legal
and moral problems from the scrutiny of all three branches of
government or from the American people themselves.
These words I wish I could claim them as my own. These are words that
were written some 31 years ago by Frank Church, in a committee that
initiated the idea of FISA. They talked about the problems they had
worked on that gave birth to this legislation we are dealing with
today--some 30 changes later after some 28 years. But they are words to
live by. They would fit almost any time, to strike that balance between
security and liberty.
As I quoted earlier today, some 220 years ago, Benjamin Franklin
warned the country that those who would sacrifice liberty for security
deserve neither. In many ways, today we are being asked to make a
choice. It was a false choice 220 years ago. It is still a false choice
today. It is a false dichotomy. In fact, we are more secure when we
secure our liberties, when we defend them and protect them. That is the
nature of our society. It is what has given us great strength through
these past more than 20 decades here and I believe will keep us more
secure in the years ahead.
It is true, technology is changing, and the means of causing us harm
or injury are more sophisticated today; but these eternal transcendent
rights we embrace as a nation, which each and every generation has been
responsible for guarding, are no less important today than they were
years ago.
So the words of Frank Church and the committee members, Republican
and Democratic, who signed this document some 31 years ago, are as true
today. They are what caused me to stand here today for 8 or 9 hours.
They are what caused me to stand here a year ago to speak out strongly
against the Military Commissions Act and other such actions by this
administration over the past number of years.
I know it is not normal--certainly for this Member--to threaten to
filibuster or to engage in extended debate, but I felt so strongly
about this provision in this bill, this retroactive immunity, that I
was determined to do everything I could to stop this legislation going
forward with those provisions included. I am grateful we are going to
move on to other legislation.
We will return to this, apparently, in January. My hope is that
between now and then we can resolve this matter, and that retroactive
immunity will no longer be a part of this. We will not allow it. I
don't know if it is possible. I hope it is. If not, I will be back here
engaging in the same effort to stop this legislation going forward with
those provisions included.
I am grateful to my colleagues, to Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold,
Senator Wyden, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Boxer, who spoke earlier
today, to Senator Sherrod Brown, who spoke, as well, about this
legislation, and others who came to the floor to express their concerns
principally about this provision.
Again, I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, who certainly gave
me the opportunity to continue this effort. He has at his disposal
procedures he could engage in, and he did not utilize those. He allowed
this Senator to make his case to extend this debate to 30 hours, which
is what I was prepared to do, then offer amendments to engage in
extended debate if necessary to stop this from going forward. That,
apparently, will not be necessary now, to engage in those efforts. So I
am grateful to my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to make my
case and hopeful that when we pass FISA legislation, it will not
include retroactive immunity. That would be the wrong thing to do, a
dangerous precedent, and I hope my colleagues on both sides will come
to that conclusion.
I yield the floor. 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. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a
period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for
up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Specialist Johnathan Alan Lahmann
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today with a heavy heart and deep sense of
gratitude I honor the life of a brave soldier
[[Page 34597]]
from Richmond, IN. SPC Johnathan Lahmann, 21 years old, died December
10th in Tikrit, Iraq. Specialist Lahmann died of injuries he sustained
in Bayhi, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his
vehicle. With an optimistic future before him, John risked everything
to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts, in a land
halfway around the world.
John was a 2004 graduate of Richmond High School where he avidly
studied auto repair with plans to be a mechanic. According to his
teacher, Roy Reisinger, John was so dedicated to studying auto repair
that he would go to Mr. Reisinger's house on the weekends to work on
cars. Mr. Reisinger described John to a local newspaper as ``a top-
notch mechanic'' and ``an all-around good young man.'' In addition to
his strong work ethic praised by his teachers, his fellow classmates
recall John's pleasant demeanor and his friendship.
After graduation, John worked at Mosey Manufacturing. In September
2005, John joined the Army, where he was trained as a combat engineer.
He was assigned to the 59th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion,
36th Engineer Brigade, Fort Hood, TX. In November 2007, John was
deployed to Iraq. He is survived by his parents, Linda and Alan C.
Lahmann.
Today, I join John's family and friends in mourning his death. While
we struggle to bear our sorrow over this loss, we can also take pride
in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a safer
place. It is his courage and strength of character that people will
remember when they think of John. Today and always, John will be
remembered by family members, friends, and fellow Hoosiers as a true
American hero, and we honor the sacrifice he made while dutifully
serving his country.
As I search for words to do justice in honoring John's sacrifice, I
am reminded of President Lincoln's remarks as he addressed the families
of the fallen soldiers in Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot
consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we
say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' This statement
is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as I am certain
that the impact of John's actions will live on far longer than any
record of these words.
It is my sad duty to enter the name of SPC Johnathan Alan Lahmann in
the official record of the United States Senate for his service to this
country and for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy, and
peace. When I think about this just cause in which we are engaged, and
the unfortunate pain that comes with the loss of our heroes, I hope
that families like John's can find comfort in the words of the prophet
Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord
God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''
May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God be
with all of you, as I know He is with Johnathan.
____________________
IRAQ FUNDING
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of debate in
recent weeks about whether to fund the needs of our soldiers overseas.
The time to act has come.
We are nearing the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year, and
despite steady progress in Iraq, Congress still has not passed a
funding bill for our soldiers. Members of this body have been aware of
the consequences of delaying funding for a long time.
In a November 8 letter, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England
explained that failure to fund military operations will ``result in
having to shut down significant portions of the Defense Department by
early next year.'' The specific consequences, in Secretary England's
words, include ``closure of military facilities, furloughing of
civilian workers and deferral of contract activity.'' In case there is
any confusion about what this means to the military, Secretary England
is quite clear: ``this situation will result in a profoundly negative
impact on the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base
operations, and training activities.''
He also acknowledged that this delay in funding doesn't only harm our
military but also sets back the training and equipping of Iraqi and
Afghan security forces, whose expeditious development is critical to
lasting peace in those nations.
This delay in funding shows a lack of support for our troops in
harm's way, disregard for the measurable progress they have achieved in
recent months, and indifference to the future of Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is not the kind of leadership the American people expect of
Congress.
It is time to heed the clear warnings from the Department of Defense,
come together in support of the progress our soldiers are making, and
provide them with the necessary resources so that they can continue
their important work on behalf of the American people.
A December 8 article in the Washington Post by LT Pete Hegseth and
GEN John Batista, a prominent critic of the Administration's policy in
Iraq, encouraged Americans ``to stand together, in and out of
uniform,'' and commit to defeating our enemies. That means supporting
the progress our soldiers are achieving and providing them the funds
necessary to complete their mission and, thus, make Americans safer.
I ask unanimous consent to have the attached article printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, 8, 2007]
Congress has been entangled in a war-funding debate that
pits war ``supporters'' against antiwar ``defeatists.'' With
all sides seemingly entrenched, a stalemate looms. The
Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its
training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our military men and women deserve better than partisan
politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's
performance in fighting the Long War.
We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different
experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too,
held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our
return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the
war--failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection.
The other championed the cause of successfully completing our
mission.
Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the
``outspoken general'' and ``stay-the-course supporter''
labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and
inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.
It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute
the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the
troops.
Overall, this will require learning from our strategic
blunders, acknowledging successes achieved by our courageous
military and forging a bold path. We believe America can and
must rally around five fundamental tenets:
First, the United States must be successful in the fight
against worldwide Islamic extremism.
We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global
ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will
probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.
Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that
fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in
the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic
extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such
as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from
Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely
to cause the violence there--which has decreased
substantially but is still present--to cascade into an even
larger humanitarian crisis.
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David
Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing
promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi
government the opportunities it desperately needs to
stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military
gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy,
political reconciliation, and economic recovery--tools yet
sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq--while
a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation--will
crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.
Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address
Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence
judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No
matter what, Iran must not be permitted to
[[Page 34598]]
become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted
before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should
never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts--from a position
of strength, both regionally and globally--must be used to
engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure
on the Iranian regime.
Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national
strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-
pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this
critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and
capacity matter.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America was not
mobilized for the Long War. This was an opportunity lost, but
it is not too late. Many Americans are frustrated by the war
effort, the burden of which has been shouldered by less than
one percent of our citizenry. Our country is accustomed to
winning. We deserve a comprehensive strategy that is focused
on victory and guided by decisive leadership. America must
succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also cannot focus too
narrowly on those conflicts. We need a regional and global
strategy to defeat worldwide Islamic extremism to ensure a
safer world today and for future generations.
The day after his famous Pearl Harbor speech, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt again addressed the nation. ``I was
about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us,''
he said. ``But it is not correct to use that word. The United
States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to
give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting
for its existence and its future life.'' His words inspired
the ``Greatest Generation,'' and they should inspire us again
today.
Americans must mobilize for the Long War--bolster our
strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with
what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term
solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind
a call to arms.
America's veterans--young and old--are resolved to support
and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. This commitment, and nothing less, should compel us
to stand together, in and out of uniform. Would that Congress
finds the courage to bury its pride and do the same.
____________________
THE MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT OF 2007
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for hate
crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate
crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes
law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our
society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight
a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country.
Early in the morning of December 8, 2007, 25-year-old Nathaniel
Salerno was attacked by five to seven men on a Washington, DC, Metro
subway train. Salerno, a gay man, had been at several clubs prior to
returning home. Shortly after boarding the train, the men approached
him and allegedly demanded that Salerno give them his wallet and
BlackBerry. When he stood up, the attackers snatched the items and
began to punch and kick him, screaming antigay slurs. Salerno received
stitches for the lacerations he received to his face during the attack.
Washington's Metro police are investigating the assault as a bias-
related violent crime.
I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens,
to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew
Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by
passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts
and minds as well.
____________________
ENERGY
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the energy
legislation Congress is on the brink of passing in these last days of
the first session of the 110th Congress. I voted against this
legislation in the Senate because it contains numerous provisions that
will distort competitive markets for energy through subsidies,
Government mandates, special projects, and irresponsible increases in
Federal spending. This bill will not promote the goal of energy
security but will likely increase fuel and food prices and reduce
consumer choice for everything from cars to light bulbs.
First, I want to talk about ethanol. It is difficult to understand
why Congress continues to believe that ethanol is a desirable
substitute for gasoline. It is widely reported that even if all of the
300 million acres--500,000 square miles--of currently harvested U.S.
cropland produced ethanol, they wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and
diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and they would supply only about
half of the demand for the year 2025. We are not going to grow our way
to energy security. We are also starting to see the devastating effects
our current ethanol production is having on our scarce water supply,
the environment, and human health.
Despite these facts, one of the bill's most prominent features is a
five-fold increase in the ethanol mandate from the currently required
7.5 billon gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Meeting this
mandate will require even more corn-based ethanol and the production of
other so-called advanced biofuels, largely made from cellulosic
ethanol. Although cellulosic ethanol production is in its infancy and
does not exist commercially today, the bill specifies that 21 billion
gallons of the 36 billion gallons mandated be cellulosic ethanol. This
is nothing more than a congressional gamble with American taxpayer
dollars.
If Congress is serious about moving away from oil to alternative
fuels it cannot, as it has done here, subsidize political favorites and
engage in statutory prescription. This will actually slow energy
innovation and may even retard the gains we have made. An excellent
example of this point is the exclusion of woody biomass material from
our Nation's overgrown forests from the production of advanced
biofuels. Companies throughout the West, including many small
businesses, are working in partnership with the Federal Government to
help restore our national forests by removing this woody biomass
material and using it to produce energy. This oversight in the bill
complicates these efforts and could seriously slow the gains my home
State of Arizona and other Western States dominated by Federal lands
have made to combat catastrophic wildfire.
Now, let's turn to the other major feature of this bill--federally
mandated increases in corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards.
This bill requires each manufacturer's fleet to average 35 miles per
gallon by 2020, a roughly 40 percent increase over current standards
for cars and trucks. What this proposal seems to overlook is that more
fuel efficient cars and trucks already exist on the market for those
who want them. And as gas prices rise, my guess is increasing numbers
of consumers will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars without being
told to do so by Congress. The point is that this is a consumer choice
issue. By federally mandating these increases there will be less
choice, increases in car sticker prices, and the very real possibility
of more unnecessary highway deaths due to the increases in lighter
vehicles, which generally are less safe in collisions on the road. A
National Academy of Sciences study concluded that vehicle downsizing
costs 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.
Another major problem with the CAFE provisions in the bill is the
failure to clarify the regulatory responsibilities of the National
Highway Transportation Safety Board and the Environmental Protection
Agency over the regulation of tailpipe emissions and fuel economy
requirements. The administration in its Statement of Administration
Policy makes this point. Failing to address this issue will likely
leave industry to sort through layers of contradictory regulation.
Beyond the biofuels and CAFE provisions, the bill includes a full
assortment of new efficiency mandates for appliances and buildings and
even takes measures to phase out incandescent lightbulbs. Industry in
the private sector has already brought to market alternative lighting
technologies to the traditional lightbulb, and as prices drop consumers
are switching over to them. Provisions like these are nothing more than
Congress's attempt to take credit for something the market is already
doing and accomplishing far more quickly and efficiently than the
government can, I might add.
[[Page 34599]]
In sum, instead of enacting poor energy policy, Congress should focus
on what it must do before we leave here this year--fund the Government
by enacting fiscally responsible appropriations bills and ensuring our
troops have what they need.
____________________
PASSAGE OF FARM BILL
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, with the passage of the farm bill, I want
to commend the work of my legislative staff led by Kasey Gillette our
senior legislative assistant. Kasey did an excellent job on both
substance and strategy always focusing on how the bill would impact
farm families and the agricultural economy of Pennsylvania. Kasey had
two great teammates: Caryn Long and Alex Davis, who labored for months
on very complex matters in the bill. Without the work of Kasey, Caryn,
and Alex, I wouldn't have been able to have four amendments adopted
during the floor debate and five others adopted during the committee
markup.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
TRIBUTE TO GEORGE HALE
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this morning WABI-AM radio in my
home State of Maine dedicated the George Hale Studio in Bangor. I
commend Clear Channel Communications for recognizing the many
contributions George Hale has made to our State during his 54-year
career in broadcasting, and I am honored to offer a few words in
tribute to him.
George Hale is a true broadcasting legend. For more a half century,
he has kept the people of Maine informed, he has entertained us, and he
has brought us together as a community of friends and neighbors. He has
brought the best of Maine into our homes, and he has always been a
welcome guest.
Still going strong today, George Hale will forever be associated with
the Bangor Auditorium and the great high school basketball tournaments
held there, but that is just a start. University of Maine football,
baseball, and basketball have all benefited from his great work, and he
is beloved by generations of fans, coaches, and players. Whether
describing victory or defeat, he always treats the athletes with
respect and appreciation for their efforts.
Generations of Mainers have begun their day with George. Many used to
begin their day by tuning in at 5:45 a.m. to hear his thoughts and
comments on everything ranging from Red Sox to world affairs.
And the tradition continues today. Along with his friend and cohost
Ric Tyler, George's show provides news and insight about the issues
facing Maine and the Nation. As one who has appeared on his show many
times, I can say that George always treats his guests with fairness and
respect.
George was blessed with a great voice, and he has used it well as a
powerful spokesman for great causes. His support for the March of
Dimes, and especially his advocacy for the folic acid campaign, has
greatly helped this outstanding organization carry out is vital mission
of improving the health of babies by preventing birth defects and
infant mortality. The March of Dimes and George Hale truly are a
championship team.
WABI-AM radio is known as the Voice of Maine. It is a fitting name
because George Hale truly is the Voice of Maine. He is a great friend
to me and to all the people of my State. I know we all look forward to
many more years of hearing that great voice from the George Hale
Studio.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-4357. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Review Group, Department of Agriculture, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulatory
Streamlining of the Farm Service Agency's Direct Farm Loan
Programs'' (RIN0560-AF60) received on December 7, 2007; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4358. A communication from the Administrator, Risk
Management Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Common Crop
Insurance Regulations; Potato Provisions'' (RIN0563-AC05)
received on December 7, 2007; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4359. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, a report on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General Russel L.
Honore, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade
of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
EC-4360. A communication from the Principal Deputy, Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the cost
effectiveness of the Defense Commissary Agency; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-4361. A communication from the Secretary, Division of
Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Shareholder Proposals Relating to the Election of
Directors'' (RIN3235-AJ95) received on December 6, 2007; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4362. A communication from the Secretary, Division of
Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revisions to Rules 144 and 145'' (RIN3235-AH13) received on
December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-4363. A communication from the Director, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies Under
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003''
(RIN3064-AD00) received on December 7, 2007; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4364. A communication from the Chairman and President,
Export-Import Bank of the United States, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to a transaction involving
the sale of one Boeing 777-200ER aircraft to Angola; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4365. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Annual
Specifications for the 2007 Pacific Sardine Fishing Season''
(RIN0648-AV11) received on December 7, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4366. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries
Observer Health and Safety'' (RIN0648-AU46) received on
December 7, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4367. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Northern Rockfish for Vessels Participating in the Rockfish
Entry Level Fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the
Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XD83) received on December 7, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4368. A communication from the Secretary of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
storage of plutonium at the Savannah River Site; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-4369. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works), transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to the integration of the hurricane storm
damage reduction system; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-4370. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Voluntary Disclosures'' (22 CFR part 127) received on
December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4371. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment to the International Arms Traffic in Arms
Regulations: UN Embargoed Countries'' (22 CFR part 126)
received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-4372. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations:
Regarding Dual and Third Country Nationals'' (22 CFR part
124) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-4373. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant
[[Page 34600]]
to law, the certification of a proposed agreement for the
export of defense services to the United Kingdom in support
of the sale of one C-17 Globemaster III aircraft; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4374. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a
proposed agreement for the export of defense services to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support the sale of 16 S-92A
helicopters; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4375. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to loan
guarantees to Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4376. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense services to Canada
related to the acquisition of SNIPER Targeting Pods; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4377. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Policy and Management Staff, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Revision of the Requirements for Live Vaccine
Processing'' (Docket No. 2007N-0284) received on December 7,
2007; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-4378. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
President and Director, Office of Administration, Executive
Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to personnel employed in the White House
Office; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4379. A communication from the Inspector General,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the Commission's Performance Report for fiscal year 2007; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4380. A communication from the Chairman, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Commission's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal
year 2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4381. A communication from the President and Chief
Executive Officer, Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Corporation's Management
Report for fiscal year 2007; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4382. A communication from the Secretary of the
Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semiannual
Report of the Department's Inspector General for the 6-month
period of April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4383. A communication from the Director, Office of
Government Ethics, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Office's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal
year 2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4384. A communication from the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the Semiannual Report of the Administration's
Inspector General for the period ending September 30, 2007;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-4385. A communication from the Chairman, Farm Credit
System Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
its consolidated report relative to its operations; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was
referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-271. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Associated Students of the University of Nevada urging
Congress to pass the DREAM Act; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, and Mrs.
Lincoln):
S. 2492. A bill to provide for improved oversight of and
accountability for military housing privatization initiative
projects; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Menendez):
S. 2493. A bill to prohibit the limitation of certain air
traffic in the New York and New Jersey region; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 2494. A bill to provide for equitable compensation to
the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for
the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by
the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. REID:
S. Res. 407. A resolution relative to the death of
Representative Julia Carson, of Indiana; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson):
S. Res. 408. A resolution congratulating the Valdosta State
University football team on winning the 2007 Division II
National Championship; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 821
At the request of Mr. Specter, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 821, a bill to amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an extension
of eligibility for supplemental security income through fiscal year
2010 for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants.
S. 1183
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1183, a bill to enhance
and further research into paralysis and to improve rehabilitation and
the quality of life for persons living with paralysis and other
physical disabilities, and for other purposes.
S. 1780
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1780, a bill to
require the FCC, in enforcing its regulations concerning the broadcast
of indecent programming, to maintain a policy that a single word or
image may be considered indecent.
S. 1963
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1963, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow bonds guaranteed by
the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt bonds.
S. 2020
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2020, a bill to
reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal
year 2010, to rename the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 as
the ``Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act of 2007'', and for
other purposes.
S. 2051
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2051, a bill to amend
the small rural school achievement program and the rural and low-income
school program under part B of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
S. 2119
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2119, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans
who became disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States.
S. 2136
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2136, a bill to
address the treatment of primary mortgages in bankruptcy, and for other
purposes.
S. 2166
At the request of Mr. Casey, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) were added as cosponsors of S. 2166, a bill to
provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation
of debts owed to the United States and the international financial
institutions
[[Page 34601]]
by low-income countries, and for other purposes.
S. 2191
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2191, a bill to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other
purposes.
S. 2255
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2255, a bill to amend the
National Trails System Act to provide for studies of the Chisholm Trail
and Great Western Trail to determine whether to add the trails to the
National Trails System, and for other purposes.
S. 2257
At the request of Mr. Kerry, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2257, a bill to impose sanctions on officials of the State Peace and
Development Council in Burma, to amend the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003 to prohibit the importation of gemstones and
hardwoods from Burma, to promote a coordinated international effort to
restore civilian democratic rule to Burma, and for other purposes.
S. 2277
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2277, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation on the
issuance of qualified veterans' mortgage bonds for Alaska, Oregon, and
Wisconsin and to modify the definition of qualified veteran.
S. 2278
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2278, a bill to improve
the prevention, detection, and treatment of community and healthcare-
associated infections (CHAI), with a focus on antibiotic-resistant
bacteria.
S. 2279
At the request of Mr. Casey, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2279, a bill to combat international violence against women and girls.
S. 2332
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2332, a bill to promote
transparency in the adoption of new media ownership rules by the
Federal Communications Commission, and to establish an independent
panel to make recommendations on how to increase the representation of
women and minorities in broadcast media ownership.
S. 2352
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2352, a bill to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to provide Medicare beneficiaries greater choice
with regard to accessing hearing health services and benefits.
S. 2428
At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2428, a bill to direct the Secretary of Education to establish and
maintain a public website through which individuals may find a complete
database of available scholarships, fellowships, and other programs of
financial assistance in the study of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics.
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2428, supra.
S. 2450
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2450, a bill to
amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the
attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.
S. CON. RES. 53
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 53, a
concurrent resolution condemning the kidnapping and hostage-taking of 3
United States citizens for over 4 years by the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia (FARC), and demanding their immediate and
unconditional release.
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 53, supra.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 407--RELATIVE TO THE DEATH OF REPRESENTATIVE JULIA
CARSON, OF INDIANA
Mr. REID submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:
S. Res. 407
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow
and deep regret the announcement of the death of the
Honorable Julia Carson, late a Representative from the State
of Indiana.
Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these resolutions
to the House of Representatives and transmit an enrolled copy
thereof to the family of the deceased.
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns or recesses today,
it stand adjourned or recessed as a further mark of respect
to the memory of the deceased Representative.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 408--CONGRATULATING THE VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY
FOOTBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2007 DIVISION II NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 408
Whereas, on December 15, 2007, the Valdosta State
University Blazers football team defeated Northwest Missouri
State University by a score of 25-20 in Florence, Alabama, to
win the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
Division II National Championship;
Whereas this victory gave Valdosta State University its 2nd
football national championship title in 4 years;
Whereas Coach David Dean became only the 2nd 1st-year head
coach in NCAA history to lead a team to the Division II
title;
Whereas the Blazers finished the season with an impressive
13-1 record, including victories over Catawba College, the
University of North Alabama, and California University of
Pennsylvania in the playoffs to advance to the championship
game against Northwest Missouri State University; and
Whereas 7 Valdosta State University players were named to
the All-Gulf Conference team, including wide receiver Cedric
Jones and safety Sherard Reynolds, who were also named to the
All-American team: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates and honors the Valdosta State University
Blazers football team on winning the 2007 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division II National Championship;
(2) recognizes and commends the courage, hard work, and
dedication displayed by the Valdosta State University
football team and staff throughout the season in order to
obtain this great honor; and
(3) commends Valdosta State University, the city of
Valdosta, and all of the fans of the Blazers football team
throughout the State of Georgia for their endless support of
this special team throughout the 2007 championship season.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3857. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Leahy, and Mr. Nelson, of Florida) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 2248, to amend
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to
modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3858. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Nelson, of
Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill S. 2248, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 3859. Mr. CARDIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2248, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3860. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. McCain,
and Mr. Kyl) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the
Department of State,
[[Page 34602]]
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3861. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, Mr.
DeMint, and Mr. Kyl) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2764, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3862. Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3863. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2248, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3864. Mr. BURR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2764, making appropriations
for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3865. Mr. BURR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2764, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3866. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2248, to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and
streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3867. Mr. DODD (for Mr. Dorgan) proposed an amendment to
the bill S. 2096, to amend the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
to eliminate the automatic removal of telephone numbers
registered on the Federal ``do-not-call'' registry.
SA 3868. Mr. DODD (for Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cornyn,
and Mr. Kyl)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 660, to
amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges,
prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members,
and for other purposes.
SA 3869. Mr. DODD (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed an
amendment to the bill H.R. 3690, to provide for the transfer
of the Library of Congress police to the United States
Capitol Police, and for other purposes.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3857. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Leahy, and
Mr. Nelson of Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill S. 2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of
that Act, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
Strike section 102, and insert the following:
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF EXCLUSIVE MEANS BY WHICH ELECTRONIC
SURVEILLANCE AND INTERCEPTION OF CERTAIN
COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED.
(a) Statement of Exclusive Means.--Title I of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``STATEMENT OF EXCLUSIVE MEANS BY WHICH ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND
INTERCEPTION OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED
``Sec. 112. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the
procedures of chapters 119, 121 and 206 of title 18, United
States Code, and this Act shall be the exclusive means by
which electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101(f),
regardless of the limitation of section 701) and the
interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic
communications may be conducted.
``(b) Only an express statutory authorization for
electronic surveillance or the interception of domestic,
wire, oral, or electronic communications, other than as an
amendment to this Act or chapters 119, 121, or 206 of title
18, United States Code, shall constitute an additional
exclusive means for the purpose of subsection (a).''.
(b) Offense.--Section 109 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1809) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``authorized by
statute'' each place it appears in such section and inserting
``authorized by this Act, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title
18, United States Code, or any express statutory
authorization that is an additional exclusive means for
conducting electronic surveillance under section 112.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the
term `electronic surveillance' means electronic surveillance
as defined in section 101(f) of this Act regardless of the
limitation of section 701 of this Act.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Title 18, united states code.--Section 2511(2) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) If a certification under subparagraph (ii)(B) for
assistance to obtain foreign intelligence information is
based on statutory authority, the certification shall
identify the specific statutory provision, and shall certify
that the statutory requirements have been met.''; and
(B) in paragraph (f), by striking ``, as defined in section
101 of such Act,'' and inserting ``(as defined in section
101(f) of such Act regardless of the limitation of section
701 of such Act)''.
(2) Table of contents.--The table of contents in the first
section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 111, the following:
``Sec. 112. Statement of exclusive means by which electronic
surveillance and interception of certain communications
may be conducted.''.
______
SA 3858. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Nelson of Florida)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S.
2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to
modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 46, strike line 5 and all that follows through page
47, line 16, and insert the following:
(6) Foreign intelligence surveillance court.--The term
``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court'' means the court
established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)).
SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, and subject to paragraph (2), a covered civil action
shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court,
and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General
certifies to the court that--
(A) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the
electronic communication service provider was--
(i) in connection with an intelligence activity involving
communications that was--
(I) authorized by the President during the period beginning
on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and
(II) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or
activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the
United States; and
(ii) described in a written request or directive from the
Attorney General or the head of an element of the
intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the
electronic communication service provider indicating that the
activity was--
(I) authorized by the President; and
(II) determined to be lawful; or
(B) the electronic communication service provider did not
provide the alleged assistance.
(2) Determination.--
(A) In general.--The dismissal of a covered civil action
under paragraph (1) shall proceed only if, after review, the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court determines that--
(i) the written request or directive from the Attorney
General or the head of an element of the intelligence
community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic
communication service provider under paragraph (1)(A)(ii)
complied with section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) of title 18, United
States Code;
(ii) the assistance alleged to have been provided was
undertaken in good faith by the electronic communication
service provider pursuant to a demonstrable reason to believe
that compliance with the written request or directive under
paragraph (1)(A)(ii) was permitted by law; or
(iii) the electronic communication service provider did not
provide the alleged assistance.
(B) Procedures.--In reviewing certifications and making
determinations under subparagraph (A), the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court shall--
(i) review and make any such determination en banc; and
(ii) permit any plaintiff and any defendant in the
applicable covered civil action to appear before the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court--
(I) pursuant to section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803); and
(II) as necessary to serve justice.
(C) Certification.--If the Attorney General submits a
certification under paragraph (1), the court to which that
certification is submitted shall--
(i) immediately transfer the matter to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court for a determination regarding
the questions described in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) stay further proceedings in the relevant litigation,
pending the determination of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court.
[[Page 34603]]
______
SA 3859. Mr. CARDIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 29, line 4, strike ``2013.'' and insert the
following: ``2011. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the transitional procedures under paragraphs (2)(B)
and (3)(B) of section 302(c) shall apply to any order,
authorization, or directive, as the case may be, issued under
title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978, as amended by this Act, in effect on December 31,
2011.''.
______
SA 3860. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Kyl) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill
H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) This section may be cited as the ``Safe Roads
and Bridges Act of 2007''.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary of Transportation may reprogram any funds
appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act for
the Department of Transportation that are intended to be used
for any congressionally directed spending item, as defined in
section 521 of Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-81), for the purpose of improving roads
or bridges that have been classified as ``structurally
deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete''.
(c) Not later than September 30, 2008, the Secretary of
Transportation shall submit to Congress a report that
contains a summary of the any reprogramming of
congressionally directed spending items under subsection (b)
and a description of how such reprogrammed funds were
utilized to improve structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete roads and bridges. Such report shall be made
publicly available on the Internet website of the Department
of Transportation.
______
SA 3861. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeMint,
and Mr. Kyl) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of State,
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) This section may be cited as the ``Women and
Children's Health Care First Act of 2007''.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services may reprogram any
funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act
for the Department of Health and Human Services that are
intended to be used for any congressionally directed spending
item, as defined in section 521 of Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-81), for the Maternal
and Child Health Block Grant.
(c) Not later than September 30, 2008, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report
that contains a summary of the any reprogramming of
congressionally directed spending items under subsection (b)
and a description of how such reprogrammed funds were
utilized to improve the health of all mothers and children.
Such report shall be made publicly available on the Internet
website of the Department of Health and Human Services.
______
SA 3862. Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2248, to amend
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and
streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 43, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. 111. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
(2) Terrorist surveillance program and program.--The terms
``Terrorist Surveillance Program'' and ``Program'' mean the
intelligence activity involving communications that was
authorized by the President during the period beginning on
September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007.
(b) Reviews.--
(1) Requirement to conduct.--The Inspectors General of the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, and any
other element of the intelligence community that participated
in the Terrorist Surveillance Program shall work in
conjunction to complete a comprehensive review of, with
respect to the oversight authority and responsibility of each
such Inspector General--
(A) all of the facts necessary to describe the
establishment, implementation, product, and use of the
product of the Program;
(B) the procedures and substance of, and access to, the
legal reviews of the Program;
(C) communications with, and participation of, individuals
and entities in the private sector related to the Program;
(D) interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court and transition to court orders related to the Program;
and
(E) any other matters identified by any such Inspector
General that would enable that Inspector General to report a
complete description of the Program, with respect to such
element.
(2) Cooperation.--Each Inspector General required to
conduct a review under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) work in conjunction, to the extent possible, with any
other Inspector General required to conduct such a review;
and
(B) utilize to the extent practicable, and not
unnecessarily duplicate or delay, such reviews or audits that
have been completed or are being undertaken by any such
Inspector General or by any other office of the Executive
Branch related to the Program.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Preliminary reports.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspectors General of
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Department of Justice, and the National Security Agency, in
conjunction with any other Inspector General required to
conduct a review under subsection (b)(1), shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress an interim report that
describes the planned scope of such review.
(2) Final report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Inspectors General required to
conduct such a review shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, to the extent practicable, a
comprehensive report on such reviews that includes any
recommendations of any such Inspectors General within the
oversight authority and responsibility of any such Inspector
General with respect to the reviews.
(3) Form.--A report submitted under this subsection shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex. The unclassified report shall not disclose
the name or identity of any individual or entity of the
private sector that participated in the Program or with whom
there was communication about the Program.
(d) Resources.--
(1) Expedited security clearance.--The Director of National
Intelligence shall ensure that the process for the
investigation and adjudication of an application by an
Inspector General or any appropriate staff of an Inspector
General for a security clearance necessary for the conduct of
the review under subsection (b)(1) is carried out as
expeditiously as possible.
(2) Additional legal and other personnel for the inspectors
general.--An Inspector General required to conduct a review
under subsection (b)(1) and submit a report under subsection
(c) is authorized to hire such additional legal or other
personnel as may be necessary to carry out such review and
prepare such report in a prompt and timely manner. Personnel
authorized to be hired under this paragraph--
(A) shall perform such duties relating to such a review as
the relevant Inspector General shall direct; and
(B) are in addition to any other personnel authorized by
law.
______
SA 3863. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of
that Act, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 6, line 20, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through page 19, line 16, and insert the following:
``(3) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
and
``(4) shall not intentionally acquire any communication as
to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at
the time of the acquisition to be located in the United
States.
``(c) United States Persons Located Outside the United
States.--
``(1) Acquisition inside the united states of united states
persons outside the united states.--An acquisition authorized
by subsection (a) that occurs inside the United States may
not target a United States person except in accordance with
the provisions of title I.
[[Page 34604]]
``(2) Acquisition outside the united states of united
states persons outside the united states.--An acquisition by
an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device
outside the United States may not intentionally target a
United States person reasonably believed to be outside the
United States to acquire the contents of a wire or radio
communication sent by or intended to be received by that
United States person under circumstances in which a person
has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would
be required for law enforcement purposes if the technique
were used inside the United States unless--
``(A) the Attorney General or the Attorney General's
designee submits an application to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that includes a statement of the facts and
circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the
Attorney General's belief that the target of the acquisition
is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
``(B) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--
``(i) finds on the basis of the facts submitted by the
applicant there is probable cause to believe that the target
of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent
of a foreign power; and
``(ii) issues an ex parte order as requested or as modified
approving the targeting of that United States person.
``(3) Procedures.--
``(A) Submittal to foreign intelligence surveillance
court.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this title, the Attorney General shall submit to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the procedures to
be utilized in determining whether a target reasonably
believed to be outside the United States is a United States
person.
``(B) Approval by foreign intelligence surveillance
court.--The procedures submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
be utilized as described in that subparagraph only upon the
approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
``(C) Utilization in targeting.--Any targeting of persons
authorized by subsection (a) shall utilize the procedures
submitted under subparagraph (A) as approved by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under subparagraph (B).
``(d) Conduct of Acquisition.--An acquisition authorized
under subsection (a) may be conducted only in accordance
with--
``(1) a certification made by the Attorney General and the
Director of National Intelligence pursuant to subsection (g);
and
``(2) the targeting and minimization procedures required
pursuant to subsections (e) and (f).
``(e) Targeting Procedures.--
``(1) Requirement to adopt.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence,
shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed
to ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection
(a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be
located outside the United States and does not result in the
intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the
sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of
the acquisition to be located in the United States.
``(2) Judicial review.--The procedures referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to
subsection (i).
``(f) Minimization Procedures.--
``(1) Requirement to adopt.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence,
shall adopt, consistent with the requirements of section
101(h), minimization procedures for acquisitions authorized
under subsection (a).
``(2) Persons in the united states.--The minimization
procedures required by this subsection shall require the
destruction, upon recognition, of any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known to be
located in the United States, a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, anda warrant would be required for
law enforcement purposes, unless the Attorney General
determines that the communication indicates a threat of death
or serious bodily harm to any person.
``(3) Judicial review.--The minimization procedures
required by this subsection shall be subject to judicial
review pursuant to subsection (i).
``(g) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to
the initiation of an acquisition authorized under subsection
(a), the Attorney General and the Director of National
Intelligence shall provide, under oath, a written
certification, as described in this subsection.
``(B) Exception.--If the Attorney General and the Director
of National Intelligence determine that immediate action by
the Government is required and time does not permit the
preparation of a certification under this subsection prior to
the initiation of an acquisition, the Attorney General and
the Director of National Intelligence shall prepare such
certification, including such determination, as soon as
possible but in no event more than 168 hours after such
determination is made.
``(2) Requirements.--A certification made under this
subsection shall--
``(A) attest that--
``(i) there are reasonable procedures in place for
determining that the acquisition authorized under subsection
(a) is targeted at persons reasonably believed to be located
outside the United States, and does not result in the
intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the
sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of
the acquisition to be located in the United States, and that
such procedures have been approved by, or will promptly be
submitted for approval by, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court pursuant to subsection (i);
``(ii) the procedures referred to in clause (i) are
consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and do not permit the
intentional targeting of any person who is known at the time
of acquisition to be located in the United States, or result
in the intentional acquisition of any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
``(iii) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to
obtain foreign intelligence information;
``(iv) the minimization procedures to be used with respect
to such acquisition--
``(I) meet the definition of minimization procedures under
section 101(h);
``(II) require the destruction, upon recognition, of any
communication as to which the sender and all intended
recipients are known to be located in the United States, a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a warrant
would be required for law enforcement purposes, unless the
Attorney General determines that the communication indicates
a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person; and
``(III) have been approved by, or will promptly be
submitted for approval by, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court pursuant to subsection (i);
``(v) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign
intelligence information from or with the assistance of an
electronic communication service provider; and
``(vi) the acquisition does not constitute electronic
surveillance, as limited by section 701; and
``(B) be supported, as appropriate, by the affidavit of any
appropriate official in the area of national security who
is--
``(i) appointed by the President, by and with the consent
of the Senate; or
``(ii) the head of any element of the intelligence
community.
``(3) Limitation.--A certification made under this
subsection is not required to identify the specific
facilities, places, premises, or property at which the
acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed
or conducted.
``(4) Submission to the court.--The Attorney General shall
transmit a copy of a certification made under this
subsection, and any supporting affidavit, under seal to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as possible,
but in no event more than 5 days after such certification is
made. Such certification shall be maintained under security
measures adopted by the Chief Justice of the United States
and the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director
of National Intelligence.
``(5) Review.--The certification required by this
subsection shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to
subsection (i).
``(h) Directives.--
``(1) Authority.--With respect to an acquisition authorized
under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director
of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an
electronic communication service provider to--
``(A) immediately provide the Government with all
information, facilities, or assistance necessary to
accomplish the acquisition in a manner that will protect the
secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of
interference with the services that such electronic
communication service provider is providing to the target;
and
``(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence
any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished
that such electronic communication service provider wishes to
maintain.
``(2) Compensation.--The Government shall compensate, at
the prevailing rate, an electronic communication service
provider for providing information, facilities, or assistance
pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(3) Release from liability.--Notwithstanding any other
law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any
electronic communication service provider for providing any
information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a
directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(4) Challenging of directives.--
``(A) Authority to challenge.--An electronic communication
service provider receiving a directive issued pursuant to
paragraph (1) may challenge the directive by filing a
petition with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
``(B) Assignment.--The presiding judge of the Court shall
assign the petition filed under subparagraph (A) to 1 of the
judges
[[Page 34605]]
serving in the pool established by section 103(e)(1) not
later than 24 hours after the filing of the petition.
``(C) Standards for review.--A judge considering a petition
to modify or set aside a directive may grant such petition
only if the judge finds that the directive does not meet the
requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful. If the
judge does not modify or set aside the directive, the judge
shall immediately affirm such directive, and order the
recipient to comply with the directive. The judge shall
provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for
a determination under this paragraph.
``(D) Continued effect.--Any directive not explicitly
modified or set aside under this paragraph shall remain in
full effect.
``(5) Enforcement of directives.--
``(A) Order to compel.--In the case of a failure to comply
with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1), the
Attorney General may file a petition for an order to compel
compliance with the directive with the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court.
``(B) Assignment.--The presiding judge of the Court shall
assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) to 1 of the
judges serving in the pool established by section 103(e)(1)
not later than 24 hours after the filing of the petition.
``(C) Standards for review.--A judge considering a petition
shall issue an order requiring the electronic communication
service provider to comply with the directive if the judge
finds that the directive was issued in accordance with
paragraph (1), meets the requirements of this section, and is
otherwise lawful. The judge shall provide a written statement
for the record of the reasons for a determination under this
paragraph.
``(D) Contempt of court.--Failure to obey an order of the
Court issued under this paragraph may be punished by the
Court as contempt of court.
``(E) Process.--Any process under this paragraph may be
served in any judicial district in which the electronic
communication service provider may be found.
``(6) Appeal.--
``(A) Appeal to the court of review.--The Government or an
electronic communication service provider receiving a
directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1) may file a
petition with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of
Review for review of the decision issued pursuant to
paragraph (4) or (5) not later than 7 days after the issuance
of such decision. The Court of Review shall have jurisdiction
to consider such a petition and shall provide a written
statement for the record of the reasons for a decision under
this paragraph.
``(B) Certiorari to the supreme court.--The Government or
an electronic communication service provider receiving a
directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1) may file a
petition for a writ of certiorari for review of the decision
of the Court of Review issued under subparagraph (A). The
record for such review shall be transmitted under seal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have
jurisdiction to review such decision.
``(i) Judicial Review.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Review by the foreign intelligence surveillance
court.--The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall
have jurisdiction to review any certification required by
subsection (d) or targeting and minimization procedures
adopted pursuant to subsections (e) and (f).
``(B) Submission to the court.--The Attorney General shall
submit to the Court any such certification or procedure, or
amendment thereto, not later than 5 days after making or
amending the certification or adopting or amending the
procedures.
``(2) Certifications.--The Court shall review a
certification provided under subsection (g) to determine
whether the certification contains all the required elements.
``(3) Targeting procedures.--The Court shall review the
targeting procedures required by subsection (e) to assess
whether the procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that
the acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to
the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located
outside the United States and does not result in the
intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the
sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of
the acquisition to be located in the United States.
``(4) Minimization procedures.--The Court shall review the
minimization procedures required by subsection (f) to assess
whether such procedures--
``(A) meet the definition of minimization procedures under
section 101(h); and
``(B) require the destruction, upon recognition, of any
communication as to which the sender and all intended
recipients are known to be located in the United States, a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a warrant
would be required for law enforcement purposes, unless the
Attorney General determines that the communication indicates
a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
______
SA 3864. Mr. BURR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of
State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
In Division G, on page 71, line 10, strike ``$666,087,000''
and insert ``$751,087,000''.
In Division G, on page 71, line 14, strike ``$103,921,000''
and insert ``$188,921,000''.
In Division G, on page 88, between lines 13 and 14, insert
the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
amounts appropriated in this Act for the administration and
related expenses for the departmental management of the
Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Department of Education shall be reduced by
a pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount
appropriated in this Act by $85,000,000.
______
SA 3865. Mr. BURR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of
State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
In Division G, on page 71, line 10, strike ``$666,087,000''
and insert ``$751,087,000''.
In Division G, on page 71, line 14, strike ``$103,921,000''
and insert ``$188,921,000''.
In Division G, on page 88, between lines 13 and 14, insert
the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
amounts appropriated in this Act for the administration and
related expenses for the departmental management of the
Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Department of Education shall be reduced by
a pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount
appropriated in this Act by $85,000,000.
______
SA 3866. Mr. SCHUMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 2248, to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of
that Act, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 43, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. 111. STANDING AND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PERSONS WHO
REFRAIN FROM COMMUNICATIONS BY REASON OF FEAR
OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.
(a) Standing and Cause of Action.--A United States citizen
shall have standing to bring a cause of action for damages
(as specified in subsection (d)) or declaratory or injunctive
relief against the United States if that individual has
refrained or is refraining from communications because of a
reasonable fear that such communications would be the subject
of electronic surveillance conducted without an order issued
in accordance with title I of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or a joint
authorization by the Attorney General and the Director of
National Intelligence issued in accordance with title VII of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as added
by this Act, under a claim of Presidential authority under
either the Constitution of the United States or the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40;
115 Stat. 224; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).
(b) Rules Applicable to Actions.--In any civil action filed
under subsection (a), the following shall apply:
(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
judge court convened under section 2284 of title 28, United
States Code.
(2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to
the Attorney General, the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, and the Secretary of the Senate.
(3) A reasonable fear that communications will be the
subject of electronic surveillance may be established by
evidence that the person bringing the action--
(A) has had and intends to continue to have regular
communications from the United States to one or more persons
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, or any country designated as
a state sponsor of terrorism in the course of that person's
paid employment doing journalistic, academic, or other
research pertaining to terrorism or terrorist groups; or
(B) has engaged and intends to continue to engage in one or
more commercial transactions with a bank or other financial
institution in a country described in subparagraph (A).
(4) The procedures and standards of the Classified
Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
the action.
(5) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only
by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of
appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional
statement within 30 days, after the entry of the final
decision.
(6) It shall be the duty of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia
[[Page 34606]]
and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the
docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the
disposition of the action and appeal.
(c) Mootness.--In any civil action filed under subsection
(a) for declaratory or injunctive relief, a defendant's claim
that the surveillance activity has been terminated may not be
grounds for dismissing the case, unless the Attorney General
files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United
States Code, affirming that--
(1) the surveillance described in subsection (a) has
ceased; and
(2) the executive branch of the Federal Government does not
have legal authority to renew the surveillance described in
subsection (a).
(d) Limitation of Damages.--In any civil action filed under
subsection (a), a prevailing plaintiff shall recover--
(1) damages for injuries arising from a reasonable fear
caused by the electronic surveillance described in subsection
(a) of not less than $50 and not more than $1000; and
(2) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and
litigation costs reasonably incurred relating to that civil
action.
(e) Severability.--If any provision of this section, or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act, any such
amendments, and of the application of such provisions to
other persons and circumstances shall not be affected
thereby.
(f) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to--
(1) affect a cause of action filed before the date of
enactment of this Act;
(2) limit any cause of action available to a person under
any other provision of law, including the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.); or
(3) limit the relief that may be awarded under any other
provision of law, including the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``electronic
surveillance'' has the meaning given that term in section 101
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801).
______
SA 3867. Mr. DODD (for Mr. Dorgan) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 2096, to amend the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act to eliminate the
automatic removal of telephone numbers registered on the Federal ``do-
not-call'' registry; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 3. REPORT ON ACCURACY.
Not later than 9 months after the enactment of this Act,
the Federal Trade Commission shall report to the Congress on
efforts taken by the Commission, after the date of enactment
of this Act, to improve the accuracy of the ``do-not-call''
Registry.
______
SA 3868. Mr. DODD (for Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr.
Kyl)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 660, to amend title 18,
United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims,
and their family members, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Court Security Improvement
Act of 2007''.
TITLE I--JUDICIAL SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING
SEC. 101. JUDICIAL BRANCH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Ensuring Consultation With the Judiciary.--Section 566
of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) The Director of the United States Marshals Service
shall consult with the Judicial Conference of the United
States on a continuing basis regarding the security
requirements for the judicial branch of the United States
Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial
Conference regarding the security requirements for the
judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken into
account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities
for programs regarding judicial security, and allocating
judicial security resources. In this paragraph, the term
`judicial security' includes the security of buildings
housing the judiciary, the personal security of judicial
officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial
officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel.
The United States Marshals Service retains final authority
regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of
the Federal Government.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 331 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The Judicial Conference shall consult with the Director
of United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis
regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch
of the United States Government, to ensure that the views of
the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements
for the judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken
into account when determining staffing levels, setting
priorities for programs regarding judicial security, and
allocating judicial security resources. In this paragraph,
the term `judicial security' includes the security of
buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of
judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial
officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel.
The United States Marshals Service retains final authority
regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of
the Federal Government.''.
SEC. 102. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES TAX COURT.
(a) In General.--Section 566(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``and the Court of International
Trade'' and inserting ``, the Court of International Trade,
and the United States Tax Court, as provided by law''.
(b) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 7456(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incidental powers of the
Tax Court) is amended in the matter following paragraph (3),
by striking the period at the end, and inserting ``and may
otherwise provide, when requested by the chief judge of the
Tax Court, for the security of the Tax Court, including the
personal protection of Tax Court judges, court officers,
witnesses, and other threatened persons in the interests of
justice, where criminal intimidation impedes on the
functioning of the judicial process or any other official
proceeding. The United States Marshals Service retains final
authority regarding security requirements for the Tax
Court.''.
(c) Reimbursement.--The United States Tax Court shall
reimburse the United States Marshals Service for protection
provided under the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 103. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY.
In addition to any other amounts authorized to be
appropriated for the United States Marshals Service, there
are authorized to be appropriated for the United States
Marshals Service $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007
through 2011 for--
(1) hiring entry-level deputy marshals for providing
judicial security;
(2) hiring senior-level deputy marshals for investigating
threats to the judiciary and providing protective details to
members of the judiciary, assistant United States attorneys,
and other attorneys employed by the Federal Government; and
(3) for the Office of Protective Intelligence, for hiring
senior-level deputy marshals, hiring program analysts, and
providing secure computer systems.
SEC. 104. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.
Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App) is amended by striking ``2009'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2011''.
TITLE II--CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS TO PROTECT JUDGES, FAMILY MEMBERS,
AND WITNESSES
SEC. 201. PROTECTIONS AGAINST MALICIOUS RECORDING OF
FICTITIOUS LIENS AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGES AND
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) Offense.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal
law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title
``Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in
any public record or in any private record which is generally
available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance
against the real or personal property of an individual
described in section 1114, on account of the performance of
official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason
to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for not more than 10 years, or both.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement
officer by false claim or slander of title.''.
SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN
OFFICIAL DUTIES.
(a) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 119. Protection of individuals performing certain
official duties
``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly makes restricted
personal information about a covered person, or a member of
the immediate family of that covered person, publicly
available--
``(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite
the commission of a crime of violence against that covered
person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered
person; or
``(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted
personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or
facilitate the commission of a crime of violence
[[Page 34607]]
against that covered person, or a member of the immediate
family of that covered person,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `restricted personal information' means,
with respect to an individual, the Social Security number,
the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number,
personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to,
that individual;
``(2) the term `covered person' means--
``(A) an individual designated in section 1114;
``(B) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in
or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may
be, or was, serving at any examination or other proceeding
before any United States magistrate judge or other committing
magistrate;
``(C) an informant or witness in a Federal criminal
investigation or prosecution; or
``(D) a State or local officer or employee whose restricted
personal information is made publicly available because of
the participation in, or assistance provided to, a Federal
criminal investigation by that officer or employee;
``(3) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given
the term in section 16; and
``(4) the term `immediate family' has the meaning given the
term in section 115(c)(2).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``119. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.''.
SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN
FEDERAL COURT FACILITIES.
Section 930(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or other dangerous weapon'' after
``firearm''.
SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF VENUE FOR RETALIATION AGAINST A
WITNESS.
Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in
the district in which the official proceeding (whether
pending, about to be instituted, or completed) was intended
to be affected, or in which the conduct constituting the
alleged offense occurred.''.
SEC. 205. MODIFICATION OR TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, VICTIM,
OR AN INFORMANT OFFENSE.
Section 1512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to reads as follows:
``(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in
sections 1111 and 1112;'';
(B) in the matter following clause (ii) of subparagraph (B)
by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``20 years'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``ten years'' and
inserting ``20 years''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``3 years''.
SEC. 206. MODIFICATION OF RETALIATION OFFENSE.
Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
(A) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
(B) by striking the comma which immediately follows another
comma;
(2) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``20 years'' and
inserting ``30 years'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
(ii) by striking the comma which immediately follows
another comma; and
(B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; and
(4) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as
subsection (f).
SEC. 207. GENERAL MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL MURDER CRIME AND
RELATED CRIMES.
Section 1112(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``15 years'';
and
(2) by striking ``six years'' and inserting ``8 years''.
SEC. 208. ASSAULT PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--Section 115(b) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``(1)'' and all that follows
through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) The punishment for an assault in violation of this
section is--
``(A) a fine under this title; and
``(B)(i) if the assault consists of a simple assault, a
term of imprisonment for not more than 1 year;
``(ii) if the assault involved physical contact with the
victim of that assault or the intent to commit another
felony, a term of imprisonment for not more than 10 years;
``(iii) if the assault resulted in bodily injury, a term of
imprisonment for not more than 20 years; or
``(iv) if the assault resulted in serious bodily injury (as
that term is defined in section 1365 of this title, and
including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) or
a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation to the
offense, a term of imprisonment for not more than 30
years.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 111(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``in all other
cases'' and inserting ``where such acts involve physical
contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to
commit another felony''.
SEC. 209. DIRECTION TO THE SENTENCING COMMISSION.
The United States Sentencing Commission is directed to
review the Sentencing Guidelines as they apply to threats
punishable under section 115 of title 18, United States Code,
that occur over the Internet, and determine whether and by
how much that circumstance should aggravate the punishment
pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code. In
conducting the study, the Commission shall take into
consideration the number of such threats made, the intended
number of recipients of such threats, and whether the initial
senders of such threats were acting in an individual capacity
or as part of a larger group.
TITLE III--PROTECTING STATE AND LOCAL JUDGES AND RELATED GRANT PROGRAMS
SEC. 301. GRANTS TO STATES TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS
OF CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) by a State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe
to create and expand witness and victim protection programs
to prevent threats, intimidation, and retaliation against
victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this
subtitle.''.
SEC. 302. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE COURTS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
GRANTS.
(a) Correctional Options Grants.--Section 515 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3762a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) grants to State courts to improve security for State
and local court systems.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``Priority shall be given to State court applicants under
subsection (a)(4) that have the greatest demonstrated need to
provide security in order to administer justice.''.
(b) Allocations.--Section 516(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3762b) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``80'' and inserting ``70'';
(2) by striking ``and 10'' and inserting ``10''; and
(3) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and
10 percent for section 515(a)(4)''.
(c) State and Local Governments To Consider Courts.--The
Attorney General may require, as appropriate, that whenever a
State or unit of local government or Indian tribe applies for
a grant from the Department of Justice, the State, unit, or
tribe demonstrate that, in developing the application and
distributing funds, the State, unit, or tribe--
(1) considered the needs of the judicial branch of the
State, unit, or tribe, as the case may be;
(2) consulted with the chief judicial officer of the
highest court of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case may
be; and
(3) consulted with the chief law enforcement officer of the
law enforcement agency responsible for the security needs of
the judicial branch of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case
may be.
(d) Armor Vests.--Section 2501 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and State and local
court officers'' after ``tribal law enforcement officers'';
and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``State or local
court,'' after ``government,''.
SEC. 303. GRANTS TO STATES FOR THREAT ASSESSMENT DATABASES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, through the Office
of Justice Programs, shall make grants under this section to
the highest State courts in States participating in the
program, for the purpose of enabling such courts to establish
and maintain a threat assessment database described in
subsection (b).
[[Page 34608]]
(b) Database.--For purposes of subsection (a), a threat
assessment database is a database through which a State can--
(1) analyze trends and patterns in domestic terrorism and
crime;
(2) project the probabilities that specific acts of
domestic terrorism or crime will occur; and
(3) develop measures and procedures that can effectively
reduce the probabilities that those acts will occur.
(c) Core Elements.--The Attorney General shall define a
core set of data elements to be used by each database funded
by this section so that the information in the database can
be effectively shared with other States and with the
Department of Justice.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011.
TITLE IV--LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
SEC. 401. REPORT ON SECURITY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit
to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a
report on the security of assistant United States attorneys
and other Federal attorneys arising from the prosecution of
terrorists, violent criminal gangs, drug traffickers, gun
traffickers, white supremacists, those who commit fraud and
other white-collar offenses, and other criminal cases.
(b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a)
shall describe each of the following:
(1) The number and nature of threats and assaults against
attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a)
and the reporting requirements and methods.
(2) The security measures that are in place to protect the
attorneys who are handling prosecutions described in
subsection (a), including threat assessments, response
procedures, availability of security systems and other
devices, firearms licensing (deputations), and other measures
designed to protect the attorneys and their families.
(3) The firearms deputation policies of the Department of
Justice, including the number of attorneys deputized and the
time between receipt of threat and completion of the
deputation and training process.
(4) For each requirement, measure, or policy described in
paragraphs (1) through (3), when the requirement, measure, or
policy was developed and who was responsible for developing
and implementing the requirement, measure, or policy.
(5) The programs that are made available to the attorneys
for personal security training, including training relating
to limitations on public information disclosure, basic home
security, firearms handling and safety, family safety, mail
handling, counter-surveillance, and self-defense tactics.
(6) The measures that are taken to provide attorneys
handling prosecutions described in subsection (a) with secure
parking facilities, and how priorities for such facilities
are established--
(A) among Federal employees within the facility;
(B) among Department of Justice employees within the
facility; and
(C) among attorneys within the facility.
(7) The frequency attorneys handling prosecutions described
in subsection (a) are called upon to work beyond standard
work hours and the security measures provided to protect
attorneys at such times during travel between office and
available parking facilities.
(8) With respect to attorneys who are licensed under State
laws to carry firearms, the policy of the Department of
Justice as to--
(A) carrying the firearm between available parking and
office buildings;
(B) securing the weapon at the office buildings; and
(C) equipment and training provided to facilitate safe
storage at Department of Justice facilities.
(9) The offices in the Department of Justice that are
responsible for ensuring the security of attorneys handling
prosecutions described in subsection (a), the organization
and staffing of the offices, and the manner in which the
offices coordinate with offices in specific districts.
(10) The role, if any, that the United States Marshals
Service or any other Department of Justice component plays in
protecting, or providing security services or training for,
attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a).
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. EXPANDED PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED
STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Section 995 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) The Commission may--
``(1) use available funds to enter into contracts for the
acquisition of severable services for a period that begins in
1 fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year, to the same
extent as executive agencies may enter into such contracts
under the authority of section 303L of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253l);
``(2) enter into multi-year contracts for the acquisition
of property or services to the same extent as executive
agencies may enter into such contracts under the authority of
section 304B of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254c); and
``(3) make advance, partial, progress, or other payments
under contracts for property or services to the same extent
as executive agencies may make such payments under the
authority of section 305 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 255).''.
(b) Sunset.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
cease to have force and effect on September 30, 2010.
SEC. 502. BANKRUPTCY, MAGISTRATE, AND TERRITORIAL JUDGES LIFE
INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after ``hold office
during good behavior,'' the following: ``magistrate judges
appointed under section 631 of this title, and territorial
district court judges appointed under section 24 of the
Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424b), section 1(b) of the
Act of November 8, 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821), or section 24(a) of
the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C.
1614(a)),''.
(b) Bankruptcy Judges.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, upon authorization by the
Judicial Conference of the United States and subject to the
availability of appropriations, shall pay on behalf of
bankruptcy judges appointed under section 152 of title 28,
United States Code, aged 65 or over, any increases in the
cost of Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance imposed after
April 24, 1999, including any expenses generated by such
payments.
(2) Implementation.--Any payment authorized by the Judicial
Conference of the United States under paragraph (1) shall
apply with respect to any payment made on or after the first
day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after
the date of that authorization.
(c) Construction.--For purposes of construing and applying
chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, including any
adjustment of insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, the
following categories of judicial officers shall be deemed to
be judges of the United States as described under section
8701 of title 5, United States Code:
(1) Bankruptcy judges appointed under section 152 of title
28, United States Code.
(2) Magistrate judges appointed under section 631 of title
28, United States Code.
(3) Territorial district court judges appointed under
section 24 of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424b),
section 1(b) of the Act of November 8, 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821),
or section 24(a) of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin
Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(a)).
(4) Judges retired under section 377 of title 28, United
States Code.
(5) Judges retired under section 373 of title 28, United
States Code.
(d) Effective Date.--Subsection (c) and the amendment made
by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any payment
made on or after the first day of the first applicable pay
period beginning on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 503. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES.
Section 296 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end of the second undesignated paragraph the
following new sentence: ``However, a district judge who has
retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of
this title, when designated and assigned to the court to
which such judge was appointed, having performed in the
preceding calendar year an amount of work equal to or greater
than the amount of work an average judge in active service on
that court would perform in 6 months, and having elected to
exercise such powers, shall have the powers of a judge of
that court to participate in appointment of court officers
and magistrate judges, rulemaking, governance, and
administrative matters.''.
SEC. 504. SENIOR JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE SELECTION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGES.
Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``Northern Mariana Islands'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``Northern Mariana Islands (including
any judge in regular active service and any judge who has
retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of
this title, when designated and assigned to the court to
which such judge was appointed)''.
SEC. 505. GUARANTEEING COMPLIANCE WITH PRISONER PAYMENT
COMMITMENTS.
Section 3624(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking the last sentence and inserting the following:
``Upon the release of a prisoner by the Bureau of Prisons to
supervised release, the Bureau of Prisons shall notify such
prisoner, verbally and in writing, of the requirement that
the prisoner adhere to an installment schedule, not to exceed
2 years except in special circumstances, to pay for any fine
imposed for the offense committed by such prisoner, and of
the consequences of failure to pay such fines under sections
3611 through 3614 of this title.''.
[[Page 34609]]
SEC. 506. STUDY AND REPORT.
The Attorney General shall study whether the generally open
public access to State and local records imperils the safety
of the Federal judiciary. Not later than 18 months after the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report to
Congress the results of that study together with any
recommendations the Attorney General deems necessary.
SEC. 507. REAUTHORIZATION OF FUGITIVE APPREHENSION TASK
FORCES.
Section 6(b) of the Presidential Threat Protection Act of
2000 (28 U.S.C. 566 note; Public Law 106-544) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after ``fiscal year 2002,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and $10,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2008 through 2012'' before the period.
SEC. 508. INCREASED PROTECTION OF FEDERAL JUDGES.
(a) Minimum Document Requirements.--
(1) Minimum requirements.--For purposes of section
202(b)(6) of the REAL ID Act of 2005(49 U.S.C. 30301 note), a
State may, in the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2), include in a
driver's license or other identification card issued to that
individual by the State, the address specified in that
subparagraph in lieu of the individual's address of principle
residence.
(2) Individuals and information.--The individuals and
addresses referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) In the case of a Justice of the United States, the
address of the United States Supreme Court.
(B) In the case of a judge of a Federal court, the address
of the courthouse.
(b) Verification of Information.--For purposes of section
202(c)(1)(D) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301
note), in the case of an individual described in subparagraph
(A) or (B) of subsection (a)(2), a State need only require
documentation of the address appearing on the individual's
driver's license or other identification card issued by that
State to the individual.
SEC. 509. FEDERAL JUDGES FOR COURTS OF APPEALS.
(a) In General.--Section 44(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended in the table--
(1) in the item relating to the District of Columbia
Circuit, by striking ``12'' and inserting ``11''; and
(2) in the item relating to the Ninth Circuit, by striking
``28'' and inserting ``29''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection
(a)(2) shall take effect on January 21, 2009.
SEC. 510. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE STUDY AND REPORT.
(a) Study Required.--The Director of the National Institute
of Justice (referred to in this section as the ``Director'')
shall conduct a study to determine and compile the collateral
consequences of convictions for criminal offenses in the
United States, each of the 50 States, each territory of the
United States, and the District of Columbia.
(b) Activities Under Study.--In conducting the study under
subsection (a), the Director shall identify any provision in
the Constitution, statutes, or administrative rules of each
jurisdiction described in that subsection that imposes
collateral sanctions or authorizes the imposition of
disqualifications, and any provision that may afford relief
from such collateral sanctions and disqualifications.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to Congress
a report on the activities carried out under this section.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include a compilation of citations, text, and short
descriptions of any provision identified under subsection
(b).
(3) Distribution.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall be distributed to the legislature and chief executive
of each of the 50 States, each territory of the United
States, and the District of Columbia.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Collateral consequence.--The term ``collateral
consequence'' means a collateral sanction or a
disqualification.
(2) Collateral sanction.--The term ``collateral
sanction''--
(A) means a penalty, disability, or disadvantage, however
denominated, that is imposed by law as a result of an
individual's conviction for a felony, misdemeanor, or other
offense, but not as part of the judgment of the court; and
(B) does not include a term of imprisonment, probation,
parole, supervised release, fine, assessment, forfeiture,
restitution, or the costs of prosecution.
(3) Disqualification.--The term ``disqualification'' means
a penalty, disability, or disadvantage, however denominated,
that an administrative agency, official, or a court in a
civil proceeding is authorized, but not required, to impose
on an individual convicted of a felony, misdemeanor, or other
offense on grounds relating to the conviction.
SEC. 511. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
designating the 8 undesignated paragraphs as subsections (a)
through (h), respectively.
______
SA 3869. Mr. DODD (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed an amendment to the
bill H.R. 3690, to provide for the transfer of the Library of Congress
police to the United States Capitol Police, and for other purpose: as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``U.S. Capitol Police and
Library of Congress Police Merger Implementation Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL.
(a) Transfers.--
(1) Library of congress police employees.--Effective on the
employee's transfer date, each Library of Congress Police
employee shall be transferred to the United States Capitol
Police and shall become either a member or civilian employee
of the Capitol Police, as determined by the Chief of the
Capitol Police under subsection (b).
(2) Library of congress police civilian employees.--
Effective on the employee's transfer date, each Library of
Congress Police civilian employee shall be transferred to the
United States Capitol Police and shall become a civilian
employee of the Capitol Police.
(b) Treatment of Library of Congress Police Employees.--
(1) Determination of status within capitol police.--
(A) Eligibility to serve as members of the capitol
police.--A Library of Congress Police employee shall become a
member of the Capitol Police on the employee's transfer date
if the Chief of the Capitol Police determines and issues a
written certification that the employee meets each of the
following requirements:
(i) Based on the assumption that such employee would
perform a period of continuous Federal service after the
transfer date, the employee would be entitled to an annuity
for immediate retirement under section 8336(b) or 8412(b) of
title 5, United States Code (as determined by taking into
account paragraph (3)(A)), on the date such employee becomes
60 years of age.
(ii) During the transition period, the employee
successfully completes training, as determined by the Chief
of the Capitol Police.
(iii) The employee meets the qualifications required to be
a member of the Capitol Police, as determined by the Chief of
the Capitol Police.
(B) Service as civilian employee of capitol police.--If the
Chief of the Capitol Police determines that a Library of
Congress Police employee does not meet the eligibility
requirements, the employee shall become a civilian employee
of the Capitol Police on the employee's transfer date.
(C) Finality of determinations.--Any determination of the
Chief of the Capitol Police under this paragraph shall not be
appealable or reviewable in any manner.
(D) Deadline for determinations.--The Chief of the Capitol
Police shall complete the determinations required under this
paragraph for all Library of Congress Police employees not
later than September 30, 2009.
(2) Exemption from mandatory separation.--Section 8335(c)
or 8425(c) of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to
any Library of Congress Police employee who becomes a member
of the Capitol Police under this subsection, until the
earlier of--
(A) the date on which the individual is entitled to an
annuity for immediate retirement under section 8336(b) or
8412(b) of title 5, United States Code; or
(B) the date on which the individual--
(i) is 57 years of age or older; and
(ii) is entitled to an annuity for immediate retirement
under section 8336(m) or 8412(d) of title 5, United States
Code, (as determined by taking into account paragraph
(3)(A)).
(3) Treatment of prior creditable service for retirement
purposes.--
(A) Prior service for purposes of eligibility for immediate
retirement as member of capitol police.--Any Library of
Congress Police employee who becomes a member of the Capitol
Police under this subsection shall be entitled to have any
creditable service under section 8332 or 8411 of title 5,
United States Code, that was accrued prior to becoming a
member of the Capitol Police included in calculating the
employee's service as a member of the Capitol Police for
purposes of section 8336(m) or 8412(d) of title 5, United
States Code.
(B) Prior service for purposes of computation of annuity.--
Any creditable service under section 8332 or 8411 of title 5,
United States Code, of an individual who becomes a member of
the Capitol Police under this subsection that was accrued
prior to becoming a member of the Capitol Police--
(i) shall be treated and computed as employee service under
section 8339 or section 8415 of such title; but
(ii) shall not be treated as service as a member of the
Capitol Police or service as a congressional employee for
purposes of applying any formula under section 8339(b),
8339(q), 8415(c), or 8415(d) of such title under which a
percentage of the individual's average pay is multiplied by
the years (or other period) of such service.
(c) Duties of Employees Transferred to Civilian
Positions.--
[[Page 34610]]
(1) Duties.--The duties of any individual who becomes a
civilian employee of the Capitol Police under this section,
including a Library of Congress Police civilian employee
under subsection (a)(2) and a Library of Congress Police
employee who becomes a civilian employee of the Capitol
Police under subsection (b)(1)(B), shall be determined solely
by the Chief of the Capitol Police, except that a Library of
Congress Police civilian employee under subsection (a)(2)
shall continue to support Library of Congress police
operations until all Library of Congress Police employees are
transferred to the United States Capitol Police under this
section.
(2) Finality of determinations.--Any determination of the
Chief of the Capitol Police under this subsection shall not
be appealable or reviewable in any manner.
(d) Protecting Status of Transferred Employees.--
(1) Nonreduction in pay, rank, or grade.--The transfer of
any individual under this section shall not cause that
individual to be separated or reduced in basic pay, rank or
grade.
(2) Leave and compensatory time.--Any annual leave, sick
leave, or other leave, or compensatory time, to the credit of
an individual transferred under this section shall be
transferred to the credit of that individual as a member or
an employee of the Capitol Police (as the case may be). The
treatment of leave or compensatory time transferred under
this section shall be governed by regulations of the Capitol
Police Board.
(3) Prohibiting imposition of probationary period.--The
Chief of the Capitol Police may not impose a period of
probation with respect to the transfer of any individual who
is transferred under this section.
(e) Rules of Construction Relating to Employee
Representation.--
(1) Employee representation.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize any labor organization that
represented an individual who was a Library of Congress
police employee or a Library of Congress police civilian
employee before the individual's transfer date to represent
that individual as a member of the Capitol Police or an
employee of the Capitol Police after the individual's
transfer date.
(2) Agreements not applicable.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to authorize any collective bargaining agreement
(or any related court order, stipulated agreement, or
agreement to the terms or conditions of employment)
applicable to Library of Congress police employees or to
Library of Congress police civilian employees to apply to
members of the Capitol Police or to civilian employees of the
Capitol Police.
(f) Rule of Construction Relating to Personnel Authority of
the Chief of the Capitol Police.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to affect the authority of the Chief of the
Capitol Police to--
(1) terminate the employment of a member of the Capitol
Police or a civilian employee of the Capitol Police; or
(2) transfer any individual serving as a member of the
Capitol Police or a civilian employee of the Capitol Police
to another position with the Capitol Police.
(g) Transfer Date Defined.--In this Act, the term
``transfer date'' means, with respect to an employee--
(1) in the case of a Library of Congress Police employee
who becomes a member of the Capitol Police, the first day of
the first pay period applicable to members of the United
States Capitol Police which begins after the date on which
the Chief of the Capitol Police issues the written
certification for the employee under subsection (b)(1);
(2) in the case of a Library of Congress Police employee
who becomes a civilian employee of the Capitol Police, the
first day of the first pay period applicable to employees of
the United States Capitol Police which begins after September
30, 2009; or
(3) in the case of a Library of Congress Police civilian
employee, the first day of the first pay period applicable to
employees of the United States Capitol Police which begins
after September 30, 2008.
(h) Cancellation in Portion of Unobligated Balance of
FEDLINK Revolving Fund.--Amounts available for obligation by
the Librarian of Congress as of the date of the enactment of
this Act from the unobligated balance in the revolving fund
established under section 103 of the Library of Congress
Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 2000 (2 U.S.C. 182c) for
the Federal Library and Information Network program of the
Library of Congress and the Federal Research program of the
Library of Congress are reduced by a total of $560,000, and
the amount so reduced is hereby cancelled.
SEC. 3. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
(a) Transfer and Allocations of Property and
Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Effective on the transfer date of any
Library of Congress Police employee and Library of Congress
Police civilian employee who is transferred under this Act--
(A) the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, and
records associated with the employee shall be transferred to
the Capitol Police; and
(B) the unexpended balances of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, used,
held, arising from, available to, or to be made available in
connection with the employee shall be transferred to and made
available under the appropriations accounts for the Capitol
Police for ``Salaries'' and ``General Expenses'', as
applicable.
(2) Joint review.--During the transition period, the Chief
of the Capitol Police and the Librarian of Congress shall
conduct a joint review of the assets, liabilities, contracts,
property records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, used,
held, arising from, available to, or to be made available in
connection with the transfer under this Act.
(b) Treatment of Alleged Violations of Certain Employment
Laws With Respect to Transferred Individuals.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in paragraph (3), in the case of an
alleged violation of any covered law (as defined in paragraph
(4)) which is alleged to have occurred prior to the transfer
date with respect to an individual who is transferred under
this Act, and for which the individual has not exhausted all
of the remedies available for the consideration of the
alleged violation which are provided for employees of the
Library of Congress under the covered law prior to the
transfer date, the following shall apply:
(A) The individual may not initiate any procedure which is
available for the consideration of the alleged violation of
the covered law which is provided for employees of the
Library of Congress under the covered law.
(B) To the extent that the individual has initiated any
such procedure prior to the transfer date, the procedure
shall terminate and have no legal effect.
(C) Subject to paragraph (2), the individual may initiate
and participate in any procedure which is available for the
resolution of grievances of officers and employees of the
Capitol Police under the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) to provide for consideration of
the alleged violation. The previous sentence does not apply
in the case of an alleged violation for which the individual
exhausted all of the available remedies which are provided
for employees of the Library of Congress under the covered
law prior to the transfer date.
(2) Special rules for applying congressional accountability
act of 1995.--In applying paragraph (1)(C) with respect to an
individual to whom this subsection applies, for purposes of
the consideration of the alleged violation under the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995--
(A) the date of the alleged violation shall be the
individual's transfer date;
(B) notwithstanding the third sentence of section 402(a) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 1402(a)), the individual's request for
counseling under such section shall be made not later than 60
days after the date of the alleged violation; and
(C) the employing office of the individual at the time of
the alleged violation shall be the Capitol Police Board.
(3) Exception for alleged violations subject to hearing
prior to transfer.--Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect
to an alleged violation for which a hearing has commenced in
accordance with the covered law on or before the transfer
date.
(4) Covered law defined.--In this subsection, a ``covered
law'' is any law for which the remedy for an alleged
violation is provided for officers and employees of the
Capitol Police under the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).
(c) Availability of Detailees During Transition Period.--
During the transition period, the Chief of the Capitol Police
may detail additional members of the Capitol Police to the
Library of Congress, without reimbursement.
(d) Effect on Existing Memorandum of Understanding.--The
Memorandum of Understanding between the Library of Congress
and the Capitol Police entered into on December 12, 2004,
shall remain in effect during the transition period, subject
to--
(1) the provisions of this Act; and
(2) such modifications as may be made in accordance with
the modification and dispute resolution provisions of the
Memorandum of Understanding, consistent with the provisions
of this Act.
(e) Rule of Construction Relating to Personnel Authority of
the Librarian of Congress.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to affect the authority of the Librarian of
Congress to--
(1) terminate the employment of a Library of Congress
Police employee or Library of Congress Police civilian
employee; or
(2) transfer any individual serving in a Library of
Congress Police employee position or Library of Congress
Police civilian employee position to another position at the
Library of Congress.
SEC. 4. POLICE JURISDICTION, UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES, AND
PENALTIES.
(a) Jurisdiction.--
(1) Extension of capitol police jurisdiction.--Section 9 of
the Act entitled ``An Act to define the area of the United
States Capitol Grounds, to regulate the use thereof, and for
other purposes'', approved July 31, 1946 (2
[[Page 34611]]
U.S.C. 1961) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) For purposes of this section, `United States Capitol
Buildings and Grounds' shall include the Library of Congress
buildings and grounds described under section 11 of the Act
entitled `An Act relating to the policing of the buildings of
the Library of Congress', approved August 4, 1950 (2 U.S.C.
167j), except that in a case of buildings or grounds not
located in the District of Columbia, the authority granted to
the Metropolitan Police Force of the District of Columbia
shall be granted to any police force within whose
jurisdiction the buildings or grounds are located.''.
(2) Repeal of library of congress police jurisdiction.--The
first section and sections 7 and 9 of the Act of August 4,
1950 (2 U.S.C. 167, 167f, 167h) are repealed on October 1,
2009.
(b) Unlawful Activities and Penalties.--
(1) Extension of united states capitol buildings and
grounds provisions to the library of congress buildings and
grounds.--
(A) Capitol buildings.--Section 5101 of title 40, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``all buildings on the
real property described under section 5102(d)'' after
``(including the Administrative Building of the United States
Botanic Garden)''.
(B) Capitol grounds.--Section 5102 of title 40, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
the United States Capitol Grounds shall include the Library
of Congress grounds described under section 11 of the Act
entitled `An Act relating to the policing of the buildings of
the Library of Congress', approved August 4, 1950 (2 U.S.C.
167j).
``(2) Authority of librarian of congress.--Notwithstanding
subsections (a) and (b), the Librarian of Congress shall
retain authority over the Library of Congress buildings and
grounds in accordance with section 1 of the Act of June 29,
1922 (2 U.S.C. 141; 42 Stat. 715).''.
(C) Conforming amendment relating to disorderly conduct.--
Section 5104(e)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of
official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the
Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of--
``(i) either House of Congress or a Member, committee,
officer, or employee of Congress, or either House of
Congress; or
``(ii) the Library of Congress;''.
(2) Repeal of offenses and penalties specific to the
library of congress.--Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the
Act of August 4, 1950 (2 U.S.C. 167a, 167b, 167c, 167d, 167e,
and 167g) are repealed.
(3) Suspension of prohibitions against use of library of
congress buildings and grounds.--Section 10 of the Act of
August 4, 1950 (2 U.S.C. 167i) is amended by striking ``2 to
6, inclusive, of this Act'' and inserting ``5103 and 5104 of
title 40, United States Code''.
(4) Conforming amendment to description of library of
congress grounds.--Section 11 of the Act of August 4, 1950 (2
U.S.C. 167j) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``For the purposes of
this Act the'' and inserting ``The'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``For the purposes of
this Act, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(C) in subsection (c), by striking ``For the purposes of
this Act, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(D) in subsection (d), by striking ``For the purposes of
this Act, the'' and inserting ``The''.
(c) Conforming Amendment Relating to Jurisdiction of
Inspector General of Library of Congress.--Section 1307(b)(1)
of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006 (2 U.S.C.
185(b)), is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and
inserting the following: ``, except that nothing in this
paragraph may be construed to authorize the Inspector General
to audit or investigate any operations or activities of the
United States Capitol Police;''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect October 1, 2009.
SEC. 5. COLLECTIONS, PHYSICAL SECURITY, CONTROL, AND
PRESERVATION OF ORDER AND DECORUM WITHIN THE
LIBRARY.
(a) Establishment of Regulations.--The Librarian of
Congress shall establish standards and regulations for the
physical security, control, and preservation of the Library
of Congress collections and property, and for the maintenance
of suitable order and decorum within Library of Congress.
(b) Treatment of Security Systems.--
(1) Responsibility for security systems.--In accordance
with the authority of the Capitol Police and the Librarian of
Congress established under this Act, the amendments made by
this Act, and the provisions of law referred to in paragraph
(3), the Chief of the Capitol Police and the Librarian of
Congress shall be responsible for the operation of security
systems at the Library of Congress buildings and grounds
described under section 11 of the Act of August 4, 1950, in
consultation and coordination with each other, subject to the
following:
(A) The Librarian of Congress shall be responsible for the
design of security systems for the control and preservation
of Library collections and property, subject to the review
and approval of the Chief of the Capitol Police.
(B) The Librarian of Congress shall be responsible for the
operation of security systems at any building or facility of
the Library of Congress which is located outside of the
District of Columbia, subject to the review and approval of
the Chief of the Capitol Police.
(2) Initial proposal for operation of systems.--Not later
than October 1, 2008, the Chief of the Capitol Police, in
coordination with the Librarian of Congress, shall prepare
and submit to the Committee on House Administration of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate, and the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
an initial proposal for carrying out this subsection.
(3) Provisions of law.--The provisions of law referred to
in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) Section 1 of the Act of June 29, 1922 (2 U.S.C. 141).
(B) The undesignated provision under the heading ``General
Provision, This Chapter'' in chapter 5 of title II of
division B of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (2 U.S.C. 141a).
(C) Section 308 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 1996 (2 U.S.C. 1964).
(D) Section 308 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 1997 (2 U.S.C. 1965).
SEC. 6. PAYMENT OF CAPITOL POLICE SERVICES PROVIDED IN
CONNECTION WITH RELATING TO LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
SPECIAL EVENTS.
(a) Payments of Amounts Deposited in Revolving Fund.--
Section 102(e) of the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations
Improvement Act of 2000 (2 U.S.C. 182b(e)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(e) Use of Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
amounts in the accounts of the revolving fund under this
section shall be available to the Librarian, in amounts
specified in appropriations Acts and without fiscal year
limitation, to carry out the programs and activities covered
by such accounts.
``(2) Special rule for payments for certain capitol police
services.--In the case of any amount in the revolving fund
consisting of a payment received for services of the United
States Capitol Police in connection with a special event or
program described in subsection (a)(4), the Librarian shall
transfer such amount upon receipt to the Capitol Police for
deposit into the applicable appropriations accounts of the
Capitol Police.''.
(b) Use of Other Library Funds To Make Payments.--In
addition to amounts transferred pursuant to section 102(e)(2)
of the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act
of 2000 (as added by subsection (a)), the Librarian of
Congress may transfer amounts made available for salaries and
expenses of the Library of Congress during a fiscal year to
the applicable appropriations accounts of the United States
Capitol Police in order to reimburse the Capitol Police for
services provided in connection with a special event or
program described in section 102(a)(4) of such Act.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to services provided by the United
States Capitol Police on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 7. OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1015 of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 1901 note) and section
1006 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004 (2
U.S.C. 1901 note; Public Law 108-83; 117 Stat. 1023) are
repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 2009.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``Act of August 4, 1950'' means the Act
entitled ``An Act relating to the policing of the buildings
and grounds of the Library of Congress,'' (2 U.S.C. 167 et
seq.);
(2) the term ``Library of Congress Police employee'' means
an employee of the Library of Congress designated as police
under the first section of the Act of August 4, 1950 (2
U.S.C. 167);
(3) the term ``Library of Congress Police civilian
employee'' means an employee of the Library of Congress
Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness who provides
direct administrative support to, and is supervised by, the
Library of Congress Police, but shall not include an employee
of the Library of Congress who performs emergency
preparedness or collections control and preservation
functions; and
(4) the term ``transition period'' means the period the
first day of which is the date of the enactment of this Act
and the final day of which is September 30, 2009.
[[Page 34612]]
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that Ben Weingrod and Ryan Kehmma
of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of
the debate on the FISA legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before my remarks, I ask unanimous consent
that Matthew Solomon be granted floor privileges during consideration
of the FISA bill. I make this request on behalf of Chairman Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PROTECTION OF DISCLOSURES ACT
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 513, S. 274.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 274) to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United
States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information
protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a
statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements
that such policies, forms, and agreements conform with
certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for
the Special Counsel, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs with an amendment to strike all after the enacting
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION
BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Employee Protection of Disclosures Act''.
(b) Clarification of Disclosures Covered.--Section
2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without
restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior
disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant,
including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an
employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably
believes is evidence of'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and
inserting ``any violation''; and
(C) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without
restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior
disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant,
including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an
employee's duties, of information that the employee or
applicant reasonably believes is evidence of'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and
inserting ``any violation (other than a violation of this
section)''; and
(C) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) any disclosure that--
``(i) is made by an employee or applicant of information
required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
affairs that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is
direct and specific evidence of--
``(I) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
``(II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety; or
``(III) a false statement to Congress on an issue of
material fact; and
``(ii) is made to--
``(I) a member of a committee of Congress having a primary
responsibility for oversight of a department, agency, or
element of the Federal Government to which the disclosed
information relates and who is authorized to receive
information of the type disclosed;
``(II) any other Member of Congress who is authorized to
receive information of the type disclosed; or
``(III) an employee of Congress who has the appropriate
security clearance and is authorized to receive information
of the type disclosed.''.
(c) Covered Disclosures.--Section 2302(a)(2) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and'' at the
end;
(2) in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) `disclosure' means a formal or informal communication
or transmission, but does not include a communication
concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise
discretionary authority unless the employee providing the
disclosure reasonably believes that the disclosure
evidences--
``(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
``(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety.''.
(d) Rebuttable Presumption.--Section 2302(b) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by amending the matter
following paragraph (12) to read as follows:
``This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the
withholding of information from Congress or the taking of any
personnel action against an employee who discloses
information to Congress. For purposes of paragraph (8), any
presumption relating to the performance of a duty by an
employee who has authority to take, direct others to take,
recommend, or approve any personnel action may be rebutted by
substantial evidence. For purposes of paragraph (8), a
determination as to whether an employee or applicant
reasonably believes that they have disclosed information that
evidences any violation of law, rule, regulation, gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority,
or a substantial and specific danger to public health or
safety shall be made by determining whether a disinterested
observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and
readily ascertainable by the employee could reasonably
conclude that the actions of the Government evidence such
violations, mismanagement, waste, abuse, or danger.''.
(e) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements; Security
Clearances; and Retaliatory Investigations.--
(1) Personnel action.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in clause (x), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(B) by redesignating clause (xi) as clause (xiv) and
inserting after clause (x) the following:
``(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any
nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement;
``(xii) a suspension, revocation, or other determination
relating to a security clearance or any other access
determination by a covered agency;
``(xiii) an investigation, other than any ministerial or
nondiscretionary fact finding activities necessary for the
agency to perform its mission, of an employee or applicant
for employment because of any activity protected under this
section; and''
(2) Prohibited personnel practice.--Section 2302(b) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not
contain the following statement: `These provisions are
consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or
otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or
liabilities created by Executive Order No. 12958; section
7211 of title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to
Congress); section 1034 of title 10, United States Code
(governing disclosure to Congress by members of the
military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code
(governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse, or
public health or safety threats); the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing
disclosures that could expose confidential Government
agents); and the statutes which protect against disclosures
that could compromise national security, including sections
641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of title 18, United States Code,
and section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of
1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The definitions, requirements,
obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by
such Executive order and such statutory provisions are
incorporated into this agreement and are controlling'; or
``(14) conduct, or cause to be conducted, an investigation,
other than any ministerial or nondiscretionary fact finding
activities necessary for the agency to perform its mission,
of an employee or applicant for employment because of any
activity protected under this section.''.
(3) Board and court review of actions relating to security
clearances.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 7702 the following:
``Sec. 7702a. Actions relating to security clearances
``(a) In any appeal relating to the suspension, revocation,
or other determination relating to a security clearance or
access determination, the Merit Systems Protection Board or
any reviewing court--
``(1) shall determine whether paragraph (8) or (9) of
section 2302(b) was violated;
``(2) may not order the President or the designee of the
President to restore a security clearance or otherwise
reverse a determination of clearance status or reverse an
access determination; and
``(3) subject to paragraph (2), may issue declaratory
relief and any other appropriate relief.
``(b)(1) If, in any final judgment, the Board or court
declares that any suspension, revocation, or other
determination with regard to a security clearance or access
determination was made in violation of paragraph (8) or (9)
of section 2302(b), the affected agency shall conduct a
review of that suspension, revocation, access determination,
or other determination, giving great weight to the Board or
court judgment.
[[Page 34613]]
``(2) Not later than 30 days after any Board or court
judgment declaring that a security clearance suspension,
revocation, access determination, or other determination was
made in violation of paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b),
the affected agency shall issue an unclassified report to the
congressional committees of jurisdiction (with a classified
annex if necessary), detailing the circumstances of the
agency's security clearance suspension, revocation, other
determination, or access determination. A report under this
paragraph shall include any proposed agency action with
regard to the security clearance or access determination.
``(c) An allegation that a security clearance or access
determination was revoked or suspended in retaliation for a
protected disclosure shall receive expedited review by the
Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection
Board, and any reviewing court.
``(d) For purposes of this section, corrective action may
not be ordered if the agency demonstrates by a preponderance
of the evidence that it would have taken the same personnel
action in the absence of such disclosure.''.
(B) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7702
the following:
``7702a. Actions relating to security clearances.''.
(f) Exclusion of Agencies by the President.--Section
2302(a)(2)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii)(I) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the National Security
Agency; and
``(II) as determined by the President, any executive agency
or unit thereof the principal function of which is the
conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
activities, if the determination (as that determination
relates to a personnel action) is made before that personnel
action; or''.
(g) Attorney Fees.--Section 1204(m)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``agency involved'' and
inserting ``agency where the prevailing party is employed or
has applied for employment''.
(h) Disciplinary Action.--Section 1215(a)(3) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3)(A) A final order of the Board may impose--
``(i) disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction
in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not
to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand;
``(ii) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed
$1,000; or
``(iii) any combination of disciplinary actions described
under clause (i) and an assessment described under clause
(ii).
``(B) In any case in which the Board finds that an employee
has committed a prohibited personnel practice under paragraph
(8) or (9) of section 2302(b), the Board shall impose
disciplinary action if the Board finds that the activity
protected under paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) was a
significant motivating factor, even if other factors also
motivated the decision, for the employee's decision to take,
fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel
action, unless that employee demonstrates, by preponderance
of evidence, that the employee would have taken, failed to
take, or threatened to take or fail to take the same
personnel action, in the absence of such protected
activity.''.
(i) Special Counsel Amicus Curiae Appearance.--Section 1212
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h)(1) The Special Counsel is authorized to appear as
amicus curiae in any action brought in a court of the United
States related to any civil action brought in connection with
section 2302(b) (8) or (9), or subchapter III of chapter 73,
or as otherwise authorized by law. In any such action, the
Special Counsel is authorized to present the views of the
Special Counsel with respect to compliance with section
2302(b) (8) or (9) or subchapter III of chapter 73 and the
impact court decisions would have on the enforcement of such
provisions of law.
``(2) A court of the United States shall grant the
application of the Special Counsel to appear in any such
action for the purposes described in subsection (a).''.
(j) Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--Section 7703(b)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and
paragraph (2), a petition to review a final order or final
decision of the Board shall be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed
within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice
of the final order or decision of the Board.
``(B) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective
date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, a
petition to review a final order or final decision of the
Board in a case alleging a violation of paragraph (8) or (9)
of section 2302(b) shall be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction as provided under subsection
(b)(2).''.
(2) Review obtained by office of personnel management.--
Section 7703(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(d)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), this
paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director of the
Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of any final
order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 days
after the date the Director received notice of the final
order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit if the Director determines, in his discretion, that
the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or
regulation affecting personnel management and that the
Board's decision will have a substantial impact on a civil
service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive. If the
Director did not intervene in a matter before the Board, the
Director may not petition for review of a Board decision
under this section unless the Director first petitions the
Board for a reconsideration of its decision, and such
petition is denied. In addition to the named respondent, the
Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the
Board shall have the right to appear in the proceeding before
the Court of Appeals. The granting of the petition for
judicial review shall be at the discretion of the Court of
Appeals.
``(2) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective
date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act,
this paragraph shall apply to any review relating to
paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) obtained by the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director
of the Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of
any final order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60
days after the date the Director received notice of the final
order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction as
provided under subsection (b)(2) if the Director determines,
in his discretion, that the Board erred in interpreting
paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b). If the Director did
not intervene in a matter before the Board, the Director may
not petition for review of a Board decision under this
section unless the Director first petitions the Board for a
reconsideration of its decision, and such petition is denied.
In addition to the named respondent, the Board and all other
parties to the proceedings before the Board shall have the
right to appear in the proceeding before the court of
appeals. The granting of the petition for judicial review
shall be at the discretion of the Court of Appeals.''.
(k) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Requirement.--Each agreement in Standard Forms 312 and
4414 of the Government and any other nondisclosure policy,
form, or agreement of the Government shall contain the
following statement: ``These restrictions are consistent with
and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the
employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by
Executive Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United
States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034
of title 10, United States Code (governing disclosure to
Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of
title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures of
illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety
threats); the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
(50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could
expose confidential Government agents); and the statutes
which protect against disclosure that may compromise the
national security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and
952 of title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the
Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The
definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions,
and liabilities created by such Executive order and such
statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and
are controlling.''.
(B) Enforceability.--Any nondisclosure policy, form, or
agreement described under subparagraph (A) that does not
contain the statement required under subparagraph (A) may not
be implemented or enforced to the extent such policy, form,
or agreement is inconsistent with that statement.
(2) Persons other than government employees.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement that is to be executed by a person connected
with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related
activity, other than an employee or officer of the United
States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the
particular activity for which such document is to be used.
Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the
person will not disclose any classified information received
in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized
to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure
forms shall also make it clear that such forms do not bar
disclosures to Congress or to an authorized official of an
executive agency or the Department of Justice that are
essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.
(l) Clarification of Whistleblower Rights for Critical
Infrastructure Information.--Section 214(c) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 133(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section a
permissible use of independently obtained information
includes the disclosure of such information under section
2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code.''.
(m) Advising Employees of Rights.--Section 2302(c) of title
5, United States Code, is amended
[[Page 34614]]
by inserting ``, including how to make a lawful disclosure of
information that is specifically required by law or Executive
order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense
or the conduct of foreign affairs to the Special Counsel, the
Inspector General of an agency, Congress, or other agency
employee designated to receive such disclosures'' after
``chapter 12 of this title''.
(n) Scope of Due Process.--
(1) Special counsel.--Section 1214(b)(4)(B)(ii) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, after a
finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing
factor,'' after ``ordered if''.
(2) Individual action.--Section 1221(e)(2) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, after a
finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing
factor,'' after ``ordered if''.
(o) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I further ask that the amendment at the desk be agreed
to; the committee-reported substitute amendment as amended be agreed
to, the bill, as amended, be read for the third time, passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
relating to this measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3801) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for reports by the Government Accountability
Office and the Merit Systems Protection Board on cases making
allegations of violations of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5,
United States Code, relating to whistleblowers)
After subsection (n), insert the following:
(o) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Government accountability office.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 40 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office
shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives on the implementation of this Act.
(B) Contents.--The report under this paragraph shall
include--
(i) an analysis of any changes in the number of cases filed
with the United States Merit Systems Protection Board
alleging violations of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5,
United States Code, since the effective date of the Act;
(ii) the outcome of the cases described under clause (i),
including whether or not the United States Merit Systems
Protection Board, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, or
any other court determined the allegations to be frivolous or
malicious; and
(iii) any other matter as determined by the Government
Accountability Office.
(2) Merit systems protection board.--
(A) In general.--Each report submitted annually by the
Merit Systems Protection Board under section 1116 of title
31, United States Code, shall, with respect to the period
covered by such report, include as an addendum the following:
(i) Information relating to the outcome of cases decided
during the applicable year of the report in which violations
of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5, United States Code,
were alleged.
(ii) The number of such cases filed in the regional and
field offices, the number of petitions for review filed in
such cases, and the outcomes of such cases.
(B) First report.--The first report described under
subparagraph (A) submitted after the date of enactment of
this Act shall include an addendum required under that
subparagraph that covers the period beginning on January 1,
2008 through the end of the fiscal year 2008.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 274), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 274
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION
BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Employee Protection of Disclosures Act''.
(b) Clarification of Disclosures Covered.--Section
2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without
restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior
disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant,
including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an
employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably
believes is evidence of'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and
inserting ``any violation''; and
(C) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without
restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior
disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant,
including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an
employee's duties, of information that the employee or
applicant reasonably believes is evidence of'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and
inserting ``any violation (other than a violation of this
section)''; and
(C) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) any disclosure that--
``(i) is made by an employee or applicant of information
required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
affairs that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is
direct and specific evidence of--
``(I) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
``(II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety; or
``(III) a false statement to Congress on an issue of
material fact; and
``(ii) is made to--
``(I) a member of a committee of Congress having a primary
responsibility for oversight of a department, agency, or
element of the Federal Government to which the disclosed
information relates and who is authorized to receive
information of the type disclosed;
``(II) any other Member of Congress who is authorized to
receive information of the type disclosed; or
``(III) an employee of Congress who has the appropriate
security clearance and is authorized to receive information
of the type disclosed.''.
(c) Covered Disclosures.--Section 2302(a)(2) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and'' at the
end;
(2) in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) `disclosure' means a formal or informal communication
or transmission, but does not include a communication
concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise
discretionary authority unless the employee providing the
disclosure reasonably believes that the disclosure
evidences--
``(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
``(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety.''.
(d) Rebuttable Presumption.--Section 2302(b) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by amending the matter
following paragraph (12) to read as follows:
``This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the
withholding of information from Congress or the taking of any
personnel action against an employee who discloses
information to Congress. For purposes of paragraph (8), any
presumption relating to the performance of a duty by an
employee who has authority to take, direct others to take,
recommend, or approve any personnel action may be rebutted by
substantial evidence. For purposes of paragraph (8), a
determination as to whether an employee or applicant
reasonably believes that they have disclosed information that
evidences any violation of law, rule, regulation, gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority,
or a substantial and specific danger to public health or
safety shall be made by determining whether a disinterested
observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and
readily ascertainable by the employee could reasonably
conclude that the actions of the Government evidence such
violations, mismanagement, waste, abuse, or danger.''.
(e) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements; Security
Clearances; and Retaliatory Investigations.--
(1) Personnel action.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in clause (x), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(B) by redesignating clause (xi) as clause (xiv) and
inserting after clause (x) the following:
``(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any
nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement;
``(xii) a suspension, revocation, or other determination
relating to a security clearance or any other access
determination by a covered agency;
``(xiii) an investigation, other than any ministerial or
nondiscretionary fact finding activities necessary for the
agency to perform its mission, of an employee or applicant
for employment because of any activity protected under this
section; and''
(2) Prohibited personnel practice.--Section 2302(b) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
[[Page 34615]]
(C) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not
contain the following statement: `These provisions are
consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or
otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or
liabilities created by Executive Order No. 12958; section
7211 of title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to
Congress); section 1034 of title 10, United States Code
(governing disclosure to Congress by members of the
military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code
(governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse, or
public health or safety threats); the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing
disclosures that could expose confidential Government
agents); and the statutes which protect against disclosures
that could compromise national security, including sections
641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of title 18, United States Code,
and section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of
1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The definitions, requirements,
obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by
such Executive order and such statutory provisions are
incorporated into this agreement and are controlling'; or
``(14) conduct, or cause to be conducted, an investigation,
other than any ministerial or nondiscretionary fact finding
activities necessary for the agency to perform its mission,
of an employee or applicant for employment because of any
activity protected under this section.''.
(3) Board and court review of actions relating to security
clearances.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 7702 the following:
``Sec. 7702a. Actions relating to security clearances
``(a) In any appeal relating to the suspension, revocation,
or other determination relating to a security clearance or
access determination, the Merit Systems Protection Board or
any reviewing court--
``(1) shall determine whether paragraph (8) or (9) of
section 2302(b) was violated;
``(2) may not order the President or the designee of the
President to restore a security clearance or otherwise
reverse a determination of clearance status or reverse an
access determination; and
``(3) subject to paragraph (2), may issue declaratory
relief and any other appropriate relief.
``(b)(1) If, in any final judgment, the Board or court
declares that any suspension, revocation, or other
determination with regard to a security clearance or access
determination was made in violation of paragraph (8) or (9)
of section 2302(b), the affected agency shall conduct a
review of that suspension, revocation, access determination,
or other determination, giving great weight to the Board or
court judgment.
``(2) Not later than 30 days after any Board or court
judgment declaring that a security clearance suspension,
revocation, access determination, or other determination was
made in violation of paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b),
the affected agency shall issue an unclassified report to the
congressional committees of jurisdiction (with a classified
annex if necessary), detailing the circumstances of the
agency's security clearance suspension, revocation, other
determination, or access determination. A report under this
paragraph shall include any proposed agency action with
regard to the security clearance or access determination.
``(c) An allegation that a security clearance or access
determination was revoked or suspended in retaliation for a
protected disclosure shall receive expedited review by the
Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection
Board, and any reviewing court.
``(d) For purposes of this section, corrective action may
not be ordered if the agency demonstrates by a preponderance
of the evidence that it would have taken the same personnel
action in the absence of such disclosure.''.
(B) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7702
the following:
``7702a. Actions relating to security clearances.''.
(f) Exclusion of Agencies by the President.--Section
2302(a)(2)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii)(I) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the National Security
Agency; and
``(II) as determined by the President, any executive agency
or unit thereof the principal function of which is the
conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
activities, if the determination (as that determination
relates to a personnel action) is made before that personnel
action; or''.
(g) Attorney Fees.--Section 1204(m)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``agency involved'' and
inserting ``agency where the prevailing party is employed or
has applied for employment''.
(h) Disciplinary Action.--Section 1215(a)(3) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3)(A) A final order of the Board may impose--
``(i) disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction
in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not
to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand;
``(ii) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed
$1,000; or
``(iii) any combination of disciplinary actions described
under clause (i) and an assessment described under clause
(ii).
``(B) In any case in which the Board finds that an employee
has committed a prohibited personnel practice under paragraph
(8) or (9) of section 2302(b), the Board shall impose
disciplinary action if the Board finds that the activity
protected under paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) was a
significant motivating factor, even if other factors also
motivated the decision, for the employee's decision to take,
fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel
action, unless that employee demonstrates, by preponderance
of evidence, that the employee would have taken, failed to
take, or threatened to take or fail to take the same
personnel action, in the absence of such protected
activity.''.
(i) Special Counsel Amicus Curiae Appearance.--Section 1212
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h)(1) The Special Counsel is authorized to appear as
amicus curiae in any action brought in a court of the United
States related to any civil action brought in connection with
section 2302(b) (8) or (9), or subchapter III of chapter 73,
or as otherwise authorized by law. In any such action, the
Special Counsel is authorized to present the views of the
Special Counsel with respect to compliance with section
2302(b) (8) or (9) or subchapter III of chapter 73 and the
impact court decisions would have on the enforcement of such
provisions of law.
``(2) A court of the United States shall grant the
application of the Special Counsel to appear in any such
action for the purposes described in subsection (a).''.
(j) Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--Section 7703(b)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and
paragraph (2), a petition to review a final order or final
decision of the Board shall be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed
within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice
of the final order or decision of the Board.
``(B) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective
date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, a
petition to review a final order or final decision of the
Board in a case alleging a violation of paragraph (8) or (9)
of section 2302(b) shall be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction as provided under subsection
(b)(2).''.
(2) Review obtained by office of personnel management.--
Section 7703(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(d)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), this
paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director of the
Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of any final
order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 days
after the date the Director received notice of the final
order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit if the Director determines, in his discretion, that
the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or
regulation affecting personnel management and that the
Board's decision will have a substantial impact on a civil
service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive. If the
Director did not intervene in a matter before the Board, the
Director may not petition for review of a Board decision
under this section unless the Director first petitions the
Board for a reconsideration of its decision, and such
petition is denied. In addition to the named respondent, the
Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the
Board shall have the right to appear in the proceeding before
the Court of Appeals. The granting of the petition for
judicial review shall be at the discretion of the Court of
Appeals.
``(2) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective
date of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act,
this paragraph shall apply to any review relating to
paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) obtained by the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director
of the Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of
any final order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60
days after the date the Director received notice of the final
order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction as
provided under subsection (b)(2) if the Director determines,
in his discretion, that the Board erred in interpreting
paragraph (8) or (9) of
[[Page 34616]]
section 2302(b). If the Director did not intervene in a
matter before the Board, the Director may not petition for
review of a Board decision under this section unless the
Director first petitions the Board for a reconsideration of
its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to the
named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the
proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear
in the proceeding before the court of appeals. The granting
of the petition for judicial review shall be at the
discretion of the Court of Appeals.''.
(k) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Requirement.--Each agreement in Standard Forms 312 and
4414 of the Government and any other nondisclosure policy,
form, or agreement of the Government shall contain the
following statement: ``These restrictions are consistent with
and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the
employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by
Executive Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United
States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034
of title 10, United States Code (governing disclosure to
Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of
title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures of
illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety
threats); the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
(50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could
expose confidential Government agents); and the statutes
which protect against disclosure that may compromise the
national security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and
952 of title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the
Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The
definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions,
and liabilities created by such Executive order and such
statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and
are controlling.''.
(B) Enforceability.--Any nondisclosure policy, form, or
agreement described under subparagraph (A) that does not
contain the statement required under subparagraph (A) may not
be implemented or enforced to the extent such policy, form,
or agreement is inconsistent with that statement.
(2) Persons other than government employees.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement that is to be executed by a person connected
with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related
activity, other than an employee or officer of the United
States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the
particular activity for which such document is to be used.
Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the
person will not disclose any classified information received
in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized
to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure
forms shall also make it clear that such forms do not bar
disclosures to Congress or to an authorized official of an
executive agency or the Department of Justice that are
essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.
(l) Clarification of Whistleblower Rights for Critical
Infrastructure Information.--Section 214(c) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 133(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section a
permissible use of independently obtained information
includes the disclosure of such information under section
2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code.''.
(m) Advising Employees of Rights.--Section 2302(c) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, including
how to make a lawful disclosure of information that is
specifically required by law or Executive order to be kept
secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of
foreign affairs to the Special Counsel, the Inspector General
of an agency, Congress, or other agency employee designated
to receive such disclosures'' after ``chapter 12 of this
title''.
(n) Scope of Due Process.--
(1) Special counsel.--Section 1214(b)(4)(B)(ii) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, after a
finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing
factor,'' after ``ordered if''.
(2) Individual action.--Section 1221(e)(2) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, after a
finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing
factor,'' after ``ordered if''.
(o) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Government accountability office.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 40 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office
shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives on the implementation of this Act.
(B) Contents.--The report under this paragraph shall
include--
(i) an analysis of any changes in the number of cases filed
with the United States Merit Systems Protection Board
alleging violations of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5,
United States Code, since the effective date of the Act;
(ii) the outcome of the cases described under clause (i),
including whether or not the United States Merit Systems
Protection Board, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, or
any other court determined the allegations to be frivolous or
malicious; and
(iii) any other matter as determined by the Government
Accountability Office.
(2) Merit systems protection board.--
(A) In general.--Each report submitted annually by the
Merit Systems Protection Board under section 1116 of title
31, United States Code, shall, with respect to the period
covered by such report, include as an addendum the following:
(i) Information relating to the outcome of cases decided
during the applicable year of the report in which violations
of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5, United States Code,
were alleged.
(ii) The number of such cases filed in the regional and
field offices, the number of petitions for review filed in
such cases, and the outcomes of such cases.
(B) First report.--The first report described under
subparagraph (A) submitted after the date of enactment of
this Act shall include an addendum required under that
subparagraph that covers the period beginning on January 1,
2008 through the end of the fiscal year 2008.
(p) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
____________________
DR. JAMES ALLEN VETERAN VISION EQUITY ACT OF 2007
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay
before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.R. 797,
the Veterans Vision Impairment.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Sanders) laid before the Senate the
following message:
H.R. 797
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 797) entitled ``An Act to amend
title 38, United States Code, to improve compensation
benefits for veterans in certain cases of impairment of
vision involving both eyes, to provide for the use of the
National Directory of New Hires for income verification
purposes, to extend the authority of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to provide an educational assistance
allowance for qualifying work study activities, and to
authorize the provision of bronze representations of the
letter `V' for the graves of eligible individuals buried in
private cemeteries in lieu of Government-provided headstones
or markers'', with the following amendments:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the Senate, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Dr. James
Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--LOW-VISION BENEFITS MATTERS
Sec. 101. Modification of rate of visual impairment for payment of
disability compensation.
Sec. 102. Improvement in compensation for veterans in certain cases of
impairment of vision involving both eyes.
TITLE II--MATTERS RELATING TO BURIAL AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
Sec. 201. Provision of medallion or other device for privately-
purchased grave markers.
Sec. 202. Improvement in provision of assistance to States relating to
the interment of veterans in cemeteries other than
national cemeteries.
Sec. 203. Modification of authorities on provision of Government
headstones and markers for burials of veterans at private
cemeteries.
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 301. Use of national directory of new hires for income
verification purposes for certain veterans benefits.
Sec. 302. Extension of authority of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
provide an educational assistance allowance to persons
performing qualifying work-study activities.
TITLE I--LOW-VISION BENEFITS MATTERS
SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF RATE OF VISUAL IMPAIRMENT FOR
PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
Section 1114(o) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``5/200'' and inserting ``20/200''.
SEC. 102. IMPROVEMENT IN COMPENSATION FOR VETERANS IN CERTAIN
CASES OF IMPAIRMENT OF VISION INVOLVING BOTH
EYES.
Section 1160(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``blindness'' both places it appears and
inserting ``impairment of vision'';
(2) by striking ``misconduct;'' and inserting ``misconduct
and--''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) the impairment of vision in each eye is rated at a
visual acuity of 20/200 or less; or
[[Page 34617]]
``(B) the peripheral field of vision for each eye is 20
degrees or less;''.
TITLE II--MATTERS RELATING TO BURIAL AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
SEC. 201. PROVISION OF MEDALLION OR OTHER DEVICE FOR
PRIVATELY-PURCHASED GRAVE MARKERS.
Section 2306(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) In lieu of furnishing a headstone or marker under
this subsection, the Secretary may furnish, upon request, a
medallion or other device of a design determined by the
Secretary to signify the deceased's status as a veteran, to
be attached to a headstone or marker furnished at private
expense.''.
SEC. 202. IMPROVEMENT IN PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO STATES
RELATING TO THE INTERMENT OF VETERANS IN
CEMETERIES OTHER THAN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Repeal of Time Limitation for State Filing for
Reimbursement for Interment Costs.--
(1) In general.--The second sentence of section
3.1604(d)(2) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, shall
have no further force or effect as it pertains to unclaimed
remains of a deceased veteran.
(2) Retroactive application.--Paragraph (1) shall take
effect as of October 1, 2006 and apply with respect to
interments and inurnments occurring on or after that date.
(b) Grants for Operation and Maintenance of State Veterans'
Cemeteries.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 2408 of title
38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may make
a grant to any State for the following purposes:
``(A) Establishing, expanding, or improving a veterans'
cemetery owned by the State.
``(B) Operating and maintaining such a cemetery.
``(2) A grant under paragraph (1) may be made only upon
submission of an application to the Secretary in such form
and manner, and containing such information, as the Secretary
may require.''.
(2) Limitation on amounts awarded.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Amounts''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In any fiscal year, the aggregate amount of grants
awarded under this section for the purposes specified in
subsection (a)(1)(B) may not exceed $5,000,000.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``Grants under this section'' and inserting
``A grant under this section for a purpose described in
subsection (a)(1)(A)''; and
(ii) by striking ``a grant under this section'' each place
it appears and inserting ``such a grant'';
(B) in subsection (d), by striking ``to assist such State
in establishing, expanding, or improving a veterans'
cemetery''; and
(C) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting ``, or in operating
and maintaining such cemeteries,'' after ``veterans'
cemeteries''.
(4) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments made
by this subsection.
SEC. 203. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON PROVISION OF
GOVERNMENT HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FOR BURIALS
OF VETERANS AT PRIVATE CEMETERIES.
(a) Repeal of Expiration of Authority.--Subsection (d) of
section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, as amended by
section 201, is further amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5), as added by
that section, as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(b) Retroactive Effective Date.--Notwithstanding subsection
(d) of section 502 of the Veterans Education and Benefits
Expansion Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-103; 115 Stat. 995; 38
U.S.C. 2306 note) or any other provision of law, the
amendments made by that section and by subsections (a), (b),
(c), (d), and (f) of section 402 of the Veterans Benefits,
Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-461; 120 Stat. 3429) shall take effect as of November
1, 1990, and shall apply with respect to headstones and
markers for the graves of individuals dying on or after that
date.
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 301. USE OF NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES FOR INCOME
VERIFICATION PURPOSES FOR CERTAIN VETERANS
BENEFITS.
(a) Authority for Information Comparisons and Disclosures
of Information to Assist in Administration of Certain
Veterans Benefits.--Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 653(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(11) Information comparisons and disclosures to assist in
administration of certain veterans benefits.--
``(A) Furnishing of information by secretary of veterans
affairs.--Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall furnish to the Secretary,
on such periodic basis as determined by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs in consultation with the Secretary,
information in the custody of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for comparison with information in the National
Directory of New Hires, in order to obtain information in
such Directory with respect to individuals who are applying
for or receiving--
``(i) needs-based pension benefits provided under chapter
15 of title 38, United States Code, or under any other law
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
``(ii) parents' dependency and indemnity compensation
provided under section 1315 of title 38, United States Code;
``(iii) health care services furnished under subsections
(a)(2)(G), (a)(3), or (b) of section 1710 of title 38, United
States Code; or
``(iv) compensation paid under chapter 11 of title 38,
United States Code, at the 100 percent rate based solely on
unemployability and without regard to the fact that the
disability or disabilities are not rated as 100 percent
disabling under the rating schedule.
``(B) Requirement to seek minimum information.--The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall seek information pursuant
to this paragraph only to the extent necessary to verify the
employment and income of individuals described in
subparagraph (A).
``(C) Duties of the secretary.--
``(i) Information disclosure.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
compare information in the National Directory of New Hires
with information provided by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs with respect to individuals described in subparagraph
(A), and shall disclose information in such Directory
regarding such individuals to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in accordance with this paragraph, for the purposes
specified in this paragraph.
``(ii) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make
disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to the extent
that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not
interfere with the effective operation of the program under
this part.
``(D) Use of information by secretary of veterans
affairs.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use
information resulting from a data match pursuant to this
paragraph only--
``(i) for the purposes specified in subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct
analyses of the employment and income reporting of
individuals described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) Reimbursement of hhs costs.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance
with subsection (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the
Secretary in furnishing the information requested under this
paragraph.
``(F) Consent.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall not
seek, use, or disclose information under this paragraph
relating to an individual without the prior written consent
of such individual (or of a person legally authorized to
consent on behalf of such individual).
``(G) Expiration of authority.--The authority under this
paragraph shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
(b) Amendments to Veterans Affairs Authority.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 53 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 5317 the
following new section:
``Sec. 5317A. Use of income information from other agencies:
independent verification required before termination or
reduction of certain benefits and services
``(a) Independent Verification Required.--The Secretary may
terminate, deny, suspend, or reduce any benefit or service
specified in section 5317(c), with respect to an individual
under age 65 who is an applicant for or recipient of such a
benefit or service, by reason of information obtained from
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section
453(j)(11) of the Social Security Act, only if the Secretary
takes appropriate steps to verify independently information
relating to the individual's employment and income from
employment.
``(b) Opportunity to Contest Findings.--The Secretary shall
inform each individual for whom the Secretary terminates,
denies, suspends, or reduces any benefit or service under
subsection (a) of the findings made by the Secretary under
such subsection on the basis of verified information and
shall provide to the individual an opportunity to contest
such findings in the same manner as applies to other
information and findings relating to eligibility for the
benefit or service involved.
``(c) Source of Funds for Reimbursement to Secretary of
Health and Human Services.--The Secretary shall pay the
expense of reimbursing the Secretary of Health and Human
Services in accordance with section 453(j)(11)(E) of the
Social Security Act, for the cost incurred by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services in furnishing information
requested by the Secretary under section 453(j)(11) of such
Act, from amounts available to the Department for the payment
of compensation and pensions.
``(d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this
section shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 5317 the following new item:
``5317A. Use of income information from other agencies: independent
verification required before termination or reduction of
certain benefits and services.''.
[[Page 34618]]
SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
ALLOWANCE TO PERSONS PERFORMING QUALIFYING
WORK-STUDY ACTIVITIES.
Section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``June 30, 2007'' each place it appears
and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend title 38,
United States Code, to improve low-vision benefits matters,
matters relating to burial and memorial affairs, and other
matters under the laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.''.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment, and the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXCEPTION FOR THE $1 COIN DISPENSING CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 515, H.R. 3703.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3703) to amend section 5112(p)(1)(A) of title
31, United States Code, to allow an exception from the $1
coin dispensing capability requirement for certain vending
machines.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3703) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY FEE EXTENSION ACT OF 2007
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 537, S. 781.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 781) to extend the authority of the Federal
Trade Commission to collect Do-Not-Call Registry fees to
fiscal years after fiscal year 2007.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, with an amendment
To strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
S. 781
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Do-Not-Call Registry Fee
Extension Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FEES FOR ACCESS TO REGISTRY.
Section 2, of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C.
6101 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2. TELEMARKETING SALES RULE; DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY
FEES.
``(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
assess and collect an annual fee pursuant to this section in
order to implement and enforce the `do-not-call' registry as
provided for in section 310.4(b)(1)(iii) of title 16, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any other regulation issued by the
Commission under section 3 of the Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102).
``(b) Annual Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall charge each person
who accesses the `do-not-call' registry an annual fee that is
equal to the lesser of--
``(A) $54 for each area code of data accessed from the
registry; or
``(B) $14,850 for access to every area code of data
contained in the registry.
``(2) Exception.--The Commission shall not charge a fee to
any person--
``(A) for accessing the first 5 area codes of data; or
``(B) for accessing area codes of data in the registry if
the person is permitted to access, but is not required to
access, the `do-not-call' registry under section 310 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations, section 64.1200 of title 47,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any other Federal regulation
or law.
``(3) Duration of access.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall allow each person
who pays the annual fee described in paragraph (1), each
person excepted under paragraph (2) from paying the annual
fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under
section 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) of title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations, to access the area codes of data in the `do-not-
call' registry for which the person has paid during that
person's annual period.
``(B) Annual period.--In this paragraph, the term `annual
period' means the 12-month period beginning on the first day
of the month in which a person pays the fee described in
paragraph (1).
``(c) Additional Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall charge a person
required to pay an annual fee under subsection (b) an
additional fee for each additional area code of data the
person wishes to access during that person's annual period.
``(2) Rates.--For each additional area code of data to be
accessed during the person's annual period, the Commission
shall charge--
``(A) $54 for access to such data if access to the area
code of data is first requested during the first 6 months of
the person's annual period; or
``(B) $27 for access to such data if access to the area
code of data is first requested after the first 6 months of
the person's annual period.
``(d) Adjustment of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Fiscal year 2009.--The dollar amount described in
subsection (b) or (c) is the amount to be charged for fiscal
year 2009.
``(B) Fiscal years after 2009.--For each fiscal year
beginning after fiscal year 2009, each dollar amount in
subsection (b)(1) and (c)(2) shall be increased by an amount
equal to--
``(i) the dollar amount in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(2),
whichever is applicable, multiplied by
``(ii) the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for the
most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds
the baseline CPI.
``(2) Rounding.--Any increase under subparagraph (B) shall
be rounded to the nearest dollar.
``(3) Changes less than 1 percent.--The Commission shall
not adjust the fees under this section if the change in the
CPI is less than 1 percent.
``(4) Publication.--Not later than September 1 of each year
the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register the
adjustments to the applicable fees, if any, made under this
subsection.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) CPI.--The term `CPI' means the average of the monthly
consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by
the Department of Labor).
``(B) Baseline CPI.--The term `baseline CPI' means the CPI
for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008.
``(e) Prohibition Against Fee Sharing.--No person may enter
into or participate in an arrangement (as such term is used
in section 310.8(c) of the Commission's regulations (16
C.F.R. 310.8(c))) to share any fee required by subsection (b)
or (c), including any arrangement to divide the costs to
access the registry among various clients of a telemarketer
or service provider.
``(f) Handling of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The commission shall deposit and credit
as offsetting collections any fee collected under this
section in the account `Federal Trade Commission--Salaries
and Expenses', and such sums shall remain available until
expended.
``(2) Limitation.--No amount shall be collected as a fee
under this section for any fiscal year except to the extent
provided in advance by appropriations Acts.''.
SEC. 3. REPORT.
Section 4 of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C.
6101 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Biennial Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2009,
and biennially thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission, in
consultation with the Federal Communications Commission,
shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce that includes--
``(1) the number of consumers who have placed their
telephone numbers on the registry;
``(2) the number of persons paying fees for access to the
registry and the amount of such fees;
``(3) the impact on the `do-not-call' registry of--
``(A) the 5-year reregistration requirement;
``(B) new telecommunications technology; and
``(C) number portability and abandoned telephone numbers;
and
``(4) the impact of the established business relationship
exception on businesses and consumers.
``(b) Additional Report.--Not later than December 31, 2009,
the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the
Federal Communications Commission, shall transmit a report to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce that includes--
``(1) the effectiveness of do-not-call outreach and
enforcement efforts with regard to senior citizens and
immigrant communities;
``(2) the impact of the exceptions to the do-not-call
registry on businesses and consumers, including an analysis
of the effectiveness of the registry and consumer perceptions
of the registry's effectiveness; and
``(3) the impact of abandoned calls made by predictive
dialing devices on do-not-call enforcment.''.
[[Page 34619]]
SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.
The Federal Trade Commission may issue rules, in accordance
with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as necessary
and appropriate to carry out the amendments to the Do-Not-
Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 note) made by this
Act.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-
reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be
read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 781), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
____________________
DO-NOT-CALL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 539, S. 2096.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2096) to amend the Do-Not-Call Implementation
Act to eliminate the automatic removal of telephone numbers
registered on the Federal ``do-not-call'' registry.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
S. 2096
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Do-Not-Call Improvement Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF EXPIRATION DATE FOR REGISTERED
TELEPHONE NUMBERS.
(a) In General.--The registration of a telephone number on
the do-not-call registry of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16
C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)) shall not expire at the end of any
specified time period.
(b) Reinstatement.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
reinstate the registration of any telephone number that has
been removed from the registry before the date of enactment
of this Act under a Federal Trade Commission rule or practice
requiring the removal of a telephone number from the registry
5 years after its registration.
(c) Registry Maintenance.--The Federal Trade Commission may
check telephone numbers listed on the do-not-call registry
against national databases periodically and purge those
numbers that have been disconnected and reassigned.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be
considered and agreed to; the committee-reported amendment, as amended,
be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
related thereto be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3867) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To require the FTC to report to the Congress on its efforts
to improve the accuracy of the Do-Not-Call Registry)
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 3. REPORT ON ACCURACY.
Not later than 9 months after the enactment of this Act,
the Federal Trade Commission shall report to the Congress on
efforts taken by the Commission, after the date of enactment
of this Act, to improve the accuracy of the ``do-not-call''
Registry.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading, read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2096
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Do-Not-Call Improvement Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF EXPIRATION DATE FOR REGISTERED
TELEPHONE NUMBERS.
(a) In General.--The registration of a telephone number on
the do-not-call registry of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16
C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)) shall not expire at the end of any
specified time period.
(b) Reinstatement.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
reinstate the registration of any telephone number that has
been removed from the registry before the date of enactment
of this Act under a Federal Trade Commission rule or practice
requiring the removal of a telephone number from the registry
5 years after its registration.
(c) Registry Maintenance.--The Federal Trade Commission may
check telephone numbers listed on the do-not-call registry
against national databases periodically and purge those
numbers that have been disconnected and reassigned.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON ACCURACY.
Not later than 9 months after the enactment of this Act,
the Federal Trade Commission shall report to the Congress on
efforts taken by the Commission, after the date of enactment
of this Act, to improve the accuracy of the ``do-not-call''
Registry.
____________________
COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 660, and the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 660) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their
family members, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the very beginning of this Congress, one
of the very first actions I took was to re-introduce the Court Security
Improvement Act of 2007, along with Senators Reid, Specter, Durbin,
Cornyn, Kennedy, Hatch, Schumer and Collins. The Judiciary Committee
considered this important legislation, and recommended it to the full
Senate. When Majority Leader Reid wanted to move to consider it, he
could not get a time agreement. We were forced to dedicate almost a
week of precious floor time to overcome a Republican objection, just to
proceed to debate on the bill. Eventually, the measure passed by a 97
to 0 vote. Not a single Senator voted against it. A short time later, a
nearly identical bill passed the House by a voice vote. Despite the
broad bipartisan support for both bills, however, we were blocked from
going to conference to resolve the minor differences between them by an
anonymous hold placed by a Republican Senator. For months, we
negotiated the minor differences between the House and Senate versions
of this legislation.
When we are responding to attacks and threats on our Federal judges,
witnesses and officers, time is of the essence. Just last month in
Nevada, a man admitted to shooting and injuring the family court judge
who was presiding over his divorce. This type of violence against our
judiciary can and must be prevented. For our justice system to function
effectively, our judges and other court personnel must be safe and
secure. They and their families must be free from the fear of
retaliation and harassment. Witnesses who come forward must be
protected, and the courthouses where our laws are enforced must be
secure. Today, almost eleven months after introducing this legislation,
we may actually reach consent to pass a compromise version that will
pass the House and be sent to the President.
We must act now to get these protections in place and stop delaying
such protective measures by anonymous holds. I urge Senators to take up
and pass this compromise version of the Court Security Improvement Act
so that we can provide the necessary protections that our Federal
courts so desperately need. The security of our Federal judges and our
courthouses around the Nation is at stake.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on H.R. 660, the
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. Section 509 of the final
substitute transfers one seat from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The reasons for this change are explained in Senator
Feinstein's and my additional views in S. Rept. 110-42.
[[Page 34620]]
Section 102 of the bill authorizes the U.S. Marshals Service to
provide protection to the U.S. Tax Court, and stipulates that the
Marshals Service retains final authority regarding the Tax Court's
security needs. The Tax Court has expressed concern to me and to other
Members that the Marshals Service should consult with the Tax Court
about the costs that it expects to incur for providing security--costs
that will be charged to the Tax Court. The Marshals Service has assured
Congress that it will consult with the Tax Court on these matters and
that it will not surprise the Tax Court with charges that the court may
have difficulty paying. Rather than include heavy-handed consultation
requirements in the text of the legislation, we have agreed to adopt
the bill in its current form on the strength of these assurances.
Section 202 of the bill makes it an offense to disseminate sensitive
personal information about Federal police officers and criminal
informants and witnesses. The final version extends this offense to
also protect State law enforcement officers, but only to the extent
that their participation in Federal activities creates a Federal
interest sufficient to maintain this provision's consistency with
principles of federalism.
Section 207 increases statutory maximum penalties for manslaughter
under section 1112 of title 18. I expect the U.S. Sentencing Commission
to revise its guidelines for these offenses in light of these new
higher statutory maxima. I commented on the need for these changes when
the Senate version of this bill passed the Senate earlier this year and
would refer interested parties to those remarks and especially to Paul
Charlton's testimony, at 153 Cong. Rec. S4739-4741, daily ed. April 19,
2007.
Section 208 increases the penalties for retaliatory assaults against
Federal judges' family members. This provision also clarifies an
assault offense that was created by Congress in 1994. The offense
establishes penalties for simple assault, assault with bodily injury,
and for assault in ``all other cases.'' As one might imagine, the
meaning of assault in ``all other cases'' has been the subject of
confusion and judicial debate. The offense has also been the subject of
constant vagueness challenges, and although those legal challenges have
been rejected, the offense is rather vague. Section 208 takes the
opportunity to correct this legislative sin, codifying what I believe
is the most thoughtful explanation of what this language means, the
10th Circuit's decision in United States v. Hathaway, 318 F.3d 1001,
1008-09, 10th Cir. 2003. A conforming change has also been made to
section Ill of title 18, so that sections 111 and 115 will match each
other and, again, so that people can easily figure out what this
offense actually proscribes.
Section 503 of the bill guarantees that senior district judges may
elect to participate in court rulemaking, appointment of magistrates
and court officers, and other administrative matters, so long as such
judges carry at least half of the caseload of an active district judge.
I believe that this provision is a bad idea, though its negative
consequences have been greatly mitigated in this final substitute as a
result of the intervention of Senator Sessions. Many senior judges are
often not present at the courthouse and are disengaged from the work of
the court and the life of the court. Moreover, Congress has no business
telling the courts how to manage these types of internal organizational
matters. Those jurists who share my objection to this provision should
be grateful to Senator Sessions, who insisted that the provision be
limited to district judges as opposed to circuit judges, that a senior
judge be required to elect to exercise these functions, and that a
senior judge carry at least half of a full caseload in order to be
entitled to assume these powers.
Finally, section 511 adds nomenclature to section 2255 of title 28, a
change recommended to me by Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation. This change has no substantive effect but should make
this code section easier for litigants to cite.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that a Leahy substitute amendment
at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time
and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3868) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill read a third
time.
The bill (H.R. 660), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS POLICE MERGER
IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2007
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3690, just received from
the House and at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3690) to provide for the transfer of the
Library of Congress police to the United States Capitol
Police, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
rights and protections
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the work by my colleague,
Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Committee on Rules and
Administration, and by other Senators over many years to accomplish
this merger of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Library of Congress
Police.
The U.S. Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police Merger and
Implementation Act of 2007 provides that employees of the Library of
Congress Police shall be transferred to the United States Capitol
Police. I would like to ask my colleague Senator Feinstein about
provisions under which the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police will make
certain final determinations regarding the incoming Library of Congress
Police employees that shall not be appealable or reviewable in any
manner. It is my understanding that these provisions would generally
prevent individuals from appealing or seeking review of the
determinations of the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, but would not
limit the right of any individual to seek any appropriate relief under
the Congressional Accountability Act if these determinations by the
Chief allegedly violated that act.
The Congressional Accountability Act was enacted in 1995 to provide
to congressional employees the same rights and protections that are
available to other employees in our Nation, including protection
against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin,
religion, or age. My understanding is that the merger legislation would
in no way limit the right of any employee covered under the
Congressional Accountability Act to initiate an action regarding any
alleged violation of rights protected under that Act. I have also been
told that this interpretation of the legislation is shared by the Chief
of the U.S. Capitol Police, and that Library of Congress employees
transferring to the U.S. Capitol Police will be informed and educated
about their rights and protections under the Congressional
Accountability Act.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The understanding of my colleague from Connecticut,
Senator Lieberman, is correct. The finality provisions in this
legislation were intended to give the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police
authority to transfer employees and assign duties as necessary to meet
the mission of the U.S. Capitol Police in maintaining the security of
the Capitol complex. However, the provisions in this legislation in no
way limit the protections and rights of an employee to seek relief
under the Congressional Accountability Act.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator for her assistance and courtesy.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be
considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time,
passed,
[[Page 34621]]
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record without
further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3869) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 3690), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
NATIONAL TEEN DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION WEEK
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 541, S. Res.
388.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 388) designating the week of February
4 through February 8, 2008, as ``National Teen Dating
Violence Awareness and Prevention Week.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 388) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 388
Whereas 1 in 3 female teenagers in a dating relationship
has feared for her physical safety;
Whereas 1 in 2 teenagers in a serious relationship has
compromised personal beliefs to please a partner;
Whereas 1 in 5 teenagers in a serious relationship reports
having been hit, slapped, or pushed by a partner;
Whereas 27 percent of teenagers have been in dating
relationships in which their partners called them names or
put them down;
Whereas 29 percent of girls who have been in a relationship
said that they have been pressured to have sex or to engage
in sexual activities that they did not want;
Whereas technologies such as cell phones and the Internet
have made dating abuse both more pervasive and more hidden;
Whereas 30 percent of teenagers who have been in a dating
relationship say that they have been text-messaged between 10
and 30 times per hour by a partner seeking to find out where
they are, what they are doing, or who they are with;
Whereas 72 percent of teenagers who reported they'd been
checked up on by a boyfriend or girlfriend 10 times per hour
by email or text messaging did not tell their parents;
Whereas parents are largely unaware of the cell phone and
Internet harassment experienced by teenagers;
Whereas Native American women experience higher rates of
interpersonal violence than any other population group;
Whereas violent relationships in adolescence can have
serious ramifications for victims, putting them at higher
risk for substance abuse, eating disorders, risky sexual
behavior, suicide, and adult revictimization;
Whereas the severity of violence among intimate partners
has been shown to be greater in cases where the pattern of
violence has been established in adolescence; and
Whereas the establishment of National Teen Dating Violence
Awareness and Prevention Week will benefit schools,
communities, and families regardless of socio-economic
status, race, or sex: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week of February 4 through February 8,
2008, as ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and
Prevention Week''; and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States, high
schools, law enforcement, State and local officials, and
interested groups to observe National Teen Dating Violence
Awareness and Prevention Week with appropriate programs and
activities that promote awareness and prevention of the crime
of teen dating violence in their communities.
____________________
HONORING THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 264,
and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 264) honoring the
University of Hawaii for its 100 years of commitment to
public higher education.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 264) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
____________________
RELATIVE TO THE DEATH OF REPRESENTATIVE JULIA CARSON OF INDIANA
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 407, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 407) relative to the death of
Representative Julia Carson, of Indiana.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en
bloc; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 407) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 407
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow
and deep regret the announcement of the death of the
Honorable Julia Carson, late a Representative from the State
of Indiana.
Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these resolutions
to the House of Representatives and transmit an enrolled copy
thereof to the family of the deceased.
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns or recesses today,
it stand adjourned or recessed as a further mark of respect
to the memory of the deceased Representative.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL TEAM
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 408 which was submitted earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 408) congratulating the Valdosta
State University football team on winning the 2007 Division
II national championship.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 408) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:
S. Res. 408
Whereas, on December 15, 2007, the Valdosta State
University Blazers football team defeated Northwest Missouri
State University by a score of 25-20 in Florence, Alabama, to
win the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
Division II National Championship;
Whereas this victory gave Valdosta State University its 2nd
football national championship title in 4 years;
Whereas Coach David Dean became only the 2nd 1st-year head
coach in NCAA history to lead a team to the Division II
title;
[[Page 34622]]
Whereas the Blazers finished the season with an impressive
13-1 record, including victories over Catawba College, the
University of North Alabama, and California University of
Pennsylvania in the playoffs to advance to the championship
game against Northwest Missouri State University; and
Whereas 7 Valdosta State University players were named to
the All-Gulf Conference team, including wide receiver Cedric
Jones and safety Sherard Reynolds, who were also named to the
All-American team: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates and honors the Valdosta State University
Blazers football team on winning the 2007 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division II National Championship;
(2) recognizes and commends the courage, hard work, and
dedication displayed by the Valdosta State University
football team and staff throughout the season in order to
obtain this great honor; and
(3) commends Valdosta State University, the city of
Valdosta, and all of the fans of the Blazers football team
throughout the State of Georgia for their endless support of
this special team throughout the 2007 championship season.
____________________
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2007
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. Tuesday,
December 18; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in
the day, and that there be a period of morning business for 90 minutes,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees; that Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to
10 minutes each; that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30
p.m. to 2:15 p.m. in order to accommodate the respective party
conference meetings; that the motion to proceed to S. 2248 be adopted
once this consent is granted and that all time postcloture be
considered yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2248) to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, and so forth and for other
purposes.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to announce on behalf of the
leader it is his intent to consider the House message on H.R. 2764, the
State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if there is no further business today, I now
ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the
provisions of S. Res. 407, as a further mark of respect on the passing
of Julia Carson, late Representative from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate stands in adjournment until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
S. Res. 407, and does so as a mark of further respect to the memory of
Julia Carson, late Representative from the State of Indiana.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 8:01 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday,
December 18, 2007, at 10 a.m.
[[Page 34623]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Monday, December 17, 2007
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Baird).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
December 17, 2007.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Brian Baird to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2007, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 31 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cardoza) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Above the cold winds is a clear blue sky. Behind a flurry of activity
is the conviction we are entering a holy season.
Lord God, as Congress resumes major responsibilities today, we mourn
the passing of a dear colleague, strong witness of perseverance in
suffering and advocate for the poor and the homeless, the Honorable
Julia Carson.
Her sweet manner always shown through her raspy voice and
determination. Her smile born out of sincerity and faith encouraged
others when there was only a smidgen of hope.
God of all consolation, reward her public service, and be close to
all who grieve the loss of her presence.
As all prepare to celebrate the approaching feast of heaven and
Earth, we know many will greet her with shouts of triumph and
thanksgiving. In Your kingdom, You will invite her to take her place
where Rosa Parks has reserved for her a seat.
May she rest in peace. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. FOXX led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF FOOD LION SUPERMARKETS
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Food Lion, a North
Carolina business success story, for 50 years of doing business the
right way.
Food Lion, founded in Salisbury, North Carolina, in 1957, today
boasts a chain of 1,300 supermarkets spread throughout the Southeast
and mid-Atlantic States.
Food Lion's 73,000 employees serve more than 10 million customers
every week and embody the ethic that great service in local communities
is a formula for a successful and profitable business.
This company has shown a true commitment to its employees by offering
employees a working environment that focuses not just on good wages,
but also integrates working conditions and profit-sharing arrangements
that are some of the best in the retail business.
And Food Lion's business model doesn't stop at the bottom line or
with treating employees right. Food Lion gives back every year to many
community organizations and charitable causes, including the Children's
Miracle Network, America's Second Harvest Food Banks, Easter Seals, the
United Way, the American Red Cross, and local schools.
Food Lion represents the type of company that helps make North
Carolina and America great. I applaud their 50 years of service to
hundreds of communities and wish them many more years of success.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair
announces to the House that, in light of the passing of the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Ms. Carson), the whole number of the House is 433.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the Speaker
signed the following enrolled joint resolution on Thursday, December
13, 2007:
H.J. Res. 69, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 2008, and for other purposes.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 14, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, The Capitol, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on December 14, 2007, at
2:13 p.m.:
That the Senate passed S. 2338.
That the Senate agreed to the amendments of the House to
the Text and Title of the bill S. 597.
That the Senate agreed to the Conference Report
accompanying the bill H.R. 1585.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res.
269.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
[[Page 34624]]
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 14, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, The Capitol, House of Representatives Washington,
DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on December 14, 2007, at
6:13 p.m.:
That the Senate passed S. 2488.
That the Senate passed S. 2400.
That the Senate passed with an amendment H.R. 3648.
That the Senate passed with an amendment H.R. 3739.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 13, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, The Capitol, House of Representatives Washington,
DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on December 13, 2007, at
6:55 p.m.:
That the Senate agreed to without amendment H.J. Res. 69.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 14, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, The Capitol, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on December 14, 2007, at
12:10 p.m.:
That the Senate agreed to the House amendments to the
Senate amendments to the bill with an amendment; that the
Senate agreed to the House amendments to the Senate
amendments to the title of the bill H.R. 6.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 2408.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 2671.
That the Senate passed S. 1396.
That the Senate passed S. 1585.
That the Senate passed S. 2339.
That the Senate passed S. 2484.
That the Senate passed S. 1916.
That the Senate passed S. 1858.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later today.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CHRISTMAS TREE INDUSTRY TO THE
UNITED STATES ECONOMY
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 15) recognizing the
contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States
economy.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 15
Whereas Christmas trees have been sold commercially in the
United States since the 1850s;
Whereas, by 1900, one in five American families decorated a
tree during the Christmas season, while, by 1930, a decorated
Christmas tree had become a nearly universal part of the
American Christmas celebration;
Whereas 32.8 million households in the United States
purchased a live-cut Christmas tree in 2005;
Whereas the placement and decoration of live-cut Christmas
trees in town squares across the country have become an
American tradition;
Whereas, for generations, American families have traveled
hundreds and even thousands of miles to celebrate the
Christmas season together around a live-cut Christmas tree;
Whereas 36 million live-cut Christmas trees are produced
each year, and 98 percent of these trees are shipped or sold
directly from Christmas tree farms;
Whereas Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Washington,
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Virginia,
California, and Ohio are the top producers of live-cut
Christmas trees, but Christmas trees are grown in all 50
States;
Whereas there are more than 21,000 growers of Christmas
trees in the United States, and approximately 100,000 people
are employed in the live-cut Christmas tree industry;
Whereas many Christmas tree growers grow trees on a part-
time basis to supplement their other farm and non-farm
income;
Whereas growing Christmas trees provides wildlife habitat;
Whereas, in 2005, Christmas trees were planted on more than
a half million acres of land;
Whereas 73 million new Christmas trees will be planted in
2006, and, on average, over 1,500 Christmas trees can be
planted per acre; and
Whereas the retail value of all Christmas trees harvested
in 2005 was $1.4 billion: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
recognizes the important contributions of the live-cut
Christmas tree industry, Christmas tree growers, and persons
employed in the live-cut Christmas tree industry to the
United States economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.J. Res. 15.
H.J. Res 15, a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx
of North Carolina, recognizes the success and importance of the live-
cut Christmas tree industry in the United States.
It is an appropriate time of the year for Congress to consider this
resolution, as I think that most of us here today have memories of
decorating a Christmas tree during the holiday season. The live-cut
Christmas tree industry ensures that this tradition continues every
year for families across the Nation.
Likewise, there are private forest landowners all across America for
whom Christmas trees are an important source of income. Over 35 million
live-cut Christmas trees are produced this year, and they are growing
in all 50 States. Christmas tree growers are responsible land stewards
who provide wildlife habitat, give us cleaner air, protect watersheds,
and improve the environment.
The economic strength and cultural contribution of this industry
makes this resolution worthy of congressional support.
I encourage the support of the resolution.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honored today to rise as the House
considers House Joint Resolution 15, a resolution I authored to
recognize the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the
United States economy.
As a former Christmas tree grower myself, I can attest to the
importance of recognizing this often overlooked, yet highly
significant, farming industry. Christmas trees have held a historic
place in traditional American
[[Page 34625]]
family values since 1850. Just as importantly, Christmas trees play a
vital role in the North Carolina High Country's economy by providing
jobs and livelihoods for thousands of North Carolinians.
My district in North Carolina is one of the largest producers of
live-cut Christmas trees in the entire country. There are over 1,600
North Carolina growers and approximately 400 choose-and-cut Christmas
tree farms across the State. The North Carolina Christmas tree industry
is ranked second in the Nation in the number of trees harvested,
producing over 19 percent of the real Christmas trees in the United
States.
North Carolina has an estimated 50 million Fraser fir Christmas trees
growing on over 25,000 acres. Representing over 95 percent of all
species growing in North Carolina, Fraser firs are grown in North
Carolina's western counties, including Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Haywood,
Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania,
Watauga and Yancey.
The North Carolina Fraser fir Christmas tree is the most popular
Christmas tree in North America and is shipped to every State in the
United States, as well as the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Canada,
Bermuda, Japan, and other points all over the world.
The North Carolina Fraser fir has soft needles with incomparable
needle retention, a long-lasting aroma, and more pliable, yet stronger,
branches for even the heaviest ornaments.
Through a contest sponsored by the National Christmas Tree
Association, the North Carolina Fraser fir has been judged the Nation's
best and has been chosen for the official White House Christmas tree 10
times, more than any other species, in 1971, 1973, 1982, 1984, 1990,
1993, 1995, 1997, 2005 and 2007.
It is my great privilege to say that a beautiful Fraser fir grown by
Joe Freeman and Linda Jones of Mistletoe Meadows Christmas Tree Farm in
Laurel Springs, North Carolina, presently sits in the White House Blue
Room as this year's official White House Christmas tree.
The Christmas tree industry supports our economy and the environment.
Christmas trees are grown in all 50 States, with North Carolina,
Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York,
Minnesota, Virginia, California, and Ohio being the top Christmas tree
producers. Nationally, there are more than 21,000 Christmas tree
growers, and more than 100,000 people are employed in the live-cut
Christmas tree industry.
Thirty-six million live-cut Christmas trees are produced each year,
and 98 percent are shipped or sold directly from Christmas tree farms.
Live-cut Christmas trees are a renewable, recyclable resource. There
are over 500,000 acres in production for growing Christmas trees in the
U.S., and each acre provides the daily oxygen requirement for 18
people.
{time} 1215
On average, over 1,500 Christmas trees are planted per acre,
providing an abundant habitat for wildlife.
It can take up to 15 years to grow Christmas trees to retail sale
height, a testament to the commitment growers have to maintain strong
and healthy trees. The retail value of all Christmas trees harvested in
2004 was $1.4 billion. Live-cut Christmas trees have been sold
commercially in the United States since 1850. By 1900, one in five
American families decorated live-cut trees during Christmas. By 1930,
the tree had become a nearly universal part of the American Christmas.
For generations, American families have traveled hundreds and thousands
of miles to celebrate the holiday season together at home around the
Christmas tree. This year, more than 10,000 trees were donated to
American troops by over 750 Christmas tree farmers across the Nation.
These Christmas trees were delivered to over 37 bases across 19 States
and over 15 countries abroad to spread the holiday spirit to our men
and women in uniform who are bravely and honorably serving our Nation
throughout this Christmas season.
I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Agriculture and the majority leader for their assistance
in getting this resolution to the floor. I urge my colleagues to
support this measure, recognizing this important industry, not just for
its economic and environmental impact, but also for its cultural
contribution to the Christmas holiday. Thank you to Christmas tree
growers across the country for their contribution to our economy, our
environment, and our Nation's heritage.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 15--Recognizing
the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States
economy. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution.
During the holiday season, it is appropriate that we consider this
resolution. Many Americans participate in the tradition of Christmas
and Christmas trees are an important part of this tradition. Many
memories associated with Christmas include a beautiful natural tree
decorated with lights and ornaments with gifts underneath, shared with
family and friends.
Whether families purchase a pre-cut tree or cut the trees
themselves--the tree most likely came from a tree farm. More than 36
million Christmas trees are produced each year, and 98 percent of them
come from Christmas tree farms. Christmas tree farms have a positive
contribution to our economy.
None know the importance of Christmas trees to our economy better
than Oregonians. In 2006, Christmas trees accounted for more than $121
million of the Oregon economy. Our number one agricultural commodity is
nursery products, including Christmas trees. While many people know
Oregon for our forests, it is fitting that we are also first in the
Nation in Christmas tree production. I am proud to represent thousands
of Oregonians who are part of the Christmas tree and nursery industry.
Christmas trees are both part of the Christmas and winter holiday
season, and important to Oregon and the nation's economy. I commend my
colleague, Ms. Foxx, for introducing this resolution.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 15.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.J. Res. 15.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
____________________
GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST LAND CONVEYANCE
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 3454) to provide for the conveyance of a small
parcel of National Forest System land in the George Washington National
Forest in Alleghany County, Virginia, that contains the cemetery of the
Central Advent Christian Church and an adjoining tract of land located
between the cemetery and road boundaries.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3454
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, CENTRAL ADVENT CHRISTIAN CHURCH
CEMETERY AND ADJOINING TRACT, GEORGE WASHINGTON
NATIONAL FOREST, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
(a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall convey, without consideration, to the Central Advent
Christian Church of Alleghany County, Virginia (in this
section referred to as the ``recipient''), all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property in the George Washington National Forest, Alleghany
County, Virginia, consisting of not more than 8 acres,
including a cemetery encompassing approximately 6 acres
designated as an area of special use for the recipient, and
depicted on the Forest Service
[[Page 34626]]
map showing tract G-2032c and dated August 20, 2002, and the
Forest Service map showing the area of special use and dated
March 14, 2001.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
recipient accept the real property described in such
subsection in its condition at the time of the conveyance,
commonly known as conveyance ``as is''.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the recipient.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 3454. This bill,
sponsored by Mr. Boucher from Virginia, would convey property in the
George Washington National Forest to the Central Advent Christian
Church of Alleghany County, Virginia. The parcel will consist of no
more than 8 acres, and included in this parcel will be a cemetery
encompassing approximately 6 acres.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3454 requires that the church accept the property
at the time of the conveyance in an ``as is'' condition. The exact
acreage and legal description of the properly to be conveyed will be
determined in a survey of USDA's approval. USDA will also set
additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance of
the property.
The United States Forest Service has acknowledged that this
particular tract of forest land is difficult to manage. Owning a
cemetery tract is inconsistent with the Forest Service mission, which
is why they have attempted to sell this property several times without
success. I understand the Central Advent Christian Church has already
been doing basic maintenance on the cemetery grounds. Conveying this
land to the church would enable them to make more significant repairs
to the property. This effort deserves congressional support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of H.R. 3454
which our distinguished ranking member on the Agriculture Committee
(Mr. Goodlatte) has cosponsored with Congressman Boucher. H.R. 3454
requires the U.S. Forest Service to convey, without consideration, 8
acres of the George Washington National Forest in Alleghany County,
Virginia, to the Central Advent Christian Church. The conveyance
includes a 6-acre cemetery and 2 additional acres between the cemetery
and Interstate 64.
While typically the Forest Service would sell this property under
existing authority, they did not receive any bids when they attempted
to sell it. Clearly, the Forest Service should not be in the business
of owning a cemetery, particularly that has been managed by the
community church since 1941 under a special use permit. The church has
tried to acquire the property, but for financial and other reasons has
been unsuccessful.
The cemetery also creates some management problems for the agency,
since there is a fair amount of maintenance associated with it.
This conveyance makes sense for the Federal Government and for the
community church. It will allow the Forest Service to focus on the land
Congress intended the agency to manage.
I urge adoption of this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3454,
bipartisan legislation which will authorize the conveyance by the
Forest Service to the Central Advent Christian Church in Alleghany
County, Virginia of a small parcel of land containing a cemetery
currently operated by the church. The church and the land in question
are located in my Congressional District.
For 66 years, the Central Advent Christian Church has been operating
its cemetery through a Special Use permit granted by the U.S. Forest
Service. The historic cemetery contains more than 300 graves, two-
thirds of which are located on land owned by the U.S. Forest Service.
In recent years, maintenance of this land has become difficult for the
Forest Service, taking valuable staff time to remove discarded flowers
and other items.
It is the desire of the families of those buried in the cemetery, the
members of Central Advent Christian Church and the Forest Service that
the cemetery be transferred into church ownership, and the bill before
the House takes the entirely appropriate step of authorizing the
conveyance.
This measure authorizes the transfer of the 6.08 acres constituting
the cemetery and a small additional tract, which would otherwise be
landlocked by this transfer, to the church. The total amount of land to
be conveyed to the church will not exceed 8 acres. Conveyance of the
property will be contingent on the completion of a survey acceptable to
the Forest Service at the church's expense.
I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Peterson and his staff as well
as my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, in working with me on
this legislation, and I thank Mr. Goodlatte, who also represents a
portion of Alleghany County, for cosponsoring the bill with me. H.R.
3454 enjoys bipartisan support in the House and its passage would
benefit both the Forest Service and the members of the Central Advent
Christian Church.
I urge approval of the measure.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express strong support for H.R.
3454, which I've cosponsored with my colleague Mr. Boucher. H.R. 3454
would authorize the U.S. Forest Service to convey roughly 8 acres of
the George Washington National Forest in Alleghany County, Virginia, to
the Central Advent Christian Church.
These 8 acres contain a 6 acre cemetery and 2 acres between the
cemetery and the adjoining interstate. The cemetery has been managed by
the Church since 1941, under a special use permit, with no fees.
It's frustrating to me that limited federal dollars are being spent
to manage this property that is clearly not in line with the mission of
the Forest Service. That's why I've cosponsored this legislation. This
bill will help relinquish the Forest Service of this responsibility so
they can focus on the lands that our forefathers intended them to
manage.
Several times, the Forest Service has attempted to sell this property
but to no avail. The local community church lacks the resources to
purchase the property. While I would of course prefer that we sell the
land, I believe it is in the federal government's interest to convey
the land to the Church rather than spending additional resources on it.
I urge adoption of this important legislation.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3454.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on the bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONVEYANCES UNDER FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2003
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 1374) to amend the Florida National Forest Land
Management Act of 2003 to authorize the conveyance of an additional
tract of National Forest System land under that Act, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
[[Page 34627]]
H.R. 1374
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCES UNDER FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2003.
(a) Additional Conveyance Authorized.--Subsection (b) of
section 3 of the Florida National Forest Land Management Act
of 2003 (Public Law 108-152; 117 Stat. 1919) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (17);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (18) as paragraph (19);
(3) by inserting after paragraph (17) the following new
paragraph:
``(18) tract W-1979, located in Leon County consisting of
approximately 114 acres, within T. 1 S., R. 1 W., sec. 25;
and''; and
(4) in paragraph (19), as so redesignated, by striking
``(17)'' and inserting ``(18)''.
(b) Additional Use of Proceeds.--Paragraph (2) of
subsection (i) of such section (117 Stat. 1921) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) acquisition, construction, or maintenance of
administrative improvements for units of the National Forest
System in the State.''.
(c) Limitations on Use of Proceeds.--Subsection (i) of such
section is further amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(3) Geographical and use restriction for certain
conveyance.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), proceeds from the
sale or exchange of the tract described in subsection (b)(18)
shall be used exclusively for the purchase of inholdings in
the Apalachicola National Forest.
``(4) Restriction on use of proceeds for administrative
improvements.--Proceeds from any sale or exchange of land
under this Act may be used for administrative improvements,
as authorized by paragraph (2)(C), only if the land
generating the proceeds was improved with infrastructure.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1374. H.R. 1374, introduced by
Representatives Allen Boyd of Florida and Ander Crenshaw of Florida,
would amend the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003 and
permit a land conveyance in Leon County. This bill would allow the
United States Forest Service to sell a 114-acre parcel in the
Apalachicola National Forest known as the ``Flea Market Tract.'' The
parcel is surrounded by commercial development, including a major
highway to the north, a power line easement to the south, and private
land primarily developed to the east and west.
The configuration and development makes adequate land management
difficult and the tract unsuitable as managed forest land. H.R. 1374
specifies that the proceeds of the sale of the tract be used for the
purpose of acquiring private lands within the Apalachicola National
Forest.
H.R. 1374 is supported by the United States Forest Service, the City
of Tallahassee, and Leon County, as well as by local businesses, church
and civic groups. It is a project that is worthy of congressional
support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my
colleague and express support for H.R. 1374, which authorizes the sale
of 114 acres in the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, the
proceeds of which can be used only to purchase private inholdings from
willing sellers. H.R. 1374 passed the Agriculture Committee last week
by a voice vote.
The land proposed for sale is a small tract that is extremely
difficult for the U.S. Forest Service to manage, given its proximity to
the City of Tallahassee and the surrounding development. Properties
such as this, which contribute little to meeting the Forest Service
mission, unfortunately diverts scarce resources from other lands that
need management.
In addition to relieving the Forest Service of the management
problems this tract creates, the bill will also help the agency reduce
the number of private inholdings within the forest if the private
owners are interested in selling. Inholdings are a common problem
throughout many national forests in the East and create significant
access and management issues for the landowners and the agency.
I urge adoption of this bipartisan legislation, and reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I now would yield such time
as he may consume to the author of the bill, Mr. Boyd from Florida.
Mr. BOYD of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the
distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr.
Peterson, for granting me time to speak on behalf of this legislation
and also thank him and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, and his
representative for supporting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the Apalachicola National Forest is the largest of
Florida's three national forests. It contains 564,000 acres, and its
rivers and streams provide a steady freshwater flow to some of the most
productive coastal bays and estuaries known for shellfish and other
commercial seafood. Portions of the forest are in wet lowlands and they
abound with cypress, oak and magnolias. Watching wildlife, hunting and
fishing are popular recreation activities in this beautiful national
forest. Visitors to the forest also enjoy swimming, picnicking,
boating, and camping.
The Apalachicola National Forest is truly a national treasure, and I
am very proud that this legislation will help strengthen and sustain
one of our Nation's most valuable natural assets.
As the chairman and the ranking member have said, this enables the
national forest to sell a piece of property that really lies right on
the south side of Tallahassee, Florida, in Leon County. It actually
comes up to the beltway, or what we call the Capital Circle and is
surrounded on three sides by commercial development. It is detached
from the rest of the national forest, and so it is really, as you have
heard earlier, an unmanageable piece of land. And with those proceeds,
we are going to use the proceeds to go and purchase some privately held
holdings within the confines of the 564,000 acres, what we commonly
know as ``inholdings,'' and that is the only purpose that those funds
can be used for. There are about 2,000 acres of inholdings, privately
held lands within the Apalachicola National Forest, and that is what
those funds, Mr. Speaker, would be used for.
I want to thank Mr. Joe Baca, the Forestry Subcommittee chairman, and
his staff director, Lisa Shelton, for helping guide this legislation
through the subcommittee process. And also I want to thank my friend,
the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for scheduling. I encourage our
colleagues to pass this legislation.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1374.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on the bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
[[Page 34628]]
____________________
{time} 1230
EXPRESSING HEARTFELT SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF THE
SHOOTINGS IN OMAHA, NEBRASKA, ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2007
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 856) expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims
and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday,
December 5, 2007.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 856
Whereas the community of Omaha, Nebraska has suffered
through a tragic event at the Westroads Mall that resulted in
the loss of 9 lives and the wounding of several others;
Whereas on December 5, 2007, a troubled young man entered a
department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska
carrying a rifle;
Whereas the young man began to randomly fire his rifle at
shoppers and store clerks within the Von Maur department
store and other locations within Westroads Mall;
Whereas the result of this shooting spree resulted in the
deaths of Gary Scharf, John McDonald, Angie Schuster, Maggie
Webb, Janet Jorgensen, Diane Trent, Gary Joy, and Beverly
Flynn;
Whereas Fred Wilson, Michelle Oldham, Jeff Schaffert, and
Brad Stafford were wounded as a result of the shootings;
Whereas the first responders, officers of the Omaha Police
Department, Douglas and Sarpy County Sheriff's Department,
and Omaha Fire Department, arrived at the Westroads Mall
within minutes and secured all entrances and exits to the
mall and discovered a number of deceased persons, including
the shooter;
Whereas on December 6, 2007 Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman
ordered that all United States and State flags in Nebraska be
flown at half-staff through Sunday, Dec. 9; and
Whereas the grieving and celebration of the lives of those
lost in this senseless tragedy will be with the greater Omaha
community for months and years to come: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
(1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims and
families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska on Wednesday,
December 5, 2007; and
(2) conveys its gratitude to the city and county officials,
and all the police, fire, sheriff, and emergency medical
teams who responded swiftly to the scene and secured the mall
and surrounding area.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Issa) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
General Leave
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I join my colleagues in consideration of H. Res.
856, which expresses heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of
the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007. H.
Res. 856, which was introduced by Representative Lee Terry on December
12, 2007, has the support of 72 Members of Congress.
The community of Omaha, Nebraska, experienced a shooting spree at the
hands of a troubled teenager carrying a rifle on December 5. Sadly,
nine people died, and four others were wounded in the Westroads Mall.
Thankfully, first responders, the Omaha Police Department, Douglas and
Sarpy County Sheriff's Department, and Omaha Fire Department all
arrived within minutes of the attacks to secure all entrances.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express great sympathy for the
community's tragedy and all of the lives lost. I commend my colleague
for sponsoring this measure, and I urge the swift passage of the
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as we on a bipartisan basis support this
resolution, I would yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry)
such time as he may consume.
Mr. TERRY. I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, as well
as the Government Reform Committee, for making sure that this got to
the floor in such a timely manner.
December 5, 2007: that will be a day forever etched in Omaha's memory
as the day a lone gunman took the lives of eight innocent people at the
Westroads Mall, the Von Maur store, during the holiday shopping season.
But it will also be remembered as a day that revealed the true
character of Omaha.
Tragedy, no doubt, reveals the true meaning of unity in any
community. Although I will never understand the senseless events that
took place in my hometown on December 5, I stand here as a proud
citizen, Congressman of that district, because it's in times like these
it doesn't matter what party you belong to, what your political beliefs
are, your race, creed, or color. People come together and they ask what
can we do to help the city and the eight innocent people. I think this
is not only the spirit of Omaha, or what defines the Omaha area, but
also I think it is what exemplifies the spirit of America, and it is
that spirit that we remember in each of the victims and the first
responders.
Let me introduce the eight innocent lives that were lost on that day.
There was 53-year-old Dianne Clavin Trent, described by her family as a
gentle, generous, soft-spoken woman who loved the Lord. She loved to
shop and was always smiling. She had worked in customer service at Von
Maur for about 8 years.
We have 65-year-old John McDonald, retired from Northern Natural Gas,
whose daughter in fact worked with me in my law office. John was one of
the heroes, when he left his place of safety to come out and start
yelling, some people described it as rather passionately, at the
gunman, to distract him from turning around, and a few feet away was a
room where 12 other innocent people were holed up. John was shot.
Amazingly, though, he was the last victim before the gunman turned the
gun on himself.
The next victim, 48-year-old Gary Scharf, who just stopped by Von
Maur to pick up some Christmas presents before catching a flight out of
Omaha. He grew up on a ranch outside Curtis, Nebraska, where his
funeral was held. He was a proud father who leaves behind a 19-year-old
son.
Fifty-six-old Gary Joy was someone everyone could count on. He loved
his job and liked to write poetry. His family followed his instructions
to have his organs donated. They say it was just like Gary, to help
someone else. His love was with us again, if not only in spirit.
There was 36-year-old Angie Schuster, born on Valentine's Day. Her
boyfriend planned to give her an engagement ring this Christmas. The
priest at her funeral called Angie and her soon-to-be fiance's love the
``real thing.''
We have 67-year-old Janet Jorgensen, who just celebrated her golden
anniversary, 50 years of marriage to her husband Ron just a few months
ago. She went above and beyond at Van Maur, as there were many times
she would shop for customers or deliver items to customers' homes. She
was the seamstress and cake-maker of the family; and for her three
children and eight grandchildren, she will be missed.
There was 47-year-old Beverly Flynn. She took a part-time job at Von
Maur because she was a mother of three beautiful girls. She was also a
real estate agent, and her trademark was planting rosebushes in the
yard of every new homeowner.
The youngest victim, 24-year-old Maggie Webb, was the new store
manager of Von Maur, one of Omaha's finest department stores. Coworkers
described her as one of the nicest people they had ever worked for,
someone whose whole face lit up when she smiled. A lot of people will
miss her service and smile.
Last, I want to thank our first responders. The spirit of Omaha
showed
[[Page 34629]]
itself through the efforts of our first responders. The first phone
call from the mall came to 911 dispatchers at 1:42. No voice was on the
line. All that was heard were gunshots. What an eerie call.
By the time the first responders arrived, just under 6 minutes later,
the Omaha sheriff opens the doors and enters the store. What a heroic
effort by our police officers, paramedics, firefighters, and others,
when they got to the mall and saw such a grisly scene. The images they
saw will likely haunt them for the rest of their lives. I thank the men
and women who came to face the horror. Thank you for keeping us safe
and saving lives. I also want to praise the spirit of Omaha for coming
together after this tragedy.
In closing, I am deeply saddened by the senseless act from a troubled
and disturbed teenager. It's something our city will never forget. It
has scarred the very heart of our community. But I am proud of our
community for its reaction and the way we came together to support the
victims and begin the healing of our city.
Thank you once again to Government Reform for allowing this
resolution to come forward and be part of the continuing healing in
Omaha.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from the First Congressional District of Nebraska (Mr.
Forten-
berry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding,
and I also wish to thank my colleague, Congressman Terry, for
introducing this important resolution.
As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 5, the
enthusiasm of the holiday season came to an abrupt halt with an act of
senseless brutality at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska.
Mr. Speaker, as the Nation mourns the eight victims who were killed
and the three who were wounded, and, I should add, I appreciate Mr.
Terry's lengthy description of these innocent persons and their lives,
I think it is also important and appropriate to recognize their
uncommon heroics and great sacrifices that are now just coming to
light. If there is a comfort in the midst of this difficult time, it is
the beauty of the human spirit and the good that stood in the midst of
this horror and violence.
Dianne Clavin Trent of Omaha was a 53-year-old former airline flight
attendant who had worked for 8 years in customer service at the Von
Maur store in the Westroads Mall. As we have now learned, Dianne did
not flee when she saw the gunman. She stood. She dialed 911 and gave a
description of him, and then he turned on her.
Gary Scharf, 48 years old, of Lincoln, Nebraska, my hometown, was an
agricultural chemical sales manager in the mall to buy a dress shirt.
When he heard the gunshots, Gary also called 911. It appears then that
he ran from where he was safe up to where the shooting was taking
place. As he ran up the escalator, he yelled out, ``I called 911'' in
an apparent attempt to distract the gunman. He also pulled a woman off
the escalator out of harm's way before the gunman turned on him.
Mr. Speaker, I happened to know Gary and I am proud to call him a
friend.
John McDonald was a 65-year-old grandfather and retired natural gas
company manager living in Council Bluffs. When the rampage began, John
took cover with his wife in the customer service area. As the gunman
entered the customer service area, John stood and confronted him, and
he too was shot. As now seems apparent, John's courage may have saved
the lives of many other people nearby.
Dianne, Gary and John, innocently shopping one minute, decided in an
instant to let go of a natural tendency to self-preservation and to
make a great sacrifice for their fellow man. Others may have acted
similarly in ways that we may never know.
Mr. Speaker, I thought you and the American people should know of
this new information. God bless all those who lost their lives or were
injured that day, and God bless their loved ones.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, once again, I express the deep condolences
and regrets of, I know, the entire House for the Omaha tragedy,
particularly coming at this time when the whole country comes together
in great love and respect.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 856.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
HONORING LOCAL AND STATE FIRST RESPONDERS, AND THE CITIZENS OF THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST IN FACING THE SEVERE WINTER STORM OF DECEMBER 2 AND
3, 2007
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 851) honoring local and State first responders, and
the citizens of the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm
of December 2 and 3, 2007.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 851
Whereas on December 2 and 3, 2007, a storm with winds
exceeding 120 miles per hour struck Oregon and Washington,
toppled trees, felled power lines, and destroyed homes and
businesses;
Whereas more than ten inches of rain fell in 24 hours,
inundating parts of Oregon and Washington, causing rivers to
overflow, flooding homes, schools, businesses, and roads;
Whereas the combination of hurricane-force winds and
torrential rains caused devastating damage that isolated
towns, left citizens without housing, transportation,
communications, water, heat, or electricity;
Whereas local and State emergency personnel responded
heroically and without hesitation to aid in rescue, recovery,
and assistance efforts;
Whereas the Oregon and Washington National Guard and the
U.S. Coast Guard rescued hundreds of individuals trapped in
or on their homes by rising water;
Whereas the people of Oregon and Washington rose to become
extraordinary citizens by helping each other, opening their
homes, schools, churches, and businesses to shelter their
neighbors;
Whereas amateur radio operators performed vital
communication duties in assisting first responders;
Whereas the National Weather Service forecasts helped avert
even greater casualties and damage;
Whereas people have perished in the storm;
Whereas homes, businesses, schools, and roads have been
closed;
Whereas many long-term effects of the storm are still
unknown; and
Whereas thousands of people of the Pacific Northwest are
without power, water, or road access: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors the citizens of the Pacific Northwest for their
courage in facing the storm and efforts in helping their
neighbors in a time of great need;
(2) honors the National Weather Service, State and local
police officers, fire fighters, local rescue personnel, other
first responders, and amateur radio operators for their
efforts in the face of the severe storm;
(3) extends its thoughts and prayers to those whose lives
have been devastated, and who have lost their housing,
transportation, communications, water, heat, or electricity;
and
(4) extends its profound and deepest sympathies to the
families and friends of those who perished.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Issa) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
General Leave
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
[[Page 34630]]
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of
H.R. 851, honoring local and State first responders and the citizens of
the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm of December 2
and 3, 2007. H. Res. 851 was introduced by Representative David Wu on
December 6, 2007. This measure, which has been cosponsored by 83
Members, has the support of the entire Oregon congressional delegation.
On December 2 and 3, 2007, a severe storm hit the Pacific Northwest,
destroying homes, schools, businesses and roads, thus leaving thousands
of people in Oregon and Washington without power, water, or road
access. The Oregon and Washington National Guard and the U.S. Coast
Guard rescued hundreds of individuals trapped in or on their homes.
Oregonians and Washingtonians became extraordinary citizens by opening
their hearts and their homes.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending the first responders and
citizens who helped in time of need. I urge the swift passage of this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in bipartisan support of this resolution with my
colleague from the District of Columbia in honoring the first
responders and citizens who were lost and who dealt with this extreme
storm in such a valiant way.
All of us know the beauty of Mount St. Helens. All of us know the
beauty of the region, but few of us outside the region can understand
the strength of the storm that flooded whole communities, battered
trees, roadways, and destroyed power for entire communities and left at
least eight dead. In the aftermath, as the waters recede, we in
Congress join with the people of Oregon and Washington in banding
together to rebuild their community and their tattered region. But more
importantly, we thank the first responders who, as appropriately people
sought cover and safety, went out to deal with the effects of this
storm at risk of life and limb.
I yield back the balance of my time and urge support for this
important resolution.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and great feeling
of sympathy and of great respect for those who have suffered so
courageously through this storm that I yield to Mr. David Wu.
Mr. WU. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, between December 1 and December 3, the States of Oregon
and Washington were battered by an exceptionally severe storm. One wind
measurement instrument clocked at 129 miles an hour before it blew
over, and I am told by a helicopter pilot that the U.S. Coast Guard
measured winds up to 150 miles an hour. This is the first time that the
National Weather Service used the term ``hurricane'' in connection with
a storm outside of the tropics or subtropics, certainly as far north as
latitude 45 where we are. We set an unfortunate record.
We have frequent storms in the Pacific Northwest, but what set this
one apart is that while the typical winter storm may bring winds of 70
or 100 miles an hour for a few hours to coastal Oregon, this storm
brought sustained winds of 85 to 100 miles per hour for 24 hours and
gusts up to 130, 150 miles an hour. Entire swaths of trees were
uprooted or snapped off. Homes were flooded. Twelve to 14 inches of
rain fell in a 24-hour period in some parts of the coast range, and
both Interstate 5 and the main Amtrak line on the west coast were
closed for a period of time.
The folks who live in the coast range and on the coast were
especially hard hit. But we are a hardy people who live in this
paradise, and people took care of themselves. They immediately reached
out to their neighbors. They helped each other, pulled together as a
community, and we got through this together.
Unfortunately, several people perished, many people were injured. And
many people went without heat or electricity or telephone service, were
cut off from the world and were cut off by landslides on the roads,
also, in addition to the loss of communication. But people got through
this together in the great tradition of America and the great tradition
of the Northwest and of Oregon.
I would like to especially commend the local and State first
responders, the Oregon National Guard, the United States Coast Guard,
the Oregon Red Cross, and the good works of the State of Oregon in
facing this very, very severe storm. Even during the torrential rain
and the winds, the good citizens of Oregon and Washington came to one
another's assistance. There are people who told me that they knew that
someone was trapped in a home, and they went in to get them even though
there were shingles and pieces of glass flying through the air hard
enough to stick into the side of homes. And one person went into a home
where a piece of sheet metal was flapping in the wind, knowing that if
that sheet metal came off that it would become a dangerous projectile,
but he went in to get the resident out.
City Councilor Mark Kujala of Warrenton stayed by the phones for 24
hours to take calls and answer calls so that people would not feel
isolated and cut off, so that they could get some information. KMUN in
Astoria, Oregon, because there was a severe storm a year ago, prepared
for this by putting up a propane tank. And even though a tree fell on
its roof and damaged the structure severely, KMUN stayed on the air all
through the storm and gave the people of the north Oregon coast a sense
of connection to what was happening in the outside world. And I want to
commend the amateur radio operators, the folks who kept parts of the
local telephone system operating, and others, for keeping our
communities together through the darkness, the cold, and the isolation
when most of the phone lines went down.
The immediate efforts of first responders as well as local and State
officials are to be applauded. And I want to express a special thanks
to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard lost all of their
communication. They lost their Internet. They lost their telephones.
They lost their cell phones. They were down to VHF radio, 1950s
technology, to communicate with other first responders and themselves,
and yet, they went out and picked people off the roofs, went into
homes. One of the rescuers went into a home that was flooded up to
chest level and the lights were still on in the room where this
disabled individual was located, and yet this rescue swimmer went in
there with the electricity on and got the person out and into a rescue
helicopter.
The National Guard performed heroic efforts. Camp Rilea became a
safety shelter, kind of a dry safe harbor for the people of the north
coast. They distributed generator fuel to so many people who were
trying to run their own generators when the power went down, and at one
point they were down to their last 30, 60, 90 minutes of fuel. But then
they got resupplied and were able to help continue to keep other folks'
generators working. And the radio station in Seaside had their antenna
blown down, but they got right back up the next day when it was safe to
get the antenna back up and get a generator going and kept folks
informed.
I have tried to work closely with Governor Kulongoski, and he has
been terrific through this entire episode. It was a Sunday-Monday
storm, and I couldn't get a phone call through to folk in the area
until Wednesday night, but Governor Kulongoski toured the area Tuesday
afternoon and was on the phone with me Tuesday afternoon to tell me
some of the things that were needed. The Governor and I work hard to
make sure that both the State and the Federal components of recovery
[[Page 34631]]
and prevention for the future, that we do our jobs, that we have not
too much government but all the government that we need to keep
Americans safe, to enable us to pull together in times of crisis and
need.
Life is uncertain in the paradise that we call the Pacific Northwest.
It has sometimes been referred to as the land of fire and ice. We have
regular storms, periodic fires, and rare huge earthquakes and tsunami.
To paraphrase an author of the region: We are always searching for
hardy people to match this challenging land. And I think that we do
have those people.
Life in the paradise we call home may be uncertain, but we know that
we are a match for it and we shall meet the challenges together. A long
road of recovery lies ahead, but like the pioneers of old, we will
bring everyone to the finish line together. No one will be left behind.
No one will be forgotten. I want to salute the citizens of the Pacific
Northwest, the first responders, and everyone else who came from the
region to help out in our time of need. Thank you.
Mr. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. I want to say to my good friend from Oregon that his
resolution not only informs us about the heroic efforts of first
responders and the residents, but educates us about places where
catastrophic storms may occur unexpectedly. It sounds as though the
States of Oregon and Washington had a short-term version of Katrina and
managed somehow to deal with it themselves. So we commend first
responders and citizens of both States.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, on December 2
and 3, a severe winter storm swept across Oregon and Washington State.
Countless first responders came to the aid of those in need and worked
tirelessly to restore order in the aftermath of the storm. I strongly
support H. Res. 851 in recognition of the dedication, service, and
courage shown by these men and women.
The winter storm affected dozens of communities and many thousands of
people in Washington and Oregon, including my constituents in the
Nineth District of Washington. It struck the Pacific Northwest with a
ferocity that is rarely seen in the region. The storm brought winds
that exceeded 100 miles per hour, saturated the region with 10 inches
of rain in a 24-hour period, and led to the loss of human lives. Homes
and businesses were flooded, roads and thoroughfares were damaged or
swept away, and thousands of citizens were left without electricity,
heat, water, transportation, or adequate shelter.
Throughout and following the storm, the men and women of local and
state police agencies, fire and rescue groups, local and state
emergency first-response organizations, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
Oregon and Washington National Guard were ready to respond to the
extraordinary circumstances. They rescued those trapped by the rising
waters, provided aid to those in need of critical assistance, and
helped to limit the ill effects of this tragic weather event.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I want to call
particular attention to the service of the Washington National Guard.
Some 400 Washington National Guard Members, 70 vehicles, and 11 teams
supported response and recovery operations, conducted house-to-house
searches, and provided needed food, water, and other emergency
provisions. In cooperation with many other local, State, and Federal
first responders, the men and women of the Washington State National
Guard performed their duty admirably, and I am very grateful to them.
Please join me in honoring the Washington State National Guard and
recognizing the many other first responders for their contributions
during the winter storm of early December. I urge my colleagues to
support H. Res. 851.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, although much work is left to be done as our
communities start to recover from the severe storms that ravaged Oregon
and Washington on December 2 and 3, 2007, we can reflect and be
grateful for the hard work of the thousands of our fellow Pacific
Northwesterners who helped neighbors, families, and complete strangers
during the storms and their aftermath. Without their efforts, the
damage and loss of life from the storm may have been much more
extensive.
We were all shocked by the devastating impact that these storms
wreaked on Oregon. More than 10 inches of rain fell in a 24-hour period
with wind gusts ranging from 60 to 129 miles an hour. Communities along
the coast were inundated, families huddled in shelters as homes were
destroyed and the coast was cut off from the rest of Oregon as roads
and bridges were washed out. Among the stark reminders of the terrible
power of these storms are crippled railroad tracks and bridges in
Tillamook County, damage to the National Guard Armory in Dallas and the
flooding of most of the town of Vernonia as well as other communities
up and down the coast.
Thankfully, first responders and ordinary citizens moved quickly to
help their fellow Oregonians cope with the storm. Rescuers in one case
used chainsaws and dodged falling trees to clear the way for an
ambulance. Two Tillamook men also risked their lives to try and save a
woman whose truck went into the Nehalem River on Highway 101. These are
just two of the numerous stories of bravery by first responders and
Good Samaritans who stepped up to help those impacted by the storm.
Selfless Oregonians from across the State came to help in what turned
out to be a spectacular response effort. It has been incredible to see
the extraordinary efforts of so many.
I want to personally thank everyone who was involved. Their heroic
service to our communities has been extraordinary and their efforts are
deeply appreciated. I also want to extend my deepest sympathy to those
whose family, friends, and loved ones perished in the storms. It is a
tragedy that these individuals were taken from us in these terrible
storms. My thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends at
this difficult time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardoza). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res.
851.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF MATERIAL EXPLANATORY OF APPROPRIATIONS MEASURES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 869, the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations submitted explanatory material relating to
appropriations measures for fiscal year 2008.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. OBEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, REGARDING THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS
AMENDMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO
H.R. 2764
Following is an explanation of the amendment of the House
of Representatives (relating to consolidated appropriations
for fiscal year 2008) to the amendment of the Senate to H.R.
2764, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2008, including disclosure of
congressional earmarks and congressionally directed spending
items as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.
Section 4 of the House amendment specifies that this
explanatory statement shall have the same effect with respect
to the allocation of funds and implementation of this
Consolidated Appropriations Act as if it were a joint
explanatory statement of a committee of conference.
In this statement, the provisions of the House amendment to
the Senate amendment are generally referred to as ``the
amended bill''. Where comparisons are made to House and
Senate action, unless otherwise stated these comparisons are
to the versions of the applicable 2008 Appropriations Act as
passed by the House and as passed by the Senate (or as
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in the
case of bills that have not been passed by the Senate).
The House amendment strikes the text of the Senate
amendment and inserts a Consolidated Appropriations Act
covering 11 regular appropriations bills, each in a separate
division, as follows:
Division A--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2008;
Division B--Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008;
[[Page 34632]]
Division C--Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008;
Division D--Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2008;
Division E--Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2008;
Division F--Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008;
Division G--Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2008;
Division H--Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
2008;
Division I--Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008;
Division J--Department of State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008;
Division K--Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.
Section 1 of the amended bill provides that the bill as a
whole may be referred to as the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008. Section 3 states that, unless expressly provided
otherwise, any reference to ``this Act'' contained in any
division of the amended bill shall be treated as referring
only to the provisions of that division. Section 5 contains
an emergency designation (for purposes of section 204 of S.
Con. Res 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2008) which applies to certain appropriations
within the divisions of the Act that make reference to
section 5.
DIVISION A--AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Following is an explanation of the effects of this division
of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. ___
(hereafter referred to as ``the amended bill'') relative to
the versions of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008 (H.R. 3161) passed by the House of Representatives and
S. 1859 reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES
This statement remains silent on provisions that were in
both the House and Senate bills that remain unchanged by this
amended bill, except as noted in this statement.
Executive branch wishes cannot substitute for Congress' own
statements as to the best evidence of congressional
intentions--that is, the official reports of the Congress.
Funds in this Act must be used for the purposes for which
appropriated, as required by section 1301 of title 31 of the
United States Code, which provides: ``Appropriations shall be
applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were
made except as otherwise provided by law.''
The House and Senate report language that is not changed by
this statement is approved. This statement, while repeating
some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate
the language referred to above unless expressly provided
herein.
In cases in which the House or the Senate have directed the
submission of a report, such report is to be submitted to
both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
The amended bill provides $5,097,000 for the Office of the
Secretary instead of $5,404,900 as proposed by the House and
$5,309,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The Committees on Appropriations direct USDA to submit a
plan to the Committees that fully addresses the weaknesses in
the food safety system that led GAO to list food safety on
its January 2007 high-risk list.
The Committees believe that agencies must make every effort
to reach management decision on audit recommendations by the
Office of Inspector General within 180 days, as required
under OMB Circular A-50. The Committees are aware that there
are a large number of recommendations on which numerous USDA
agencies have not reached management decision within the
prescribed time period; some of these matters date back
years. In lieu of the individual agency reports requested by
the House, the Secretary is directed to submit a single
report to the Committees with a plan for reaching management
decision on all recommendations that have been outstanding
more than 180 days as of the date of enactment of this Act.
USDA is directed, unless otherwise stated herein, to
provide all reports and studies requested by the
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, or by this
explanatory statement, in an agreed upon format within 60
days after the enactment of this Act.
The Committees on Appropriations are concerned that
excessive assessments of programs, projects, and activities
are being used to fund individual agencies' overhead and
indirect costs. The Committees on Appropriations direct the
Secretary to submit a report, concurrent with the fiscal year
2009 budget submission, that explains in detail by agency the
charges agencies assess programs, projects, and/or activities
and how those assessments are used.
Executive Operations
CHIEF ECONOMIST
The amended bill provides $10,487,000 for the Office of the
Chief Economist instead of $10,847,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
The amended bill provides $14,466,000 for the National
Appeals Division instead of $15,056,000 as proposed by both
the House and Senate.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
The amended bill provides $8,270,000 for the Office of
Budget and Program Analysis instead of $8,622,000 as proposed
by the House and $9,035,000 as proposed by the Senate.
HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF
The amended bill provides $931,000 for Homeland Security
Staff instead of $2,252,000 as proposed by both the House and
the Senate.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
The amended bill provides $16,361,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer instead of $16,723,000 as proposed
by both the House and the Senate.
COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
The amended bill provides funding for the common computing
environment in the appropriate agency accounts as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
The amended bill provides $5,850,000 for the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer instead of $6,076,000 as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
The amended bill provides $854,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights instead of $897,000 as
proposed by the House and $861,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Office of Civil Rights
The amended bill provides $20,496,000 for the Office of
Civil Rights instead of $23,147,000 as proposed by the House
and $20,706,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
The amended bill provides $673,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration instead of $709,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
The amended bill provides $196,252,000 for agriculture
buildings and facilities and rental payments instead of
$196,616,000 as proposed by the House and $199,016,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
Hazardous Materials Management
The amended bill provides $4,886,000 for Hazardous
Materials Management instead of $12,200,000 as proposed by
the House and $5,200,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Departmental Administration
The amended bill provides $23,144,000 for Departmental
Administration instead of $23,913,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
The amended bill provides $3,795,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations instead of
$3,936,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Office of Communications
The amended bill provides $9,338,000 for the Office of
Communications instead of $9,720,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
Office of Inspector General
The amended bill provides $80,052,000 for the Office of
Inspector General instead of $85,998,000 as proposed by the
House and $81,627,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Office of the General Counsel
The amended bill provides $39,227,000 for the Office of the
General Counsel instead of $40,964,000 as proposed by the
House and $40,764,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
The amended bill provides $596,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics instead
of $626,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Economic Research Service
The amended bill provides $77,943,000 for the Economic
Research Service (ERS) instead of $79,282,000 as proposed by
the House and $76,532,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The following increases are provided: $1,000,000 as
requested to strengthen research and modeling capacity in
bio-energy and the market impacts associated with bio-energy
development; $1,500,000 to strengthen and enhance the ERS
market analysis and outlook program and analysis of global
and differentiated product markets; and $250,000 to research
deployment of broadband service to
[[Page 34633]]
households with no or limited broadband access.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The amended bill provides $163,355,000 for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service instead of $166,099,000 as
proposed by the House and $167,699,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $1,128,944,000 for the
Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses, instead
of $1,076,340,000 as proposed by the House and $1,154,174,000
as proposed by the Senate.
Within available resources, the Department is encouraged to
take appropriate actions, consistent with the directives in
this explanatory statement, to address areas of crop and
livestock protection, foods (including food allergens),
nutrition, colony collapse disorder, and other areas included
in the President's budget for these research needs.
The Committees are aware of the actions taken by the
Department to terminate, change, modify, and redirect
congressionally-added research projects to align them with
the Administration's priority research initiatives. The
Committees concur with the reallocation of these projects as
implemented and obligated by ARS in fiscal year 2007, with
the exception of those projects that are identified in the
paragraphs below. The modification to programs also applies
to the specific items identified in House Report 110-258,
which include: Aerial Application Research, College Station,
TX, $584,000; Animal Vaccines, Greenport, NY, $1,628,000;
Appalachian Horticulture Research (U of TN/TN State),
Poplarville, MS, $784,000; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen,
ID, $629,000; Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (Rodale Inst.),
Wyndmoor, PA, $45,000; Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center,
Little Rock, AR, $585,000; Avian Pneumovirus/Asian Bird
Influenza, Athens, GA, $292,000; Barley Health Food Benefits,
Beltsville, MD, $477,000; Bee Research, Weslaco, TX,
$244,000; Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD, $1,213,000;
Biomedical Materials in Plants, Biotech Foundation,
Beltsville, MD, $1,821,000; Biomineral Soil Amendments for
Control of Nematode, Beltsville, MD, $390,000; Bioremediation
Research, Beltsville, MD, $119,000; Bovine Genetics,
Beltsville, MD, $1,914,000; Broomweed Biological Controls,
Albany, CA, $445,000; Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL, $878,000;
Central Great Plains Research Station, Akron, CO, $534,000;
Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI, $902,000; Cereal Disease,
St. Paul, MN, $311,000; Chronic Diseases of Children,
Houston, TX, $497,000; Citrus Waste Utilization, Winter
Haven, FL, $393,000; Coffee and Cocoa, Beltsville, MD,
$853,000; Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA, $852,000; Corn Rootworm,
Ames, IA, $490,000; Cotton Pathology, Shafter, CA, $362,000;
Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, MS, $849,000; Dairy
Genetics, Beltsville, MD, $930,000; Diet and Immune Function,
Little Rock, AR, $235,000; Dryland Production, Akron, CO,
$235,000; Floriculture and Nursery Crops, Beltsville, MD,
$2,476,000; Food Fermentation Research, Raleigh, NC,
$362,000; Food Safety for Listeria and E Coli, College
Station, TX, $81,000; Food Safety for Listeria, E coli, and
other Food Pathogens, Beltsville, MD, $134,000; Foundry Sand
By-Products Utilization, Beltsville, MD, $685,000; Grand
Forks Human Nutrition Research Laboratory, Grand Forks, ND,
$580,000; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY, $629,000; Grape
Rootstock, Geneva, NY, $574,000; Grassland Soil and Water
Research, Temple, TX, $220,000; Greenhouse and Hydroponics
Research, Wooster, OH, $1,555,000; Greenhouse Lettuce
Germplasm, Salinas, CA, $224,000; Harry K. Dupree National
Aquaculture Research Center, Stuttgart, AR, $439,000; Hops
Research, Corvallis, OR, $464,000; Human Nutrition
(Equipment), Boston, MA, $98,000; Human Nutrition (Obesity),
Boston, MA, $730,000; Improved Crop Production Practices,
Auburn, AL, $1,387,000; Invasive Aquatic Weeds, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, $527,000; Invasive Ludwigia Research, Davis,
CA, $99,000; Johne's Disease, Beltsville, MD, $323,000;
Karnal bunt, Manhattan, KS, $545,000; Minor-Use Pesticides
(IR-4), Beltsville, MD, $73,000; National Germplasm Resources
Program, Beltsville, MD, $145,000; National Germplasm
Resources System, Beltsville, MD, $121,000; National
Germplasm Resources, College Station, TX, $242,000; National
Nutrition Monitoring System, Beltsville, MD, $485,000;
National Plant Germplasm Program, Aberdeen, ID, $97,000;
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL, $1,111,000;
Natural Products for Human Health, Beltsville, MD, $238,000;
Nematology Research, Tifton, GA, $248,000; Northern Great
Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, $62,000; Northwest
Center for Small Fruits Research, Corvallis, OR, $646,000;
Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN, $233,000; Obesity
Interventions (Nutricore), Beltsville, MD (National Program),
$91,000; Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX, $3,758,000; Olive
Fruit Fly, Montpelier, France, $213,000; Olive Fruit Fly,
Parlier, CA, $301,000; Organic Minor Crop, Salinas, CA,
$159,000; Peanut Production, Dawson, GA, $74,000; Peanut
Research, Dawson, GA, $132,000; Peanut Variety, Stillwater,
OK, $178,000; Pecan Scab Research, Byron, GA, $603,000;
Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Ft. Pierce, FL,
$466,000; Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter,
Parlier and Davis, CA, $3,355,000; Pineapple Nematode
Research, Hilo, HI, $284,000; Plant Stress and Water
Conservation Lab, Lubbock, TX, $1,561,000; Potato Breeding,
Prosser, WA, $136,000; Potato Diseases, Beltsville, MD,
$65,000; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA, $288,000;
Poult Enteritis-Mortality Syndrome, Athens, GA, $146,000;
Poultry Diseases, Athens, GA, $892,000; Poultry Diseases,
Beltsville, MD, $438,000; Precision Agriculture Research,
Mandan, ND, $485,000; Quantify basin water budget components
in the Southwest, Tucson, AZ, $633,000; Rainbow Trout,
Aberdeen, ID, $1,094,000; Red River Valley Agricultural
Research Center--Canada Thistle Research, Fargo, ND,
$264,000; Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--
Cereal Crops and Sunflower Research, Fargo, ND, $1,725,000;
Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--National
Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, ND, $1,723,000; Red River
Valley Agricultural Research Center--National Wheat and
Barley Scab Initiative, Fargo, ND, $97,000; Red River Valley
Agricultural Research Center--Regional Molecular Genotyping,
Fargo, ND, $176,000; Red River Valley Agricultural Research
Center--Wheat Quality Research, Fargo, ND, $194,000; Regional
Grains Genotyping, Raleigh, NC, $693,000; Regional Molecular
Genotyping, Pullman, WA, $251,000; Residue Management in
Sugarcane (Sugarcane Research), Houma, LA, $1,193,000; Rice
research, Stuttgart, AR, $271,000; Seasonal Grazing,
Coshocton, OH, $99,000; Shellfish Genetics Research, Newport,
OR, $775,000; Sorghum Cold Tolerance, Lubbock, TX, $264,000;
Sorghum Ergot Research, College Station, TX, $72,000; Sorghum
Research, Bushland, TX, $484,000; Sorghum Research, Little
Rock, AR, $145,000; Sorghum Research, Lubbock, TX, $974,000;
Sorghum Research, Stillwater, OK, $291,000; Source Water
Protection Initiatives, Columbus, OH, $750,000; Southeastern
Fruit and Tree Nut Research, Byron, GA, $460,000; Southwest
Pecan Research, College Station, TX, $233,000; Soybean and
Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, NC, $409,000; Sudden Oak Disease,
Davis, CA, $318,000; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID,
$703,000; Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal Point, FL,
$1,405,000; Sustainable Feeds, Aberdeen, ID, $99,000;
Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA, $36,000; Tree Fruit
Quality Research, Wenatchee, WA, $435,000; Turfgrass
Research, Washington, DC, $477,000; U.S. Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Ctr Staffing, Hilo, HI, $2,403,000;
USNA Germplasm/Ornamental Horticulture, Washington, DC,
$1,656,000; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health,
Auburn, AL, $1,062,000; Verticillium Wilt, Salinas, CA,
$474,000; Viticulture, Corvallis, OR, $853,000; Water
Resources Management, Tifton, GA, $586,000; Water Use
Management Technology, Tifton, GA, $341,000; Water Use
Reduction, Dawson, GA, $323,000; Weed Management Research,
Beltsville, MD, $264,000; Wheat Quality Research, Manhattan,
KS, $420,000; Wheat Quality Research, Wooster, OH, $414,000;
and Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN, $325,000.
The Committees further expect the Secretary to continue all
other merit-based projects in fiscal year 2008, as modified,
to ensure that they continue to address the Nation's food and
agriculture research priorities of food safety, human
nutrition, plant and animal protection, genetics and
germplasm research, natural resources conservation, and
bioenergy and bioproducts research, as well as focus on the
Administration's agricultural defense initiative.
The Committees do not agree with the redirection of the
following research activities and recommend the continuation
of funding and resources as described below: Animal Health
Consortium, Peoria, IL, $879,000; Aquaculture Fisheries
Center, Pine Bluff, AR, $557,000; Aquaculture Initiatives,
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, AR,
$1,713,000; Biotechnology Research Development Corporation,
Peoria, IL, $2,685,000; Center for Agroforestry, Booneville,
AR, $708,000; Crop Production and Food Processing, Peoria,
IL, $843,000; Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center,
Booneville, AR, $1,936,000; Delta Nutrition Initiative,
Little Rock, AR, $4,223,000; Diet Nutrition and Obesity
Research (Pennington), New Orleans, LA, $669,000; Endophyte
Research, Booneville, AR, $1,066,000; Formosan Subterranean
Termite, New Orleans, LA, $3,743,000; Lyme Disease 4 Poster
Project, Beltsville, MD (National Program), $751,000; Mid-
West/Mid-South Irrigation, Columbia, MO, $692,000; Mosquito
Trapping Research/West Nile Virus, Gainesville, FL,
$1,238,000; National Center for Agricultural Law, Beltsville,
MD, $701,000; National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant,
HQ, $386,000; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA,
$1,530,000; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils
Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, MS, $356,000; Termite Species in
Hawaii, Gainesville, FL, $139,000; Tropical Aquaculture
Feeds, Hilo, HI, $1,542,000; Vector-borne Diseases,
Gainesville, FL, $220,000; Water Management Research
Laboratory, Brawley, CA, $340,000; and Water Use Reduction,
Dawson, GA, $382,000.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
The amended bill provides $47,082,000 for the Agricultural
Research Service, Buildings
[[Page 34634]]
and Facilities, instead of $64,000,000 as proposed by the
House and $40,100,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Funding is provided for the following items: Agricultural
Research Center (Logan, UT), $5,600,000; Alcorn State
University Biotechnology Laboratory (MS), $1,400,000; Animal
Bioscience Facility (Bozeman, MT), $1,883,000; Animal Waste
Management Research Laboratory (Bowling Green, KY),
$1,400,000; Appalachian Fruit Lab (WV), $1,540,000; Center
for Advanced Viticulture and Tree Crop Research (Davis, CA),
$1,883,000; Center for Grape Genetics (Geneva, NY),
$1,883,000; Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research
(Storrs, CT), $1,883,000; Dairy Forage Agricultural Research
Center (Prairie du Sac, WI), $2,520,000; Forage--Animal
Production Research Facility (KY), $2,100,000; Hagerman Fish
Culture Experiment Station (ID), $700,000; Jamie Whitten
Delta States Research Center (Stoneville, MS), $2,800,000;
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research
(Peoria, IL), $1,883,000; National Plant and Genetics
Security Center (Columbia, MO), $2,100,000; Poultry Science
Research Facility (Starkville, MS), $1,400,000; Southeastern
Poultry Research Laboratory (Athens, GA), $2,800,000; Systems
Biology Research Facility (Lincoln, NE), $1,400,000; U.S.
National Arboretum (Washington, DC), $700,000; University of
Toledo Greenhouse and Hydroponic Research Complex (Toledo,
OH), $1,883,000; U.S. Agricultural Research Facility,
Knipling- Bushland Laboratory (Kerrville, TX), $1,400,000;
U.S. Agricultural Research Service Laboratory (Canal Point,
FL), $525,000; U.S. Agricultural Research Service Laboratory
(Pullman, WA), $1,883,000; U.S. Agricultural Research Service
Sugarcane Research Laboratory (Houma, LA), $1,883,000; U.S.
Agricultural Research Station (Salinas, CA), $1,883,000; and
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center (HI),
$1,750,000.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
The amended bill provides $672,997,000 for research and
education activities instead of $671,419,000 as proposed by
the House and $700,849,000 as proposed by the Senate.
In lieu of the report requested by the House, the
Committees encourage CSREES to include additional information
in the budget justification on the primary research objective
or objectives of each program for which funds are requested.
The Committees provide $192,229,000 for competitive
research under the National Research Initiative (NRI). Of
this amount, $3,000,000 is provided for the NRI for research
that will be of direct benefit to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in pursuit of its food safety regulatory
responsibilities. The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Commissioner of the FDA are directed to consult on setting
the priorities for this research and report to the Committees
on the specific areas of research to be pursued under the
agreement of USDA and FDA.
The Committees encourage the Secretary to provide the
requested increase for bioenergy and biobased fuels research
within the funds provided for NRI and to give greater
emphasis on NRI funding for forestry and natural resources
topics.
The Committees also encourage the Department to use not
less than 10 percent of competitive research grant funds for
USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 USC 450i.
As part of the special research grant total, the Committees
provide $2,095,000 for policy research under the authorities
of 7 U.S.C. 3155. Of this amount, $1,200,000 is provided for
the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute of which
$180,000 is for a cooperative agreement with the University
of Wisconsin relating to dairy policy and $150,000 is for the
University of Nevada at Reno relating to the marketing of
commodities in the Western United States. In addition,
$895,000 is for the Rural Policies Institute.
The Appropriations Committees appreciate the role of
stakeholders, university personnel, and others that bring to
the attention of the Congress research priorities necessary
for the protection and improvement of agricultural
production, nutrition, conservation, economic development,
and other areas of vital importance to rural America. The
Committees believe that these research activities, in
conjunction with those identified through the Department's
own prioritization, offer a good balance of meeting the range
of research needs for the nation. The Committees expect the
Secretary to work with grantees under special research
authorities to ensure that the objectives of the research are
clearly articulated and that the research conclusions are
made available to stakeholders, and the general public, in a
way that will disseminate the information in a proper and
useful manner.
In the distribution of funds under the Alternative Crops
program, the Secretary shall ensure that regional
representation is a component of any request for proposals by
research institutions and universities. The Appropriations
Committees strongly encourage the Secretary to engage
stakeholders in the administration of program activities.
The following table reflects the amended bill:
[[Page 34635]]
TH17DE07.001
[[Page 34636]]
TH17DE07.002
[[Page 34637]]
TH17DE07.003
[[Page 34638]]
TH17DE07.004
[[Page 34639]]
TH17DE07.005
[[Page 34640]]
TH17DE07.006
[[Page 34641]]
TH17DE07.007
[[Page 34642]]
TH17DE07.008
[[Page 34643]]
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
The amended bill provides $11,880,000 for the Native
American Institutions Endowment Fund as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
The amended bill provides $456,460,000 for extension
activities instead of $463,886,000 as proposed by the House
and $458,537,000 as proposed by the Senate.
When awarding Rural Health and Safety Education Program
funds, the Department should give priority to applicants with
a demonstrated history of training and educating nurses and
allied health professionals committed to rural practice.
The following table reflects the amended bill:
[[Page 34644]]
TH17DE07.009
[[Page 34645]]
TH17DE07.010
[[Page 34646]]
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
The amended bill provides $56,244,000 for integrated
activities instead of $57,244,000 as proposed by the House
and $12,948,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The following table reflects the amended bill:
TH17DE07.011
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
The amended bill provides $6,440,000 for Outreach for
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers instead of $6,930,000 as
proposed by the House and $5,940,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
The amended bill provides $721,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs instead
of $759,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $873,754,000 for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) instead of
$874,643,000 as proposed by the House and $911,742,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The following table reflects the amended bill:
[[Page 34647]]
TH17DE07.012
[[Page 34648]]
TH17DE07.013
[[Page 34649]]
The amended bill provides $27,063,000 for agricultural
quarantine inspection. Of this amount, $2,079,000 is for
interline activities in Hawaii and $225,000 is for the
Washington Clean Plant Program.
The amended bill provides $123,371,000 for animal health
monitoring and surveillance. Within this amount, the
following items are provided: Biosafety (VT), $242,000;
Conservation Science at Lincoln Park Zoo (IL), $37,000; New
Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program, $407,000; Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium, $1,485,000; Database of
North Carolina's Agriculture Industry, $223,000; Remote
Diagnostic and Wildlife Disease Surveillance (ND),
$1,364,000; and National Farm Animal Identification and
Records, $446,000.
The amended bill provides $9,750,000 to continue
implementation of NAIS. The Committees very much appreciate
the work that has gone into the drafting of the NAIS business
plan and have reviewed drafts of the document. While the
document does help to define and separate out aspects of the
program, it does not provide sufficient justification for the
requested appropriation of $33,171,000 for NAIS for fiscal
year 2008.
The plan does not indicate how APHIS will reach its 48-hour
traceback goal, a question that the Committees have been
asking APHIS every year since the program started. While it
sets forth key outcomes, there is no clear presentation of
how APHIS will actually reach those goals, and APHIS does not
provide an estimate of the full cost of implementing the
plan.
The Committees' concern about how the funds for the program
have been used is not new, and the plan indicates that those
concerns were justified. The Committees are concerned that 51
percent of the obligations to date in NAIS have been for
cooperative agreements that, until very recently, did not
require that cooperators or grantees agree to specific
performance goals. Another 25 percent has gone for program
management.
In light of the lack of information provided on full costs
and concerns about the use of funds to date, the Committees
simply cannot provide the full request.
The amended bill provides an increase of $1,750,000 over
fiscal year 2007 for emergency management systems, of which
$750,000 is for the national veterinary vaccine stockpile and
$1,000,000 is for animal care in emergencies.
The amended bill provides an increase of $4,525,000 over
fiscal year 2007 for highly pathogenic avian influenza for
domestic surveillance and preparedness.
The amended bill provides $27,724,000 for pest detection.
Of this amount, $623,000 is for the California County Pest
Detection Augmentation Program and $743,000 is for import
inspection in California.
The amended bill provides an increase of $375,000 over
fiscal year 2007 for select agents for work related to the
Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act and $375,000 to
continue addressing issues raised by the Office of Inspector
General.
The amended bill provides an increase of $5,600,000 over
2007 for aquaculture for activities related to Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia.
The amended bill provides $9,532,000 for brucellosis. Of
this amount, $697,000 is for the Greater Yellowstone
Interagency Brucellosis Committee.
The amended bill provides $17,807,000 for chronic wasting
disease. Of this amount, $1,299,000 is for surveillance in
Wisconsin; $183,000 is for surveillance in Utah; and $38,000
is for surveillance in Colorado.
The amended bill provides $127,859,000 for emerging plant
pests as follows: $20,007,000 for Asian long-horned beetle,
including $353,000 for Illinois; $35,559,000 for citrus
health; $23,175,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter;
$9,600,000 for potato cyst nematode; $30,657,000 for emerald
ash borer, including $1,500,000 for Illinois; $5,326,000 for
sudden oak death; $1,507,000 for Karnal bunt; $371,000 for
hydrilla control in Virginia; $234,000 for olive fruit fly
(CA); $1,000,000 for light brown apple moth; and $423,000 for
miscellaneous pests.
The Committees encourage the Secretary to ensure adequate
funding is made available for Asian long-horned beetle
activities in New York. The Committees also encourage the
Secretary to help States with new emerald ash borer
outbreaks, such as Maryland, and States that are at risk,
such as Wisconsin.
The Committees encourage APHIS to use the funding provided
for sudden oak death (Phytopthora ramorum) to promote the
research, development and testing of new systems of nursery
pest and disease management and programs of inspection and
regulation; for surveying; and for diagnostic tools. The
Committees request a report, within 120 days of the enactment
of this Act, that examines the effectiveness of current
regulatory and inspection efforts; delivers an assessment of
the potential risk from infected plant material; and the risk
posed by the importation into the United States of P. ramorum
host and associated host plants and the interstate movement
of such plant material.
Of the amount provided for hydrilla control, $333,900 is
for a cooperative agreement with the Lake Gaston Weed Control
Council and $37,100 is for a cooperative agreement with the
Tri-County (Smith Mountain) Lake Administrative Commission.
The agency is directed to provide technical assistance to
these entities in carrying out control efforts, and report
back to the Committees by May 1, 2008, on the status of these
projects.
The amended bill provides $6,643,000 for the grasshopper
program. Of this amount, $1,125,000 is for grasshopper and
Mormon cricket activities in Nevada and $1,125,000 is for
grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Utah.
The amended bill provides $10,613,000 for Johne's disease.
Of this amount, $933,000 is for activities in Wisconsin.
The amended bill provides $15,720,000 for low pathogen
avian influenza. Of this amount, $750,000 is for avian
influenza preparedness activities in Connecticut.
The amended bill provides $1,788,000 for noxious weeds. Of
this amount, $223,000 is for cogongrass control in
Mississippi; $37,000 for weed management in Nevada; $222,000
for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy; and
$188,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.
The amended bill provides $75,447,000 for wildlife services
operations. Within this amount, the following items are
provided: integrated predation management activities in West
Virginia, $300,000; cormorant control, Lake Champlain,
$111,000; beaver management and control in Mississippi,
$475,000; beaver management in North Carolina, $223,000;
blackbird management in North Dakota and South Dakota,
$284,000; blackbird management in Louisiana, $101,000;
blackbird management in Kansas, $128,000; cormorant control
in Michigan, $149,000; cormorant control, Delta States,
$239,000; Tri-State predator control, $993,000; brown tree
snake management, $705,000; wildlife services, South Dakota,
$557,000; the Cooperative Livestock Protection Program,
$225,000; wolf predation management in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
and Michigan, $779,000; crop and aquaculture losses in
Southeast Missouri, $222,000; predation wildlife services in
Virginia, $150,000; and cormorant control in New York,
$743,000.
The Committees encourage APHIS to provide the fiscal year
2007 funding levels for wildlife services in Hawaii and
Arkansas.
The Committees understand that APHIS has, and will continue
to use, statutory authority to reimburse employees for the
use of personally owned animals and equipment, including but
not limited to horses, dogs, all terrain vehicles,
snowmobiles, computer connectivity, and cellular telephones.
The amended bill provides $11,811,000 for biotechnology
regulatory services (BRS), including $278,000 for the
Biosafety Institute/National Institute for Genetically
Modified Agriculture Products. An increase of $1,000,000 is
provided for increased enforcement of BRS regulations.
The amended bill includes an increase of $1,000,000 over
fiscal year 2007 for plant methods development labs to
support the development of detection and control tools to
contain and eradicate the emerald ash borer.
The amended bill includes an increase of $1,000,000 over
fiscal year 2007 for veterinary biologics for meeting
increased demands for applications and addressing containing
requirements and meeting standards related to the use of
select agents and toxins.
The amended bill provides $23,256,000 for veterinary
diagnostics, including an increase of $300,000 over 2007 for
the National Veterinary Services Laboratories accreditation.
Of the total provided, $75,000 is for disease prevention, LA;
$75,000 for Agriculture Compliance Laboratory equipment, DE;
$75,000 for aquaculture monitoring technology, KY; and
$278,000 for the National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, KS.
The amended bill provides $17,880,000 for wildlife services
methods development, including an increase of $500,000 for
the avian influenza initiative to study the virus in swine.
Of the total provided, the following items are provided: the
National Wildlife Research Station in Kingsville, Texas,
$311,000; the Berryman Institute, UT/MS, $1,125,000; the
Predatory Research Station, UT, $1,040,000; the National
Wildlife Research Center in Mississippi, $257,000; the
National Wildlife Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii, $173,000;
and rodent control in Arkansas, $113,000.
buildings and facilities
The amended bill provides no funding for Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Buildings and Facilities, instead
of $4,946,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Agricultural Marketing Service
marketing services
The amended bill provides $76,862,000 for the Agricultural
Marketing Service instead of $79,945,000 as proposed by the
House and $80,145,000 as proposed by the Senate.
In lieu of bill language included by the Senate, the
Committees reaffirm the schedule and report requirements
included in the House report related to Country of Origin
Labeling.
limitation on administrative expenses
The amended bill provides $61,233,000 for Limitation on
Administrative Expenses as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)
The amended bill provides $16,798,000 for Funds for
Strengthening Markets, Income,
[[Page 34650]]
and Supply as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
In addition, the Committees provide $10,000,000 for the
Web-based Supply Chain Management system as proposed by the
Senate instead of $20,000,000 as proposed by the House.
payments to states and possessions
The amended bill appropriates $11,709,000 for Payments to
States and Possessions instead of $1,334,000 as proposed by
the House and $3,834,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Of the total provided, $8,500,000 is for specialty crops
block grants and $1,875,000 is for a grant for the
development of specialty markets in Wisconsin.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
salaries and expenses
The amended bill provides $38,785,000 for the Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration instead of
$41,115,000 as proposed by the House and $39,115,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The amount provided includes an
increase of $1,000,000 for increased enforcement of the
Packers and Stockyards Act.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
The amended bill provides $42,463,000 for Limitation on
Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
The amended bill provides $600,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety instead of $632,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
The amended bill provides $930,120,000 for the Food Safety
and Inspection Service as proposed by the House instead of
$930,620,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill does not assume Food Safety Inspection
user fees of $96,000,000 as proposed in the President's
budget request. Such fees are not authorized.
The amended bill includes $63,299,000 for state meat
inspection costs, which includes an increase of $250,000
above the request for state inspection pay costs. About 2,100
meat and poultry establishments are inspected under State
Meat and Poultry Programs, and many of these establishments
are small or very small. FSIS reimburses states up to 50
percent of the estimated costs of administering state
inspections, and has historically provided the full 50
percent of states' documented need. In fiscal year 2006, FSIS
reimbursements to the states fell below 50 percent for the
first time in nearly 30 years, and it is the understanding of
the Appropriations Committees that the funding level provided
will allow FSIS to resume providing 50 percent of the
documented need by the states.
The amended bill includes the following amounts:
food safety and inspection service funding by activity
Food Safety & Inspection:
Federal..................................................$829,807,000
State......................................................63,299,000
International..............................................18,327,000
CODEX.........................................................3,737,000
Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure..............14,950,000
________________
Total..................................................$930,120,000
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
The amended bill provides $632,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
instead of $666,000 as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
Farm Service Agency
salaries and expenses
The amended bill provides $1,134,045,000 for the Farm
Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses instead of
$1,127,409,000 as proposed by the House and $1,160,662,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The Appropriations Committees continue to recognize the
need for major upgrades to the Farm Service Agency's computer
system used primarily for program delivery. Previous requests
for a detailed spending plan for these IT upgrades from the
Department have gone unanswered. The Appropriations
Committees direct the Department to submit a plan detailing
the issues surrounding the deteriorating IT system and the
associated costs no later than 30 days after enactment of
this Act to the Appropriations and Agriculture Committees.
The Appropriations Committees have included IT funds adequate
to meet the need described in the Department's budget
request. However, since the majority of the work performed by
this system is the delivery of mandatory funded farm bill
programs, the Appropriations Committees strongly encourage
the Department to work with the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees to secure mandatory funding to work towards
resolution of this looming meltdown.
state mediation grants
The amended bill provides $4,400,000 for State Mediation
Grants instead of $4,000,000 as proposed by the House and
$4,750,000 as proposed by the Senate.
grassroots source water protection program
The amended bill provides $3,713,000 for the Grassroots
Source Water Protection Program as proposed by both the House
and the Senate.
dairy indemnity program
The amended bill provides $100,000 for the Dairy Indemnity
Program as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
The following table reflects the amended bill:
Farm Ownership Loans:
Direct.................................................($223,857,000)
Subsidy.....................................................9,962,000
Guaranteed............................................(1,247,400,000)
Subsidy.....................................................4,990,000
Farm Operating Loans:
Direct.................................................($579,150,000)
Subsidy....................................................73,494,000
Unsubsidized Guaranteed...............................(1,024,650,000)
Subsidy....................................................24,797,000
Subsidized Guaranteed...................................(271,886,000)
Subsidy....................................................36,270,000
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition.............................(3,960,000)
Subsidy.......................................................125,000
Boll Weevil Eradication.................................(100,000,000)
ACIF Expenses:
Salaries and Expenses....................................$303,309,000
Administrative Expenses.....................................7,920,000
The amended bill provides for a transfer of $303,309,000 to
salaries and expenses instead of $310,230,000 as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.
Risk Management Agency
The amended bill provides $76,658,000 for the Risk
Management Agency instead of $78,833,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
The Pest Information Platform for Education & Extension
(PIPE) is a critical pest risk management tool for Asian
soybean rust and other pathogens of legumes. Congress
encourages the Risk Management Agency to continue the PIPE
program for FY2008.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
The amended bill provides an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Fund (estimated to be $4,818,099,000 in the President's
fiscal year 2008 Budget Request) as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses
The amended bill provides an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary for Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses of
the Commodity Credit Corporation (estimated to be
$12,983,000,000) as proposed by the Senate instead of
$12,983,053,000 as proposed by the House.
The Appropriations Committees do not adopt the Senate
language regarding the sale of non-fat dry milk.
Hazardous Waste Management
The amended bill provides a limitation of $5,000,000 for
Hazardous Waste Management as proposed by both the House and
the Senate.
Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account
The amended bill provides no funding for the farm storage
facility loan program as proposed by the House instead of
$4,660,000 as proposed by the Senate.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
The amended bill provides $742,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment instead
of $781,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
NRCS is encouraged to establish a competitive demonstration
pilot program utilizing rapid growth reforestation
technology.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS
The amended bill provides $840,326,000 for Conservation
Operations instead of $851,910,000 as proposed by the House
and $862,996,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill requires funds appropriated for
Conservation Operations be available until September 30,
2009. The Appropriations Committees direct the Secretary to
report to the Committees no later than September 30, 2008, on
any projects or activities for which funds have been
specifically provided by this Act that have not been
obligated by that date. Such a report shall include the
reasons for which the obligations have not been made and a
timetable indicating when those obligations shall occur.
Funding for fiscal year 2006 projects is not continued in
fiscal year 2008 unless specifically mentioned in the
following table. The following funds are directed to be used
in cooperative agreements continued with the same cooperator
entities as in the fiscal year 2006 agreements, except as
noted:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008
State Project recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.............................. Alaska Association $661,000
of Conservation
Districts.
[[Page 34651]]
AK.............................. Native Plant 133,000
Commercialization.
AK.............................. US Cold Regions 133,000
Botanical Research
Network.
AL.............................. Conservation 217,000
Education in
Alabama.
AR.............................. National Water 1,965,000
Management Center.
AR.............................. Small Farm Outreach 144,000
Wetlands
Management Center.
CA.............................. Mojave Water Agency 715,000
Non-Native Plant
Removal.
CA.............................. Monterey Bay 429,000
Sanctuary.
CA.............................. Municipal Water 144,000
District of Orange
County for
efficient
irrigation.
CO.............................. Water Conservation 361,000
project in
Colorado.
CT.............................. Cooperative 357,000
agreement with
Tufts University
to improve
conservation
practices.
DE.............................. Irrigation System 253,000
Program in
Delaware.
FL.............................. Green Institute.... 286,000
FL.............................. Suwannee, Dixie, 715,000
and Lafayette
Counties Dairy and
Poultry waste
treatment.
GA.............................. Altamaha River 71,000
Basin water
quality project.
GA.............................. Community Nutrient 250,000
Management
Facilities for the
Lagoon Waste
Management
Demonstration
program.
GA.............................. GA Soil and Water 2,599,000
Conservation
Commission
Cooperative
Agreement.
HI.............................. Agricultural 643,000
Development and
Resource
Conservation.
HI.............................. Molokai Agriculture 72,000
Development and
Resource
Conservation.
HI.............................. HI Plant Materials 114,000
Center.
IA.............................. CEMSA with Iowa 309,000
Soybean
Association.
IA.............................. Hungry Canyons 858,000
Project (Loess
Hills Soil
Erosion).
IA.............................. On-Farm Management 179,000
System Evaluation
Network.
IA.............................. Tallgrass Prairie 319,000
Center--Native
Seed Testing Lab.
IA.............................. The Iowa Buffer 71,000
Initiative.
IA.............................. Watershed 144,000
Demonstration
Project.
ID.............................. Idaho One Plan..... 143,000
ID.............................. Little Wood River 144,000
Irrigation
District Gravity
Pressure Delivery
System.
IL.............................. Illinois River 108,000
Agricultural Water
Conservation.
IL.............................. Illinois River 433,000
Basin.
IL.............................. The Illinois Buffer 71,000
Initiative.
IL.............................. Wildlife Habitat 108,000
Improvement.
KY.............................. Green River Water 90,000
Quality and
Biological
Diversity Project.
KY.............................. Kentucky Soil 776,000
Erosion Control.
KY.............................. Technical 715,000
Assistance to
providing grants
to Soil
Conservation
Districts in KY.
LA.............................. Bayou Sere Drainage 143,000
Improvements/False
River.
LA.............................. Best Management 286,000
Practices and
Master Farmer
Special Research
Grant with LSU.
LA.............................. Union-Lincoln 144,000
Regional Water
Supply Initiative.
MA.............................. Weed It Now on the 48,000
Berkshire Taconic
Landscape, MA.
MA/WI........................... Conservation 433,000
Planning MA/WI.
MD.............................. Chesapeake Bay 4,288,000
Activities.
MO.............................. Upper White River 308,000
Basin Water
Quality Project.
MS.............................. Choctaw County 179,000
feasibility study
for surface
impoundment.
MS.............................. Delta Conservation 433,000
Demonstration.
MS.............................. Delta Water Study.. 181,000
MS.............................. Mississippi 1,191,000
Conservation
Initiative.
MS.............................. Agricultural 1,083,000
Wildlife
Conservation
Center.
NC.............................. Technical 322,000
Assistance to
Livestock Poultry
Industry.
NC.............................. Town of Cary Swift 213,000
Creek watershed
protection and
stream bank
restoration.
NJ.............................. Conservation 253,000
technical
assistance in New
Jersey.
NM.............................. Geospatial 361,000
Framework for
Water Management
in New Mexico.
NM.............................. Riparian 180,000
Restoration along
the Rio Grande,
Pecos, and
Canadian Rivers in
New Mexico.
NV.............................. Carson City 289,000
Waterfall Fire
Restoration.
NV.............................. Rangeland 144,000
Conservation &
Fuels Management.
NV.............................. Wildfire support in 108,000
Nevada.
NY.............................. Hudson River 64,000
Navigator.
NY.............................. Hudson River 179,000
shoreline at
Village of
Tarrytown.
NY.............................. Long Island Sound 143,000
Watershed, NY.
NY.............................. Non-Point Pollution 357,000
in Onondaga and
Oneida Lake
Watersheds.
NY.............................. Pace University 143,000
Land Use Law
Center.
NY.............................. Pastureland 429,000
Management/
Rotational Grazing.
NY.............................. Skaneateles and 232,000
Owasco Lake
Watersheds.
NY.............................. Watershed 515,000
Agricultural
Council.
OH.............................. Maumee Watershed 715,000
Hydrological Study
and Flood
Mitigation.
RI.............................. Nitrate Pollution 166,000
Reduction in Rhode
Island.
RI.............................. Soil Surveys in 144,000
Rhode Island.
SD.............................. Missouri River 325,000
Sedimentation.
TX.............................. Range Revegetation 357,000
for Fort Hood, TX.
TX.............................. Water Protection 72,000
Plan for Hood
County.
TX.............................. Water Quality for 361,000
Tarrant County.
UT.............................. Utah Conservation 2,635,000
Initiative.
UT.............................. Washington Fields.. 2,144,000
UT.............................. Water quality in 253,000
Utah.
VT.............................. Farm Viability 253,000
Program in Vermont.
VT.............................. Reduce Phosphorous 180,000
Loading in Lake
Champlain in
Vermont.
WI.............................. Conservation 87,000
Internships in
Wisconsin.
WI.............................. Conservation 505,000
technology
transfer in
Wisconsin.
WI.............................. Dairy Business 180,000
Association.
WI.............................. Driftless Area 253,000
Initiative.
WI.............................. Grazing Lands 686,000
Conservation
Initiative.
WI.............................. Sand County 858,000
Foundation.
WV.............................. Appalachian Small 722,000
Farmer Outreach
Program/Risk
Management
Initiative.
WV.............................. Big Sandy Tri-State 289,000
Watershed
Inventory &
Analysis.
WV.............................. Geographic 3,249,000
Information
Systems Center of
Excellence.
WV.............................. Potomac River 180,000
Tributary Strategy
in West Virginia.
WV.............................. Soil Phosphorus 217,000
Studies.
WY.............................. Accelerated Soil 214,000
Mapping Survey.
Audubon at Home.... 357,000
Great Lakes Basin 433,000
Soil and Erosion
Control.
Operation Oak 286,000
Program.
Total, $43,500,000
Conservation
Technical
Assistance
Projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
The amended bill provides no funding for Watershed Surveys
and Planning as proposed by the Senate instead of $6,556,000
as proposed by the House.
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS
The amended bill provides $30,000,000 for Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations instead of $37,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $33,450,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The Committees are aware of and expect progress to continue
and/or to provide financial/technical assistance for the next
phase for the following projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008
State Project Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR.............................. Big Slough $166,000
Watersheds.
AR.............................. Departee Creek 91,000
Watershed.
HI.............................. Lower Hamakua Ditch 207,000
Watershed.
HI.............................. Upcountry Maui 207,000
Watershed.
HI.............................. Wailuka-Alenaio 124,000
Watershed.
IA.............................. Little Sioux 1,037,000
Watershed Project.
IA.............................. Soap Creek 955,000
Watershed.
IL.............................. McDowell Grove Dam 1,658,000
Flood Plain/
Wetlands
Restoration
Project.
KS.............................. Doyle Creek 118,000
Watershed.
MO.............................. Little Otter Creek 539,000
Watershed Project.
MO.............................. East Fork of the 124,000
Grand.
MO.............................. Big Creek-Hurricane 539,000
Creek.
MO.............................. East Locust Creek 2,819,000
Watershed Plan
Revision.
NC.............................. Swan Quarter Dike.. 2,818,000
NC.............................. Yadkin County Deep 4,975,000
Creek Project.
NE.............................. Buck and Duck Creek 2,488,000
Watershed Project.
OH.............................. South Fork of the 203,000
Licking River
Watershed Project.
OR.............................. McKenzie Canyon 448,000
Irrigation
Pipeline Project.
PA.............................. Neshaminy Creek 2,512,000
Watershed Project,
Bucks County.
PA.............................. Tuplehocken Creek 850,000
Watershed.
RI.............................. Pocasset River 62,000
Floodplain
Management Project.
TX.............................. Attoyac Bayou site 332,000
23-A.
TX.............................. Big Creek (Tri- 810,000
County) Watershed
Project.
VA.............................. Buena Vista 62,000
Watershed.
WV.............................. Lost River 3,856,000
Watershed.
Total, $28,000,000
Watershed and
Flood Prevention
Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $20,000,000 for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program as proposed by the Senate instead of
$31,586,000 as proposed by the House.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The amended bill provides $51,088,000 for Resource
Conservation and Development instead of $52,370,000 as
proposed by the House and $53,150,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $2,000,000 for the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program instead of no funding as proposed by
the House and $2,476,000 as proposed by the Senate.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
The amended bill provides $632,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development instead of $666,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The Appropriations Committees are concerned about the
proposal to close local Rural Development (RD) offices. Some
of these offices are located in counties identified by the
Economic Research Service as persistent poverty counties. The
amended bill includes a general provision that requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to determine the cost effectiveness
and/or enhancement of program delivery prior to closing or
relocating any RD offices. The Department is directed to
provide a report, not later than 60 days before the date of
the proposed closure or relocation that describes the
justifications for such closures and relocations.
The fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act made permanent a
general provision requiring that the Department of
Agriculture consider and treat all loan levels in any
appropriations act as estimates and not as loan limitations.
It has come to the Committees' attention that loan levels
with negative or zero subsidy rates are being treated as
limitations. The Committees want to reiterate the intent of
that provision and expect the Department to utilize this
authority if demand or authorization changes justify such
action by fully recognizing adjustments to current program
levels that may occur as the result of recent legislation.
The Committees expect to be notified within 30 days of any
increases in these programs based on demand or authorization
changes.
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
The amended bill provides funding for the Rural Community
Advancement Program (RCAP) under the associated agencies as
proposed by the Senate. The House proposed $728,807,000 under
the RCAP account, and the Senate proposed a total of
$704,091,000 under the associated agencies.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $169,998,000 for Rural
Development Salaries and Expenses instead of $175,382,000 as
proposed by the House and $175,302,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Rural Housing Service
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides a total subsidy of $208,761,000
for activities under the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program
Account instead of $212,163,000 as proposed by the House and
$202,736,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides for an estimated loan program
level of $5,605,573,000 instead of $5,100,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $4,966,684,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides for a transfer of $452,927,000 to
the Rural Development Salaries and Expenses account instead
of $462,521,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The Committees on Appropriations acknowledge that
significant portions of section 515 appropriations have been
used for needed portfolio repair and rehabilitation. However,
these repairs can be more efficiently accomplished utilizing
tools available under the Revitalization Initiative. For that
reason, funding that would have been provided to the section
515 account and used
[[Page 34652]]
for section 515 repair and rehabilitation is appropriated
directly to the Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program
Account.
The amended bill provides a program level of $4,220,000,000
for the Section 502 Guaranteed Homeownership loans. These
loans offer a safe alternative to subprime mortgages for
creditworthy low and moderate income rural homebuyers.
Lenders and mortgage brokers are increasingly looking for
traditional, standard term, mortgage loan programs to serve
their clientele, particularly those in need of affordable
mortgage financing options. Obligations in the Section 502
Guaranteed Homeownership program have escalated and have
increased by 75 percent over last year's activity during the
first two months of the fiscal year. This demand is
unprecedented and it is expected that demand will remain
strong and grow throughout the rest of the fiscal year as the
market continues to adjust from the diminished availability
of subprime loans for home purchase.
The following table indicates loan and subsidy levels
provided in the amended bill:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (sec. 502)......................($1,129,391,000)
Single family unsubsidized guaranteed.................(4,220,000,000)
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................(70,000,000)
Multi-family housing guaranteed (sec. 538)..............(130,000,000)
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................(34,652,000)
Credit sales of acquired property........................(11,485,000)
Site loans (sec. 524).....................................(5,045,000)
Self-help housing land development........................(5,000,000)
________________
Total, Loan authorizations.........................($5,605,573,000)
================
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (sec. 502)..........................$105,824,000
Single family unsubsidized guaranteed......................50,400,000
Rental housing (sec. 515)..................................29,827,000
Multi-family housing guaranteed (sec. 538).................12,220,000
Housing repair (sec. 504)...................................9,796,000
Credit sales of acquired property.............................552,000
Self-help housing land development............................142,000
________________
Total, Loan subsidies..................................$208,761,000
================
RHIF administration expenses (transfer to RD)..........$452,927,000
================
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $482,090,000 for the Rental
Assistance Program instead of $533,020,000 as proposed by the
House and $496,950,000 as proposed by the Senate.
These funds are provided for renewal of expiring rental
assistance contracts for a one-year term and for preservation
incentives and new construction contracts. In addition, this
funding level provides a five percent funding reserve to
cover any unforeseen disruptions for renewing contracts. It
is expected that one-year contract terms will allow for more
accurate cost estimation and will reduce the recent cost
fluctuations in this program.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides $28,000,000 for the Multi-family
Housing Revitalization Program instead of $27,800,000 as
proposed by the House and $33,423,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The Department is directed to provide an information
technology development and spending plan on an automated
system to manage housing vouchers issued from the Multi-
Family Housing Revitalization Program Account. No funds are
to be obligated on that system until submission of the report
to the Committees on Appropriations.
The Department is directed to include in the Multi-Family
Housing Revitalization Initiative projects funded through the
Section 514 and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Program.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
The amended bill provides $39,000,000 for Mutual and Self-
Help Housing Grants instead of $40,000,000 as proposed by the
House and $38,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
The amended bill provides $39,000,000 for Rural Housing
Assistance Grants as proposed by the House instead of
$40,590,000 as proposed by the Senate.
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides $22,000,000 for the Farm Labor
Program Account as proposed by the Senate instead of
$46,630,000 as proposed by the House.
The amended bill provides for an estimated loan program
level of $27,739,000; $12,000,000 for loan subsidies; and
$10,000,000 for grants.
The Appropriations Committees note that the Farm Labor
Housing loan and grant program has a large unobligated
balance available from prior years, in addition to the
appropriation provided, to meet the demand for new
construction and needed repair and rehabilitation of the
portfolio. However, the Appropriations Committees recognize
that repairs can be more efficiently accomplished utilizing
tools available under the Revitalization Initiative. For that
reason, authority has been provided in the Multi-Family
Housing Revitalization Program Account to allow for the
Department to utilize those funds for necessary
revitalization efforts for the Farm Labor portfolio.
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides $68,952,000 for the Rural
Community Facilities Program Account instead of $55,742,000
as proposed by the House and $67,422,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The following table reflects the agreement:
Community Facilities:
Direct loans...........................................($297,000,000)
Direct subsidy.............................................16,484,000
Guaranteed loans........................................(207,900,000)
Guaranteed subsidy..........................................7,651,000
Grants.....................................................20,517,000
Rural community development initiative........................6,300,000
Economic impact initiative grants............................14,000,000
Tribal college grants.........................................4,000,000
________________
Total, loan subsidies and grants........................$68,952,000
================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides $87,700,000 for the Rural
Business Program Account instead of $100,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $86,200,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The following table reflects the agreement:
Business and Industry:
Guaranteed loans.....................................($1,000,000,000)
Guaranteed subsidy.........................................43,200,000
Rural business enterprise grants.............................39,000,000
Rural business opportunity grants.............................2,500,000
Delta regional authority......................................3,000,000
________________
Total, loan subsidy and grants..........................$87,700,000
================
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides an estimated loan program level
of $33,772,000 with a subsidy of $14,485,000 for the Rural
Development Loan Fund as proposed by the House instead of
$14,527,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides for a transfer of $4,774,000 to
the Rural Development Salaries and Expenses account instead
of $4,861,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides an estimated loan program level
of $33,077,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a rescission of $34,000,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
The amended bill provides $28,023,000 for Rural Cooperative
Development Grants instead of $29,193,000 as proposed by the
House and $26,403,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides $19,000,000 for the value-added
agricultural product market development grant program;
$2,600,000 for a cooperative agreement for the appropriate
technology transfer for rural areas program; $1,473,000 for
cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary
focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers;
$4,455,000 for cooperative development grants; and $495,000
for a cooperative research agreement with a qualified
academic institution.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
The amended bill provides $8,187,000 for Rural Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants instead of
$11,088,000 as proposed by the House and $10,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $36,000,000 for the Renewable
Energy Program instead of $46,000,000 as proposed by the
House and $28,489,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides a loan level of $207,000,000, a
subsidy level of $20,000,000, and a grant level of
$16,000,000.
Rural Utilities Service
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides $562,565,000 for the Rural Water
and Waste Disposal Program Account instead of $573,065,000 as
proposed by the House and $550,469,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes a general provision to require
the water and waste direct loan subsidy rate to be calculated
using the fiscal year 2007 borrower rates and the fiscal year
2008 President's economic assumptions. The administration's
proposal to rely more heavily on borrowing rather than grants
is rejected.
The following table reflects the agreement:
Water and waste:
Direct loans.........................................($1,030,000,000)
Direct subsidy.............................................70,100,000
[[Page 34653]]
Guaranteed loans.........................................(75,000,000)
Grants....................................................467,500,000
Solid waste management grants.................................3,465,000
Water and wastewater revolving funds............................500,000
Water well system grants......................................1,000,000
High energy cost grants......................................20,000,000
________________
Total, loan subsidies and grants.......................$562,565,000
================
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account
The amended bill provides a total subsidy of $3,740,000 for
activities under the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans Program Account as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
The amended bill provides for an estimated loan program
level of $7,790,000,000 instead of $5,290,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $8,290,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides for a transfer of $38,623,000 to
the Rural Development salaries and expenses account instead
of $39,405,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The following table indicates loan and subsidy levels
provided in the amended bill:
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent......................................($100,000,000)
Direct, FFB...........................................(6,500,000,000)
Guaranteed underwriting.................................(500,000,000)
________________
Subtotal............................................(7,100,000,000)
================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent......................................($145,000,000)
Direct, Treasury rate...................................(250,000,000)
Direct, FFB.............................................(295,000,000)
________________
Subtotal..............................................(690,000,000)
================
Total, loan authorizations.........................($7,790,000,000)
================
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent............................................$120,000
________________
Subtotal....................................................120,000
================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent............................................$116,000
Direct, Treasury rate.......................................1,675,000
Direct, FFB.................................................1,829,000
________________
Subtotal..................................................3,620,000
================
Total, loan subsidies....................................$3,740,000
================
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)...............38,623,000
================
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
The amended bill provides for an estimated loan program
level of $300,000,000 for broadband telecommunications as
proposed by the House instead of $495,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill includes $35,000,000 for distance learning
and telemedicine grants as proposed by the House instead of
$34,750,000 as proposed by the Senate, of which $5,000,000 is
for public broadcasting system grants.
The amended bill includes $6,450,000 for broadband
telecommunications loan subsidy as proposed by the House
instead of $10,643,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes $13,500,000 for broadband
telecommunications grants instead of $17,820,000 as proposed
by the House and $8,910,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The Appropriations Committees' recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for public broadcasting systems grants to allow
noncommercial educational television broadcast stations that
serve rural areas to convert from analog to digital
operations.
The Department is directed to evaluate and report on the
potential of a combination loan/grant broadband program, to
expand the reach and more effectively utilize broadband
resources.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
The amended bill provides $597,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
instead of $628,000 as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
Food and Nutrition Service
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
The amended bill provides $13,901,513,000 for Child
Nutrition Programs instead of $13,903,213,000 as proposed by
the House and $13,897,272,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Included in the total is an appropriated amount of
$7,647,965,000 and a transfer from section 32 of
$6,253,548,000.
The amended bill includes a general provision to expand the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to all States not currently
served by the authorized program and maintains the program in
all currently participating States.
The amended bill provides $13,300,000 for Team nutrition.
Included in this amount is up to $5,000,000 for food service
training grants to States; $2,500,000 for technical
assistance materials; $800,000 for National Food Service
Management Institute cooperative agreements; $800,000 for
print and electronic food service resource systems;
$1,000,000 to assist USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion in development and maintenance of MyPyramid and
Dietary Guidelines materials in support of nutrition
education for program participants and their families; and
$3,200,000 for other activities.
The amended bill provides $2,000,000 for Food Safety
Education as proposed by the House instead of $1,022,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides the following for Child Nutrition
programs:
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
Child Nutrition Programs:
School lunch program...................................$8,180,933,000
School breakfast program................................2,389,988,000
Child and adult care food program.......................2,288,838,000
Summer food service program...............................310,634,000
Special milk program.......................................14,618,000
State administrative expenses.............................175,636,000
Commodity procurement and computer support................518,061,000
School meals initiative/Team nutrition.................... 13,300,000
Coordinated review effort...................................5,505,000
Food safety education.......................................2,000,000
CACFP Training and Technical Assistance.....................2,000,000
________________
Total...............................................$13,901,513,000
================
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
(WIC)
The amended bill provides $6,020,000,000 for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC), instead of $5,620,000,000 as proposed by the
House and $5,720,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
amended bill includes $15,000,000 for continuation of the
breastfeeding peer counselor program and $30,000,000 for
investments in management information systems, if the
Secretary determines that funds are available to maintain
caseload without the use of the contingency fund after the
date of enactment of this Act. In addition, the amended bill
includes such sums as are necessary to restore the
contingency reserve to $150,000,000, instead of $125,000,000
as proposed by the House and $116,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes an emergency designation under
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008
for $400,000,000.
The total funding level provided for WIC is adequate to
meet current estimates of program needs, and is $633,403,000
above the Administration's request. The Appropriations
Committees have followed cost increases in the WIC program
very closely. Since the budget was submitted in February
2007, program participation has risen, and food costs have
increased sharply. Information on participation and food
costs is collected regularly by the Department, and the
Appropriations Committees believe it is irresponsible for the
Administration to ignore this information and not submit an
official updated estimate or notification to the Congress
regarding the increased funding need for WIC.
Therefore, the Department is directed, beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, and thereafter, to provide
monthly reports on the program performance and estimated
funding requirements to fully fund the WIC program.
Timeframes addressed in these estimates should include the
prior year, current year, and budget year of the President's
budget submission currently under consideration by the
Congress and should separately address baseline program
performance from the impact of current law and legislative
budget proposals. The Department shall consider, and include
in these estimates, current participation trends and current
Economic Research Service food cost estimates in developing
updated WIC estimates.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $39,782,723,000 for the food
stamp program instead of $39,816,223,000 as proposed by the
House and $39,779,223,000 as proposed by the Senate. Included
in this amount is a reserve of $3,000,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009.
The amended bill includes $35,021,473,000 for program
expenses, $1,621,250,000 for grants to Puerto Rico and Samoa,
and $140,000,000 for commodity purchase for The Emergency
Food Assistance Program.
Included in the recommended level for other program costs
are $2,000,000 to conduct Food Stamp Program modernization
and innovation projects and $1,000,000 to assist USDA's
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in the development
and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials
in support of nutrition education for the food stamp eligible
population.
[[Page 34654]]
Included in the recommended level for FDPIR is $34,706,000
instead of $34,206,000 as proposed by the House and
$35,206,000 as proposed by the Senate.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $211,770,000 for the Commodity
Assistance Program instead of $221,070,000 as proposed by the
House and $199,070,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Of that amount, the amended bill provides $140,700,000 for
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program instead of
$150,000,000 as proposed by the House and $128,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. It is expected that with this level,
2007 participation will be maintained.
The amended bill provides $50,000,000 for administration of
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.
The amended bill provides $20,000,000 for the Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
The amended bill provides $142,727,000 for Nutrition
Programs Administration instead of $146,926,000 as proposed
by the House and $147,426,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides $2,475,000 in this account for
providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships
through the Congressional Hunger Center.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $159,470,000 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses, instead of
$159,136,000 as proposed by the House and $167,391,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
Public Law 480 Title I and Title II Program and Grant Accounts
The amended bill provides $1,219,400,000 for Public Law 480
Title II as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The following table reflects the amended bill for Public
Law 480 program accounts:
Public Law 480
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level........................................($1,219,400,000)
Appropriation...........................................1,219,400,000
Salaries and expenses:
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)......................$2,680,000
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill provides $5,328,000 for the Commodity
Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account instead of
$5,338,000 as proposed by the House and $5,334,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
The amended bill provides $100,000,000 for the McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides total appropriations, including
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act, and Animal Drug User Fee Act collections,
of $2,247,961,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Food
and Drug Administration, instead of $1,711,405,000 as
proposed by the House and $2,276,262,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Specific amounts by FDA activity are reflected in the
following table.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Program authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods...................................................... $513,461
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition............. 186,572
CFSAN available July 1, 2008 [non-add]................. [9,409]
Field Activities......................................... 326,889
Field available July 1, 2008 [non-add]................. [18,591]
Human Drugs................................................ 355,759
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.................. 268,007
Field Activities......................................... 87,752
Biologics.................................................. 156,323
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research............. 126,721
Field Activities......................................... 29,602
Animal Drugs & Feeds....................................... 97,721
Center for Veterinary Medicine........................... 60,159
Field Activities......................................... 37,562
Device & Radiological Products............................. 239,670
Center for Devices and Radiological Health............... 179,093
Field Activities......................................... 60,577
National Center for Toxicological Research................. 44,316
Other Activities........................................... 98,183
White Oak Consolidation.................................... 38,808
Other Rent & Rent-Related.................................. 50,648
GSA Rent................................................... 131,533
------------
Total Salaries & Expenses............................ 1,726,422
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the total amount for the Food and Drug
Administration, the following increases above fiscal year
2007 are provided: $28,718,000 for cost of living expenses;
$56,000,000 for food safety; $7,500,000 for the critical path
initiative; $21,200,000 for drug safety; $6,000,000 for
generic drug review; $4,000,000 for pandemic influenza
preparedness; $4,000,000 for the review of direct-to-consumer
advertising; $1,000,000 for the Office of Women's Health;
$1,000,000 for the review of cosmetics; $13,256,000 for FDA's
consolidation at the White Oak campus; and, $14,504,000 for
GSA rent and other rent and rent related activities. The
amended bill includes a proviso prohibiting the transfer of
funds to the Reagan-Udall foundation under section 707(n) of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The Committees are increasingly concerned about FDA's use
of a fund known as the central account to pay for various FDA
activities. An appropriation specifically for the central
account has never been provided. Instead, funds intended for
use by FDA's centers and field operations are moved into the
central account and managed by the Office of the
Commissioner. The Committees recognize that the central
account has been utilized by FDA for many years and that
there is value in funding some activities centrally. However,
funding for the central account has grown unchecked over the
past 3 years, increasing by approximately 32 percent from
fiscal year 2003 to 2006. In fiscal year 2006, central
account charges were approximately $125,000,000. FDA does not
provide information on estimated costs and use of central
account funds to the Committees on Appropriations. The
Committees find this lack of accountability unacceptable and
therefore direct FDA to include in its annual budget request,
beginning with fiscal year 2009, previous year, estimated
current year, and estimated budget year central account
charges by FDA program area and center/field split for each
charge applied. In addition, the budget should include a
narrative summary of each central account charge including
how the funding is used and how the charge is assessed to the
program areas.
The amended bill includes an increase of $21,200,000 for
drug safety, of which not less than $10,000,000 is for the
Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. The Committees
expect that FDA will use this funding to enhance the agency's
ability to identify safety issues with products already on
the market and under review.
The amended bill includes an increase of $7,500,000 for the
critical path initiative, of which $2,500,000 shall be
available, on a competitive basis, for contracts or grants to
universities and non-profit organizations to support
individual critical path projects.
The amended bill includes an increase of $56,000,000 above
the fiscal year 2007 level for food safety activities of the
FDA for improvements to agency procedures, to enhance
inspection capabilities for the protection of consumers, and
to help the agency recover from the administration's low
budget estimates of recent years.
Of the increase provided for food safety, the Committees
direct that no less than $18,317,000 shall be available
immediately to hire additional domestic and import food
inspectors, including $8,000,000 for the deployment of
inspectors with rapid response capabilities who will be
responsible for immediate attention to outbreaks of food-
related disease as well as providing technical assistance to
states and others, as appropriate, to support overall
practices to increase the safety of food and food products.
Of the total amount provided for food safety, the
Committees direct that $1,500,000 shall be used for the
creation of a Western Region FDA Center of Excellence at the
University of California at Davis. The Committees do not
include an additional $4,000,000 for other food safety-
related research, as proposed by the Senate, under this
account. However, the Committees have provided an increase of
$3,000,000 to the National Research Initiative for this
purpose and fully expect the Commissioner of the FDA and the
Secretary of Agriculture to work together to identify food
safety research priorities of importance to the regulatory
functions of the FDA and food safety generally. The
Committees expect a report on the conclusions of an agreement
between the Commissioner and the Secretary that describes the
research priorities identified and the awarding of research
grants to meet those needs.
In addition, the Committees expect the FDA to contract with
the National Academy of Sciences for a comprehensive study of
gaps in public health protection provided by the food safety
system in this country. The report should address the
recommendations of the FDA Food Protection Plan released in
November 2007.
Of the increase provided for food safety, the amended bill
includes $28,000,000 available from July 1, 2008 to September
30, 2009. The Committees direct the agency to provide,
concurrent with the fiscal year 2009 budget justification, a
plan that describes a method to improve the national food
safety system, including clear, measurable benchmarks for
concrete improvements in the performance of its food safety
mission.
As stated in the House report, ``the plan must set forth
clear, definitive goals over a multiyear period to
comprehensively overhaul FDA's food safety operations,
covering both domestic and imported foods. The plan must
include a detailed description of any organizational,
managerial, statutory and regulatory changes necessary to
achieve them, as well as an assessment of the budgetary
resources needed. If statutory changes are proposed, the plan
must include the statutory language. The plan must be
approved
[[Page 34655]]
by the Office of Management and Budget.'' The Committees
suggest that enforceable standards for food safety, HAACP-
like systems, and a process for reviewing the food safety
systems in countries that export food to the United States
should be considered as key parts of the building blocks of
such a plan.
FDA is directed to submit a plan to the Committees that
fully address the weaknesses in the food safety system that
led GAO to list food safety on its January 2007 high-risk
list.
The Committees support FDA's review of a means by which
drugs marketed outside the present approval process, which
have been in clinical use for the past 25 years and are
prescribed by doctors, may be more efficiently vetted by the
agency. FDA is encouraged to work toward the development of a
system to review this unique class of drugs.
The Committees encourage FDA to ensure that the MedGuide
program is assisting patients in understanding the risks
associated with certain medications to the greatest degree
possible. The Committees encourage FDA to work with patient
groups, manufacturers and national pharmacy groups to address
improvements in the program. The Committees request a report
on the progress it is making toward these improvements within
one year of enactment of this Act.
The Committees were encouraged by FDA's March 2007,
announcement that the agency was going to significantly limit
the number of financial conflict of interest waivers granted
to advisory committee members. In September 2007, the
Congress passed, and the President signed, the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). FDAAA placed a
cap on the number of waivers that can be issued annually and
reduced them by 25 percent over the life of the Act. The
Committees note that the waiver limits passed in FDAAA were
less stringent than those proposed by FDA in March 2007. The
Committees remind FDA that the FDAAA limitations are a
ceiling and strongly encourage FDA to continue its efforts to
limit the use of financial conflicts of interest waivers to
the greatest extent possible.
The Committees note that on December 28, 2006, the Center
for Veterinary Medicine issued a draft risk assessment on
animal cloning which concluded that food products from cloned
animals are safe to enter the food supply. During the public
comment period, thousands of submissions were received by
FDA. Many of these asked the FDA to obtain more information
not assessed in the initial risk assessment, including
further evaluation of the potential health, economic, and
trade impacts, before acting further. In addition, many
comments expressed concern that several of the studies on
which the risk assessment was based did not undergo a
scientific peer review process. The Committees strongly
encourage FDA to continue the voluntary moratorium on
introducing food products from cloned animals into commerce
until FDA completes a review and analysis of comments and
evaluates the need for additional studies recommended during
the public comment period.
The Committees direct the Food and Drug Administration to
enter into an agreement with the Economic Research Service at
USDA to study the domestic agricultural and international
trade economic implications of permitting commercialization
of milk and meat from cloned animals and their progeny into
the food supply.
The Committees are concerned that FDA may have exceeded its
statutory authority when the agency decided to begin allowing
the use of qualified health claims for conventional foods in
2003. Such claims are not based on the standard of
``significant scientific agreement'' set forth in the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The agency has devoted
literally thousands of hours of staff work to this
undertaking at a time when the agency's ability to carry out
its public health responsibilities is severely stretched.
The Committees need a thorough, independent analysis of
FDA's actions in this situation, the impact of qualified
health claims on the public's perceptions of conventional
foods, and the usefulness of qualified health claims.
Therefore, the Committees request a report from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) on qualified health
claims and ask that GAO work with the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate on the parameters of
the report. The Committees also urge the FDA not to use funds
provided in this bill to review requests for qualified health
claims for conventional foods or to issue letters permitting
such claims through exercises of enforcement discretion until
the independent analysis is completed.
The amended bill includes $1,725,000 for research on
dietary supplements at the National Center for Natural
Products Research in Oxford, Mississippi; $149,000 for the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC) and
$186,000 for ISSC Vibrio Vulnificus; $74,000 for the
Warehousing Education and Research Council; $2,228,000 for
the National Center for Food Safety and Technology;
$1,769,000 for the Food Technology Evaluation Laboratory at
New Mexico State University; and $563,000 for collaborative
drug safety research with the Critical Path Institute and the
University of Utah.
The Committees are aware, and appreciate, that FDA is
currently working to update the format of its Explanatory
Notes in an attempt to streamline information provided and
make it more useful to Congress. The Committees direct FDA to
ensure that all changes to the Explanatory Notes reflect the
comments made by the Congress.
In House Report 109-255, the conference report accompanying
the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill, Congress directed
FDA ``to provide the same level of budget justification for
its research activities in the fiscal year 2007 budget as it
does other activities, including a justification of both base
spending and any proposed increases by activity within center
or office.'' FDA has not fully complied with this requirement
to date and is directed to meet this requirement in the
fiscal year 2009 budget submission.
FDA is directed that, unless otherwise stated, all reports
and studies requested by the Committees in House Report 110-
258 or Senate Report 110-134 or in this Explanatory
Statement, shall be provided within 60 days after enactment
of this Act.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
The amended bill includes $2,450,000 for buildings and
facilities instead of $4,950,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
The amended bill provides $112,050,000 for the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission instead of $102,550,000 as
proposed by the House and $116,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. This level provides the requested $3,106,000 for an
additional 17 FTE to allow the Commission to provide
appropriate oversight of the futures markets and $9,500,000
in increased IT costs. The Committees on Appropriations do
not adopt the President's request to impose fees on futures
transactions.
Farm Credit Administration
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The amended bill includes a limitation of $46,000,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Section 701.--The amended bill includes language making
funds available for the purchase, replacement, and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702.--The amended bill includes language regarding
appropriation items, which shall remain available until
expended.
Section 703.--The amended bill includes language allowing
for unobligated balances to be transferred to the Working
Capital Fund.
Section 704.--The amended bill includes language limiting
the funding provided in the bill to one year, unless
otherwise specified.
Section 705.--The amended bill includes language limiting
indirect costs on cooperative agreements between the
Department of Agriculture and nonprofit organizations to 10
percent.
Section 706.--The amended bill includes language limiting
indirect costs for grants awarded by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service to 20 percent.
Section 707.--The amended bill includes language making
appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost
of direct guaranteed loans available until expended to
disburse obligations for certain Rural Development programs.
Section 708.--The amended bill includes language for funds
to cover necessary expenses related to advisory committees.
Section 709.--The amended bill includes language
prohibiting the use of funds to establish an inspection panel
at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 710.--The amended bill includes language regarding
detailed employees.
Section 711.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the appropriations hearing process.
Section 712.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the transfer of funds to the Office of the Chief Information
Officer and information technology funding obligations.
Section 713.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the reprogramming of funds.
Section 714.--The amended bill includes language regarding
user fee proposals.
Section 715.--The amended bill includes language
authorizing certain watershed projects.
Section 716.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the closure or relocation of Rural Development offices.
Section 717.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the closure or relocation of certain Food and Drug
Administration offices.
Section 718.--The amended bill includes language allowing
funds to be used to carry out a competitive grants program.
Section 719.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Section 720.--The amended bill includes language allowing
for reimbursement of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
[[Page 34656]]
Section 721.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the Dam Rehabilitation Program.
Section 722.--The amended bill includes language regarding
guaranteed underwriting.
Section 723.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the final rulemaking on cost-sharing for animal and plant
health emergency programs.
Section 724.--The amended bill provides funding for the
Denali Commission.
Section 725.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the availability of funds for certain conservation programs.
Section 726.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the recertification of rural status.
Section 727.--The amended bill includes language regarding
government-sponsored news stories.
Section 728.--The amended bill includes language regarding
eligibility for certain rural development programs.
Section 729.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
Section 730.--The amended bill includes language regarding
competitive sourcing of rural development or farm loan
programs.
Section 731.--The amended bill includes a rescission of
section 32 funds at a level in excess of that recommended by
the President. The Committees note that the estimates for
section 32 funds carrying over into fiscal year 2009 have
increased significantly since the President's budget was
released. The Committees also provide $297 million for
estimated future purchases, which is $240 million above the
level actually expended in fiscal year 2007 and $140 million
more than the previous five year average.
Section 732.--The amended bill includes language regarding
base funding for all institutions participating in the
expanded food nutrition education program.
Section 733.--The amended bill includes language limiting
the implementation of a rule concerning countries eligible to
export poultry products to the United States.
Section 734.--The amended bill provides funding for the
National Center for Natural Products Research.
Section 735.--The amended bill provides funding for an
agriculture pest facility in Hawaii.
Section 736.--The amended bill includes language regarding
meat inspection.
Section 737.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the water and waste direct loan program.
Section 738.--The amended bill includes language amending
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
Section 739.--The amended bill includes language providing
funding for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program.
Section 740.--The amended bill allows the Department to use
Salaries and Expenses funds to purchase materials for program
utilization.
Section 741.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the Federal Meat Inspection and other acts.
Section 742.--The amended bill includes language
establishing a forestry pilot program for lands affected by
Hurricane Katrina.
Section 743.--The amended bill includes language regarding
Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
Section 744.--The amended bill includes language amending
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
Section 745.--The amended bill includes language regarding
certain unexpended funds.
Section 746.--The amended bill includes language providing
that certain locations shall be considered eligible for
certain rural development programs.
Section 747.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the closure or consolidation of FDA field laboratories.
Section 748.--The amended bill includes language regarding
the availability of Rural Development housing funding in
areas damaged by hurricanes in 2005.
Section 749.--The amended bill rescinds certain funds.
Section 750.--The amended bill rescinds certain funds.
Section 751.--The amended bill extends certain Farm Bill
authorities.
Section 752.--The amended bill includes a provision that
reduces all discretionary accounts except for WIC and the
Food Safety and Inspection Service by 0.7 percent.
Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressional Directed Spending Items
Following is a list of congressional earmarks and
congressionally directed spending items (as defined in clause
9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives
and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
respectively) included in the House amendment or this
explanatory statement, along with the name of each Senator,
House Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
submitted a request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each
item so identified. Items which did not appear in H.R. 3161
or S. 1859 or the accompanying committee reports are marked
with an asterisk. Neither the House amendment nor the
explanatory statement contains any limited tax benefits or
limited tariff benefits as defined in the applicable House
and Senate rules.
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
[The amounts displayed do not reflect the 0.7 percent reduction that will be applied to all activities in the bill by Section 752.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Project Member Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS Development of Specialty Markets, WI Kohl $1,875,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, DE Biden, Castle, Carper 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Aquaculture Monitoring Technology, KY Chandler 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Asian Long Horned Beetle, IL Durbin 353,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Avian Influenza preparedness, CT Courtney 750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi Cochran, Wicker 475,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Beaver Management in North Carolina Dole, Price (NC) 223,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Berryman Institute UT/MS Bennett, Cochran 1,125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Biosafety Institute/National Institute for Genetically Modified Grassley, Harkin, Latham 278,000
Agriculture Products, IA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Biosafety, VT Leahy 242,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Blackbird Management, KS Roberts 128,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Blackbird Management, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Boustany, Landrieu, Vitter 101,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Blackbird Management, ND & SD Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson (SD) 284,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Brown Tree Snake Management in Guam Abercrombie, Akaka, Bordallo, Hirono, Inouye 705,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program Boxer, Costa, Feinstein 623,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Chronic Wasting Disease surveillance, CO Allard, Salazar (Ken) 38,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Chronic Wasting Disease surveillance, UT Bennett 183,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Chronic Wasting Disease surveillance, WI Kohl, Obey 1,299,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Cogongrass control, MS Cochran 223,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Conservation Science at Lincoln Park Zoo, IL Durbin 37,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Cooperative Livestock Protection Program, PA Holden, Murtha, Specter 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Cormorant control, Delta States Cochran 239,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Cormorant control, Lake Champlain Leahy 111,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Cormorant control, MI Levin, Stabenow 149,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34657]]
APHIS Cormorant control, NY Walsh 743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Crop and Aquaculture Losses in Southeast Missouri Emerson 222,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Database of North Carolina's Agriculture Industry Price (NC) 223,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Disease Prevention, LA Landrieu, Vitter 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Emerald ash borer, IL Durbin 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, ID, MT, WY Baucus, Craig, Enzi, Simpson, Thomas 697,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Hawaii Interline Activities Abercrombie, Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 2,079,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Hydrilla Eradication around Lake Gaston, VA Goode 333,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Hydrilla Eradication, Tri-County (Smith Mountain) Goode 37,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Import inspection CA Dept of Food and Agriculture Costa, Feinstein 743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Integrated Predation Management Activities Coyotes (WV) Byrd 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Johne's activities in WI Kohl 933,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Mormon cricket Nevada Reid 1,125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Mormon cricket Utah Bennett 1,125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, KS Boyda, Brownback, Moore (KS), Moran (KS), Roberts, 278,000
Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, PA Murtha 222,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS National Farm Animal Identification and Records Leahy, Walsh 446,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS National Wildlife Research Center, Hilo, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 173,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS National Wildlife Research Center, MS Cochran 257,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS National Wildlife Research Station in Kingsville, Texas Hutchison, Ortiz 311,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program Bingaman, Domenici, Udall (NM) 407,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Nez Perce Bio-Control Center, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Olive Fruit Fly, CA Thompson (CA) 234,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Predation Wildlife Services in Virginia Boucher, Goode, Goodlatte 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Predator Research Station, UT Bennett 1,040,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Remote Diagnostic and Wildlife Disease Surveillance, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 1,364,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Rodent Control, AK Stevens 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Tri-State Predator Control, ID, MT, WY Craig, Enzi, Simpson, Thomas 993,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Washington Clean Plant Program Murray 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Weed Management, NV Reid 37,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Wildlife Services, SD Johnson (SD) 557,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium Kohl, Obey 1,485,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS Wolf Predation Management in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan Oberstar, Obey 779,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT Bennett 5,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, MS Cochran 1,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT Baucus, Rehberg, Tester 1,883,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green, KY McConnell 1,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Appalachian Fruit Lab, WV Byrd 1,540,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Center for Advanced Viticulture and Tree Crop Research, Davis, CA Thompson (CA) 1,883,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY Arcuri, Clinton, Hinchey, Reynolds, Schumer, Walsh 1,883,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research, Storrs, CT Courtney, DeLauro, Murphy (CT) 1,883,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center, Prairie du Sac, WI Kohl 2,520,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, KY McConnell 2,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville, MS Cochran 2,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL LaHood 1,883,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, MO Bond, Hulshof 2,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville, MS Cochran, Pickering 1,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Southeastern Poultry Research Laboratory, Athens, GA Chambliss, Kingston, The President 2,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE Hagel, Nelson (NE) 1,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC Blumenauer, Norton 700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F University of Toledo Greenhouse and Hydroponic Research Complex, Brown (OH), Kaptur, Voinovich 1,883,000
Toledo, OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F US Agricultural Research Facility, Knipling-Bushland Laboratory, Cornyn, Hutchison, Smith (TX) 1,400,000
Kerrville, TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34658]]
ARS B&F US Agricultural Research Service Laboratory, Canal Point, FL Boyd, Hastings (FL), Martinez, Nelson (FL) 525,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F US Agricultural Research Service Laboratory, Pullman, WA Baird, Cantwell, Dicks, Hastings (WA), Larsen, 1,883,000
McDermott, McMorris Rodgers, Murray, Smith (WA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F US Agricultural Research Service Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Landrieu, Melancon, Vitter 1,883,000
Houma, LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F US Agricultural Research Station, Salinas, CA Farr 1,883,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS B&F US Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 1,750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Aerial Application Research, College Station, TX Edwards, Kingston 584,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Animal Health Consortium, Peoria, IL Durbin, LaHood 879,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Animal Vaccines, Greenport, NY Courtney, DeLauro 1,628,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Appalachian Horticulture Research (U of TN/TN State), Poplarville, Alexander (TN), Blackburn, Cochran, Duncan, Wamp 784,000
MS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, AR Lincoln, Pryor, Ross 557,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Mahoney, Martinez 1,713,000
Stuttgart, AR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 629,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (Rodale Inst.), Wyndmoor, PA Gerlach 45,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR Berry, Lincoln, Pryor, Snyder 585,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Avian Pneumovirus / Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Kingston 292,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Barley Health Food Benefits, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 477,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Bee Research, Weslaco, TX Edwards 244,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD Herseth Sandlin, Johnson (SD) 1,213,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Biomedical Materials in Plants, Biotech Foundation, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 1,821,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematode, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 390,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Bioremediation Research, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 119,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Biotechnology Research Development Corporation, Peoria, IL Durbin, LaHood 2,685,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Bovine Genetics, Beltsville, MD Cardin, DeLauro, Hoyer, Mikulski 1,914,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Broomweed Biological Controls, Albany, CA Thompson (CA) 445,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL Davis (AL), Rogers (AL), Shelby 878,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Center for Agroforestry, Booneville, AR Bond, Emerson 708,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Central Great Plains Research Station, Akron, CO Musgrave, Salazar (Ken), Udall (CO) 534,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI Baldwin, Johnson (SD), Kohl, Walz 902,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Cereal Disease, St. Paul, MN Coleman, Johnson (SD), Klobuchar, McCollum, 311,000
Peterson, Ramstad, Walz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Chronic Diseases of Children, Houston, TX Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Culberson, Hutchison, 497,000
Isakson, Kingston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Citrus Waste Utilization, Winter Haven, FL Mahoney (FL), Martinez, Putnam 393,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Coffee and Cocoa, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski, Specter, Walsh 853,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA Cochran, Harkin, Latham 852,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Corn Rootworm, Ames, IA Harkin, Latham 490,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Cotton Pathology, Shafter, CA Feinstein, McCarthy (CA) 362,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Crop Production and Food Processing, Peoria, IL LaHood 843,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, MS Alexander (TN), Blackburn, Cochran, Duncan, Wamp 849,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 930,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, AR Berry, Lincoln, Pryor, Ross 1,936,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Delta Nutrition Initiative, Little Rock, AR Berry, Cochran, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Snyder 4,223,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Diet and Immune Function, Little Rock, AR Berry, Snyder 235,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research (Pennington), New Orleans, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Landrieu, Vitter 669,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Dryland Production, Akron, CO Musgrave, Udall (CO) 235,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Endophyte Research, Booneville, AR Boozman, Lincoln, Pryor, Ross 1,066,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Floriculture and Nursery Crops, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Farr, De Fazio, Hastings (WA), Honda, 2,476,000
Hooley, Larsen, Mikulski, Price (NC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Food Fermentation Research, Raleigh, NC Dole, Etheridge, McIntyre, Miller (NC), Price (NC) 362,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Food Safety for Listeria and E Coli, College Station, TX Edwards 81,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Food Safety for Listeria, E coli, and other Food Pathogens, Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 134,000
Beltsville, MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Formosan Subterranean Termite, New Orleans, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Vitter 3,743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization, Beltsville, MD Hoyer, Kaptur 685,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Laboratory, Grand Forks, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 580,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY Arcuri, Clinton, Hinchey, Schumer, Walsh 629,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY Arcuri, Hinchey 574,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34659]]
ARS S&E Grassland Soil and Water Research, Temple, TX Carter, Edwards 220,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Greenhouse and Hydroponics Research, Wooster, OH Brown (OH), Kaptur 1,555,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA Farr 224,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Harry K. Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center, Stuttgart, Berry, Lincoln, Pryor 439,000
AR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Hops Research, Corvallis, OR Cantwell, Hastings (WA), Hooley, Murray, Smith 464,000
(OR), Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Human Nutrition (Equipment), Boston, MA Capuano 98,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Human Nutrition (Obesity), Boston, MA Capuano, Kennedy (MA), Kerry, Markey 730,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Improved Crop Production Practices, Auburn, AL Aderholt, Bonner, Rogers (AL), Shelby 1,387,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Invasive Aquatic Weeds, Ft. Lauderdale, FL DeLauro 527,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Invasive Ludwigia Research, Davis, CA Woolsey 99,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Johne's Disease, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 323,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Karnal bunt, Manhattan, KS Boyda, Moore (KS), Moran (KS), Roberts, Tiahrt 545,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Lyme Disease 4 Poster Project, Beltsville, MD (National Program) Cardin, DeLauro, Mikulski 751,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation, Columbia, MO Emerson 692,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Minor-Use Pesticides (IR-4), Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 73,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Mosquito Trapping Research/West Nile Virus, Gainesville, FL DeLauro 1,238,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Center for Agricultural Law, MD Boozman, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor 701,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant, HQ Durbin, Obama 386,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Germplasm Resources Program, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski, Murray 145,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Germplasm Resources System, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 121,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Germplasm Resources, College Station, TX Edwards 242,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Nutrition Monitoring System, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 485,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Plant Germplasm Program, Aberdeen, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 97,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL Aderholt, Rogers (AL), Sessions (AL), Shelby 1,111,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Natural Products for Human Health, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Cochran, Gohmert, Hoyer, Mikulski 238,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Nematology Research, Tifton, GA Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, Marshall 248,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 62,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, Corvallis, OR Blumenauer, Craig, Crapo, DeFazio, Hastings WA), 646,000
Hooley, McMorris Rodgers, Smith (OR), Walden, Wu,
Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN Johnson (SD), LaHood 233,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Obesity Interventions (Nutricore), Beltsville, MD (National Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski, Specter 91,000
Program)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX Cornyn, Edwards, Hutchison, Neugebauer, Roberts, 3,758,000
Thornberry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Olive Fruit Fly, Montpelier, France Thompson (CA) 213,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA Thompson (CA) 301,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Organic Minor Crop, Salinas, CA Farr 159,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Peanut Production, Dawson, GA Bishop (GA), Kingston 74,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Peanut Research, Dawson, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Kingston 132,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Peanut Variety, Stillwater, OK Inhofe, Lucas 178,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Pecan Scab Research, Byron, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Kingston, Marshall 603,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA Jefferson, Jindal, Kaptur, Landrieu, Melancon, 1,530,000
Vitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Ft. Pierce, FL Feinstein, Thompson (CA) 466,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Parlier and Davis, CA Feinstein, Thompson (CA) 3,355,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Pineapple Nematode Research, Hilo, HI Hirono, Inouye 284,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Plant Stress and Water Conservation Lab, Lubbock, TX Neugebauer 1,561,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Potato Breeding, Prosser, WA Cantwell, Hastings (WA), McMorris Rodgers, Murray 136,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Potato Diseases, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 65,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA Hastings (WA), McMorris Rodgers, Murray 288,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Poult Enteritis-Mortality Syndrome, Athens, GA Chambliss, Kingston 146,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Poultry Diseases, Athens, GA Chambliss, Kingston 892,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 438,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Precision Agriculture Research, Mandan, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 485,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Quantify basin water budget components in the Southwest, Tucson, Giffords, Pastor 633,000
AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 1,094,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--Canada Thistle Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 264,000
Research, Fargo, ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34660]]
ARS S&E Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--Cereal Crops and Conrad, Dorgan, Herseth Sandlin, Pomeroy 1,725,000
Sunflower Research, Fargo, ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--National Conrad, Dorgan, Musgrave, Peterson (PA), Pomeroy 1,723,000
Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--National Wheat and Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 97,000
Barley Scab Initiative, Fargo, ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--Regional Molecular Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 176,000
Genotyping, Fargo, ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center--Wheat Quality Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 194,000
Research, Fargo, ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Regional Grains Genotyping, Raleigh, NC Price (NC) 693,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Regional Molecular Genotyping, Pullman, WA Cantwell, Hastings (WA), McMorris Rodgers, Murray, 251,000
Reichert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Residue Management in Sugarcane (Sugarcane Research), Houma, LA Landrieu, Melancon, Vitter 1,193,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Rice research, Stuttgart, AR Berry 271,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Seasonal Grazing, Coshocton, OH Space, Voinovich 99,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Lab, Cochran, Lott, Wicker 356,000
Oxford, MS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Shellfish Genetics Research, Newport, OR Hooley, Murray, Smith (OR), Wyden 775,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sorghum Cold Tolerance, Lubbock, TX Neugebauer 264,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sorghum Ergot Research, College Station, TX Edwards 72,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sorghum Research, Bushland, TX Neugebauer 484,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR Berry, Snyder 145,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sorghum Research, Lubbock, TX Neugebauer 974,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sorghum Research, Stillwater, OK Lucas 291,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Source Water Protection Initiatives, Columbus, OH Kaptur 750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research, Byron, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Kingston, Marshall 460,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Southwest Pecan Research, College Station, TX Edwards 233,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, NC Dole, Price (NC) 409,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sudden Oak Disease, Davis, CA Feinstein, Thompson (CA) 318,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID Craig, Crapo, Enzi, Simpson, Thomas 703,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal Point, FL Hastings (FL), Martinez, Nelson (FL) 1,405,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Sustainable Feeds, Aberdeen, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 99,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA Hastings (WA), Murray 36,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Termite Species in Hawaii, Gainesville, FL Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 139,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Tree Fruit Quality Research, Wenatchee, WA Hastings (WA) 435,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Tropical Aquaculture Feeds, Hilo, HI Abercrombie, Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 1,542,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Turfgrass Research, Washington, DC Hoyer 477,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Ctr Staffing, Hilo, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 2,403,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E USNA Germplasm/Ornamental Horticulture, Washington, DC Hoyer 1,656,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health, Auburn, AL Rogers (AL), Shelby 1,062,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Vector-borne Diseases, Gainesville, FL DeLauro 220,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Verticillium Wilt, Salinas, CA Farr 474,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Viticulture, Corvallis, OR Simpson 853,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Water Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA Feinstein, Filner 340,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Water Resources Management, Tifton, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, 586,000
Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Water Use Management Technology, Tifton, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston 341,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Water Use Reduction, Dawson, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Kingston, Marshall 705,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Weed Management Research, Beltsville, MD Cardin, Gerlach, Hoyer, Mikulski 264,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Wheat Quality Research, Manhattan, KS Kaptur, Roberts, Tiahrt 420,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Wheat Quality Research, Wooster, OH Kaptur 414,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS S&E Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN Coleman, Klobuchar, Peterson (MN) 325,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Ag in the Classroom Emerson, The President 557,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Children Farm Safety Harkin 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Conservation Tech Transfer Kohl 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Dairy Education, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 170,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Diabetes Detection and Prevention, WA Capuano, Lynch, McGovern, Murray 812,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension E-commerce, MS Cochran, Pickering 248,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Efficient Irrigation, NM, TX Bingaman, Conaway, Cornyn, Domenici, Edwards, 1,727,000
Hutchison, Ortiz, Reyes, Rodriguez, Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Entrepreneurial Alternatives, PA Casey, Peterson (PA), Specter 248,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34661]]
CS/Extension Extension specialist, MS Cochran 99,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Health education leadership, KY McConnell 632,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Income Enhancement Demonstration, OH Kaptur 926,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Iowa vitality center Grassley, Harkin 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension National Center for Farm Safety, IA Grassley, Harkin 169,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension National Wild Turkey Federation Berry, Bishop (GA), Boyd, Chambliss, Cochran, 174,000
Lincoln, Pryor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Nursery Production, RI Kennedy, Langevin 219,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Nutrition Enhancement, WI Kohl 750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative Voinovich 499,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables, WI Kohl 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Pilot Technology Transfer, MS, OK Cochran, Inhofe, Lucas 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Pilot Technology Transfer, WI Obey 186,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight, ME Collins, Michaud, Snowe 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Potato Pest Management, WI Obey 297,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Range improvement, NM Bingaman, Domenici 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Red Cliff Tribal Hatchery, WI Obey 371,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Rural Technologies, HI Inouye 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Urban Horticulture and Marketing, IL Davis (IL), Durbin, Jackson 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Urban Horticulture, WI Kohl 349,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/Extension Wood Biomass as an Alternative Farm Product, NY Clinton, Schumer, Walsh 140,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Ag-based Industrial Lubricants, IA Braley, Grassley, Harkin 408,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Agricultural Literacy, MO Bond 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Agriculture Development in the American Pacific Hirono, Inouye 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Agriculture waste utilization, WV Byrd 488,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Agriculture Water Policy, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston 662,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Alternative Fuels Characterization Laboratory, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 209,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Animal Waste Management, OK Inhofe, Lucas 294,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Applied Agriculture and Environmental Research, CA Cardoza, Farr, Feinstein, Herger, McCarthy, 743,000
Radanovich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Aquaculture, OH Brown (OH), Kaptur, Schmidt, Space, Voinovich 668,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Aquaculture, PA Gerlach, Specter 165,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Aquatic veterinary pathology, RI Reed 600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Biodesign and Processing Research Center, VA Boucher, Davis (VA), Goodlatte, Warner, Webb 706,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Biotechnology, MS Cochran 515,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Botanical Research, UT Bennett, Bishop (UT) 675,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 442,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Center for Dairy Excellence, PA Specter 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Center for Food Industry Excellence, TX Conaway, Cornyn, Neugebauer 1,015,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Center for Innovative Food Technology, OH Kaptur 851,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Center for North American Studies, TX Edwards (TX), Hutchison, Reyes 743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Climate Forecasting, FL Boyd, Nelson (FL) 2,675,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Connecticut Oyster Fisheries DeLauro, Lieberman 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Cotton Research, TX Cornyn, Hutchison, Neugebauer 1,856,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, IA Harkin 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Dietary Intervention, OH Brown (OH), Hobson, Kaptur, Pryce, Turner, 929,000
Voinovich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Ethnobotanicals, MD Cardin, Mikulski 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Farmland Preservation, OH Brown (OH), Voinovich 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Feed efficiency, WV Byrd 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Greenhouse Nurseries, OH Brown (OH), Kaptur 539,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA High Value Horticultural Crops, VA Goode, Warner, Webb 539,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Mariculture, NC Dole, McIntyre 236,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, TX Hutchison 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center (MATRIC), IA Harkin 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Mississippi Valley State University Cochran 1,075,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34662]]
CS/RE/FA Monitoring Agricultural Sewage Sludge Application, OH Kaptur 900,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA NE Center for Invasive Plants, CT, ME, VT Allen, Collins, Courtney, DeLauro, Lieberman, 316,000
Michaud, Snowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Pasteurization of Shell Eggs, MI Knollenberg 1,003,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Phytoremediation Plant Research, OH Kaptur 578,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA PM-10 Study, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Larsen, McMorris Rodgers, Murray 287,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Polymer Research, KS Boyda, Brownback 1,125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Precision Agriculture, Tennessee Valley Research Center, AL Cramer, Rogers (AL), Shelby 445,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Rural Systems, MS Cochran 231,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Shellfish, RI Reed 263,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Shrimp Aquaculture, AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC, TX Cochran, Grijalva, Hirono, Neal, Pastor 3,119,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Sustainable Agricultural Freshwater Conservation, TX Cornyn, Reyes, Rodriguez 1,538,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA University of Wisconsin -Stevens Point Geographic Information Obey 1,856,000
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Brown (OH), Kaptur, Voinovich 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Vitis Gene Discovery, MO Emerson 452,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Water pollutants, WV Byrd 413,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/RE/FA Water Quality, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Advanced genetic technologies, KY McConnell 484,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University Hutchison 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aegilops Cylindrica (Jointed Goatgrass), ID, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Hastings (WA), Murray, Smith (WA) 263,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Agricultural Diversification, HI Hirono 164,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Agricultural Diversity/Red River Corridor, MN, ND Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Agricultural entrepreneurial alternatives, PA Casey, Peterson (PA), Specter 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Agricultural marketing, IL Durbin, Jackson, Johnson (IL), LaHood 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Agriculture Science, OH Kaptur 410,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Agroecology, MD Bartlett, Cardin, Cummings, Gilchrest, Hoyer, 302,000
Mikulski, Sarbanes, Van Hollen, Wynn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Air Quality, KS, TX Cornyn, Edwards, Hutchison, Roberts, Thornberry 1,169,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Alliance for food protection, GA, NE Hagel, Nelson (NE) 131,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Alternative salmon products, AK Stevens 824,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Alternative Uses for Tobacco, MD Cardin, Hoyer, Mikulski 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Animal Disease Research, WY Cubin, Enzi, Thomas 260,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Animal Health, KY McConnell 293,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, AR, IA, KS Boozman, Grassley, Harkin, Latham, Lincoln, Pryor, 1,064,000
Roberts, Ross
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Apple Fire Blight, MI, NY Arcuri, Clinton, Ehlers, Hinchey, Hoekstra, Levin, 371,000
Rogers, Schumer, Stabenow, Upton, Walberg, Walsh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture product and marketing development, WV Byrd 525,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture, CA, FL, TX Brown-Waite, Buchanan, Davis (CA), Nelson (FL), 446,000
Ortiz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture, ID, WA Baird, Cantwell, Dicks, Larsen, Murray 567,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Landrieu, Vitter 245,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture, MS Cochran, Pickering 388,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture, NC Burr, Dole, Etheridge, Price (NC) 244,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Aquaculture, VA Goode, Warner, Webb 149,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Armilliaria Root Rot, MI Hoekstra, Levin, Rogers (MI), Stabenow, Upton, 112,000
Walberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Asparagus Technology and Production, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Hastings (WA), Larsen, Murray 185,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Avian Bioscience, DE Biden, Carper, Castle 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Babcock Institute, WI Baldwin 446,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Barley for Rural Development, ID, MT Baucus, Craig, Crapo, Rehberg, Sali, Simpson, 551,000
Tester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Beef Improvement Research, MO, TX Bond, Rodriguez 743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Berry Research, AK Stevens 975,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Biodesign and processing, VA Boucher, Davis (VA), Goodlatte, Warner, Web 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Bioenergy, CT Courtney, DeLauro, Lieberman 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Biomass-based Energy Research, MS, OK Cochran, Inhofe, Lucas 900,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Biotechnology Test Production, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 345,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Biotechnology, NC Dole, Etheridge, Price (NC) 213,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34663]]
CS/SRG Bovine Tuberculosis, MI Levin, Rogers (MI), Stabenow, Upton, Walberg 264,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Brucellosis Vaccine, MT Baucus, Rehberg, Tester 327,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, Bingaman, Domenici 188,000
NM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies, UT Bennett 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Center for Rural Studies, VT Leahy 263,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, MD Bartlett, Cardin, Cummings, Gilchrest, Hoyer, 233,000
Mikulski, Sarbanes, Van Hollen, Wynn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Childhood Obesity & Nutrition, VT Leahy 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Citrus Canker/ Greening, FL Boyd, Brown (FL), Buchanan, Crenshaw, Mack, 1,305,000
Mahoney, Martinez, Nelson (FL), Putnam, Stearns,
Wexler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Competitiveness of Agricultural Products, WA Baird, Cantwell, Dicks, Hastings (WA), Larsen, 504,000
Murray, Reichert, Smith (WA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Computational Agriculture, NY Hinchey 178,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Cool Season Legume Research, ID, ND, WA Cantwell, Conrad, Craig, Crapo, Dicks, Dorgan, 419,000
Hastings (WA), Johnson (SD), Larsen, Murray,
Simpson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality, GA Barrow, Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Gingrey, Isakson, 371,000
Kingston, Lewis (GA), Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding, NJ Frelinghuysen, Holt, Lautenberg, LoBiondo, 483,000
Pallone, Rothman, Saxton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Cranberry/Blueberry, MA Frank, Kennedy (MA), Kerry 119,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Crop Integration and Production, SD Herseth Sandlin, Johnson (SD), Thune 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Crop Pathogens, NC Burr, Dole, Etheridge, Price (NC) 242,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Dairy and Meat Goat Research, TX Hutchison, McCaul 112,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Dairy Farm Profitability, PA Casey, Peterson (PA), Specter 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Delta Revitalization Project, MS Cochran 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Designing Foods for Health, TX Culberson, Hutchison, Rodriguez 1,485,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Detection and Food Safety, AL Rogers (AL), Shelby 1,875,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Displacing imported petroleum with renewables, FL Castor, Martinez, Nelson (FL), Stearns 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Drought management, UT Bennett 675,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Drought Mitigation, NE Fortenberry, Hagel, Nelson (NE) 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Efficient Irrigation, NM, TX Bingaman, Conaway, Cornyn, Domenici, Edwards, 1,244,000
Hutchison, Reyes, Rodriguez, Wilson (NM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Environmental Biotechnology, RI Kennedy (RI), Langevin, Reed, Whitehouse 478,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Environmental Research, NY Clinton, Hinchey, Schumer 277,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Environmental Risk Factors/Cancer, NY Clinton, Lowey, Schumer 161,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Environmentally Safe Products, VT Leahy 338,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Expanded Wheat Pasture, OK Inhofe, Lucas 240,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Feed Efficiency in Cattle, FL Boyd 297,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Feedstock Conversion, SD Hinchey, Thune 501,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Fish and Shellfish Technologies, VA Goode, Warner, Webb 354,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Floriculture, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 261,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, IA, MO Bond, Emerson, Grassley, Harkin, Hulshof, Kohl, 1,200,000
Latham, Reid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food and fuel initiative, IA Grassley, Harkin 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food Marketing Policy Center, CT Courtney, DeLauro, Lieberman 430,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food Safety Research Consortium, NY Hinchey, Walsh 743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food Safety, ME, OK Inhofe, Lucas 410,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food Safety, TX Hutchison 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food Security, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Inslee, Murray, Reichert 296,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Food Systems Research Group, WI Baldwin 409,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Forestry Research, AR Ross 342,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Fresh produce food safety, CA Boxer, Calvert, Farr, Feinstein 525,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis, AZ, MO Pastor 260,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Functional genomics, UT Bennett 1,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Future Foods, IL Durbin, Johnson (IL), LaHood 494,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease, MS Cochran 855,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Geographic Information System Casey, Kanjorski, Specter 1,338,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Global Change/Ultraviolet Radiation DeGette, Johnson (SD), Musgrave, Perlmutter, 1,622,000
Salazar (Ken), Udall (CO), The President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34664]]
CS/SRG Grain Sorghum, KS, TX Boyda, Brownback, Hutchison, Moore (KS), Moran 552,000
(KS), Neugebauer, Roberts, Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable Agriculture, ID, OR, WA Blumenauer, Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Dicks, Hooley, 335,000
Larsen, Murray, Simpson, Smith (OR), Wu, Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Hardwood Scanning Center, IN Lugar 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG High Performance Computing, UT Bennett 563,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Human Nutrition, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 483,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Human Nutrition, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Landrieu, Vitter 530,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Human Nutrition, NY Clinton, Hinchey, Schumer, Walsh 405,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Hydroponic Production, OH Brown (OH), Kaptur 133,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology Bond, Johnson (IL), LaHood, Obama 869,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Improved Dairy Management Practices, PA Peterson (PA) 261,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Improved Fruit Practices, MI Dingell, Ehlers, Hoekstra, Levin, Rogers (MI), 158,000
Stabenow, Upton, Walberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities, ID Craig, Crapo, Simpson 647,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Infectious Disease Research, CO Allard, Musgrave, Salazar (Ken), Udall (CO) 613,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Initiative to Improve Blueberry Production and Efficiency, GA Bishop, Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, Westmoreland 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Institute for Food Science and Engineering, AR Boozman 831,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Institute of Agriculture-Phytosensors for Crop Security, TN Alexander (TN), Wamp 750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Integrated Fruit and Vegetable Research, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, 190,000
Marshall, Westmoreland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Integrated Production Systems, OK Inhofe, Lucas 189,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG International Arid Lands Consortium, AZ Bingaman, Domenici, Grijalva, Herseth Sandlin, 430,000
Johnson (IL), Johnson (SD), Pastor, Thune
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and Extension, UT Bennett 450,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Leopold Center hypoxia project, IA Harkin 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Livestock and Dairy Policy, NY, TX Edwards, Hinchey, Hutchison, Walsh 743,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Livestock Genome Sequencing, IL Jackson, Johnson (IL), LaHood 605,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Livestock Waste, IA Harkin, Grassley, Latham 197,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Lowbush Blueberry Research, ME Allen, Collins, Michaud, Snowe 185,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Maple research, VT Leahy 98,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Meadow Foam, OR Blumenauer, Hooley, Smith (OR), Wyden 193,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Michigan Biotechnology Consortium Rogers (MI) 412,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, NE Hagel, Nelson (NE) 368,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Midwest Poultry Consortium, IA Grassley, Harkin, Klobuchar, LaHood, Latham, 506,000
Peterson (MN)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Milk Safety, PA Casey, Peterson (PA), Specter 591,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Molluscan Shellfish, OR Blumenauer, Hooley, Smith (OR), Wyden 271,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Montana Sheep Institute Baucus, Tester 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Multi-commodity Research, OR Blumenauer, Hooley, Smith (OR), Wu, Wyden 262,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, CO, GA, NY Allard, Chambliss, Musgrave, Salazar (Ken), Udall 660,000
(CO)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG National Center for Soybean Technology, MO Bond 740,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Nematode resistance genetic engineering, NM Bingaman, Domenici 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Nevada arid rangelands initiative, NV Reid 368,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG New Century Farm, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG New crop opportunities, AK Stevens 332,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG New crop opportunities, KY McConnell 563,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG New satellite and computer-based technology for agriculture, MS Cochran 702,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Oil resources from desert plants, NM Bingaman, Domenici 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Organic cropping, OR Blumenauer, DeFazio, Hooley, Smith, Walden, Wyden 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Organic Cropping, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Hastings, Larsen, Murray, Smith 266,000
(WA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Organic Waste Utilization, NM Bingaman, Domenici, Wilson (NM) 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Oyster Post Harvest Treatment, FL Boyd 332,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Pasture and Forage Research, UT Bennett 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Peach Tree Short Life, SC Brown (SC), Clyburn, Graham 209,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Perennial Wheat, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Larsen, Murray 105,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Pest Control Alternatives, SC Clyburn, Graham 212,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Phytophthora Research, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, 191,000
Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34665]]
CS/SRG Phytophthora Research, MI Dingell, Ehlers, Hoekstra, Levin, Rogers (MI), 371,000
Stabenow, Upton, Walberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Pierce's Disease, CA Boxer, Farr, Feinstein, McCarthy (CA), Radanovich, 1,642,000
Thompson (CA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Policy analyses for a national secure and sustainable food, fiber, Hutchison 150,000
forestry, and energy program, TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Potato cyst nematode, ID Craig, Crapo 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Potato Research Allen, Cantwell, Collins, Craig, Crapo, Hastings 1,112,000
(WA), Hooley, Murray, Smith (OR), Snowe, Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Precision agriculture, AL Cramer, Rogers (AL), Shelby 449,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Precision agriculture, KY McConnell 506,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Preharvest Food Safety, KS Boyda, Brownback, Moran (KS), Moore (KS), Roberts, 152,000
Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Preservation and Processing Research, OK Inhofe, Lucas 186,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Protein Utilization, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 628,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project, OR Craig, Dicks, Hastings (WA), Hooley, Larsen, 506,000
McMorris Rodgers, Musgrave, Reichert, Smith (OR),
Wu, Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Regionalized Implications of Farm Programs, MO, TX Edwards, Emerson, Hutchison 638,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Renewable energy and products Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy 750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Rice Agronomy, MO Emerson 186,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Ruminant Nutrition Consortium, MT, ND, SD, WY Herseth Sandlin, Johnson (SD), Thune 469,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Rural Development Centers, LA Alexander (LA) 113,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Rural Development Centers, ND Conrad, Dorgan 86,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Rural Policies Institute, IA, MO, NE Emerson, Hagel, Harkin, Nelson (NE) 895,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Russian Wheat Aphid, CO Allard, Musgrave, Salazar (Ken), Udall (CO) 230,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Seafood Safety, MA Kennedy (MA), Kerry, Olver 314,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Seed Technology, SD Herseth Sandlin, Johnson, Thune 267,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Small Fruit Research, ID, OR, WA Baird, Blumenauer, Craig, Crapo, Dicks, DeFazio, 329,000
Hastings (WA), Hooley, Larsen, McMorris Rodgers,
Murray, Simpson, Smith (OR), Walden, Wu, Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Soil and Environmental Quality, DE Castle 219,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, NM Bingaman, Domenici 188,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Southeast Bioenergy, AL Sessions 225,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources, NM Benjamin, Domenici, Grijalva, Pastor 291,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Soybean Cyst Nematode, MO Emerson 596,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Soybean Research, IL Durbin, Jackson, Johnson (IL), LaHood, Obama 799,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Specialty Crops, AR Lincoln, Pryor, Ross 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG STEEP III--Water Quality in Northwest Blumenauer, Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Dicks, 476,000
Hastings (WA), Hooley, Larsen, McMorris Rodgers,
Murray, Wu, Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sudden Oak Death, CA Feinstein, Thompson (CA) 73,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources, PA Casey, Peterson (PA), Specter 143,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sustainable Agriculture, CA Farr 383,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sustainable Agriculture, MI Dingell, Ehlers, Levin, Rogers (MI), Stabenow, 285,000
Upton, Walberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sustainable Beef Supply, MT Baucus, Rehberg, Tester 731,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Sources, VA Boucher, Goode, Warner, Webb 520,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Sweet sorghum for energy production, NE Fortenberry, Hagel, Nelson (NE) 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Swine and Other Animal Waste Management, NC Burr, Dole, Etheridge, Price (NC) 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Tick Borne Disease Prevention, RI Kennedy (RI), Langevin, Reed, Whitehouse 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Landrieu, Vitter 371,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Tri-state Joint Peanut Research, AL Everett, Rogers (AL), Shelby 443,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Tropical and Subtropical Research/T-Star Akaka, Boyd, Fortuno, Hirono, Inouye, Young 7,161,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Tropical Aquaculture, FL Castor, Martinez 157,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Uniform Farm Management Program, MN Coleman, Emerson, Klobuchar, Walz 221,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project, MO Bond, Emerson 630,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Viticulture Consortium, CA, NY, PA Arcuri, Boxer, Clinton, Farr, Feinstein, Hinchey, 1,559,000
Schumer, Specter, Thompson (CA), Walsh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Water conservation, KS Boyda, Brownback, Moore (KS), Moran (KS), Roberts, 75,000
Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Water Use Efficiency and Water Quality Enhancements, GA Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, 371,000
Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Wetland Plants, LA Alexander (LA), Baker, Landrieu, Vitter 418,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Wheat Genetic Research, KS Boyda, Brownback, Moore (KS), Moran (KS), Roberts, 258,000
Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Wine Grape Foundation Block, WA Cantwell, Dicks, Hastings (WA), Larsen, Murray 239,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34666]]
CS/SRG Wood Utilization, AK, ID, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, TN, WV Alexander (TN), Allen, Blumenauer, Byrd, Cochran, 4,875,000
Coleman, Collins, Craig, Crapo, Etheridge,
Hooley, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Michaud,
Pickering, Price (NC), Rogers (MI), Sali, Smith
(OR), Snowe, Stabenow, Stevens, Vitter, Upton,
Wu, Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS/SRG Wool Research, MT, TX, WY Conaway, Hutchison, Rodriguez 221,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA Center of Excellence, Davis, CA Boxer, Feinstein, Lungren, Thompson (CA) 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA Collaborative Drug Safety Research at Critical Path Institute and Bennett, The President 563,000
University of Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA Dietary supplements/botanicals/National Center for Natural Cochran, The President 1,725,000
Products, MS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA ISSC shellfish safety regulations Cochran, The President 186,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA ISSC Vibrio Vulnificus education Cochran, The President 149,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA National Center for Food Safety and Technology, IL Durbin, Jackson, Lipinski, The President 2,228,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA New Mexico State University's Agricultural Products Food Safety Bingaman, Domenici, Wilson (NM), The President 1,769,000
Laboratory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA Warehousing Education and Research Council Bingaman, Domenici, Wilson (NM), The President 74,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS Congressional Hunger Center Emerson, Harkin, Kaptur, Kohl, McGovern 2,475,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GP Agriculture Pest Facility, HI Hirono, Inouye 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GP Natural Products Lab Cochran 3,750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey, WY Cubin, Enzi, Thomas 214,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 643,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center Cochran 1,083,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Alaska Association of Conservation Districts Stevens 661,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Altamaha River Basin water quality project, GA Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston 71,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program/Risk Management Byrd 722,000
Initiative, WV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Audubon at Home Kaptur, Moran (VA) 357,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Bayou Sere Drainage Improvements/False River Baker 143,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Best Management Practices and Master Farmer Special Research Grant Alexander (LA), Baker, Landrieu, Vitter 286,000
with LSU, LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed Inventory and Analysis, WV Byrd 289,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Carson City Waterfall Fire Restoration, NV Ensign, Heller, Reid 289,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO CEMSA with Iowa Soybean Assoc. Grassley, Harkin, Latham 309,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Chesapeake Bay Activities Sarbanes, Scott, Van Hollen 4,288,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Choctaw County feasibility study for surface impoundment, MS Lott, Wicker 179,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Community Nutrient Management Facilities for the Lagoon Waste Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Kingston 250,000
Management Demonstration program, GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Conservation education, AL Shelby 217,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Conservation internships, WI Kohl 87,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Conservation Planning, MA/WI Frank, Kennedy (MA), Kerry, Kohl 433,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Conservation Technical Assistance Lautenberg, Menendez 253,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Conservation Technology Transfer Kohl 505,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Cooperative agreement with Tufts University to improve Courtney, DeLauro 357,000
conservation practices, CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Dairy Business Association, WI Kohl 180,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Delta Conservation Demonstration Cochran 433,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Delta water study Cochran 181,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Driftless Area Initiative Klobuchar, Kohl 253,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Farm Viability Program, VT Leahy, Welch 253,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO GA Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement Bishop (GA), Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, 2,599,000
Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Geospatial Framework for Water Management, NM Domenici, Wilson (NM) 361,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO GIS Center of Excellence, WV Byrd 3,249,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, WI Kohl, Obey 686,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control Clinton, Klobuchar, Levin, Schumer, Stabenow 433,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Green Institute, FL Boyd 286,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity Project, KY McConnell 90,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO HI Plant Materials Center Hirono, Inouye 114,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Hudson River Navigator, NY Hinchey 64,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Hudson River shoreline at Village of Tarrytown, NY Lowey 179,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Hungry Canyons Project, IA Grassley, Harkin, King (IA) 858,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Idaho One Plan Simpson 143,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Illinois Buffer Initiative LaHood 71,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34667]]
NRCS/CO Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation Durbin 108,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Illinois River Basin LaHood 433,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Iowa Buffer Initiative Latham 71,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Irrigation System Program, DE Biden, Carper, Castle 253,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Kentucky soil erosion control Bunning, McConnell, Rogers (KY) 776,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure Delivery Craig 144,000
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Long Island Sound Watershed, NY Lowey 143,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Maumee Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood Mitigation Kaptur 715,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Missouri River Sedimentation Herseth Sandlin, Johnson (SD) 325,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Mojave Water Agency Non-Native Plant Removal Lewis (CA) 715,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource Conservation Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 72,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Monterey Bay Sanctuary Farr 429,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO MS Conservation Initiative Cochran 1,191,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Municipal Water District of Orange County for efficient Boxer, Calvert, Feinstein, Miller (Gary), 144,000
irrigation, CA Rohrabacher, Sanchez (Loretta)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO National Water Management Center, AR Berry 1,965,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Native plant Commercialization, AK Stevens 133,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Nitrate Pollution Reduction, RI Reed 166,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Non-Point Pollution in Onondaga and Oneida Lake Watersheds Walsh 357,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO On-Farm Management System Evaluation Network, IA Grassley, Harkin, Latham 179,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Operation Oak Program Berry, Bishop (GA), Boyd, Chambliss, Graham, 286,000
Kingston, Lincoln, Pryor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Pace University Land Use Law Center, NY Clinton, Lowey, Schumer 143,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Pastureland Management/Rotational Grazing, NY Walsh 429,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Phosphorus Loading in Lake Champlain Leahy 180,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Potomac River Tributary Strategy, WV Byrd 180,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Range Revegetation for Fort Hood, TX Carter, Edwards, Hutchison 357,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Rangeland Conservation and Fuels Management Reid 144,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Reduce Small Farm Outreach Wetlands Management Center, AR Lincoln, Pryor 144,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Riparian Restoration along the Rio Grande, Pecos and Canadian Bingaman 180,000
Rivers, NM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Sand County Foundation, WI Baldwin, Kohl 858,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Skaneateles and Owasco Lake Watersheds, NY Walsh 232,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Soil Phosphorus Studies Byrd 217,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Soil Surveys, RI Reed 144,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Suwannee, Dixie, and Lafayette Counties Dairy and Poultry waste Boyd 715,000
treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Tallgrass Prairie Center--Native Seed Testing Lab, IA Braley, Grassley, Harkin 319,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Technical Assistance to Livestock Poultry Industry, NC Butterfield, Etheridge, Price (NC) 322,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Technical Assistance to providing grants to Soil Conservation Bunning, McConnell, Rogers (KY) 715,000
Districts in KY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Town of Cary Swift Creek watershed protection and stream bank Dole, Miller (NC), Price (NC) 213,000
restoration, NC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO U.S. Cold Regions Botanical Research Network, AK Stevens 133,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply Initiative, LA Alexander (LA), Landrieu, Vitter 144,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Upper White River Basin Water Quality Project, MO Blunt 308,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Utah conservation initiative Bennett 2,635,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Washington Fields, UT Bennett, Hatch, Matheson 2,144,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Water conservation project, CO Allard, Musgrave, Salazar (Ken) 361,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Water Protection Plan for Hood County, TX Edwards 72,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Water Quality for Tarrant County, TX Granger 361,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Water quality, UT Bennett 253,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Watershed Agricultural Council, NY Hinchey 515,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Watershed Demonstration Project, IA Grassley, Harkin 144,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Weed It Now on the Berkshire Taconic Landscape, MA Olver 48,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Wildfire Support, NV Reid 108,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/CO Wildlife Habitat Improvement, IL Durbin 108,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Attoyac Bayou site 23-A, TX Gohmert 332,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Big Creek (Tri-County) Watershed Project, TX Carter 810,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34668]]
NRCS/WFPO Big Creek-Hurricane Creek, MO Bond 539,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Big Slough Watersheds, AR Berry 166,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Buck and Duck Creek Watershed Project, NE Fortenberry, Hagel, Nelson (NE) 2,488,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Buena Vista Watershed, VA Goodlatte 62,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Departee Creek Watershed, AR Berry 91,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Doyle Creek Watershed, KS Moran (KS) 118,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO East Fork of the Grand, MO Bond 124,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO East Locust Creek Watershed Plan Revision in Missouri Bond 2,819,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Little Otter Creek Watershed Project, MO Graves, Bond 539,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Little Sioux Watershed Project, IA Harkin, King (IA) 1,037,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Lost River Watershed Project, WV Byrd 3,856,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 207,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO McDowell Grove Dam Flood Plain/Wetlands Restoration Project in Durbin 1,658,000
DuPage County, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO McKenzie Canyon Irrigation Pipeline Project, OR Walden 448,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Neshaminy Creek Watershed Project, Bucks County, PA Murphy (Patrick) 2,512,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Pocasset River Floodplain Management Project, RI Reed 62,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Soap Creek Watershed, IA Harkin, Loebsack 955,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO South Fork of the Licking River Watershed Project, OH Space 203,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Swan Quarter Dike, NC Jones (NC) 2,818,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Tuplehocken Creek Watershed, PA Holden 850,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Upcountry Maui Watershed, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 207,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Wailuka-Alenaio Watershed, HI Akaka, Hirono, Inouye 124,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS/WFPO Yadkin County Deep Creek Project, NC Foxx 4,975,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Baucus, Boozman, Carney, Gilchrest, Harkin, 2,600,000
Hinchey, Johnson (SD), Kohl, Leahy, Lincoln,
McConnell, Pryor, Specter, Tester, Walsh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34669]]
TH17DE07.014
[[Page 34670]]
TH17DE07.015
[[Page 34671]]
TH17DE07.016
[[Page 34672]]
TH17DE07.017
[[Page 34673]]
TH17DE07.018
[[Page 34674]]
TH17DE07.019
[[Page 34675]]
TH17DE07.020
[[Page 34676]]
TH17DE07.021
[[Page 34677]]
TH17DE07.022
[[Page 34678]]
AMENDED BILL TOTAL--WITH COMPARISONS
The total new budget (obligational) authority for the
fiscal year 2008 provided in the amended bill, with
comparisons to the fiscal year 2007 amount, the 2008 budget
estimates, and the House and Senate bills for 2008 follow:
(In thousands of dollars)
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007......$101,177,439
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year89,852,742
House bill, fiscal year 2008.................................90,737,986
Senate bill, fiscal year 2008................................90,721,092
Amended bill, fiscal year 2008...............................91,027,689
Amended bill compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007.....-10,149,750
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal ye+1,174,947
House bill, fiscal year 2008.................................+289,703
Senate bill, fiscal year 2008................................+306,597
DIVISION B--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Following is an explanation of the effects of this division
of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3093
(hereafter referred to as ``the amended bill'') relative to
the versions of the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and
Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R.
3093) passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The legislative intent in the House and Senate versions of
H.R. 3093 is set forth in the accompanying House report (H.
Rept. 110-240) and the accompanying Senate report (S. Rept.
110-124).
The Senate amended the House bill with an amendment. The
Senate amendment to the text deleted the entire House bill
after the enacting clause and inserted the Senate bill.
Division B of the amended bill resolves the differences
between the House and Senate versions of H.R. 3093.
The language and allocations set forth in the House and
Senate Reports should be complied with unless specifically
addressed to the contrary in division B of the amended bill
and this explanatory statement. Report language included by
the House which is not changed by the report of the Senate or
this explanatory statement and Senate report language which
is not changed by this explanatory statement is approved by
the Appropriations Committees. This explanatory statement
while repeating some report language for emphasis, does not
intend to negate the language referred to above unless
expressly provided herein. In cases where the House or Senate
has directed the submission of a report, such report is to be
submitted to both House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
OPERATING PLAN REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES
The Appropriations Committees continue to have a particular
interest in being informed of reprogrammings which, although
they may not change either the total amount available in an
account or any of the purposes for which the appropriation is
legally available, represent a departure from budget plans
presented to the Committees in an agency's budget
justification, the basis of this appropriations Act.
Consequently, the departments, agencies, commissions,
corporations and offices funded in this Act are directed to
adhere to the guidelines set forth in section 505.
Additionally, the Appropriations Committees are to be
notified promptly of all reprogramming actions which involve
less than the amounts mentioned in this section. If such
actions would have the effect of significantly changing an
agency's funding requirements in future years, or if programs
or projects specifically cited in this explanatory statement
or accompanying reports of the House and Senate are affected
by the reprogramming, the reprogramming must be approved by
the Appropriations Committees regardless of the amount
proposed to be reprogrammed. Furthermore, the departments,
agencies, commissions, corporations and offices under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee are directed to consult
with the Appropriations Committees regarding reorganizations
of offices, programs, and activities prior to the planned
implementation of such reorganizations.
Finally, the Departments of Commerce and Justice as well
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
National Science Foundation shall submit, within 60 days of
enactment of this Act, operating plans, signed by the
respective secretary, administrator, or agency head, for
review by the Appropriations Committees of the House and
Senate.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
The amended bill includes $413,172,000 with offsetting
collection fees of $8,000,000 for a direct appropriation of
$405,172,000 for the International Trade Administration
(ITA). The amended bill includes bill language designating
the amount available for decision units within ITA.
The amended bill includes bill language, and adopts by
reference report language as proposed by the Senate,
regarding negotiations within the World Trade Organization.
The amended bill includes report language as proposed by the
Senate directing the Office of Travel and Tourism to submit a
report detailing how gulf coast tourism recovery in States
impacted by the 2005 hurricane is progressing.
The amended bill includes report language as proposed by
the House directing ITA to submit a quarterly report
regarding the ITA's travel expenditures. The amended bill
includes report language as proposed by the Senate directing
ITA to hire one additional full-time international trade
specialist to assist small and medium sized companies in
Louisiana.
Within funding provided, the amended bill includes
$4,700,000 for the National Textile Centers and for the
Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation, and $1,316,000 for
Auburn University for advanced research and development of
novel polymetrics. The amended bill also includes $446,500
for the Arkansas World Trade Center.
Bureau of Industry and Security
OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
The amended bill provides a total operating level of
$72,855,000 for the Bureau of Industry and Security instead
of $78,776,000 as proposed by the House and Senate.
Economic Development Administration
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The amended bill provides $249,100,000 for the Economic
Development Assistance Programs (EDAP), instead of
$270,000,000 as proposed by the House and $250,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill rejects the Administration's proposal to
consolidate EDA's program accounts into one new regional
development account. By consolidating funding into one new
regional development account, the Appropriations Committees
are concerned that this will leave gaps in providing much
needed assistance to rural communities. Of the amounts
provided, $148,050,000 is for Public Works and Economic
Development, $42,300,000 is for Economic Adjustment
Assistance, $25,380,000 is for planning, $9,400,000 is for
technical assistance, including university centers,
$14,100,000 is for trade adjustment assistance, and $470,000
is for research.
The explanatory statement restates the concern expressed in
the House report of the effect of global climate change and
supports policies and strategies which contribute to
sustainable ``green'' construction and resources
conservation. EDA is directed to give favorable consideration
to proposals which incorporate such technologies and
strategies which would reduce energy consumption, reduce
harmful gas emissions and contribute to sustainability. The
Appropriations Committees recognize that the incorporation of
such capabilities in a project will result in initial
increased construction costs and therefore direct EDA to
establish a Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive fund
(``Fund'') of $9,400,000 to be used to accommodate project
costs associated with such mitigation efforts. As directed in
the House report, EDA is directed to provide a report and
spend plan within 90 days of enactment of the Act.
As stated in the Senate report, the Appropriations
Committees are concerned about the disbursement of funds to
EDA's six regional offices. Within 30 days after enactment of
the Act, EDA is directed to distribute all EDAP funds to the
EDA regional offices.
Finally, the Appropriations Committees agree with language
in the House report and encourage EDA to incorporate into its
project evaluation and selection criteria greater
consideration for projects that diversify the local regional
economy, support the development of new regional economic
drivers and emerging industry clusters, advance innovation,
entrepreneurship and technology transfer, and encourage the
commercialization of university-led research and development.
Salaries and Expenses
The amended bill provides $30,832,000 for salaries and
expenses at EDA, instead of $32,800,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
As stated in the Senate report, the Appropriations
Committees are supportive of EDA's six regional offices. The
funding level provided should be adequate to begin filling
vacancies within the regional offices. EDA is directed to
fill vacancies within the regional offices prior to any
vacancies within headquarters.
Minority Business Development Agency
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
The amended bill provides $28,623,000 for the Minority
Business Development Agency, instead of $31,225,000 as
proposed by the
[[Page 34679]]
House and $30,200,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Within the amount provided, $235,000 is for the
preservation and revitalization of the Moore Street Market in
Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York.
Additionally, the Appropriations Committees reiterate the
concern expressed in both the House and Senate reports about
the Native American Business Enterprise Centers (NABECs). The
Committees oppose any action to reduce the current number of
NABECs and it is hoped that MBDA can continue to support at
least eight centers nationwide.
Economic and Statistical Analysis
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $81,075,000 for this account,
instead of $86,500,000 as proposed by the House and
$85,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Expansion of Regional Data.--An additional $1,175,000 is
provided to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to expand
and improve timeliness of regional data to benefit state and
local officials and economic development organizations. This
funding will enable BEA to develop and publish gross
metropolitan product data and accelerate the availability of
county-level income data. BEA is directed to report on the
status of this effort on a quarterly basis during fiscal year
2008.
Offshoring.--As stated in the House Report, there is
concern with the lack of adequate statistics on the effects
of offshoring and outsourcing on U.S. jobs. There is evidence
that the phenomenon is growing, and increasingly is
displacing jobs of U.S. workers. Recent reports have
suggested that the volume of imports may be underestimated
and that this may cause estimates of growth in U.S.
manufacturing production to be overestimated by as much as 40
percent. The 20 to 1 gap between data from India showing
$8,700,000,000 in sales of business, professional and
technical services to the U.S. and its companies and BEA data
identifying only $420,000,000 in imports of such services
raises additional questions. Even if new BEA initiatives
narrow the dollar gap in services trade somewhat, it will
still leave unanswered key questions about the effects of
imported goods and services on U.S. blue-collar and white-
collar jobs. The BEA is directed to work with other agencies
as appropriate, to submit a report not later than April 1,
2008, which examines the effect of both offshoring work
abroad and outsourcing of imported labor in the future. The
report should examine the following: (1) How best to estimate
the effects of offshoring on U.S. production and jobs; and
(2) how companies doing the most offshoring in either
absolute or relative terms have changed (a) the size or
occupational structure of their jobs in the U.S., (b) the
companies' purchases from other U.S. suppliers, (c) growth of
their R&D expenditures either domestically or abroad, (d)
their rates of profitability, and (e) the trend in these
companies' use of H-1B and L-1 visas. The report should
consider the effects of offshoring on both blue-collar
workers and white-collar workers.
Intangible Assets.--Within funds provided the Bureau of
Economic Analysis is directed to enter into an agreement with
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study relating
to the investment of intangible assets. This study shall
recommend steps to improve the measurement of intangible
assets and their incorporation in the National Income and
Product Accounts; identify and estimate the size of the
Federal Government's investment in intangible assets; survey
other countries' efforts to measure and promote investments
in intangible assets; and recommend policies to increase
investment in intangible assets.
Accurately Reflecting Economic Conditions.--Within funds
provided the BEA is directed to enter into an agreement with
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on
methods for collecting data regarding the status of the U.S.
economy and determine whether the current data results in an
overstatement of economic growth, domestic manufacturing
output, and productivity.
Bureau of the Census
The amended bill includes a total operating level of
$1,230,244,000 for the Bureau of the Census, instead of
$1,222,244,000 as proposed by the House and $1,246,644,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $202,838,000 for this account
instead of $196,838,000 as proposed by the House and
$226,238,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides $24,000,000 for the Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The amended bill
does not include language contained in the Senate Report on
improved service sector measurements and instead directs the
$8,000,000 from the service sector measurements toward
revitalization of the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP).
PERIODIC CENSUSES AND PROGRAMS
The amended bill provides $1,027,406,000 for this account
instead of $1,025,406,000 as proposed by the House and
$1,020,406,000 as proposed by the Senate. The amended bill
includes $797,114,000 for expenses related to the 2010
decennial census. The amended bill does not include
$5,500,000 for the American Community Survey (ACS) Methods
Panel. As in the Senate Report, this funding is directed to
higher priority programs because a recent review by the
Government Accountability Office revealed that Census
officials were not able to provide detailed action plans or
costs associated with aspects of this program. The amended
bill also does not include $3,600,000 for the Master Address
File (MAF). It should be noted that this reduction will have
minimal impact as the Census Bureau will conduct a 100
percent address canvas in fiscal year 2009.
Partnerships.--The amended bill includes an additional
$9,100,000 for the Bureau of the Census to support
partnership and outreach efforts in preparation for the 2010
Decennial Census with specific focus being placed on hard to
reach populations. These funds should be used to hire
additional personnel who have expertise in developing
partnerships for the 2010 census, provide other support for
Regional Partnership and Data Services Programs, and not less
than $1,000,000 for a national partnership program
administered from Census headquarters. The census partnership
program, which was not included in the budget request, is a
vital component of the effort to obtain the most accurate
decennial census count possible. The funding provided for the
program will help enlist community leaders to encourage their
constituencies to fill out their census forms, emphasizing
the importance of the census to their local community and
education system. This outreach is particularly important in
communities that are difficult to count.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes a total of $17,466,000 for the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), instead of $23,581,000 as proposed by the House and
$18,581,000 as proposed by the Senate. NTIA should comply
with language in the House Report on public safety
communications equipment.
PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
The amended bill includes $18,800,000 for Public
Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction,
instead of $21,728,000 as proposed by the House and
$20,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM
The amended bill does not provide funding for the
Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) as proposed by the
Senate.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $1,915,500,000 for the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as proposed by the
House and the Senate.
The amended bill concurs with language in the Senate Report
requiring that, 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the USPTO shall submit to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees a spending plan for fiscal year
2008. This spending plan shall incorporate all carryover
balances from previous fiscal years, and describe any changes
to the patent or trademark fee structure.
The amended bill includes language that $1,000,000 may be
transferred to the National Intellectual Property Law
Enforcement Coordination Council.
Technology Administration
Salaries and Expenses
The amended bill provides no funding for the Technology
Administration as proposed by the Senate. The House had
provided $1,000,000 for close-out costs. It is the
understanding of the Appropriations Committees that the
Department has already begun the closing out of this
organization.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
The amended bill includes $440,517,000 for the Scientific
and Technical Research and Services programs of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), instead of
$500,517,000 as proposed by the House and $502,117,000 as
proposed by the Senate. NIST is directed to submit a spend
plan no later than 30 days after enactment of the Act for the
programs funded by this appropriation. Further, NIST is
directed to develop a new budget structure for the fiscal
year 2009 budget which better reflects the organizational
structure of the agency.
The amended bill provides $893,000 for the New York Center
for National Competitiveness in Nanoscale Characterization.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
The amended bill includes $154,840,000 for Industrial
Technology Services (ITS), instead of $201,819,000 as
proposed by the House, and $179,155,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).--Of the
amounts provided to ITS, $89,640,000 is provided for MEP. The
amended bill does not include $4,000,000 for a pilot project
under MEP, as described in the Senate report.
Technology Innovation Program (TIP).--Of the amounts
provided to ITS, $65,200,000 is
[[Page 34680]]
for the Technology Innovation Program as authorized by Public
Law 110-69. TIP is structured to fund high-risk, high reward
research focused on broad national needs such as advanced
automotive batteries, aquaculture, novel lightweight
materials, and other emerging technologies. The funding
provided for TIP will address mortgage obligations relating
to projects created under the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP). The amended bill also includes language to allow the
TIP immediate access to an additional $5,000,000 from
deobligations and prior-year recoveries from ATP.
CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES
The amended bill provides $160,490,000 for construction of
research facilities, instead of $128,865,000 as proposed by
the House and $150,900,000 as proposed by the Senate. NIST is
directed to submit a spend plan no later than 30 days after
enactment of the Act for activities funded by this
appropriation. NIST is also directed to provide quarterly
reports on the status and accounting of all construction
projects.
Within the amounts provided, the amended bill includes
$51,262,000 for the following construction projects:
Biotechnology Research Park, University of Mississippi, Jacks$7,332,000
Research, Technology and Economic Development Park, Mississippi State
University, Starkville, MS..................................7,332,000
Innovation and Commercialization Park, Infrastructure and Building
Construction and Equipage, University of Southern Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, MS.............................................1,598,000
Life Sciences Building, University of Alabama, Montgomery, AL.5,000,000
Engineering and Science Center, University of South Alabama, 30,000,000
Also, within the amounts provided, the amended bill
includes $30,080,000 for competitive grants for research
science buildings. The research buildings should span all the
applicable sciences, as they relate to the Department of
Commerce. These grants shall be awarded to colleges,
universities, and other non-profit science research
organizations on a competitive basis. NIST is directed to
report to the Appropriations Committees the criteria it will
use in reviewing and ranking grant proposals.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The amended bill includes $2,859,277,000 for Operations,
Research, and Facilities, including $3,000,000 from the
Coastal Zone Management Fund, instead of $2,850,556,000 as
proposed by the House and $3,039,888,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The amended bill includes a total direct obligation
level of $2,941,277,000.
Bill language is included providing for $5,000,000 for
direct obligations from recoveries of prior year obligations;
providing $235,000 within NMFS, in no year funding subject to
section 209 of P.L. 108-447; placing a limitation on the
amount available for corporate services administrative
support costs to $206,484,000; placing a limitation on
amounts to be paid to the Department of Commerce working
capital fund, including the General Counsel to $34,164,000;
limiting grant amounts to States and placing other
restrictions on Coastal Zone Management grants; and providing
$13,395,000 for the alleviation of economic impacts
associated with Framework 42 on Massachusetts groundfish
fishery.
Of the amounts provided, $467,929,910 is for the National
Ocean Service. These funds are distributed as follows:
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation Services:
Mapping & Charting............................... $44,371,000
Joint Hydrographic Center........................ 7,247,000
Electronic Navigational Charts................... 4,392,000
Shoreline Mapping................................ 2,366,000
Address Survey Backlog/Contracts................. 26,355,000
DUNE System Assessment & Shoreline Change 869,500
Analysis........................................
Geodesy.......................................... 21,729,000
National Height Modernization.................... 5,000,000
Geodetic Survey--KY.............................. 376,000
Geodesy/Height Modernization--IL................. 352,500
Geospatial Data Analysis Center, AL.............. 423,000
Alabama Statewide GIS mapping program, AL........ 423,000
Coastal and ocean navigation and hazards 188,000
assistance, SC..................................
Tide & Current Data.............................. 26,168,000
Tide & Current Data in Alaska.................... 1,316,000
------------------
Total, Navigation Services..................... 141,576,000
==================
Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment:
Ocean Assessment Program (OAP):
Integrated Ocean Observing System............ 26,360,000
Alliance for Coastal Technologies............ 940,000
Coastal Services Centers..................... 23,426,400
Coastal Storms............................... 1,464,150
Coop Institute for Coastal and Estuarine 6,502,778
Enviro Tech (CICEET)........................
Ocean Health Initiative...................... 2,928,300
Coral Reef Programs.......................... 29,283,300
Gulf of Mexico Regional Collaboration........ 4,880,500
Lake Erie Monitoring, Bowling Green State 352,500
University, OH..............................
Louisiana Environmental Research Center...... 352,500
Coastal Restoration & Enhancement w/Science & 1,518,100
Tech (CREST)................................
Regional Geospatial Modeling Grants.......... 8,000,000
------------------
Subtotal, Ocean Assessment Program (OAP)... 106,008,228
Response and Restoration:
Response and Restoration Base................ 11,518,000
Suisin Bay, CA Assessment Study.............. 1,500,000
Estuary Restoration Program.................. 1,159,607
Marine Debris................................ 3,172,325
Aquidneck Island Westside Plan............... 188,000
Aquatic Resources Environmental Initiative, 1,128,000
Eastern KY PRIDE............................
Marine Debris Removal--Alaska................ 1,316,000
Pribilof Islands Cleanup and Economic 5,297,000
Development.................................
------------------
Subtotal, Response and Restoration......... 25,278,932
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
(NCCOS):
NCCOS Headquarters........................... 4,881,000
Competitive Research......................... 11,713,000
Center for Coastal Environmental Health & 13,665,000
Biomedical Research.........................
Oxford Cooperative Lab....................... 4,392,000
Center for Sponsored Coastal Research........ 2,635,000
Center for Coastal Monitoring & Assessment... 4,474,000
Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat 5,605,000
Research....................................
Marine Env. Health Research Lab--MEHRL....... 4,100,000
Subtotal, National Centers for Coastal 51,465,000
Ocean Science.............................
------------------
Total, Ocean Resources Conservation and 182,752,160
Assessment..............................
==================
Ocean and Coastal Management:
CZM Grants....................................... 64,423,000
[[Page 34681]]
CZM Program Administration....................... 6,735,000
CZM Non-Point Implentation Grants................ 3,904,000
National Estuarine Research Reserve System....... 16,404,000
Marine Protected Areas........................... 1,464,000
Marine Sanctuary Program Base.................... 46,853,000
Maritime Museum, AL.............................. 470,000
Point Loma Enhanced Monitoring Program, CA....... 893,000
Northwest Straits Citizens Advisory Commission, 1,562,750
WA..............................................
Urban Coast Institute, NJ........................ 893,000
------------------
Total, Ocean and Coastal Management............ 143,601,750
==================
Grand Total Nos.............................. 467,929,910
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amended bill provides an additional $1,410,000 above
the budget request to allow NOAA to begin supporting the
entire maintenance and operations of the Physical
Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), not just the system's
design and installation, as authorized by Public Law 107-372.
The Appropriations Committees believe these operations, which
exist as a partnership between NOAA and local port
authorities, have been an extremely valuable tool for
providing information for safe vessel navigation and data for
weather and coastal monitoring used by other national
programs. As such, NOAA is directed to include sufficient and
complete operational support for all of the national PORTS
sites in future budget requests.
The amended bill includes $1,500,000 for NOAA to conduct a
sampling and analysis study on Suisun Bay, CA. The
Appropriations Committee are greatly concerned about the
environmental impact of the federally-owned obsolete vessels
in Suisun Bay, CA on the marine environment. Funding may be
used for activities relating to sampling and analysis to
better understand toxic contamination caused by the vessels,
and developing appropriate remediation recommendations that
use the best available science and environmental practices.
The Appropriations Committees recognize that NOAA, as
directed, has initiated the consortium of sensor testbeds
referred to as the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT)
and that this effort is providing vital services in the
developing Integrated Ocean Observing System. NOAA, through
the National Ocean Service, is directed to establish a
Cooperative Institute for the purpose of advancing and
sustaining this essential capability which is executed on a
regional basis. NOAA is expected to identify funds for this
capability in the fiscal year 2009 budget. Further, the
Appropriations Committees strongly recommend that NOAA work
with other federal agencies to expand both the capabilities
and funding of this effort.
NOAA is directed to enter into an agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences to initiate a study on
acidification of the oceans. This study, authorized by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
2006, shall examine the impacts of ocean acidification on the
United States.
The amended bill adopts the House position of a specific
amount for the administration of CZM grants instead of the
Senate position which provided not less than 10 percent from
the overall grant program.
Within amounts provided, the amended bill includes
$708,575,250 for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
These funds are distributed as follows:
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Mammals, Marine Turtles, and Marine Protected
Species:
Protected Species Research and Management Program $33,187,000
Marine Mammal Protection (MMP)................... 40,455,000
Other Protected Species.......................... 7,975,000
Marine Turtles................................... 13,665,000
Atlantic Salmon.................................. 5,759,000
Pacific Salmon (Salmon Management Activities).... 58,566,000
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Research................. 352,500
Right Whale Disentanglement Program, Center for 94,000
Coast Studies...................................
SE Seiners Capacity Reduction Program, AK........ 235,000
Aleut Pacific Marine Resources Observers, AK..... 117,500
Alaska Sea Life Center, AK....................... 3,478,000
Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, 202,100
AK..............................................
Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission, AK......... 141,000
------------------
Total, Marine Mammals, Marine Turtles, and 164,227,100
Marine Protected Species....................
==================
Fisheries Research and Management:
Fisheries Research and Management Programs....... 135,533,000
Expand Annual Stock Assessments--Improve Data 31,631,000
Collection......................................
Maine and New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey..... 188,000
Economics and Social Sciences Research........... 5,857,000
Salmon Management Activities..................... 23,426,000
Regional Councils and Fisheries Commissions...... 25,701,000
Fisheries Statistics............................. 12,868,000
Fish Information Networks........................ 21,675,000
Survey and Monitoring Projects................... 14,642,000
Fisheries Oceanography........................... 968,000
American Fisheries Act........................... 4,881,000
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Grants............. 2,506,000
National Standard 8.............................. 992,000
Reduce Fishing Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat 497,000
(EFH)...........................................
Reducing Bycatch................................. 2,741,000
Product Quality and Safety....................... 6,810,000
Migratory Shark Research at Mote Marine 1,504,000
Laboratory......................................
Reef Fish Monitoring and Research, FL Fish & 940,000
Wildlife Conservation Commission................
Chesapeake Bay Multi Species Fisheries Management 352,500
Gulf Oyster Industry Program, University of 188,000
Florida.........................................
Narraganset Bay Window Program, University of 916,500
Rhode Island Coastal Institute..................
Oyster Hatchery Economic Pilot Program, Morgan 470,000
State University, MD............................
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument 6,697,500
Fishery assistance, HI..........................
Massachussetts groundfish support, MA............ 13,395,000
Monkfish and Migratory Finfish Trawl Surveys, NJ. 1,339,500
Southern New England Cooperative Research 1,339,500
Initiative, RI..................................
Hawaii Seafood Safety and Inspections, HI........ 669,750
Trawl Survey, Chesapeake Bay..................... 446,500
Horseshoe Crab Research, Virginia Tech, VA....... 446,500
Oregon Salmon Weak Stock Solutions Research, OR.. 446,500
Fisheries Infrastructure, Investigation, 376,000
Assessment & Improvement Project, AL............
Scallop Fishery Assessment, MA................... 1,786,000
Center for Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management, 2,632,000
AL..............................................
Pelagic Tagging, CA.............................. 446,500
------------------
[[Page 34682]]
Total, Fisheries Research and Management....... 325,308,250
==================
Enforcement and Observers:
Enforcement and Surveillance..................... 53,371,000
Observers/Training............................... 31,523,000
------------------
Total, Enforcement and Observers/Training...... 84,894,000
==================
Habitat Conservative & Restoration:
Sustainable Habitat Management................... 18,685,000
Fisheries Habitat Restoration.................... 25,379,000
Mill River Habitat Restoration, MA............... 376,000
Bronx River Restoration, NY...................... 940,000
NAIB Conservation and Education Programs, MD..... 893,000
Port Aransas Nature Preserve, TX................. 329,000
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration, MD............ 1,786,000
Oyster Bed Reseeding and Fishery Habitat 940,000
Enhancement, AL.................................
Rehabilitation of Alaska Crab, AK................ 282,000
Lower Elwha River Habitat Restoration, WA........ 446,500
Merrimack river Fish Habitat, NH................. 188,000
------------------
Total, Habitat Conservation & Restoration...... 50,244,500
==================
Other Activities Supporting Fisheries:
Cooperative Research............................. 10,068,000
Antarctic Research............................... 3,032,000
Aquaculture...................................... 3,416,000
Chesapeake Bay Studies........................... 1,920,000
Climate Regimes & Ecosystem Productivity......... 1,464,000
Computer Hardware and Software................... 3,299,000
Information Analyses & Dissemination............. 18,481,000
Magnuson-Stevens Act Implementation off Alaska... 7,321,000
Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment & 822,000
Prediction Program (MarMap).....................
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)......... 7,882,000
NMFS Facilities Maintenance...................... 5,902,000
Other Projects................................... 4,881,000
Southeast Area Monitoring & Assessment Program 4,392,000
(SEAMAP)........................................
La Jolla Temporary Relocation.................... 976,000
Anadromous Grants................................ 1,952,000
Science Consortium for Ocean Replenishment at 846,000
Mote Marine Lab.................................
East Coast Shellfish Aquaculture Industry, East 423,000
Coast Shellfish Research Institute..............
Lobster Institute CORE Initiative, University of 188,000
Maine, ME.......................................
NOAA Save the Bay Education Program & Shellfish 188,000
Restoration.....................................
Aquatic Genomics and Biosecurity Research, AL.... 940,000
Groundline Exchange Program, ME.................. 376,000
Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, AK........... 188,000
Yukon River Drainage Association, AK............. 376,000
Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition, AK. 188,000
Louisiana Fisheries Recovery Resource Center, LA. 491,150
New England Multi-Species Survey, MA............. 2,679,000
Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries Research, HI... 1,116,250
Fishing Mortality Education Program, AL.......... 94,000
------------------
Total, Other Activities Supporting Fisheries... 83,901,400
==================
Grand Total NMFS............................. 708,575,250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amended bill provides $25,379,000 for Fisheries Habitat
Restoration, which is $5,893,000 below the President's
requested level. The Appropriations Committees recognize that
significant administration priorities are embedded in this
account and direct NOAA to determine the level of funding
necessary for each of those priorities within the funding
provided, without cutting into base program funding. The
Committees further understand that the Penobscot River
Habitat Restoration project is a timely opportunity to
leverage current regional resources to revitalize this large-
scale marine and estuarine habitat. However, the Committees
have strong concerns about NOAA taking the full, long-term
financial lead in such a large, cross-agency project,
especially since a majority of the requested funds will be
spent purchasing privately-owned dams. Though the Committees
recognize NOAA's expertise in smaller dam removal and fish
passageway projects, this project is an order of magnitude
larger than any previous project undertaken by the agency,
and pushes the limits of the agency's authority to use funds
from NMFS's operations account to purchase multi-million
dollar facilities. The Appropriations Committees admonish the
administration for carelessly exposing NMFS's base funding to
future large-scale, redevelopment projects that would
jeopardize the agency's financial support for standard
national fisheries activities and responsibilities. Given
that this is a multi-year project, NOAA is directed to
coordinate with the Departments of the Interior and Energy,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine an
appropriate role for the agency solely as a habitat
restoration advisor to its Federal and State partners, and
eliminate the agency's questionable role as a broker for
future large-scale, riverine construction projects. In future
years, the Appropriations Committees will support NOAA's
participation in habitat restoration projects, which is an
on-going, environmental assessment process, but will no
longer appropriate funds from the ORF account to purchase
costly, private dams.
The amended bill includes $6,697,500 for assistance related
to the fishery impacts associated with the creation of the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the State of
Hawaii. For more than 30 years, fishing in the Monument area
has been carefully managed by the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council based on the best available scientific
information. During that time, limited and highly regulated
sustainable fisheries have provided lobsters and bottomfish
to Hawaii and U.S. consumers. Due to both mandatory and
voluntary conservation measures undertaken by these fishery
participants, the area is widely considered a near-pristine
marine ecosystem. The Presidential proclamation will end all
commercial fishing in the Monument as of June 15, 2011. The
amended bill provides specific authorization to the Secretary
of Commerce to provide compensation to fishery participants
who will be displaced by the 2011 closure.
Additionally, the amended bill provides $13,395,000 to the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to alleviate
economic impacts associated with Framework 42 regulations on
the Massachusetts groundfish fishery.
The Appropriations Committees are aware that devices such
as the modified Jones-Davis and extended funnel bycatch
reduction devices are intended to help the fishermen comply
with the requirement to use bycatch reduction devices (BRD)
while retaining their shrimp catch. It is the Appropriations
Committees understanding that NOAA spent approximately
$1,100,000 in fiscal year 2007 to distribute BRDs. NOAA is
encouraged to increase the number of devices it plans to
distribute for fiscal year 2008, especially for shrimpers
impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The amended bill provides $1,786,000 for oyster restoration
in the Chesapeake Bay and adopts the Senate position with
regard to the use of those funds. The funds provided for
oyster restoration in the Maryland waters of the Chesapeake
Bay shall be for on-the-ground and in-the-water restoration
efforts and shall not be used for administrative costs,
including banquets or salaries.
[[Page 34683]]
Further, the Appropriations Committees are supportive of
restoration of headwater streams to improve Bay water
quality.
Finally, NOAA is urged to continue to support research
activities including those related to the blue fin tuna.
Within the funds provided, the amended bill includes
$387,942,300 for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research.
These funds are distributed as follows:
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH OPERATIONS, RESEARCH AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Research:
Laboratives & Cooperative Institutes............. $53,500,000
Climate Observations & Services.................. 8,068,000
Competitive Research Program..................... 130,116,000
High Performance Computing Initiatives........... 12,659,000
Drought Research Study, AL....................... 752,000
Understanding Abrupt Climate Change, ME.......... 376,000
------------------
Total, Climate Research........................ 205,471,000
==================
Weather & Air Quality Research Programs:
Laboratories & Cooperative Institutes............ 46,000,000
Tornado Severe Storm Research/Phased Array Radar. 2,901,000
Wind Hazards Reduction Program, IA............... 613,000
Project STORM Air Quality Initiative, IA......... 613,000
San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study, CA............... 133,950
Advanced Radar Technologies, WY.................. 94,000
Coastal and Inland Hurricane Monitoring and 611,000
Protection Program, AL..........................
Tornado and Hurricane Operations and Research, AL 846,000
Coastal Weather for Catastrophic Events, AL...... 285,500
------------------
Total, Weather & Air Quality Research.......... 52,070,450
==================
Ocean, Coastal & Great Lakes Research:
Laboratories & Cooperative Institutes............ 23,000,000
National Sea Grant College Program............... 57,100,000
National Undersea Research Program (NURP)........ 10,000,000
National Institute of Undersea Science and 4,700,000
Technology......................................
Ocean Exploration................................ 19,522,000
Aquatic Invasive Species Research................ 4,600,000
Marine Aquaculture Research...................... 4,881,000
Shedd Aquarium Invasive Species Program, IL...... 940,000
Lake Champlain Emerging Threats, VT.............. 400,000
Advanced Undersea Vehicle, CT.................... 401,850
International Arctic Research Center, AK......... 2,397,000
Coastal vulnerability to climate change study, AK 940,000
New Hampshire Lake Host Program, NH.............. 188,000
New Hampshire Volunteer Lake Assessment Program, 94,000
NH..............................................
Collaborative R&D Initiative for the Gulf of 752,000
Mexico, AL......................................
Lake Champlain Research Consortium, VT........... 250,000
West Alabama Marine Shrimp and Fish Aquaculture, 235,000
AL..............................................
------------------
Total, Ocean, Coastal & Great Lakes Research... 130,400,850
==================
Grand Total OAR.............................. 387,942,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Appropriations Committees approved the overall
OAR reprogramming that permitted the merger of Ocean
Exploration (OE) and the National Undersea Research Program
(NURP) in 2006, the Appropriations Committees await a
formalized plan detailing the breakout and vision of any new
structure. Given the diverse portfolios and direction of NURP
and OE, the Appropriations Committees are concerned about how
financially combining these two unique programs will impact
their contributions to NOAA's mission. Therefore, the amended
bill provides separate funding for NURP and OE as detailed in
the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research chart. If the
administration continues to propose combining NURP and OE in
future years, NOAA is directed to provide a strategic and
financial plan for such a merger with the administration's
fiscal year 2009 budget request. NOAA is directed to
distribute the funds provided for NURP equally among each of
the existing six NURP centers. The Appropriations Committees
recognize and support NOAA's desire to develop a
comprehensive extramural and intramural program of ocean
exploration, advanced technology development, strategic
research and education. The Committees recognize the benefits
of an east coast consortium approach and direct the east
coast NURP Centers to develop a synergistic plan for undersea
research, technology development and education beginning in
fiscal year 2009.
The Appropriations Committees recognize the need for
additional low level radar coverage in Wyoming and along the
outer coast of Washington State. The amended bill provides
$94,000 for NOAA and the National Weather Service to work
with the University of Massachusetts and the National Science
Foundation, under the umbrella of the Collaborative Adapting
Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA) program, to conduct a study
to determine the applicability to northeastern Wyoming and
other regions the feasibility of integrating a number of
small-scale Doppler radar technologies into future National
Weather Service observing systems.
The Appropriations Committees are encouraged by NOAA's
request to increase the Nation's research knowledge within
the field of aquaculture and direct NOAA to distribute the
funding provided equally among three regions: Atlantic,
Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, the Appropriations Committees support measurement
and modeling of speciated mercury by the Air Resources
Laboratory.
Within funds provided, the amended bill includes
$805,293,480 for the National Weather Service. These funds
are distributed as follows:
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OPERATIONS, RESEARCH AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations, Forecasts, and Communications:
Local Warnings and Forecasts:
Local Warnings and Forecasts Base............ $579,000,000
Air Quality Forecasting...................... 5,315,000
Alaska Data Buoys............................ 1,643,000
Sustain Cooperative Observer Network......... 1,826,000
NOAA Profiler Network........................ 4,623,000
Pacific Island Compact....................... 3,431,000
USWRP-US Weather Research Program-THORPEX.... 5,857,000
Strengthen U.S. Tsunami Warning Network...... 23,196,000
Susquehanna River Basin Flood System, PA..... 1,786,000
Urbanet III, MD.............................. 5,358,000
Vanderburgh County Outdoor Warning Siren 126,900
System......................................
[[Page 34684]]
Weather Bouy for Natucket Sound.............. 235,000
Delaware River Enhanced Flood Warning System. 235,000
New England Weather Technology Initiative, NH 188,000
Vermont Weather & Wind Data Integration, VT.. 200,000
Hawaii Rain Gages for NWS Pacific Region HQ, 321,480
HI..........................................
Hurricane Mitigration Alliance, FL........... 446,500
Hawaii Weather Buoy, HI...................... 1,250,200
Perdido Pass Navigation Assistance, AL....... 282,000
Eye-On-The-Sky, VT........................... 229,400
Western Kentucky Environmental Monitoring 705,000
Network, KY.................................
------------------
Subtotal, Local Warnings and Forecasts..... 636,254,480
Operations and Research:
Advanced Hydrological Prediction Services.... 5,893,000
Aviation Weather............................. 4,542,000
WFO Maintenance.............................. 7,141,000
Central Forecast Guidance (includes Hurricane 51,975,000
Center).....................................
Improved hydrologic modeling of water 94,000
resources, ID...............................
Remote Infrasonic Monitoring of Natural 1,645,000
Hazards, MS.................................
Regional Ensembling System for Atmospheric 1,410,000
Dispersion, MS..............................
Subtotal, Operations and Research.......... 72,700,000
------------------
Total, Observations, Forecasts, and 708,954,480
Communications..........................
==================
Systems Operation & Maintenance:
NEXRAD........................................... 43,120,000
ASOS............................................. 8,679,000
Weather Radio Transmitters and Communications.... 2,297,000
AWIPS............................................ 36,863,000
NWSTG Backup-CIP................................. 5,380,000
------------------
Total, Systems Operation & Maintenance......... 96,339,000
==================
Grand Total NWS.............................. 805,293,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appropriations Committees continue to remain concerned
about radar coverage in the State of North Dakota and direct
NOAA to maintain staffing and operations at the Williston
Radar site through fiscal year 2008.
The amended bill provides $5,358,000 within the National
Weather Service for the Urbanet program's phase III. Of the
additional funds provided: $1,339,500 is for certification
costs of adding new stations in 10 cities and $4,018,500 is
for ongoing operating costs. Data from Urbanet should be made
available to not less than 25 National Weather Service
Forecast Offices by the end of fiscal year 2008. In addition,
NOAA should provide the Appropriations Committees with a
report not more than 45 days after enactment which identifies
additional operating costs, including maintenance on weather
stations established in phases I and II of Urbanet, NOAA
research costs on plume modeling, and transition costs so
that National Weather Service can utilize MADIS as an
operational system. Finally, NOAA should provide the
Committees with a multi-year strategic plan concurrently with
the 2009 budget submission for incorporating Urbanet,
including migration to not less than the largest 40
metropolitan areas, and utilization by all applicable
National Weather Service forecast offices.
Within the funds provided for the Local Warnings and
Forecast Base, NOAA is directed to examine ways to provide
supplemental weather data to the FHWA and NOAA for enhanced
planning, situational avoidance, operational support and
predictive modeling to improve the safety, efficiency and
reliability of our highways.
Within the funds provided, the amended bill provides
$179,153,750 for the National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service.
These funds are distributed as follows:
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA & INFORMATION SERVICE OPERATIONS,
RESEARCH AND FACILITIES
(In thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
Recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Satellite Observing Systems:
Satellite Command and Control Base............... $36,084,000
NSOF Operations.................................. 7,351,000
Product Processing and Distribution.............. 29,681,000
Product Development, Readiness & Application..... 19,537,000
Product Development, Readiness & Application 3,769,000
(Ocean Remote Sensing)..........................
Joint Center/Accelerate Use of Satellites........ 3,180,000
Commercial Remote Sensing Licensing & Enforcement 1,232,000
Office of Space Commercialization................ 597,000
Group on Earth Observations (GEO)................ 488,000
------------------
Total, Environmental Satellite Observing 101,919,000
Systems.......................................
==================
Data Centers & Information Services:
Archive, Access & Assessment..................... 33,848,000
Data and Information Archive Service............. 20,962,000
Coastal Data Development......................... 4,398,000
Environmental Data Systems Modernization......... 9,179,000
Cooperative Institute for Remote Sensing 1,034,000
Applications, AL................................
International Pacific Research Center, HI........ 1,786,000
Regional Climate Centers, NE, IL, NY, NC, LA, NV. 3,572,000
Integrated Data and Environmental Applications 2,455,750
Center, HI......................................
------------------
Total, NOAA's Data Centers & Information 77,234,750
Services......................................
==================
Grand Total NESDIS........................... 179,153,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the funds provided, the amended bill includes
$392,382,310 for Program Support. These funds are distributed
as follows:
[[Page 34685]]
PROGRAM SUPPORT OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Services:
Under Secretary and Associate Offices Base....... $28,843,000
Facilities....................................... 18,501,000
NOAA Wide Corporate Services & Agency Management. 124,000,000
IT Security...................................... 976,000
DOC Working Capital Fund......................... 34,164,000
------------------
Total, Corporate Services...................... 206,484,000
==================
NOAA Education Program:
Competitive Educational Grants................... 4,881,000
Educational Partnership Program/Minority Serving 13,920,000
Institutions (EPPMSI)...........................
BWET Regional Programs........................... 7,323,562
BWET California.................................. 2,350,000
JASON Educational and Outreach................... 2,209,000
Narragansett Bay Marine Education (Save the Bay). 893,000
Mt. Washington Observatory Education Outreach Exp 423,000
Initiative......................................
Training next generation weather forecasters--San 211,500
Jose State Univ.................................
Meterological Equipment--Valparaiso University, 817,800
Indiana.........................................
Educational Simulations Extreme Weather Events-- 188,000
Wheeling Jesuit Univ., WV.......................
John Smith Water Trail, Chesapeake Bay........... 446,500
Center for the Great Lakes, IL................... 260,000
Anacostia Watershed Education, MD................ 133,950
------------------
Total, NOAA Education Program.................. 34,057,312
==================
Marine Operations & Maintenance:
Marine Services.................................. 109,891,000
Fleet Planning and Maintenance................... 16,773,000
Aviation Services................................ 25,177,000
------------------
Total, Marine Operations & Maintenance......... 15,841,000
==================
Grand Total PS (Rounding)...................... 392,382,310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Appropriations Committees remain concerned about
the management issues at NOAA, they do not adopt the Senate
report language regarding a study by the National Academy of
Public Administration.
The amended bill provides $9,673,562 for the B-WET
programs, of which $2,350,000 is for the California B-WET.
The Appropriations Committees enthusiastically believe in the
goals of this program and continue to support the existing B-
WET programs in California, the Chesapeake Bay region, and in
Hawaii. The amended bill provides additional resources for
NOAA to expand the program into other regions, including the
Northern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Northwest, and New
England.
This account consolidates all the items within the
administration's request for ``Marine Operations and
Maintenance'', including the administration's request of
$5,600,000 for operations and maintenance of the Okeanos
research vessel. These funds are appropriated as a direct
adjustment to the base of the Marine Operations account
without supporting the requested $4,600,000 transfer of funds
from the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research account. Far too
often NOAA's Marine and Aviation Operations rely on transfers
of funds from NOAA line offices for non-science vessel
operations, which distort the true costs of basic operations
for these valuable, national assets. In future fiscal years,
NOAA is required to provide a budget request for basic vessel
operations that does not include funding transfers from other
line offices for basic vessel operations.
NOAA is directed to provide to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, within 18 months of enactment of
this Act, a study that evaluates the design and operations of
future research vessels in the form of a NOAA Survey Vessel
for multi-mission operations, to maximize on-site activities
and modularize for versatile platform availability.
NOAA is directed to increase the number of officers
authorized to serve within the ranks of the NOAA Commissioned
Officer Corps from 299 to 321.
PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
The amended bill provides $979,207,000 for Procurement,
Acquisition and Construction instead of $1,039,098,000 as
proposed by the House and $1,059,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
These funds are distributed as follows:
PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service:
Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program (no $8,000,000
more than 3% admin.)............................
National Estuarine Research Reserve Construction 7,043,000
& Land Acquisition..............................
Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve 94,000
Marine Sanctuaries Construction/Acquisition...... 9,522,000
NGI Science Center Building, Stennis............. 4,700,000
Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center.......... 11,060,000
Center for Marine Aquaculture, MS................ 7,520,000
National Marine Sanctuary Learning Center, HI.... 1,786,000
Gulf of Farralones NMS Exhibit, CA............... 669,750
Thunder Bay NMS Exhibit, MI...................... 1,786,000
Mill Creek/Wickford Cove Conservation, RI........ 893,000
Great Bay Partnership, NH........................ 3,525,000
------------------
Total, National Ocean Service--PAC............. 56,598,750
==================
National Marine Fisheries Service:
Aquatic Resources Environmental Initiative, 470,000
Eastern KY PRIDE................................
Center for Aquatic Resource Management, AL....... 1,551,000
------------------
Total, National Marine Fisheries Service--PAC.. 2,021,000
==================
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research:
Research Supercomputing/CCRI..................... 10,131,000
------------------
Total, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research--PAC... 10,131,000
==================
National Weather Service:
Systems Acquisition:
ASOS......................................... 1,596,000
AWIPS........................................ 12,459,000
NEXRAD....................................... 8,176,000
NWSTG Legacy Replacement..................... 1,166,000
[[Page 34686]]
Radiosonde Network Replacement............... 3,918,000
Weather and Climate Supercomputing........... 25,544,000
Cooperative Observer Network Modernization 4,133,000
(NERON).....................................
NOAA Profiler Network........................ 4,978,000
Complete and Sustain NOAA Weather Radio...... 5,460,000
------------------
Subtotal, NWS Systems Acquisition.......... 67,430,000
Construction:
WFO Construction............................. 12,272,250
Center for Weather & Climate Prediction 26,410,000
(NCEP)......................................
------------------
Subtotal, NWS Construction................. 38,682,250
Total, National Weather Service--PAC..... 106,112,250
==================
NESDIS:
Systems Acquisition & Construction:
Satellite Acquisition........................ 761,358,000
EOS & Advanced Polar Data Processing, 966,000
Distribution & Archiving Systems............
CIP--single point of failure................. 2,706,000
Comprehensive Large Array Data Stewardship 6,321,000
System (CLASS)..............................
NPOESS Preparatory Data Exploration.......... 2,396,000
Satellite CDA Facility....................... 2,175,000
------------------
Total, NESDIS--PAC......................... 775,922,000
==================
Program Support:
Construction:
Pacific Regional Facility.................... 20,000,000
Construction (Sec. 212)...................... 2,928,000
Woods Hole Berthing Area for Bigelow......... 235,000
------------------
Subtotal, Construction..................... 23,163,000
OMAO Fleet Replacement:
Fisheries Survey Vessel (design phase for #5 940,000
and #6).....................................
Hydro Survey Launch Construction............. 2,343,000
Vessel Equip. & Tech Refresh................. 1,000,000
Temporary Berthing for HENRY B. BIGELOW...... 976,000
Subtotal, OMAO Fleet Replacement........... 5,259,000
------------------
Total, Program Support--PAC.............. 28,422,000
==================
Grand Total PAC........................ 979,207,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amended bill provides $8,000,000 for the CELCP program.
The Appropriations Committees are pleased that the program
has migrated towards a 100 percent competitive, merit-based
selection process. The amended bill does not adopt Senate
language directing NOAA to reopen the 2008 competition.
It is noted that the fiscal year 2008 budget request
included funding for the Hyperspectral Environmental Suite
(HES) which was cancelled from the GOES-R program in
September 2006. The funding provided in the amended bill for
GOES-R has been reduced accordingly.
The Appropriations Committees remain concerned and
frustrated with regard to NOAA's satellite programs. The
Committees firmly believe that continuous oversight by the
Congress, specifically by the Appropriations Committees, is
necessary given NOAA's recent history in procuring satellite
systems. The Appropriations Committees are aware that a
recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
indicates that independent cost estimates for the GOES-R
satellite program have increased by $2,000,000,000. As a
result, the amended bill includes a general provision to the
bill that is similar to the Defense Department's Nunn-McCurdy
notification procedure. In addition, NOAA is directed to
provide quarterly updates to the Appropriations Committees
regarding all of its satellite programs, including staffing
plans, budget, and technical risks.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.--The funds included in
the amended bill for the Mill Creek, Wickford Cove
Conservation project will be used expressly to acquire lands
or interest in lands that include significant conservation,
recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic values.
PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY
The amended bill provides $67,000,000 for the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, instead of $64,825,000 as
proposed by the House and $90,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill includes language proposed by the House
and Senate transferring not to exceed $3,000,000 from the
Coastal Zone Management Fund to the ``Operations, Research,
and Facilities'' account.
FISHERIES FINANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The amended bill includes language to allow for NOAA to
obligate funds for Individual Fishing Quota loans and
traditional direct loans.
Departmental Management
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $44,294,000 for this account,
instead of $18,693,000 as proposed by the House and
$53,193,000 as proposed by the Senate. Within the amount
provided, the amended bill includes funds for the blast
mitigation initiative for the Herbert C. Hoover Building
(HCHB). The amended bill concurs with the Department's
recommendation that the National Medal of Technology shall be
managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
HCHB RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION
The amended bill includes $3,722,000 for the HCHB
Renovation, instead of $3,364,000 as proposed by the House
and $5,100,000 as proposed by the Senate. Within the funds
provided the following project is funded: $714,400 is for the
National Aquarium, Washington, DC, for HCHB rental payments
and cost of planning and design of new space within HCHB.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The amended bill includes $22,020,000, instead of
$23,426,000 as proposed by the House and Senate for the
Office of Inspector General.
NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION COUNCIL
The amended bill does not include funding under this
heading for the National Intellectual Property Law
Enforcement Coordination Council. Instead, the amended bill
includes authority that the United States Patent and
Trademark Office may transfer $1,000,000 to the Departmental
Management account for costs associated with the National
Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council.
General Provisions--Department of Commerce
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill includes the following General Provisions
for the Department of Commerce:
Section 101.--The amended bill includes section 101 making
Department of Commerce funds available for advanced payment
only upon certification of officials designated by the
Secretary that such payments are considered to be in the
public interest.
Section 102.--The amended bill includes section 102 making
appropriations for the Department for Salaries and Expenses
available for hire of passenger motor vehicles, and for
services, uniforms and allowances as authorized by law.
Section 103.--The amended bill includes section 103
providing authority to transfer funds between Department of
Commerce appropriation accounts and requiring notification to
the Committees of certain actions.
Section 104.--The amended bill includes section 104
providing that any costs incurred by the Department in
response to funding reductions shall be absorbed within total
budgetary resources available.
Section 105.--The amended bill includes section 105
extending guarantee authority
[[Page 34687]]
and making appropriations for salaries and administrative
expenses to administer the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee
Program available until expended.
Section 106.--The amended bill includes section 106
permanently prohibiting the use of any appropriated funds to
trademark the phrase ``Last Best Place.''
Section 107.--The amended bill includes section 107
providing authority for ITA to use appropriated funds for
sequestered North American Free Trade Act panelists.
Section 108.--The amended bill includes section 108
extending the Department of Commerce's personnel
demonstration project.
Section 109.--The amended bill includes section 109 making
technical corrections related to the elimination of the
Technology Administration.
Section 110.--The amended bill includes section 110
authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe and
enforce standards or regulations affecting safety and health
in the context of scientific and occupational diving with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Section 111.--The amended bill includes section 111
providing authority for a voluntary fishing capacity
reduction program.
Section 112.--The amended bill includes section 112
establishing reporting requirements for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration with regard to its satellite
acquisition programs where cost estimates exceed 20 percent
above initial estimates.
Section 113.--The amended bill includes section 113
authorizing the Secretary to develop and maintain a list of
vessels and owners engaged in illegal, unreported or
unregulated fishing.
Section 114.--The amended bill includes section 114
providing for the establishment of the ``Climate Change Study
Committee'' to investigate and study issues relating to
global climate change and the organization by the National
Academy of Sciences of a Summit on Global Climate Change.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $97,832,000 for General
Administration, Salaries and Expenses, instead of $54,527,000
as proposed by the House and $74,777,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The following displays the amended bill for each office:
In thousands of dollars
Department Leadership:
Attorney General...............................................$5,260
Deputy Attorney General.........................................4,814
Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties.........................380
Associate Attorney General......................................1,767
__________
Subtotal.....................................................12,221
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Intergov Relations/External Affairs:
Public Affairs..................................................2,858
Legislative Affairs.............................................3,598
Intergovernmental and Public Liaison..............................927
__________
Subtotal......................................................7,383
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Exec Support/Prof Resp:
Legal Policy....................................................5,601
Professional Responsibility.....................................5,801
__________
Subtotal.....................................................11,402
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Justice Management Division......................................66,826
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Total General Administration...............................97,832
Gangs.--As stated in the House Report, there is concern
with the threats posed by the growth of violent street gangs.
The Attorney General is directed to submit a report on the
growth of violent gangs in suburban areas that may not have
the resources to fight gangs that large cities do. The report
should address specific gangs, drug trafficking
organizations, the regions in which they operate, and the
federal resources allocated to containing these gangs. The
report shall be submitted no later than April 1, 2008.
The amended bill does not include language contained in the
Senate Report on the National Drug Intelligence Center.
JUSTICE INFORMATION SHARING TECHNOLOGY
The amended bill provides $85,540,000 for this account
instead of $100,500,000 as proposed by the House and
$90,795,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes not less than $19,740,000 for the
unified financial management system instead of $21,000,000 as
proposed by the House and Senate.
TACTICAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
The amended bill provides $74,260,000 for this account
instead of $81,353,000 as proposed by the Senate and
$76,353,000 as proposed by the House.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEALS
The amended bill provides $240,649,000 in direct
appropriations for this account, instead of $247,499,000 as
proposed by the House and the Senate. The amended bill
includes language designating $3,760,000 for the Legal
Orientation Program, instead of $4,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes $8,000,000 in emergency funds for
the Executive Office for Immigration Review to provide
additional attorneys and judges for the Board of Immigration
Appeals to adjudicate cases and appeals resulting from
increased immigration enforcement actions.
DETENTION TRUSTEE
The amended bill provides $1,225,920,000 for the Detention
Trustee, instead of $1,265,872,000 as proposed by the Senate
and $1,260,872,000 as proposed by the House.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The amended bill provides $70,603,000 for the Office of
Inspector General (OIG), instead of $74,708,000, as proposed
by the House and $73,700,000, as proposed by the Senate.
The Appropriations Committees remain deeply concerned by
management and oversight problems within the Justice
Department. The OIG is directed to continue to investigate
and report to the Appropriations Committees on the firings of
U.S. Attorneys, the FBI's use of National Security Letters
and the FBI's new case management system known as Sentinel,
as directed in the House report.
The amended bill also includes bill language directing the
OIG to conduct an audit and report to the Appropriations
Committees on all expenses of the legislative and public
affairs offices of the Department of Justice, as directed by
the Senate.
The OIG is directed to audit competitive National Institute
of Justice programs, projects and activities, including
contracts and grants, awarded in the last three fiscal years.
The audit shall examine whether these grants and contracts
were awarded through a fair and open competitive process. The
audit shall identify costs related to any grant or contract
that are administrative in nature and provide a detailed
breakout of how those costs were determined.
United States Parole Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $11,462,000 for the United States
Parole Commission, instead of $12,194,000, as proposed by
both the House and the Senate.
Legal Activities
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, GENERAL LEGAL ACTIVITIES
The amended bill provides $745,549,000 for General Legal
Activities, instead of $750,584,000 as proposed by the House
and $753,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
General Legal Activities
(In thousands of dollars)
Amended
Division Bill Amount
Solicitor General................................................$9,883
Tax Division.....................................................92,781
Criminal Division...............................................148,979
Civil Division..................................................250,115
Environment and Natural Resources................................99,365
Office of Legal Counsel...........................................6,184
Civil Rights Division...........................................114,450
INTERPOL--USNCB..................................................23,252
Office of Dispute Resolution........................................541
__________
Total......................................................$745,549
The amended bill includes $10,000,000 in emergency funds
for the Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation to
provide 86 additional attorneys to address appeals resulting
from increased immigration enforcement actions.
THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT
The amended bill includes a reimbursement of $6,833,000
from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund to the
Department of Justice, as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, ANTITRUST DIVISION
The amended bill provides $147,819,000 for the Antitrust
Division, instead of $155,097,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate. This appropriation is offset by
$139,000,000 in pre-merger filing fee collections, resulting
in a direct appropriation of $8,819,000.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
The amended bill provides $1,754,822,000 for the United
States Attorneys, instead of $1,748,572,000 as proposed by
the House, and $1,777,822,000, as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes programmatic increases to
strengthen prosecutions of child exploitation, violent gangs,
illegal immigration and human trafficking. Within the funds
made available, $5,000,000 is provided to support the hiring
of additional assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute offenses
related to the sexual exploitation of children, as authorized
by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
The amended bill includes $7,000,000 in emergency funds for
the United States Attorneys for criminal and civil litigation
resulting from increased immigration enforcement actions.
The amended bill does not include a general provision in
the Senate bill regarding
[[Page 34688]]
Operation Streamline. The Appropriations Committees recognize
the importance of Operation Streamline as a highly effective
law enforcement operation for detaining, prosecuting, and
deporting illegal aliens who cross the U.S.-Mexico border
illegally. Initiated in December 2005 in Del Rio, TX,
Operation Streamline is a multi-agency law enforcement
initiative that involves the U.S. Attorney's Office, Customs
and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
the U.S. Marshals Service and dedicated Federal judges and
magistrates of the Western District of Texas. Operation
Streamline has instituted a zero-tolerance policy for illegal
entry. The Department of Justice is directed to report to
Congress on the impact of Operation Streamline and on the
costs to implement law enforcement operations identical to
Operation Streamline in all districts along the U.S.-Mexico
border, and hire or reassign U.S. Attorneys and support staff
to expand this program.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE SYSTEM FUND
The amended bill provides $209,763,000 for the United
States Trustee System Fund, instead of $189,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $231,899,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The amended bill includes language authorizing the
use of $184,000,000 in offsetting collections and the use of
$20,000,000 in prior year unobligated balances. In addition,
$5,000,000 is derived from interest in U.S. Securities,
resulting in a direct appropriation of $763,000.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
The amended bill includes $1,606,000, for the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission, instead of $1,709,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $864,219,000 for the United
States Marshals Service (USMS) Salaries and Expenses account,
instead of $883,766,000 as proposed by the House, and
$904,705,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill provides $354,297,000 for judicial and
courthouse security, which includes $11,437,000 to provide
additional deputy marshals for judicial security.
The amended bill includes $15,000,000 in emergency funds
for the USMS for prisoner transportation, defendant
productions and courthouse security resulting from increases
in immigration-related Federal court proceedings. This
funding will support the hiring of 100 additional deputy
marshals.
Within funds made available, $2,820,000 is provided to
address substandard health and security conditions in the
prisoner holding facilities occupied by the USMS in the
Moultrie Courthouse Building of the District of Columbia. The
USMS and the District of Columbia Courts are strongly urged
to work together in a coordinated manner to develop a
renovation and improvement plan for these facilities, as
identified by the Office of Inspector General in report I-
2007-008-R.
Within funds provided, $2,820,000 is made available to
establish new or expand existing regional fugitive task
forces. Distribution of these resources should be based on
the fugitive workload, giving emphasis to the workload
created by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
2006.
CONSTRUCTION
The amended bill provides $2,304,000 for the United States
Marshals Service Construction account, instead of $2,451,000
as proposed by the House, and $8,015,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES
The amended bill provides $168,300,000 for Fees and
Expenses of Witnesses, as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
The amended bill provides $9,794,000 for the Community
Relations Service, as proposed by the House, instead of
$10,230,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Region Six, which encompasses Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas,
New Mexico, and Oklahoma, recently experienced racial unrest
in Jena, Louisiana and there is concern about the slow
response of the Community Relations Service to this incident.
For this reason, the Community Relations Service is urged to
send additional conciliators for this region to ensure that
the area has sufficient staff and resources for the future.
ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND
The amended bill provides $20,990,000 for the Assets
Forfeiture Fund, as proposed by both the House and the
Senate.
National Security Division
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $73,373,000, for the National
Security Division, instead of $78,056,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
Interagency Law Enforcement
interagency crime and drug enforcement
The amended bill includes $497,935,000, for Interagency
Crime and Drug Enforcement, instead of $509,154,000 as
proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The amended bill includes the following amounts to
reimburse agencies for their costs of participating in OCDETF
task forces:
REIMBURSEMENT BY AGENCY
(In thousands of dollars)
Drug Enforcement Administration................................$193,264
Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................134,051
United States Marshals Service....................................8,272
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives..............11,151
United States Attorneys.........................................130,726
Criminal Division................................................ 2,653
Tax Division....................................................... 961
Administrative Support........................................... 5,388
OCDETF Executive Office (OFC)....................................11,469
__________
Total......................................................$497,935
Federal Bureau of Investigation
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $6,493,489,000 for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Salaries and Expenses account,
instead of $6,503,611,000 as proposed by the House, and
$6,395,250,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Fixing the Budget Shortfall.--The Appropriations Committees
concur with language in the House Report expressing
frustration with the composition of the Department of Justice
budget request for the FBI that used as a base the average of
the House and Senate recommendations for fiscal year 2007
less one percent. The 2007 level for the FBI provided by the
110th Congress supported the full Administration request plus
additional funds for the 2007 pay raise. It was expected that
the Administration would recalculate the Department of
Justice's current rate budget needs for fiscal year 2008
based on the actual 2007 base. The effect of the
Administration's 2008 budget gimmick is that agencies' fiscal
year 2008 budget requests are not sufficient to fully fund
the adjustments to base and program increases requested in
fiscal year 2008. For the FBI's salaries and expenses account
the result is a deficit of $139,170,000. If funded at the
President's request level, the FBI would be required to
address this shortfall through imposition of a limited hiring
freeze, imposition of across-the-board reductions to
operational support programs, and deferment of program
enhancements. The work of the FBI in counterterrorism and
criminal investigations is too important to be subjected to
budget gimmicks and therefore funds have been realigned to
mitigate the impact of the salaries and expenses shortfall.
The FBI is directed to realign $25,009,000 within existing
funds allocated to the Sentinel program to address this
shortfall; to make available $18,000,000 from remaining funds
previously made available to FBI Salaries and Expenses under
P.L. 109-148 to further account for the budget shortfall; and
to apply redirected funds to this shortfall.
NGI-IAFIS and IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability.--The budget
gimmick would also have impacted Criminal Justice Information
Systems (CJIS) initiatives, therefore the FBI is also
directed to use $11,000,000 from the CJIS prior-year user fee
collections to fund improvements for IDENT/IAFIS
Interoperability initiatives impacted by the budget gimmick,
available until expended. In addition, $47,000,000 of
enhancements requested in the President's Budget for Next
Generation Identification (NGI), Regional Data Exchange (R-
DEx), IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability, and Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS) are funded with prior-year user fee
collections. As in previous years, under no circumstances is
the FBI to divert funding collected through the CJIS user fee
for any purpose other than CJIS, its refreshment plan, or a
subsequent modernization plan for the current facility.
Border Security and Immigration.--The amended bill provides
the FBI $23,000,000 from the CJIS prior-year user fee
collections to fund improvements for the IAFIS and its
interoperability initiatives, to be available until expended,
to support improvements to the FBI's IAFIS fingerprint
system, including its interoperability with the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) IDENT system. The FBI's fingerprint
system supports immigration enforcement efforts by providing
criminal history information on individuals arrested or being
investigated by DHS.
Counterterrorism and Cyber Security.--The amended bill
provides the FBI $143,539,000 in emergency funds to address
emerging threats in counterterrorism and cyber security for
uses described in the fiscal year 2008 budget amendment.
Hollow Work Years and Fee Adjustments.--The FBI's
authorized position level does not represent a realistic
workforce level, as is the case with several other Department
of Justice accounts. At a time when the FBI is in dire need
of both National Security and Criminal positions, the
Administration is proposing to eliminate 2,700 unaffordable
work years rather than identifying additional funding to
address the problem. Therefore, the FBI is directed to
eliminate 2,250 unaffordable work years and to devise a
multi-year plan that identifies funding for the remaining 450
unaffordable work years. The FBI has reviewed all of its
reimbursable agreements and updated the cost structure of its
user fees. As such, the FBI's reimbursable positions should
change accordingly. An additional 292 reimbursable positions
are authorized.
[[Page 34689]]
Criminal Investigations.--The amended bill does not include
funds for new agents to combat violent crime as proposed by
the Senate, but the FBI is directed to make funding for new
agents to combat violent crime a top priority. In recent
years there has been a marked decrease in the resources
devoted by the FBI to criminal investigations. Between 2001
and 2007, the FBI's traditional resources for conducting
criminal investigations decreased approximately 30 percent.
While most violent crime is a local crime problem, State and
local authorities depend upon the FBI for investigative,
forensic, and technical assistance and leadership. The FBI's
task force approach to combating street crime and gang
violence is one of the successful strategies that contributed
to the previous decrease in violent crimes. Accordingly, the
FBI is encouraged to establish additional joint task forces
to target violent crimes and gang violence.
Innocent Images National Initiative.--The amended bill does
not provide an increase over the budget request for the
Innocent Images National Initiative as proposed by the
Senate.
The FBI is urged to expand the number of agents
investigating Internet-related crimes against children by
increasing agents and support positions to address the
critical requirements for Federal law enforcement in
attacking the problem of child sexual exploitation and child
victimization.
Intellectual Property Crime Enforcement.--The amended bill
does not provide additional funds for the detection,
investigation, and prosecution of domestic and international
intellectual property crimes against the United States as
proposed by the Senate. The FBI is urged to create an
operational unit at FBI headquarters with agents dedicated
solely to working with the Department of Justice's Computer
Crime and Intellectual Property Section on complex, multi-
district and international criminal intellectual property
cases and to increase agents assigned to the Department of
Justice's 25 Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units
dedicated solely to criminal intellectual property cases. The
additional agents for this section shall investigate and
support the criminal prosecution of the Federal intellectual
property laws, including title 17, United States Code,
sections 506, and 1204; title 18 United States Code, sections
1831, 1832, 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, and 2320. The FBI shall
make similar agent increases as additional CHIP Units are
created.
Annuity Protection.--The FBI is directed to identify funds
to protect the pensions of FBI agents who assumed supervisory
positions before the FBI began implementation of the Field
Office Supervisory Term Limit Policy. The annuity protection
provision should be applied retroactively, since the Term
Limit Policy has already been applied to agents who would be
eligible for annuity protection.
National Security Letters.--The FBI is directed to report
within two months after enactment of this Act on what has
been done to implement the recommendations in the March 2007
Office of Inspector General (OIG) report that identified
numerous FBI abuses and misuses of National Security Letter
(NSL) authority and what will be done in the future to catch
mistakes and report to Congress on compliance with legal
authorities.
Report on Delayed Name Checks.--Not later than 60 days
after the end of each fiscal year, the Director of the FBI
shall submit a report that contains, with respect to the most
recently completed fiscal year--
(1) a statistical analysis of the number of name checks
processed and pending, including check requests in process at
the time of the report and check requests that have been
received but are not yet in process;
(2) the average time taken to complete each type of name
check;
(3) a description of the efforts and progress made by the
Director in addressing any delays in completing such name
checks; and
(4) a description of the progress that has been made in
automating files used in the name check process, including
investigative files of the FBI.
This report shall be submitted to the Appropriations
Committees of the House and Senate, the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.
Work Force Realignment.--Not later than 60 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the FBI shall submit
to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate a
report that evaluates the FBI's current work force allocation
process and assesses the steps taken to right-sizing and
realignment of agents, analysts and support personnel
currently in field offices to better meet the FBI's mission
requirements and priorities.
Training.--As the nation's primary counterterrorism agency,
the FBI must ensure that its personnel are trained to
understand the nature of the terrorist threat in the United
States, and how to go about defeating it. Within the amounts
provided, the FBI is encouraged to expand training
opportunities for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence
agents, analysts and linguists, specifically to address
identifiable weaknesses in understanding radical and
religion-based terrorist doctrine, ideology and objectives,
and in disrupting any such movements operating domestically.
The FBI is to report to the Committees by February 28, 2008
on revised plans for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence
training, to include these elements.
The amended bill does not include language on the National
Motor Vehicle Title Information System as proposed by the
House.
CONSTRUCTION
The amended bill provides $164,200,000 for FBI
construction, instead of $28,191,000 as proposed by the House
and $206,400,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of this amount,
$45,000,000 shall be for the Terrorist Explosives Device
Analytical Center.
Drug Enforcement Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill appropriates $2,096,818,000 for the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), instead of $2,081,818,000
as proposed by the House and $2,093,406,000 as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill provides funding above the budget request
to support current operation levels and to enable DEA to lift
the hiring freeze on agent and support personnel that has
been in place since August 2006. This funding will allow DEA
to fill 200 special agent positions as well as related
support positions that would otherwise remain vacant. With
the resources provided in this amended bill and in the fiscal
year 2007 supplemental, the Administration's proposed
reduction for ``hollow FTE'' is not accepted. Some FTE and
positions that had been proposed for elimination will be
needed to support the restored staffing levels.
Furthermore, the Administration's proposal to eliminate the
Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) program and reduce further the
number of DEA agents and support staff is believed to be ill-
advised, and therefore the Administration is directed to use
remaining funds above the request to continue this program.
This will enable DEA to retain special agents, allowing DEA
to continue assisting State and local law enforcement in
their fight against methamphetamine and other dangerous
drugs.
The amended bill includes $2,000,000 in emergency funds to
provide for nonpersonnel resources for a communications
intercept program for Afghanistan. The initiative directly
supports ongoing foreign-deployed advisory support teams
(FAST) and strengthens interagency counter narcotics
operations in Afghanistan.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $984,097,000 for the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), instead of
$1,013,980,000 as proposed by the House and the Senate. The
amended bill includes language as proposed by the House on
the availability of gun trace data.
License Revocations.--The ATF is directed to report on
license revocations against firearms dealers based on
violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors.
Open Rules.--The Appropriations Committees concur with
language in the House Report regarding open rulemakings and
the delay in resolving the rules due to staff shortages. The
ATF to report within two months after enactment of this Act
on the status of all open rules and the ATF's plans to
address the backlog.
Conversion of Records.--There is a need for ATF to convert
Federal firearms records at the ATF National Tracing Center
(NTC) to digital images. As these records are converted,
search time for these records is reduced significantly. The
ATF is urged to continue the conversion and integration of
these records.
CONSTRUCTION
The amended bill includes $23,500,000 for construction of
the National Center for Explosives Training and Research
(NCETR), instead of no funding as proposed by the House and
$35,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Federal Prison System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $5,050,440,000 for the salaries
and expenses of the Federal Prison System (FPS), instead of
$5,171,440,000 as proposed by the House and $5,151,440,000,
as proposed by the Senate.
The funds provided for the salaries and expenses of the FPS
shall be distributed as follows: $1,788,043,000 for Inmate
Care and Programs; $2,275,246,000 for Institution Security
and Administration; $806,129,000 for Contract Confinement;
and $181,022,000 for Management and Administration.
Inmate literacy, training and substance abuse treatment
programs are cost-effective tools in reducing the societal
costs of criminal recidivism. The FPS is directed to examine
cost-effective ways to reduce the long waiting lists of
inmates in need of residential and transitional drug
treatment, and to expand inmate GED/literacy and occupational
skills training programs.
The FPS is expected to adhere to the prison activation
schedule included in the budget submission. The FPS shall
notify the Appropriations Committees of any deviations to the
schedule.
[[Page 34690]]
The FPS is commended on its work to address and prevent
sexual misconduct. With funds provided in earlier
appropriations Acts, the National Institute of Corrections
has made useful progress in providing training and technical
support to correctional systems throughout the country to
eliminate staff sexual misconduct with inmates, training in
investigating cases, and training the ``trainers'' in order
that employees at every level will be more aware of, and
better prepared to deal with, these cases. The FPS is
directed to continue these efforts and to report to the
Appropriations Committees by March 31, 2008, on progress made
in this area.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
The amended bill provides $372,720,000 for the
construction, modernization, maintenance, and repair of
prison and detention facilities housing Federal prisoners,
instead of $95,003,000 as proposed by the House, and
$495,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Within funding provided, $278,720,000 is made available for
new prison construction, and $70,000,000 is made available
for modernization, maintenance and repair of existing
facilities.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED
The amended bill includes language placing a limitation on
administrative expenses of $2,328,000 for Federal Prison
Industries, Incorporated, instead of $2,477,000 as proposed
by both the House and the Senate.
Office on Violence Against Women
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS
The amended bill provides $400,000,000 for violence against
women prevention and prosecution programs, as proposed by the
Senate, instead of $459,000,000 as proposed by the House.
Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
(In thousands of dollars)
Amended
Program Bill Amount
STOP Grants....................................................$183,800
National Institute of Justice--R&D............................(1,880)
Transitional Housing Assistance..............................(17,390)
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies..............................59,220
Rural Domestic Violence Assistance Grants........................40,420
Violence on College Campuses......................................9,400
Civil Legal Assistance...........................................36,660
Sexual Assault Victims Services...................................9,400
Elder Abuse Grant Program.........................................4,230
Safe Havens Project..............................................13,630
Education & Training for Disabled Female Victims..................6,580
CASA (Special Advocates).........................................13,160
Training for Judicial Personnel...................................2,350
Stalking Database.................................................2,820
Court Training and Improvements...................................2,820
Services for Children/Youth Exposed to Violence...................2,820
Advocates for Youth/Services for Youth Victims....................2,820
National Tribal Sex Offender Registry...............................940
Research on Violence Against Indian Women...........................940
Closed Circuit Television Grants....................................940
Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention..............................2,820
Training Programs to Assist Probation and Parole Officers.........3,290
National Resource Center on Workplace Responses.....................940
__________
Total......................................................$400,000
The amended bill provides funding for several new programs
authorized by the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, including Sexual Assault
Services, Court Training and Improvements, Services for
Children/Youth Exposed to Violence, Advocates for Youth/
Services for Youth Victims, Engaging Men and Youth in
Prevention, Research on Violence against Indian Women, and
the National Tribal Sex Offender Registry. In addition, the
amended bill provides funding for the National Resource
Center on Workplace Responses, as authorized by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Native American/Native Alaskan Liaison Office.--Native
American and Native Alaskan women are faced with
extraordinarily high incidences of violence. Within funds
provided, the amended bill directs $2,820,000 to the State of
Alaska for the Native American/Native Alaskan Liaison Office
to provide services to victims of sexual assault and domestic
violence in Alaska.
Office of Justice Programs
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
The amended bill provides $196,184,000 for Justice
Assistance, instead of $250,000,000, as proposed by the
House, and $240,000,000, as proposed by the Senate.
Justice Assistance
(In thousands of dollars)
Amended
Program Bill Amount
National Institute of Justice...................................$37,000
NLECTCs......................................................(19,740)
Bureau of Justice Statistics.....................................34,780
Victim Notification...............................................9,400
Economic, high-tech and cybercrime prevention....................11,280
Regional Info Sharing System.....................................40,000
Justice for All/DNA and Forensics.................................2,820
NIST/OLES.......................................................(705)
Missing Children Program.........................................50,000
Management and Administration....................................10,904
__________
Total......................................................$196,184
National Institute of Justice.--The Office of Inspector
General is directed to audit competitive National Institute
of Justice programs, projects and activities, including
contracts and grants, awarded in the last three fiscal years.
The audit shall examine whether grants and contracts were
awarded through a fair and open competitive process. The
audit shall identify costs related to any grant or contract
that are administrative in nature and provide a detailed
breakout of how those costs were determined.
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).--Within funds
provided, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is directed to
appropriately fund the continuation of the NCVS, which is a
critical source of information on crime victimization across
the country.
Missing Children.--The amended bill provides $50,000,000
for the Missing Children Program. The Appropriations
Committees recognize the critical roles played by national,
State and local law enforcement agencies and non-profit
organizations in protecting children from predators. The
Department is strongly urged to fully engage such entities in
the implementation of new and enhanced child protection
programs.
Regional Information Sharing System (RISS).--The amended
bill provides $40,000,000 for regional information sharing to
ensure the efficient and effective automated exchange of
crime and terrorism information among Federal, State and
local agencies. The Department is urged to consider the data
sharing needs of rural law enforcement.
Victim Notification.--The amended bill provides $9,400,000
for the State Automated Victim Notification program. No
funding may be used for this initiative from the Victims
Assistance Program, and a 50 percent match is required from
State, local or private sources.
Economic, High-tech and Cybercrime Prevention.--The amended
bill includes $11,280,000 to support and train State and
local law enforcement agencies in the prevention,
investigation, and prosecution of Internet, high-tech and
economic crimes.
Management and Administration.--The amended bill includes
language capping the total amount made available for Office
of Justice Programs management and administration at
$127,915,000.
state and local law enforcement assistance
The amended bill provides $1,008,136,000 for the State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance account, instead of
$1,380,000,000, as proposed by the House, and $1,430,000,000,
as proposed by the Senate.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
(In thousands of dollars)
Amended
Program Bill Amount
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants.......................$170,433
National Institute of Justice.................................(2,000)
SLATT Intelligence State and Local Training...................(2,000)
Byrne Discretionary Grants......................................187,513
Byrne Competitive Grants.........................................16,000
Indian Assistance................................................22,440
Tribal Prison Construction....................................(8,630)
Indian Tribal Courts..........................................(8,630)
Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse grants.....................(5,180)
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.........................410,000
Southwest Border Prosecutor Program..............................30,080
Northern Border Prosecutor Program................................2,820
Victims of Trafficking Grants.....................................9,400
State Prison Drug Treatment.......................................9,400
Drug Courts......................................................15,200
Prescription Drug Monitoring......................................7,050
Prison Rape Prevention and Prosecution...........................17,860
Capital Litigation................................................2,500
Missing Alzheimer's Patients Grants.................................940
Mentally Ill Offender Act.........................................6,500
2008 Presidential Conventions Security..........................100,000
__________
Total....................................................$1,008,136
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
(JAG).--The amended bill provides $170,433,000 for JAG
formula grants. Funding under this program is authorized for
law enforcement programs; prosecution and court programs;
prevention and education programs; corrections and community
corrections programs; drug treatment and enforcement
programs; planning, evaluation and technology improvement
programs; and crime victim and witness programs other than
compensation. Funding is not available for vehicles, vessels,
or aircraft; luxury items; real estate; or construction
projects. Within the funds provided, $2,000,000 is made
available for training to improve State and local law
enforcement intelligence capabilities; and $2,000,000 is made
available for the National Institute of Justice to assist
local
[[Page 34691]]
units of government with the acquisition of new law
enforcement technologies.
Byrne Discretionary Grants.--The amended bill provides
$187,513,000 for Byrne discretionary grants to help improve
the functioning of the criminal justice system with an
emphasis on violent crime, drugs, and serious offenders.
Within the funds provided, the Office of Justice Programs is
directed to review the following projects, to provide funding
consistent with law and Congressional intent, and to report
to the Appropriations Committees regarding the disbursement
of these funds:
Project Amount
``Missing Persons'' (Locating the Ones We Love), Detroit, MI...$423,000
A Child is Missing GA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, to assist law enforcement
in finding missing children....................................70,500
A Child is Missing, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for A Child Is Missing--
South Dakota Initiative........................................89,300
A Child is Missing, Indiana......................................47,000
A Child Is Missing, Montgomery, AL, for maintaining and upgrading
technology.....................................................47,000
A Child Is Missing, New Haven, CT................................94,000
A Child is Missing, New York....................................188,000
A Child is Missing, Texas.......................................446,500
A Child is Missing, UT, Fort Lauderdale, FL, to assist law enforcement
in finding missing children for program in Utah................70,500
Abilene, TX, Police Department..................................253,800
Abundant Life Church of God Family and Group Counseling Program,
Holbrook, NY...................................................94,000
Access Community Health Network Reentry Demonstration Project, Chicago,
IL............................................................470,000
Aces for Kids program for at-risk youth, White Plains, NY.......235,000
Administrative Office of the Courts, Atlanta, GA, to assist drug court
efforts........................................................47,000
Alabama Center for Law and Civic Education, Birmingham, AL, for law-
related education..............................................94,000
Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC), Montgomery, AL,
for a criminal data system....................................470,000
Alabama Department of Corrections, Montgomery, AL, for computer based
corrections training..........................................376,000
Alabama District Attorneys Association Data Protection Program..117,500
Alabama District Attorneys Association, Montgomery, AL, for computer
forensics labs................................................752,000
Alabama District Attorneys Association, Montgomery, AL, for the state's
drug problem and gang activity..............................1,692,000
Alachua County, FL Comprehensive Management of Offenders with Co-
occurring Mental Illness and Addiction........................188,000
Alameda County, CA Violence Prevention Initiative................94,000
Alaska Native Justice Center, Anchorage, AK, for programs to support
Native Alaskans involved in legal issues......................940,000
Alcorn State University, Lorman, MS, to fund a judicial threat analysis
center at Alcorn State University...........................1,598,000
ALERT Regional Prevention Center, Ashland, KY....................18,800
All Kids Count..................................................470,000
Area Resources for Community and Human Services, St. Louis, MO, for
gang prevention and intervention...............................94,000
Arlington County, VA GED Program for Recently Released Inmates...94,000
Ascension Parish, LA Sheriff's Office...........................352,500
Asheville, NC Police Department Fire Range Equipment............211,500
Asian Pacific Women's Center, victims services, Los Angeles, CA..56,400
Atlanta, GA City Safe Project...................................399,500
Baltimore County, MD Ex-Offender Program Equipment..............329,000
Bedford County, VA Sheriff's Office--Operation Blue Ridge Thunde188,000
Bergen Community College, Paramus, NJ, to strengthen the policy,
research, and training institute..............................178,600
Bergen County Community College, Center for Suburban Justice, Paramus,
NJ.............................................................94,000
Bonneville County Sherriff's Office, Children's Identification &
Location Database (CHILD) Project--Idaho.......................47,000
Border Law Enforcement Training Program, Eagle Pass, TX.........658,000
Bridge to Success, Detroit, MI..................................188,000
Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association.............................940,000
Building Life Skills for Youth, Independence, MO................117,500
Burbank, CA Police Department...................................235,000
Butler County Community College...............................1,222,000
Calhoun and Cleburne Counties, AL Drug and Crime Task Force......61,100
California Indian Legal Services Tribal Court Development Project,
Oakland, CA...................................................282,000
California Innocence Project....................................423,000
Capital District Women's Bar Association Domestic Violence, Civil Legal
Assistance, and Military Families legal project, Albany, NY...211,500
Carmel, IN.......................................................94,000
Carson and Rural Elderly (CARE), Carson City, NV, for legal assistance
to rural seniors...............................................44,650
CASA of Wood County, WV..........................................47,000
Centenary College, Law Enforcement and Community Response Initia940,000
Center for Collaborative Network Security Development, Ann Arbor705,000
Center Point Re-entry and Community Integration, San Rafael, CA.470,000
Central Piedmont Community College, NC..........................352,500
Central Wyoming College, Riverton, WY, for equipping a criminal justice
training center...............................................235,000
Chapman University Domestic Violence Clinic, Anaheim, CA........376,000
Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, Eagle Butte, SD, for technology
upgrades to 9-1-1 system......................................183,300
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South Dakota, for
law enforcement, court, and detention equipment and operations446,500
Chicago Public Schools After School Counts Program for at-risk youth,
IL............................................................188,000
Children's Home Society of South Dakota, Forensic Interviewing Se94,000
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Hill County, MT,
for upgrades to infrastructure, equipment and rehabilitation of
detention center..............................................446,500
Chrysalis Ex-Offender and Homeless Job Training Initiative, CA..376,000
Cincinnati, OH Police Department..............................2,068,000
Cincinnati, OH Police Department--Records Management Project....225,600
Citizens for NYC Community Crime Stoppers, NY...................305,500
City and County of San Francisco, CA Forensic Services Crime L1,551,000
City of Albertville, AL.........................................141,000
City of Anaheim, CA.............................................352,500
City of Austin, TX..............................................188,000
City of Bakersfield, CA Police Department........................70,500
City of Baltimore, Baltimore MD, to sustain and institutionalize the
Felony Drug Initiative pilot project..........................446,500
City of Baltimore, MD Felony Drug Initiative....................258,500
[[Page 34692]]
City of Barre, VT Police Department Drug, Law Enforcement, Education
and Treatment Program.........................................282,000
City of Baton Rouge/Parish of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, LA, for a
communication technology pilot program........................133,950
City of Bessemer, Bessemer, AL, for emergency operations and
communications................................................141,000
City of Boston, MA Youth and Gang Strategic Crime Initiative.....94,000
City of Carrollton, TX..........................................352,500
City of Dallas, Dallas, TX, for re-entry programs...............470,000
City of Denver, Denver, CO, for a gang task force...............267,900
City of Detroit, Detroit, MI, for a program for parolees, technical
parole violators, and ex-offenders............................223,250
City of Fort Wayne, City of Fort Wayne, IN, for a public safety
training......................................................133,950
City of Fort Wayne, IN..........................................282,000
City of Henderson, NV...........................................432,400
City of Indianapolis, City of Indianapolis, IN, for a male prisoner
reentry program...............................................223,250
City of Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo, MI, for a training program for law
enforcement personnel.........................................178,600
City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, for an after-school program for
at-risk youth.................................................223,250
City of Madison, Madison, AL, to fund a domestic assault unit to handle
domestic violence.............................................141,000
City of Missoula, Missoula County, MT, for equipment and upgrades for
Internet Crimes Against Children..............................580,450
City of Montgomery, Montgomery, AL, for courthouses and detention
facility communications.......................................470,000
City of Nacogdoches, TX Counter Narcotics Project...............352,500
City of Newark Police Department, Newark, DE, for drug prevention44,650
City of Newark, Newark, NJ, for a returning offender initiative.446,500
City of Oakland, CA Radical Roving Recreation Program (RRR).....235,000
City of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA...............................44,180
City of Rosemead, CA Graffiti Deterrence Technologies............98,700
City of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for a gun violence interdiction
initiative....................................................223,250
City of St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, to replace the warning sirens and the
associated communications and control system..................223,250
City of Talladega, AL Drug Enforcement Initiative................47,000
City of Yakima, WA..............................................352,500
Claremont Community Center programs for at-risk youth, NH.......211,500
Coalition of Neighborhood Councils, Youth Development Training and
Education, San Diego, CA......................................258,500
Community Crime Prevention Initiative in Langley Park, MD.......235,000
Community Foundation of Wyandotte County, KS Neighborhood Safety
Program.......................................................329,000
Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR)+ Program, Los Angeles,
CA............................................................188,000
Community Law Enforcement and Recovery Program (CLEAR) for Hollenbeck,
Los Angeles, CA...............................................470,000
Concurrent Technologies Corporation, PA Corrections Learning
Environment...................................................705,000
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) of Lycoming County, PA..103,400
Creighton University, Omaha, NE, for personnel training, equipment, and
technological upgrades for the Milton R. Abrahams Legal Clinic178,600
Criminal Justice Institute, Little Rock, AR, for a law enforcement
education and training program................................679,150
Crossroads Safehouse in Fort Collins, CO.........................56,400
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe,
South Dakota, for law enforcement, court, and detention equipment and
operations....................................................446,500
Dallas, TX Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative.........................352,500
Davidson County Mental Health Court, Nashville, TN..............446,500
Davidson County Mental Health Court, Nashville, TN, to provide safe and
affordable transitional housing for individuals who suffer from
mental illness................................................188,000
DeKalb County, IL Drug Court....................................171,080
Delaware County Community College Institute for Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness........................................188,000
Delaware Office of Highway Safety, Dover, DE, to purchase equipment and
implement sobriety check points...............................223,250
Denver Rescue Mission STAR Program, CO..........................282,000
Denver, CO Police Department Gang Bureau........................376,000
Des Moines, IA Area Community College.........................1,753,100
Detroit, MI Drug Violence Enforcement...........................376,000
Developing Options for Violent Emergencies (DOVE) Program, Akron,47,000
DIVA, Inc. Domestic Violence Initiative, Columbia, SC...........188,000
Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline Community Outreach,
Honolulu, HI..................................................141,000
Donnelly College, Kansas City, KS, for inmate education.........235,000
Dooly County Family Resource Center, Vienna, GA.................141,000
Dover, NH Police Department Drug and Gang Safety Initiative.....235,000
Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr. Training Academy, Oakland CA...........188,000
Duquesne University Cyber-Security program, Pittsburgh, PA......376,000
Durham, NC Police Department Forensic Unit......................376,000
EAC Child Advocacy Center, Central Islip, NY....................423,000
EAC Offender Treatment Alternatives, Hempstead, NY..............470,000
EAC Women's Alternative-to-Incarceration Program, Hempstead, NY..47,000
East Carroll Parish, LA Sheriff's Office.........................75,200
East Central University, OK Forensic Justice Center.............352,500
East Palo Alto, CA Violence and Gang Prevention Initiative......446,500
East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA, for law enforcement
training in cyber crime technologies and forensics............223,250
Eastern Montgomery County, PA Law Enforcement Training and Emergency
Preparation Activities........................................164,500
Eau Claire, WI Child Advocacy Center............................211,500
Eisenhower Foundation Re-Entry Project, Toledo, OH..............564,000
Essex County Sheriff, MA Heroin and Oxycontin Enforcement Progra282,000
Essex County, Essex, NJ, for a juvenile re-entry program........357,200
F.A.I.T.H. Inc., Offenders and Ex-Offenders Re-Entry Program, Chicago,
IL............................................................305,500
Fairfield, CA Gang Suppression Project...........................47,000
Farleigh Dickinson University Cybercrime Computer Forensic Security,
Teaneck, NJ...................................................705,000
Father's Day Rally Committee, Inc., Men United Program, Philadelphia,
PA............................................................846,000
First Step SAFE Program for Wayne County, MI.....................94,000
Florida Gulf Coast University...................................352,500
[[Page 34693]]
Ford County Sheriff's Office, Ford County, KS, for addressing and
preventing terror risks in rural areas........................282,000
Fort Bend County, TX Court Team for Maltreated Infants and Toddl305,500
Gallatin County Sheriff's Office, Gallatin County, MT, to purchase of a
mobile communication equipment, and upgrade command vehicle...277,300
Gang and Violent Crime Intervention Project, Madison, WI.........94,000
Gardena, CA Police Department Security Enhancements..............47,000
Generations, Inc., Camden, NJ, for a domestic violence program..133,950
Georgia State University HIV/Prisoner Reentry Program, Atlanta, G94,000
Glenville State College, WV Anti-recidivism prisoner education p188,000
Glenville State College, WV Criminal Justice Program............705,000
Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake, Baltimore, MD, to provide ex-
offenders with services, including drug treatment, housing, and job
placement.....................................................223,250
Grace College.................................................1,128,000
Grambling State University, Grambling, LA, for forensics lab equi89,300
Grands As Parents, Very Important People (VIP) Program, Philadelphia,
PA.............................................................47,000
Grant Sawyer Center Justice Education Program, Reno, NV, for operating
support and scholarships for judges in the Judicial Studies degree
program.......................................................178,600
Greater Philadelphia Boyz to Men Fatherhood Initiative, PA......446,500
Greenburgh, NY Drug Court Program................................47,000
H.O.P.E. Center of Shade Tree Domestic Abuse Center, Las Vegas, NV, for
services including life skills training for victims of domesti357,200
Hamburg, PA Area School District, Safety and Security project....23,500
Hamilton County, OH Reentry Project..............................94,000
Hamilton County, TN Drug Court..................................150,400
Harris County, TX Sheriff's Office............................2,232,500
Hawaii Innocence Project........................................305,500
Haymarket Center Furlough Program for Women, Chicago, IL........305,500
Hennepin County, Minneapolis, to create an electronic charging process
to allow for electronic signature of court charging documents.178,600
Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science Cold Case Center, University
of New Haven, CT..............................................470,000
Henry Lee Institute for Forensic Science, West Haven, CT, for equipment
and other costs for the National Forensic Crisis Management and
Investigation Center..........................................223,250
Homestead Borough Police Department Crime Prevention and Assistan47,000
Honolulu, HI Police Department Forensic Laboratory..............446,500
Hope House Children Services Program, Independence, MO...........70,500
Houston, TX Domestic Violence Enforcement Initiative............893,000
Houston, TX Police Department...................................352,500
Idaho Department of Corrections...............................1,222,000
Idaho State Police............................................1,128,000
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Elder Abuse Prevention
Pilot Program, Chicago, IL....................................188,000
Indian River Community College, FL Public Safety Communications/IT
Project.......................................................141,000
Iowa Central Community College..................................423,000
Iowa Department of Public Health, Polk County, IA, for an in-jail
treatment program.............................................582,000
Iowa Drug Endangered Children Response Teams....................141,000
Iowa Legal Aid, Des Moines, IA, to provide legal assistance at
community health centers......................................145,500
Iowa State University Cyber project.............................611,000
Iowa State University Forensic Science........................2,820,000
John Jay College Criminal Justice Center, NY....................305,500
John Jay College, New York, NY, for the Regenhard Center for Emergency
Response Studies..............................................178,600
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, for the Johns Hopkins Prisoner
Career Re-Entry Program to provide job training and placement.178,600
Johnson County, KS Safety for Behavioral Healthcare Workers......94,000
Johnson County, NC Schools Critical Infrastructure Protection Sy164,500
Johnson County, TX Stop the Offender Program....................188,000
Joseph J. Peterman Institute, Philadelphia, PA Latino Child Abuse
Prevention Program............................................164,500
Kane County, IL Mental Health Court.............................235,000
Kane County, IL Sheriff's Office................................705,000
Kansas Bureau of Investigation...................................70,500
Kansas City, MO Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assau47,000
Kansas Regional Community Policing Institute....................564,000
KidsPeace Arizona Foster Care & Family Services Program.........141,000
KidsPeace in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA..........188,000
King County, WA Sheriff's Office for school resource officers...329,000
King County, WA Sheriff's Office Gang Intervention Initiative...352,500
Lafayette County, AR Sheriff's Office............................47,000
Lafayette Parish Bar Foundation, Lafayette Parish, LA, to increase the
level of services through the Lafayette Parish Bar Foundation..89,300
Laguna Pueblo Integrated Justice Center, Mescalero, NM, for law
enforcement, courts, detention equipment and operations.......267,900
Lancaster County, SC Sheriff's Office Firing Range Equipment.....94,000
Lane County, OR Adult Corrections Mental Health Recidivism Projec94,000
Larimer County, CO Sheriff's Department, Specialized Prosecution258,500
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Las Vegas, NV, to upgrade command
vehicle to coordinate law enforcement activities..............446,500
Latin American Youth Center, Langley Park, MD, for juvenile delinquency
prevention programs through intervention, prevention and prose669,750
Liberty Hall II Offender Re-Entry Program, Indianapolis, IN.....446,500
Living Classrooms, Baltimore, MD, for a prisoner re-entry progra200,925
Livingstone College, NC Criminal Justice Program................329,000
Local Initiative Support Corporation, Jackson, MS, to provide community
law enforcement training......................................705,000
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Community Safety Initiativ329,000
Long County, GA Sheriff's Office................................347,800
Los Angeles County CDC Comprehensive Crime Prevention Program, Monterey
Park, CA......................................................423,000
Los Angeles, CA Gang Reduction Program..........................940,000
Louisiana District Attorneys Association........................352,500
[[Page 34694]]
Lower Makefield, PA Police Department, Bucks County Security Threat
Group.........................................................352,500
Luna County Sheriff's Department, Deming, NM, to purchase equipment and
to train law enforcement agencies along the New Mexico-Mexico 223,250
Lutheran Settlement House, Philadelphia, PA Bilingual Domestic Violence
Project........................................................70,500
Luzerne County Community College, Nanticoke, PA, for training and
equipment acquisition.........................................329,000
Luzerne County, PA Drug Court Program...........................940,000
Macon County, Macon County, IL, for gun violence prevention.....150,000
Mahoning County, OH Substance Abuse Interventions and Treatment
Programs.......................................................94,000
Mahoning Valley, OH Law Enforcement Task Force..................376,000
Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, Gang Elimination Task Force,
Baltimore, MD...............................................2,820,000
Maryland Regional Gang Initiative, Montgomery and Prince George's
Counties, MD..................................................446,500
Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office, Baltimore, MD, for a program to stop
gang violence...............................................2,679,000
McLean County, McLean County, IL, for a drug court..............350,000
Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation--Check 'em Out Program............470,000
Mentoring Incarcerated Parents (MIP), Philadelphia, PA..........329,000
Metropolitan Crime Commission, New Orleans, LA, to eliminate public
corruption and to reduce white-collar crime...................329,000
Metropolitan Family Services Domestic Violence Services, Chicago235,000
Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault, Jackson County,
MO, for intervention and advocacy services for victims of sexual
violence......................................................329,000
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Regional Pawn Database
Sharing System.................................................94,000
Midland County, MI Courts.......................................314,900
Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI, to maintain
staff and services in domestic violence unit..................401,850
Milwaukee County, WI Benedict Center Women's Harm Reduction Progr94,000
Milwaukee Public Schools, Milwaukee, MN, to continue safe summer223,250
Minneapolis, MN Gunfire Detection System........................564,000
Minnesota State Patrol, Drug Sniffing K-9's for Northeastern MN Patrol
Districts......................................................32,900
MISSING Internet Safety Program in Anderson, IN.................352,500
Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, for knowledge-based data
integration and intelligence..................................940,000
Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, provide technical
assistance to law enforcement regarding electronic and compu1,598,000
Missoula, MT Police Department...................................75,200
Mobile County Commission, Mobile, AL, for interoperable communications
systems.......................................................470,000
Monroe County Department of Public Safety, Monroe County, NY, for the
Fingerprint and Trace module..................................446,500
Monroe County, NY Crime Lab Computer and Document Forensic and Digital
Evidence Module...............................................625,100
Monroe County, NY Drug Analysis Module........................1,598,000
Monroe County, NY Firearms Analysis Crime Lab.................1,673,200
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.................203,980
Montana State University........................................188,000
Montana State University at Billings, Yellowstone County, MT, for an
academic development program targeted at inmates at the Montana
Women's Prison in Billings....................................267,900
Montana Supreme Court, Lewis and Clark County, MT, to enhance and
sustain Montana's adult, family and juvenile drug courts......312,550
Monterey County, CA Street Violence and Anti-Gang Project.....1,269,000
Morgan County, AL Child Advocacy Center..........................78,020
Morgan County, CO...............................................188,000
Mujeres Latinas en Accion, Parent Support Program, Chicago, IL..188,000
Multnomah County, OR Elder Abuse Prosecution Project.............47,000
Muskegon County, MI Alternatives to Incarceration Program.......352,500
Nassau County, NY District Attorney's Office, Get REAL Anti-Gang
Initiative....................................................188,000
National Association of Court Management........................188,000
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA, to
provide equipment and training to reunite displaced children and
adults.........................................................89,300
National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, DC, National hotline
that provides information and services to crime victims.......470,000
National Children's Advocacy Center, Huntsville, AL, Support Services
for Child Abuse Victims in North Alabama......................423,000
National Crime Victims Law Institute..........................4,465,000
National Forensic Science Training Center, FL.................2,030,400
National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC, for a study to
assess the need for a Nevada Indian tribal detention facility..89,300
National Institute on State Policy on Trafficking of Women and Girls,
Washington, DC................................................648,600
National Judicial College, Reno, NV, to provide training to judg893,000
Nation's Missing Children Organization and National Center for Missing
Adults, Wyoming, for technology to locate missing persons......94,000
New Directions for Youth program, Van Nuys, CA..................141,000
New Hope Academy Drug Treatment to Low-Income Families, Rehrersb211,500
New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, to develop grip
recognition on guns...........................................267,900
New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, Santa Fe, NM, to
continue drug court programs..................................267,900
North Brooklyn Development Corporation, Brooklyn, NY at-risk youth
programs.......................................................94,000
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation State Crime Lab DNA
Enhancement...................................................282,000
North Metro Task Force, Adams County and City/County of Broomfield, CO
Police Departments............................................587,500
Northampton County, PA Child Advocacy Center....................235,000
Northeast Regional Forensic Institute, Albany, NY...............540,500
Northern Kentucky University Research Foundation, Highland Heights, KY,
for increasing the security of the Internet and electronic sys329,000
Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force....................2,350,000
Northwest Missouri NITRO Task Force.............................352,500
Northwest Regional Gang Task Force, VA..........................564,000
NY State Sheriffs Association...................................352,500
Oak Ridge, TN Police Department...............................1,034,000
Oakland Center for Public Safety at Merritt College, CA..........94,000
[[Page 34695]]
Office of the District Attorney, 3rd Judicial District, Rural Domestic
Violence I Initiative, Las Cruces, NM, for outreach to rural,
underserved areas.............................................133,950
Office of the Tulare County, CA, District Attorney..............352,500
Oglala Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South Dakota, for law
enforcement, court, and detention equipment and operations....893,000
Oglala Sioux Tribe Department of Public Safety, Community Policing,
Pine Ridge, SD................................................564,000
On-Site Academy's Law Enforcement Counseling Program, Gardner, M470,000
Operation Our Town, Altoona, PA.................................235,000
Operation UNITE, KY...........................................3,572,000
Pace University Women's Justice Center, White Plains, NY.........47,000
Painesville, OH Police Department................................70,500
Parents for Megan's Law, Stony Brook, NY, for the National Megan's Law
Helpline, Crime Victims Center, Advocacy, & Counseling program334,875
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Dauphin County, PA,
for a training, education, and prevention institute on domestic
violence and homicide prevention..............................312,550
Phoenix House Families Facing Addiction Program, NY, NY..........47,000
Phoenix House in Dublin, NH.....................................352,500
Phoenix House, Capital Region of New York.......................601,600
Pinellas County, FL Forensic Lab................................695,600
Pitt County, NC Gang Prevention program..........................47,000
Polytechnic University, NY Large Scale Network Forensics........376,000
Portage County, OH Adult Probation Department, Community Integration
and Socialization Program.....................................188,000
Prince George's County, MD State's Attorney Office, Bilingual Victims
Advocate.......................................................42,300
Public Safety Officer Training Center, Casper, WY...............470,000
Red Bay, AL Police Department....................................18,800
Regional Counterdrug Training Academy, Meridian, MS.............291,400
Regional Fingerprint ID project, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,
CA..........................................................1,880,000
Rhode Island Family Court Mental Health Services, Providence, RI, to
provide rapid psychological evaluations and treatment recommendations
to youth and the courts.......................................223,250
Rhode Island Municipal Police Academy...........................188,000
Ridley Park, PA Police Community Educational Programs............79,900
Riverside County, CA Sheriff's Department.......................352,500
Riverside County, CA Sheriff's Department Endangered Children 1,094,160
Riverside County, CA Web Wise Kids program......................235,000
Roca Inc, Alternatives to Youth Violence, Boston, MA............305,500
Rose Brooks Center Project SAFE program, Kansas City, MO........376,000
Rose Hill, KS Police Department.................................235,000
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South Dakota, for law
enforcement, court, and detention equipment and operations....446,500
Rural Criminal Justice Center at Central Wyoming College........470,000
Rural Justice Institute at Alfred University....................752,000
Safe and Sound, Milwaukee, WI, to provide continued operational 535,800
Safer Foundation, Transitional Program for Ex-Offenders, Chicago470,000
Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA Violence Prevention and
Response Training..............................................70,500
Sam Houston State University Regional Crime Lab.................352,500
San Francisco, CA Community Justice Center....................1,034,000
San Francisco, CA Ex-Offender Reentry Services................1,504,000
San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department.....................282,000
Sankofa Safe Child Initiative, Chicago, IL.......................47,000
Santa Ana, CA Police Department, Missing Program/Internet Safety for
Kids...........................................................94,000
School Resource Officers for South Gate, CA.....................376,000
School Safety Project in Derby, KS..............................235,000
School Safety Project in Newton, KS.............................235,000
School Security Program in Tulsa, OK............................352,500
Sea Research Foundation After School Program for at-risk youth, Mystic,
CT............................................................282,000
Second Chance Prisoner Re-entry Project, San Diego, CA..........681,500
Sedgwick County, KS District Attorney's Office..................470,000
Sedgwick County, KS Sheriff's Office............................423,000
Sex Offender Alert and Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Education
Programs, Stony Brook, NY.....................................258,500
Shelby County, KY Drug/Alcohol Advisory Council..................75,200
Sheriff's Association of New Jersey, State-wide Accreditation Pro78,960
Shreveport-Bossier Community Renewal, Shreveport, LA, for a crime
prevention initiative..........................................89,300
Simon Wiesenthal Center, Los Angeles, CA, To provide sensitivity
training to law enforcement when investigating hate crimes and civil
rights abuses...............................................1,598,000
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Department of Justice, correctional
rehabilitation strategies, Agency Village, SD..................94,000
Solano County, CA Probation Enhanced Supervision of High Risk Domestic
Violence Offenders.............................................47,000
South Dakota Children's Home Society, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for
family support services, forensic interviewing centers, and emergency
shelter operations............................................361,900
South Florida Anti-Gang Task Force, Broward County, FL, to fight gang
violence......................................................357,200
Southern Illinois University--Carbondale, Center for Rural Violence and
Prevention.....................................................94,000
Southern Virginia Child Advocacy Center..........................28,200
Spokane County, WA Sheriff's Office.............................352,500
St. Louis County, MO Police Crime Laboratory....................141,000
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South Dakota, for
law enforcement, court, and detention equipment and operations446,500
State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, for rural law enforcement..........940,000
State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, to continue alcohol interdiction,
investigation and prosecution of bootlegging crimes...........752,000
State of New Mexico First Judicial District Court Mental Health Court
Program, Santa Fe, NM, to expand services.....................188,000
Stepping Stones Child Advocacy, La Crosse, WI...................211,500
Stop It Now, Northampton, MA.....................................94,000
Stop Violence in Ross County, OH................................305,500
Suffolk County, NY District Attorney's Office, Senior Abuse Unit282,000
Suffolk County, NY Internet Crimes Against Children Prevention P399,500
Summa Health Systems, Akron, OH, for care to domestic violence victims
and assistance to law enforcement personnel...................401,850
[[Page 34696]]
Tahirih Justice Center, VA legal and social services..........1,175,000
Tallahassee Community College, FL Pat Thomas Law Enforcement Aca188,000
Tallapoosa County, AL Sheriff's Office...........................94,000
Tarleton State University Rural Law Enforcement Project.........705,000
TASC Center for Health and Justice, Chicago, IL..................47,000
Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition..............................4,982,000
Texas State University Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response T927,780
Texas State University and Texas Engineering Extension Service, Project
Protect, San Marcos, TX.......................................470,000
The Doe Fund, Inc., Ready, Willing, and Able, NY................564,000
The Doe Fund, Ready, Willing & Able, Jersey City, NJ............141,000
Thiel College, PA Community Partnership Security Center.........423,000
Tifton, GA Police Department, Neighborhood Watch Programs........61,100
Town of Eureka, Lincoln County, MT, for upgrades law enforcement
training facility.............................................223,250
Towson University, MD Forensic Chemistry Institute..............141,000
Troy University, Troy, AL, for cyber crime prevention and traini493,500
Tulsa Public Schools, Tulsa, OK, for public schools campus police47,000
Turtle Mountain Community College, Belcourt, ND, for the continued
development of an innovative tribal justice program...........223,250
UAB, Birmingham, AL, for an anti-cyber-crime computational opera470,000
Unified Government of Kansas City, KS Victims of Crime Services.376,000
Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, KS, for crime
victim services...............................................282,000
UNITE law enforcement pilot project, Beverly Hills, CA..........893,000
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, OK Domestic Violence and
Victims Assistance programs...................................188,000
United Way of Southeastern Michigan Ex-Offender Reentry Program.634,500
University of Alabama School of Law, Family Law Clinic..........141,000
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, for mediation and dispute
resolution services in family courts..........................282,000
University of Arkansas Criminal Justice Institute School Resource
Officer Training..............................................305,500
University of Arkansas Methamphetamine Education and Training Pr352,500
University of Colorado at Denver--Audio and Video Forensics proj352,500
University of Connecticut Health Center, Breaking the Cycle of
Behavioral Health Problems and Crime..........................470,000
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, for community-based gun
violence prevention and intervention..........................380,000
University of Illinois at Chicago, Project on Violence Prevention--
CeaseFire......................................................47,000
University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY, to encourage
and prepare students from economically-disadvantaged backgrounds to
pursue careers in law.........................................376,000
University of Louisville Research Foundation, Louisville, KY, to
develop methods for detecting child abuse.....................376,000
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, for combined law enforcement
efforts.....................................................1,880,000
University of Memphis, TN Integrated Gang and Violent Crime Reduction
Program.......................................................564,000
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, provide legal analysis and
training to judges and prosecutors regarding electronic and computer
crime.......................................................2,538,000
University of Missouri--St. Louis, Family Intervention Program for
Parents Who have Abused Drugs.................................249,100
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Immigrant Resource Project, Las
Vegas, NV, for a legal education program......................267,900
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Las Vegas, NV, for the ITFFRO
Center........................................................580,450
University of North Dakota, School of Law, Grand Forks, ND, for the
recruitment and retention of American Indian law students.....178,600
University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, SC, law clinic
support.......................................................188,000
University of South Carolina, Gangnet...........................282,000
University of Tennessee Law Enforcement Innovation Center.......446,500
University of Toledo Program to Increase Effective Services for Child
Victims of Commercial Exploitation............................423,000
Upper Darby, PA Center for Family Safety........................352,500
Utah Sheriffs' Association Jail Inspection Systems, St. George, U94,000
Utah Valley State College Forensic program......................352,500
Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation Native American Law Enforcement,
Court System, Detention Improvement Program, CO...............493,500
Utica College, NY Sex Offender Authentication Research Project..705,000
Venango, PA Internet Safety Project.............................188,000
Ventura County, CA District Attorney's Office...................164,500
Ventura County, CA Sheriff's Department.........................188,000
Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, to combat increased
heroin, methamphetamine and other drug activity.............1,000,000
Vermont Judiciary, Court Administrator's Office, Montpelier, VT, to
provide victims of domestic violence with access to the courts223,250
Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VT, to allow the Legal Clinic
Services Expansion program at the Vermont Law School to expand its
work on immigration matters and increase services available to
Vermonters in western part of the state.......................250,000
Vermont Police Academy, Pittsford, VT, to train new recruits to deal
with violent and drug related crimes..........................188,000
Vermont Protection and Advocacy, Montpelier, VT, for communication
support for the disabled in court proceedings..................89,300
Villa Julie College, MD Forensic Studies and Training Program...423,000
Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA, for Virginia Tech expenses
related to shooting on campus..................................53,580
VIVA: Adult Volunteer Hispanic Outreach Program in FL and NM....705,000
Volunteers of America Delaware Valley, Collingswood, NJ, for a re-entry
program.......................................................446,500
Voorhees College, SC Dating Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention and
Services......................................................470,000
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs DNA Initiat470,000
Washington County, NC Courthouse Security........................47,000
[[Page 34697]]
Washington County, OR Drug Court................................446,500
Washington County, OR Recovery Mentors..........................211,500
Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Reno, NV, for a pilot program to house
mentally ill offenders.........................................89,300
Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Reno, NV, to secure improvements at the
justice center................................................893,000
Waukegan, IL Police Department--North Suburban Gang Task Force..846,000
Waynesburg College, PA Electronic Crime Prevention and Investiga470,000
Weld County, CO Gang Task Force.................................235,000
Westfield State College, MA Law Enforcement Training Program....305,500
Westminster, CA Police Department...............................352,500
Westside Health Authority Neighborhood Re-Entry Center (NRC), Chicago,
IL............................................................164,500
Whatcom County Executive's Office, Bellingham, WA, for northern border-
related prosecution...........................................679,150
Will County, IL Sheriff's Office................................202,100
Willmar, MN Gang Enforcement Team...............................141,000
Winona State University, MN National Child Protection Training C775,500
Women's Center of Tarrant County, TX............................235,000
Women's Council on African American Affairs, Little Rock, AR, for
support for the Center for Healing Hearts and Spirits Prevention of
Black on Black Crime Initiative................................89,300
YMCA of Greater New York.........................................47,000
Yonkers, NY Outstanding Warrants Program.........................94,000
Zero to Three Court Teams for Maltreated Infants and Toddlers,
Honolulu, HI..................................................408,900
Zero to Three Court Teams Project, New Haven, CT................329,000
Byrne Competitive Grants.--The amended bill provides
$16,000,000 for Byrne competitive grants to programs of
national significance to prevent crime, improve the
administration of justice, or assist victims of crime. Within
60 days of enactment of this Act, the Office of Justice
Programs is directed to provide a report and spend plan to
the Appropriations Committees, which details the scope of the
program and the criteria and methodology the agency will
employ to award these grants. It is expected that national
programs that have received funding under the Byrne
discretionary program will be eligible for funding under this
competitive grant program.
Tribal Law Enforcement Assistance.--The amended bill
provides $22,440,000 for law enforcement assistance to Indian
tribes, of which $8,630,000 is for tribal prison
construction; $8,630,000 is for tribal courts; and $5,180,000
is for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
assistance. The Appropriations Committees note with deep
concern the poor condition of tribal detention facilities on
Navajo Nation land and across the country. The Department of
Justice is directed to review the state of existing tribal
detention facilities and the need for new detention capacity,
and to report to the Appropriations Committees no later than
180 days after enactment of this Act on its findings,
including recommendations and actions that have or will be
taken to address these needs.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).--The
amended bill provides $410,000,000 for the SCAAP program for
reimbursement to States and localities for costs of
incarceration of criminal aliens. In light of the long delay
in disbursing fiscal year 2006 SCAAP funds, the Department is
directed to improve coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security in the vetting, verification and
reimbursement of claims.
Southwest Border Prosecutions.--The amended bill includes
$30,080,000 to provide assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies (including prosecutors, probation
officers, courts and detention facilities) along the
southwest border with the handling and processing of drug and
alien cases referred from Federal arrests.
Northern Border Prosecutions.--The amended bill includes
$2,820,000 to provide assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies (including prosecutors, probation
officers, courts and detention facilities) along the northern
border with the handling and processing of drug and alien
cases referred from Federal arrests.
Drug Courts.--The amended bill provides $15,200,000 for
grants to drug courts, which are designed to adjudicate
substance abusing offenders and help them to break the cycle
of addiction. This funding level represents a $5,328,000
increase over fiscal year 2007.
Hal Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.--The
amended bill includes $7,050,000 for the Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program to assist States in developing
prescription drug monitoring systems. The Office of Justice
Programs is directed to continue to work with the Drug
Enforcement Administration to implement this program.
Prison Rape Prevention and Prosecution.--The amended bill
includes $17,860,000 for prison rape prevention and
prosecution programs authorized by the Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003. Within funding provided, $1,692,000
shall be transferred to the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission, of which $470,000 is made available to conduct a
report to the Appropriations Committees on how previously
appropriated Federal funds have been spent and the impact
this funding has had on reducing prison rape.
Capital Litigation.--The amended bill includes $2,500,000
for Capital Litigation Improvement Grants, as authorized by
section 426 of the Justice For All Act (Public Law 108-405).
SEARCH National Technical Assistance and Training
Program.--The Appropriations Committees support efforts to
assist States in the development and use of information
systems to accelerate the automation of fingerprint
identification processes and criminal justice data which are
compatible with the FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System.
2008 Presidential Conventions Security.--The amended bill
provides $100,000,000 in emergency funds to State and local
law enforcement entities for security and related costs,
including overtime, associated with the two principal 2008
Presidential Candidate Nominating Conventions, to be divided
equally between the conventions.
WEED AND SEED PROGRAM FUND
The amended bill provides $32,100,000 for the Weed and Seed
Program Fund, instead of $50,000,000, as proposed by the
Senate, and $49,692,000, as proposed by the House. The House
proposed to fund this program within the Community Oriented
Policing Services account.
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
The amended bill provides $587,233,000 for Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs, instead of
$725,000,000, as proposed by the House, and $660,000,000, as
proposed by the Senate.
Community Oriented Policing Services
(In thousands of dollars)
Amended
Program Bill Amount
COPS Hiring Grants..............................................$20,000
Law Enforcement Technology and Interoperability.................205,366
NIST/OLES.....................................................(1,000)
Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction.............................20,000
Meth Hot Spots...................................................61,187
Bullet-Proof Vests...............................................25,850
NIST/OLES.....................................................(1,880)
Tribal Law Enforcement...........................................15,040
Criminal Records Upgrade..........................................9,400
DNA Analysis Backlog Reduction/Crime Labs.......................152,272
Debbie Smith DNA Backlog grants.............................(147,391)
Post-Conviction DNA Testing grants............................(4,881)
Paul Coverdell Forensic Science..................................18,800
Offender Re-Entry................................................11,750
Child Sexual Predator Elimination/Sex Offender Management........15,608
Sex Offender Management.......................................(4,162)
National Sex Offender Registry..................................(850)
Training and Technical Assistance.................................3,760
Management and Administration....................................28,200
__________
Total......................................................$587,233
COPS Hiring Grants.--The amended bill provides $20,000,000
for grants to State and local governments for the hiring of
additional law enforcement officers for deployment in
community-oriented policing across the nation. Also known as
``COPS on the Beat,'' this grant program is being funded for
the first time since 2005.
Law Enforcement Technology and Interoperability.--The
amended bill provides $205,366,000 for law enforcement
technology grants to State and local law enforcement
agencies. Within the amounts provided, $1,000,000 shall be
transferred to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to continue the efforts of the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards in developing minimum standards for
equipment purchased through this grant program. Within the
funds provided, the COPS program office is directed to review
the following projects, to provide funding consistent with
law and Congressional intent, and to report to the
Appropriations Committees regarding the disbursement of these
funds:
Project Amount
Accomack County, VA Sheriff's Office............................$37,600
Adams County, IL................................................376,000
Adams County, IL, Sheriff's Department..........................282,000
Albuquerque Police Department, Albuquerque, NM, for an information
system to enhance communication and facilitate sharing among law
enforcement jurisdictions.....................................223,250
[[Page 34698]]
Alexandria, VA Law Enforcement Technology........................94,000
Alleghany County, VA Sheriff's Department.......................470,000
Allegheny County, PA Chiefs of Police...........................352,500
Allentown, PA Police Department.................................470,000
Alsip, IL, Police Department equipment...........................94,000
Altoona, AL Police Department....................................28,200
Alvernia College, Reading, PA, for equipment to train police
officers......................................................223,250
Ambler Township, PA Police Department Equipment.................126,900
Amherst County, VA..............................................164,500
Amherst, NY, Police Department..................................164,500
Anderson County, KY Sheriff's Mobile Data Terminals.............188,000
Arkansas State Police, Little Rock, AR, for a Forensic Recovery of
Evidence Data Center..........................................401,850
Arkansas State Police, Little Rock, AR, to provide wireless
technology to investigators in the field......................223,250
Arlington County, VA Emergency Mobile Technology Support.........94,000
Ashburn, GA Police Department Equipment..........................84,600
Atchison County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment.....94,000
Austin, TX Police Department Technology.........................211,500
Baldwin County Commission, Baldwin County, AL, for interoperable
communications equipment......................................282,000
Baltimore City Police Department, Baltimore, MD, to upgrade
forensics laboratory equipment................................446,500
Baltimore County Police Department, Baltimore County, MD, to upgrade
forensics laboratory equipment................................446,500
Barboursville, WV Police Department..............................94,000
Barren County Fiscal Court, Barren County, KY, for mobile data
terminals and other communication equipment...................235,000
Barrington-Inverness, IL Police Department Interoperable
Communications Equipment......................................493,500
Bayfield County, WI Law Enforcement Pictometry Technology.......940,000
Beaver County, PA Emergency Communications......................446,500
Beaver County, Pennsylvania Emergency Services Center, Beaver
County, PA, for public safety radio systems acquisition and
upgrades......................................................235,000
Bell Gardens, CA Police Communications Interoperability project.188,000
Bell, CA Police Department Law Enforcement and Technology.......235,000
Bellingham, WA Police Department Technology Equipment...........258,500
Beloit, WI Police Department....................................164,500
Bergen County, NJ Countywide Interoperable Communication System.394,800
Berkeley, CA Public Safety Interoperability Program..............94,000
Berkley Heights, NJ Police Department...........................188,000
Bethlehem, PA Police Department.................................940,000
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Police Department, Bethlehem, PA, for
interoperable in-car digital video camera systems.............329,000
Billings, MT, Police Department.................................206,800
Bloomington, IN Law Enforcement Technologies and Interoperable
Communications Program........................................345,920
Blount County, TN Sheriff's Office..............................188,000
Bowie, MD Police Law Enforcement Technology Upgrades............470,000
Braintree, MA Police Department Equipment.......................164,500
Brisbane, CA and Millbrae, CA Police Equipment..................470,000
Bristol, PA Law Enforcement Equipment............................94,000
Buchanan County, IA law enforcement equipment...................987,000
Bucks County, PA Law Enforcement Interoperability...............235,000
Buffalo, NY Law Enforcement Technology..........................470,000
Buffalo, NY Police Department Law Enforcement Technology........376,000
Cabell County, WV Sheriff's Office..............................376,000
Calaveras County, CA............................................352,500
Caldwell County, NC, Sheriff's Department.......................352,500
Calvert County, MD Sheriff's Office Mobile Command Unit Equipmen752,000
Cambria County, PA..............................................117,500
Camden County, Camden, NJ, for emergency communication hardware and
software upgrades.............................................446,500
Cameron County, TX Interoperable Communications..................47,000
Capital Wireless Information Network (CapWIN), Greenbelt, MD, for
wireless database access and for public safety personnel in the
National Capital region.......................................893,000
Carmel, IN......................................................258,500
Cary, NC Police Department Technology Upgrades..................352,500
Castle Hayne, NC VisionAIR Data Integration Network.............399,500
CAT Lab at UNH, University of Durham, NH, for law enforcement
technology....................................................658,000
CCE Central Dispatch Authority, MI..............................531,100
Center for Technology Commercialization (CTC)--Public Safety
Technology Center, Worchester County, MA, to enhance the
capability of state and local law enforcement officials.......312,550
Central Missouri Regional Justice Information System..........1,269,000
Central Piedmont Community College, Charlotte, NC, for high-tech
crime scene investigation training............................470,000
Ceredo, WV Police Department.....................................47,000
Chautauqua County, NY Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Equipment141,000
Chester County, PA..............................................376,000
Chester County, Pennsylvania District Attorney's Office, Chester
County, PA, for incident response management technology.......235,000
Chesterfield County, VA.........................................126,900
Chicago, IL Police Department Citizen and Law Enforcement Analysis
and Reporting (CLEAR) Program...............................1,034,000
Chippewa County, WI Public Safety Dispatch Enhancements.........470,000
Chowan County, NC Emergency Operations Center Equipment.........282,000
Cities of Concord, Kannapolis, NC, for Regional Radio Upgrades..188,000
City of Abilene, TX..............................................84,600
City of Albuquerque, NM.......................................2,068,000
City of Athens, Athens, AL, for mobile data units in police cars211,500
City of Auburn, Auburn, AL, for a mobile data system............305,500
City of Bastrop, LA...........................................1,645,000
City of Bellevue, City of Bellevue, WA, for equipment upgrades..357,200
City of Bellevue, WA..........................................1,410,000
City of Billings, Yellowstone County, MT, for a new crime scene
investigation equipment upgrades..............................178,600
City of Bridgeport, City of Bridgeport, CT, for the purchase and
installation of six wireless surveillance cameras.............223,250
City of Bridgeport, CT, Police Department.......................188,000
City of Brockton Police Department, Plymouth County, MA, for a
modernized dispatch and wireless network to meet public safety and
emergency response needs......................................223,250
City of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, for a camera system within the City of
Buffalo.......................................................535,800
City of Calera Police Department, Calera, AL, for technology
upgrades......................................................141,000
City of Chattanooga, TN, Police Department......................634,500
City of Cincinnati Police Department, Cincinnati, OH, for retention
and protection of digital audio and video files...............308,320
City of Claremont, CA.........................................1,880,000
City of Como, MS.................................................94,000
City of Daphne, Daphne, AL, for wireless technology upgrades.....94,000
City of Decatur, AL.............................................404,200
City of Dothan, Alabama, Dothan, AL, For an interoperable
communications system.........................................470,000
City of East Point, East Point, GA, for law enforcement technology
upgrades......................................................282,000
City of Elizabeth, Elizabeth, NJ, for installation of wireless
cameras.......................................................357,200
City of Evansville, City of Evansville, IN, for communications
equipment.....................................................267,900
City of Flagler Beach, FL.......................................211,500
City of Flagler Beach, Flagler County, FL, for emergency and law
enforcement equipment.........................................178,600
City of Flint Police Department, Flint, MI, for in-car computers for
patrol vehicles...............................................669,750
City of Fresno, Fresno, CA, for in-vehicle video camera units and
mobile data terminals.........................................267,900
City of Gadsden, Gadsden, AL, for cameras and laptops for police
vehicles......................................................258,500
City of Glen Cove, NY...........................................178,600
City of Glendale, AZ............................................352,500
City of Glendale, Glendale, CA, for the Interagency Communications
Interoperability System (ICIS).................................89,300
City of Great Falls, Cascade County, MT, for law enforcement
equipment.....................................................446,500
[[Page 34699]]
City of Green Bay Police Department, Green Bay, WI, to install in-
car cameras....................................................89,300
City of Greenville, Greenville, AL, for mobile data terminals...235,000
City of Greenville, SC..........................................352,500
City of Gulf Shores, Gulf Shores, AL, for law enforcement technology
upgrades......................................................164,500
City of Headland, Headland, AL, for mobile data terminals........94,000
City of Henderson, Henderson, NV, for equipment for forensic lab410,780
City of Henderson, NV.........................................1,917,600
City of Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, to provide interoperability to
local law enforcement.........................................564,000
City of Jackson, Jackson, MS, for law enforcement technology
upgrades......................................................376,000
City of Kerrville, TX, Police Department........................352,500
City of La Habra, CA.............................................49,820
City of Lake County, Lake County, IL, for communications equipment
purchases.....................................................357,200
City of Livermore, Livermore, CA, for interoperable communications
between different agencies and disciplines....................267,900
City of Luverne, Luverne, AL, for police technology upgrades....117,500
City of Madison Police Department, Madison, WI, for equipment
upgrades......................................................446,500
City of Melbourne, Brevard County, FL, for radio system upgrades133,950
City of Modesto, Modesto, CA, for an interoperable dispatch syst133,950
City of Montrose, Montrose, CO, to improve public safety
communication technology......................................178,600
City of Moultrie, GA............................................329,000
City of Muncie, City of Muncie, IN, to acquire and integrate a radio
system with a public communications system....................267,900
City of Muncie, City of Muncie, IN, to acquire replacement software
and provide improved functionality of the emergency response
system........................................................133,950
City of Murray, Murray, KY, for a computer aided dispatch system117,500
City of Newport, Newport, RI, for 800 MHz public safety radio
spectrum interoperability.....................................357,200
City of Norwalk, CT...........................................1,316,000
City of Norwalk, Norwalk, CT, for interoperability equipment....223,250
City of Oroville, CA............................................282,000
City of Petersburg, Petersburg, VA, for planning and installation of
a fixed mobile WiMax Data System..............................223,250
City of Phenix City, Phenix City, AL, for public safety
communications up-grades......................................329,000
City of Phoenix (Phoenix Police Department), Phoenix, AZ, for an
interoperable communications network...........................94,000
City of Puyallup, Puyallup, WA, for Tacoma/Puyallup law enforcement
interoperability..............................................446,500
City of Reading, PA...........................................1,175,000
City of Reading, Pennsylvania Police Department, Reading, PA, for
security enhancements and camera acquisition..................611,000
City of Redlands, CA, Justice Communications Center.............470,000
City of Reno, Reno, NV, for an interoperable network............223,250
City of Rockford, AL............................................150,400
City of Sedona, AZ..............................................564,000
City of Shelbyville, Shelbyville, IN, for interoperable wireless
communications................................................267,900
City of South Bend, City of South Bend, IN, to obtain an automatic
fingerprint identification system for latent palm prints......178,600
City of Southaven, MS...........................................846,000
City of Springfield, IL.........................................376,000
City of Stamford, CT.............................................94,000
City of Suffolk, VA.............................................141,000
City of Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County, FL, for an
interoperable communications system...........................312,550
City of Terre Haute, City of Terra Haute, IN, for communications
equipment.....................................................267,900
City of Troy, Troy, AL, for mobile data terminals...............211,500
City of Whitefish, Flathead County, MT, to upgrade investigative
equipment and work stations...................................178,600
City of Winston-Salem, NC.......................................376,000
City of Yakima, Yakima, WA, for new technology and equipment....357,200
City of York, Pennsylvania, York, PA, for records management system
acquisition...................................................282,000
City of Yuma, Yuma, AZ, for a regional communications network....94,000
Clarksburg, WV Police Department.................................70,500
CLEMIS Consortium, Pontiac, MI, for equipment purchase..........223,250
Cleveland, OH Countywide Interoperability Communication System..893,000
Cobb County, GA.................................................493,500
Collier County, FL..............................................352,500
Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles, Lakewood, CO, for identity
theft prevention..............................................376,000
Colquitt, GA Police Department...................................70,500
Columbus, OH, Police Department...............................1,222,000
Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA, to purchase equipment....31,255
Connecticut Department of Public Safety Forensic Investigative
Technology....................................................235,000
Contra Costa County, CA ARIES Integrated Justice Information Sys658,000
Conyers, GA Police Technology and 911 Center Improvements.......423,000
Cook County, IL Interoperable Safety and Emergency Communications
Radios......................................................2,256,000
Corcoran, CA Narcotics and Gang Task Force Equipment............611,000
Corona, CA......................................................172,960
County of Fairfax, Fairfax County, VA, for law enforcement
technology up-grades..........................................267,900
County of Wasco, Wasco, OR, Replace outdated and unreliable
Emergency Responder Communication equipment...................223,250
County of Westchester, Westchester County, NY, for surveillance and
video equipment................................................89,300
Craig County, VA Sheriff's Office...............................329,000
Cranford, NJ Police Department..................................235,000
Cudahy, WI Police Department Equipment..........................141,000
Culver City, CA In-Car Police Vehicle Digital Video Recording....84,600
Culver City, CA Law Enforcement Interoperable Communications Sys235,000
Cumberland County, NC Regional Public Safety Communications Syst352,500
Cumberland, RI Police Technology Upgrades.......................188,000
Dakota County, Hastings, MN, for upgrades to Dakota County Criminal
Justice Information...........................................223,250
Dallas, TX Police Technology.....................................94,000
Delaware County, NY Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System.........................................................32,900
Delaware State Police Department................................352,500
Delaware State Police, Dover, DE, for the state-wide Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)......................893,000
Delaware State University, Dover, to test and evaluate a mobile
crime scene and evidence tracking solution for U.S. law
enforcement...................................................893,000
Denton, TX......................................................352,500
Department of Public Safety, Polk County, IA, for investigation and
prosecution of unsolved crimes using DNA evidence.............194,000
Des Moines, IA Emergency Communications.........................141,000
Dothan, AL......................................................352,500
Douglas County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment......94,000
Downriver Community Conference, Southgate, MI, for equipment
upgrades for The Downriver Mutual Aid.........................446,500
Durham and Wake Counties, NC Visual Intelligence Tool...........235,000
East Central University, Ada, OK, for forensics equipment.......235,000
East Orange, NJ Criminal Regional Intelligence Sharing Project
(C.R.I.S.P)...................................................493,500
East Point, GA Law Enforcement Technology Upgrade...............164,500
Eastchester, NY, Law Enforcement Emergency Management Command Center
Equipment......................................................47,000
E-COM Consolidated Dispatch Center, IL for Public Safety Radio
Interoperability..............................................141,000
Edgecombe County, NC Public Safety Technology...................235,000
Effingham County, IL, Sheriff's Office..........................141,000
El Paso, TX Broadband Mobile Network..........................1,222,000
Erie County, PA.................................................235,000
Erie County, Pennsylvania Department of Public Safety, Erie County,
PA, for a mobile communication system.........................564,000
Escambia County, FL.............................................352,500
Escondido, CA wireless modems for police vehicles...............141,000
Essex County, MA Sheriff's Office Information Sharing...........235,000
Essex County, NJ................................................940,000
Evanston, IL Emergency Response Equipment.........................9,400
Evanston, IL Integrated Vehicle Tracking and Information System..94,000
Evanston, IL Public Safety Radio and Telecommunications System..249,100
Fairfax City, VA Police Department..............................117,500
[[Page 34700]]
Fairfield, CA Police CAD/RMS Dispatch and Records Project.......399,500
Fairmont, WV Police Department...................................70,500
Fayette County, IL, Sheriff's Office............................211,500
Fayetteville Police Department, Fayetteville, AR, for a simulcast
communications system that will meet the needs of local public
safety agencies...............................................446,500
Fitchburg, WI Police Department.................................493,500
Flathead County, Flathead County, MT, to enhance emergency
communications................................................223,250
Flint, MI Police Department In-Car Technology...................799,000
Foley Police Department, Foley, AL, for communications upgrades.235,000
Follansbee, WV Police Department.................................70,500
Fort Lee, NJ Interoperable Communications System................282,000
FoxComm, Green Bay, WI, to implement interoperable communication446,500
Framingham, MA Emergency Interoperable Wireless Communications
Equipment Network.............................................517,000
Franklin Park, IL Law Enforcement Strategic Technology Program..940,000
Franklin Regional Council of Governments, MA Law Enforcement
Communications................................................329,000
Fremont, CA Interoperable Public Safety Communications System...470,000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Law Enforcement Technology....................94,000
Gaithersburg, MD Police Department Public Safety and Anti-Gang
Initiatives Equipment.........................................117,500
Gallia County, OH Sheriff's Department...........................47,000
Garden Grove, CA Law Enforcement Technology......................94,000
Gardena, CA Law Enforcement Technology..........................235,000
Gary, IN Police Department Gunfire Detection System.............451,200
Georgetown County, SC...........................................352,500
Gillette, WY....................................................470,000
Glades County, FL Sheriff's Office Communications Equipment.....385,400
Glendale, AZ Public Safety Equipment............................940,000
Glendale, CA Interagency Communications Interoperability System
(ICIS)........................................................564,000
Government of the Virgin Islands Law Enforcement Technology.....658,000
Greater Georgetown, CT, Interoperability Initiative.............470,000
Greece, NY, Police Department...................................159,800
Green Bay, WI Police Department Marksmanship Range Equipment....249,100
Green Bay, WI Police Squad Video System.........................371,300
Green Bay, WI Public Safety Video Surveillance...................94,000
Greene County, MO...............................................940,000
Hallandale Beach, FL Law Enforcement Communications Equipment....94,000
Hampton, VA Police Department...................................235,000
Hancock County, MS Public Safety Wireless Network...............587,500
Hartford, CT Public Safety Equipment..........................1,950,500
Haverstraw, NY, Police Department Equipment......................47,000
Henderson County Fiscal Court, Henderson County, KY, for equipment
up-grades.....................................................564,000
Hendry County, FL Law Enforcement Communications Equipment......366,600
Hendry County, FL, for law enforcement communications equipment.178,600
Henry County, GA Law Enforcement Technology.....................470,000
Henry County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment.....................126,900
High Point, NC..................................................352,500
Holden, MA Police Department Technology.........................446,500
Hollywood, FL Mobile Command Unit Equipment.....................376,000
Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu, HI, for improvements to the
Honolulu Police Department's crime lab........................893,000
Hot Springs, AR Police Department Mobile Data Equipment.........329,000
Hot Springs, AR S.W.A.T Ballistic Vests and Tactical Assault Rifl47,000
Howard County, IA, Sheriff's Department.........................188,000
Huntington, WV Police Department................................188,000
Hyattsville, MD Regional Data and Communications Law Enforcement
Equipment.....................................................658,000
Idaho Department of Corrections, Boise, ID, for a web-based offender
information system.............................................47,000
Idaho State Police, Pocatello, ID, to support criminal information
sharing.......................................................470,000
Independence County, AR Sheriff's Department Campus Digital Card
Access System.................................................235,000
Inglewood, CA Computer-Aided Dispatch/Records Management System.423,000
Iowa State University, Ames, IA, for forensics equipment........194,000
Irwindale, CA Communications Interoperability...................225,600
Isle of Wight County, VA.........................................84,600
Itasca County, MN Emergency Radio System........................376,000
Jackson State University, Jackson, MS, for computer software and
mapping.....................................................1,175,000
Jasper County, MO...............................................846,000
Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Birmingham, AL, for wireless
communications upgrades.......................................188,000
Jefferson County, AL Sheriff's Office Integrated Law Enforcement
Records Management............................................470,000
Jefferson County, OH Sheriff's Department........................75,200
Jefferson County, WV Sheriff's Department.......................235,000
Jefferson Parish, LA Sheriff's Department Integrated In-Car Mobile
Technology....................................................672,100
Johnson County, KS Emergency Communications......................94,000
Jupiter, FL Law Enforcement Technology..........................399,500
Kearny, NJ Police Department Law Enforcement Technology System...94,000
Kenosha County Sheriff's Department, Kenosha, WI, for in-car cam178,600
Kenova, WV Police Department.....................................47,000
Keyser, WV Police Department.....................................79,900
King County, WA Court Technology................................305,500
Kiryas Joel, NY Security Equipment and Emergency Services Techno521,700
Lake County Sheriff's Department, Lake County, IN, to augment and
replace helicopters used for public safety purposes...........446,500
Lake County, FL.................................................352,500
Lake County, IL Integrated Criminal Justice Information System...94,000
Lake County, IN Sheriff's Office Technology.....................658,000
Lake Zurich, IL Police Department Firing Range Equipment........211,500
LaPorte County, IN Sheriff's Office In-Car Video Recording Syste413,600
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Las Vegas, NV, for equipment upgra89,300
Las Vegas, NV Metropolitan Police Department Technology Upgrades.94,000
Lauderdale Lakes, FL Law Enforcement Technology.................164,500
Laurel, MD Radio Communications.................................611,000
Laurens County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment...............159,800
Lawrence County, OH Sheriff's Department.........................75,200
Lawrence, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment...........61,100
Leavenworth, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment........70,500
Lee County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment........................65,800
Leominster, MA Police Department Law Enforcement Information and
Analysis Sharing Network......................................493,500
Leon County, FL Joint Emergency Communications Center...........188,000
Lewiston, NY Law Enforcement Technology..........................98,700
Lexington, KY Police Air Support Unit...........................329,000
Linn County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment......................103,400
Lodi, CA, Police Department equipment............................94,000
Logan County, IL, Sheriff's Department..........................846,000
Lorain County, OH Sheriff's Office Mobile Data Terminal Installation
Project........................................................47,000
Lorain, OH Police Department Communications and Emergency Operations
Center Equipment..............................................235,000
Louisville, GA Police Department................................658,000
Louisville, KY Metropolitan Police Department Mobile Data Comput493,500
Macomb County Emergency Management and Communications, Mt. Clemens,
MI, for equipment purchases...................................669,750
Macomb County, MI...............................................352,500
Madison County, Richmond, & Berea, KY Mobile Data Terminals.....216,200
Manchester, NH Police Department Law Enforcement Technology.....117,500
Marion County, FL...............................................282,000
Marion County, Marion, FL, for fingerprint identification equipm178,600
Marshall University, Forensic Science DNA Laboratory, Huntington,
WV, for forensic lab equipment..............................4,465,000
[[Page 34701]]
Massachusetts Sheriff's Association, Norfolk County, MA, for an
information-sharing network...................................223,250
McHenry County Sherriff's Department, McHenry County, IL, for radio
equipment acquisition.........................................446,500
McHenry County, IL Integrated Criminal Justice Information System94,000
McHenry County, IL Law Enforcement Communication System..........94,000
Meigs County, OH Sheriff's Department............................94,000
Mendocino, CA Public Safety Communications......................493,500
Mesa, AZ Police Department Equipment............................305,500
Miami County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment........94,000
Miami Gardens, FL Community Policing Equipment..................141,000
Michigan Public Safety Communications, Lansing, MI, for the
International Border Interoperability Communications enhancement
project.......................................................223,250
Michigan State Police, Lansing, MI, for technology to compare all of
the DNA profiles from the participating States................312,550
Middlesex Community College, Middlesex County, MA, to expand the
Regional Technology Training Law Enforcement Collaborative....223,250
Middletown, RI Police Technology Upgrades.......................282,000
Midland, TX.....................................................235,000
Milton, WV Police Department.....................................47,000
Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee, WI, to install in-car
cameras.......................................................357,200
Mineral County Search and Rescue Training Facility, Mineral County,
MT, to upgrade investigative equipment and work stations......223,250
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension, St. Paul, MN, for a system to improve accurate
identification of individuals.................................223,250
Minnesota State Patrol, 8th Congressional District, Digital Camer18,800
Minnesota State Patrol, Tasers for Northeastern Minnesota Patrol
Districts......................................................47,000
Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Jackson, MS, to provide
technology and equipment upgrades...........................1,880,000
Missoula County, Missoula County, MT, to purchase equipment for
interoperable communications...................................89,300
Missoula County, MT.............................................291,400
Molalla, OR Police Department Technology Improvements............47,000
Monroe County, OH Sheriff's Department...........................70,500
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers, Lewis and Clark County, MT, for
an electronic monitoring for violent offenders and sexual
predators.....................................................446,500
Montebello, CA Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch and Records
Management System.............................................164,500
Monterey Park, CA Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch and
Records Management System.....................................235,000
Montgomery Township, NJ Police Department.......................235,000
Montrose, CO Dispatch Center.....................................94,000
Moreno Valley, CA Police Department.............................141,000
Morgantown, WV Police Department................................282,000
Morris County, NJ...............................................940,000
Moundsville, WV Police Department................................70,500
Municipalities of Arroyo, Manati, Luquillo, and Rio Grande, PR..188,000
Municipality of Ponce, PR.......................................164,500
Narragansett, RI Police Department Interoperable Communications.188,000
Navasota, TX Communications Technology..........................376,000
New Albany, IN Police Department Law Enforcement Technologies...170,140
New Bedford, MA Police Equipment and Technology Upgrades........658,000
New Britain, CT Interoperable Public Safety Information System..634,500
New Cumberland, WV Police Department.............................70,500
New Haven, CT Police Department Gunshot Location System.........376,000
New Jersey Network............................................1,410,000
New Jersey Network, Trenton, NJ, for an interoperable first
responders communications network.............................178,600
New Orleans Police Foundation, Orleans Parish, LA, to design and
implement an integrated information system....................223,250
New Orleans, LA Police Department...............................658,000
New Rochelle, NY, Police Department Communications System........47,000
Newark, CA Police Technology Improvements.......................235,000
Newberry County, SC, Sheriff's Office Technology................705,000
Norfolk, VA Police Department.................................1,052,800
Norman Park, GA Police Department Equipment......................32,900
North Carolina State Highway Patrol Communication Equipment.....329,000
North Carolina State Highway Patrol Law Enforcement Technology..188,000
North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, West New York, NJ, for a mobile
radio interconnect system.....................................267,900
North Judson, IN Police Department Mobile Data Recorders........ 56,400
North Las Vegas Police Department, North Las Vegas, NV, for a new
records management system.....................................223,250
North Las Vegas, NV Police Department Dispatch/Records Management
System........................................................399,500
North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory Commission, Shreveport,
LA, for forensics equipment....................................94,000
Northern IL Law Enforcement Initiative..........................352,500
Northern Lake County, IN Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS)........................................................376,000
Nye County Sheriff's Office, Pahrump, NV, for a law enforcement
license plate scanner.........................................178,600
Oak Ridge Police Department, Oak Ridge, TN, for law enforcement
communications................................................141,000
Oakland County Sheriff's Department (CLEMIS)....................651,420
Odessa, TX......................................................117,500
Ohio County Fiscal Court, Ohio County, KY, for mobile data terminals
and other equipment...........................................211,500
Oneida County, WI Northeast Wisconsin Public Safety Interoperable
Communications................................................235,000
Onondaga County, NY, communications project...................1,410,000
Onondaga County, NY, records management project...............1,128,000
Onondaga County, NY, for a County-City Interoperable Communications
System........................................................446,500
Opa Locka, FL Community Policing Equipment......................141,000
Orange County, NC and Chapel Hill, NC Law Enforcement Equipment.235,000
Orem City Police Department, Orem, UT, for in-car video equipmen164,500
Ouachita County, AR Sheriff's Department........................235,000
Oxnard, CA Police Records Management System.....................470,000
Ozark, MO........................................................94,000
Parkersburg, WV Police Department................................70,500
Parsons Police Department Public Safety Equipment................70,500
Passaic County Prosecutor's Office, Passaic County, NJ, for a fiber
optic network and interoperable communications equipment......267,900
Passaic, NJ, Police Command and Communication Vehicle Equipment.211,500
Paterson, NJ Police Department Security Upgrades................446,500
Perry, GA Police Department Mobile Data Terminals................61,100
Phoenix, AZ Prosecutors Criminal Record System...................56,400
Pierce County, WA Sheriff's Office Automated Finger Imaging Sy1,198,500
Pigeon Forge, TN Police Department..............................352,500
Pima County, AZ Wireless Integrated Network.....................634,500
Pine Bluff Police Department, Pine Bluff, AR, for an interoperable
communications system.........................................535,800
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD, for technology upgrades to the 9-
1-1 system....................................................178,600
Placer County, CA.............................................1,598,000
Plant City, FL Police Department................................131,600
Plantation, FL Law Enforcement Technology.......................282,000
Pomona, CA Police Department Public Radio System.................47,000
Pompano Beach, FL Law Enforcement Technology....................446,500
Port Aransas, TX Communications Equipment........................47,000
Portsmouth, NH Police Department Police Records On-line Service
(PROS)........................................................117,500
Pottawatomie County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment.94,000
Powell County, KY Sheriff's Mobile Data Terminals................28,200
Presidio, TX Interoperable Communications........................23,500
[[Page 34702]]
Prince George's County, MD Interoperable Radio Systems........1,997,500
Prince George's County, MD, Prince George's County, MD, to upgrade
first responder equipment.....................................893,000
Providence, RI Public Safety Communications Equipment...........305,500
Pueblo County, CO Sheriff's Office Technology...................305,500
Putnam County, FL...............................................141,000
Radford, VA Police Department...................................188,000
Rainier Communications Commission, WA...........................235,000
Raleigh, NC Police Department Interoperable Communications
Technology....................................................376,000
Rehoboth, MA Police Department Technology.......................117,500
Richmond County, GA Sheriff Mobile Data Terminal Replacement....188,000
Riley County, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment.......47,000
Riverton Police Department, City of Riverton, Wyoming, for
communications equipment.......................................94,000
Riviera Beach, FL Law Enforcement Technology Improvement Project.94,000
Roane County, TN Emergency Communications.......................611,000
Robbins, IL Police Department equipment.........................258,500
Rochester, NH Police Department Law Enforcement Training and
Equipment.....................................................235,000
Rock Hill and York County, SC Public Safety Communications......282,000
Rockland County, NY Police Information Network...................47,000
Ross Township, PA Police Department Equipment...................399,500
Sacramento County, CA Sheriff's Department Computer Aided Dispatch
Replacement...................................................329,000
Saginaw, MI Police Department Gunfire Detection System..........282,000
Saint Clair, PA Police Drug Enforcement Initiative..............211,500
Salem, OR Police Technology......................................47,000
Salt Lake City, UT In-Car Video Surveillance Technology..........94,000
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, for crime lab
technologies..................................................705,000
San Bernardino County, CA Sheriff's Department..................352,500
San Bernardino, CA Police Department............................282,000
San Carlos Apache Tribe, AZ......................................94,000
San Diego County, CA Sheriff's Department.....................1,198,500
San Diego, CA Police Department.................................681,500
San Joaquin County, CA Interoperable Communications Equipment....94,000
San Luis Obispo County, CA Criminal Justice Records Management
System........................................................188,000
San Mateo County, CA Sheriff's Office Jail Management System....916,500
Santa Clara County, CA Crime Laboratory Equipment.............1,269,000
Santa Cruz County, AZ Collaborative Border Regional Alliance (CoBRA)
Communications Initiative.....................................376,000
Saranac Lake, NY Radio Communication System......................47,000
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, MI Radio and Computer
Technology.....................................................56,400
Savannah River National Laboratory Southeast Security Technology
Center........................................................352,500
Scotch Plains, NJ Police Department..............................75,200
Scott County, IA, Scott County, IA, for equipment and software for
the consolidated dispatch center...............................94,000
Searcy, AR Police Department Law Enforcement Equipment..........188,000
Sellersburg, IN Police Department Law Enforcement Technologies..127,840
Shawnee County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment......61,100
Smith County, MS Sheriff's Department............................61,100
Snyder County, Pennsylvania Emergency Services, Snyder County, PA,
for interoperable communications..............................164,500
Somerset County, NJ.............................................940,000
Somerset, Fayette, Greene, Cambria, Westmoreland, Indiana,
Armstrong, Allegheny, and Washington Counties, PA Police
Department Law Enforcement Technology.......................1,974,000
South Plainfield, NJ Police Department..........................188,000
South River, NJ Hand Held Radio Replacement.....................117,500
SouthCom Dispatch Center, IL for Technological Improvements.....211,500
Southeast Missouri Local Emergency Planning District..........1,391,200
Southern Macomb County, MI Interoperable Communications.........987,000
Southgate, MI Downriver Community Conference Centralized Emergency
Dispatch......................................................188,000
Southington, CT Police Mobile Command Post Technology...........352,500
Southside Virginia Law Enforcement..............................705,000
St. Clair County Commission, St. Clair County, AL, for law
enforcement technology upgrades...............................164,500
St. Clair County, Port Huron, MI, for the purchase of mobile radios
for public safety agencies....................................178,600
St. Louis County Sheriff's Office, Duluth, MN, for equipment to
support interoperability, such as base stations, microwave towers,
and installation..............................................133,950
St. Louis County, MO East Central Dispatch System Upgrade.......220,900
St. Mary's County, MD Sheriff's Office Mobile Data Terminal.....738,840
St. Paul, MN Police Department Interoperable 800 MHz Radio Equip564,000
St. Paul, MN Police Department Police Car Camera and Audio Syste470,000
Stanislaus County, CA...........................................352,500
Starke County, IN Sheriff Department Interoperable Communications
Equipment.....................................................517,000
State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, for remote access to criminal justice
information from a single point...............................235,000
State of Maryland, Annapolis, MD, for equipment to attain
interoperability among all state law enforcement agencies as well
as local jurisdictions........................................669,750
State of Michigan Public Safety Communications System...........164,500
Steelton, PA Police Defense and Enforcement Initiative..........155,100
Stockton, CA Police Equipment...................................634,500
Sultan, WA Police Department Technology Improvement Program.....117,500
Summit, NJ Police Department....................................235,000
Sussex County, NJ...............................................940,000
Swain County, NC Law Enforcement Communications..................94,000
Swainsboro, GA Police Department................................282,000
Talladega County Commission, Talladega, AL, for technological
upgrades to the public safety infrastructure..................211,500
Tempe, AZ Public Safety Communications/Interoperability.........681,500
Terre Haute, IN Emergency Communications........................719,100
Thibodaux, LA Police Department Equipment.......................220,900
Topeka, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment.............65,800
Towamencin Township, PA Police Department Equipment..............42,300
Town of Johnston, Johnston, RI, to purchase communications equipm89,300
Town of Manchester, Town of Manchester, CT, for equipment for an
emergency operations center...................................446,500
Town of Redding, CT, Town of Redding, CT, for equipment for a new
regional Centralized Communications Center....................312,550
Town of Westerly, Westerly, RI, for communications equipment to
improve community policing capabilities.......................133,950
Town of Windham, Town of Windham, CT, for equipment upgrades at the
Town of Windham's Public Safety Complex.......................223,250
Travis County, TX Sheriff Regional Law Enforcement Training Cent352,500
Tri-Valley Cities, CA East Bay Regional Communications System...540,500
Tucson, AZ Finger Imaging System Upgrade.........................94,000
Turner County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment.................61,100
Twiggs County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment................159,800
Uhrichsville, OH Police Department Emergency Radio System........47,000
Union City, CA Law Enforcement Technologies......................94,000
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, OK Police Technology and
Equipment Enhancement.........................................423,000
University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, for forensics equipm235,000
University of Colorado/National Center for Audio and Video
Forensics, Denver, CO, to establish a cutting edge forensics
center........................................................357,200
University of Louisville Research Foundation, Louisville, KY, for
forensics equipment...........................................705,000
University of North Alabama, Florence, AL, criminal justice outreach
initiatives...................................................282,000
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, for a state-
wide and regional information sharing system................1,175,000
Upper Peninsula 15 County Consortium, Marquette, MI, for
interoperable communications equipment........................446,500
Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, for the Vermont
Justice Information Sharing System............................400,000
[[Page 34703]]
Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, for the Vermont
State Police mobile/remote computing project..................400,000
Vienna, VA Police Department....................................235,000
Virginia Beach, VA Police Department............................188,000
Virginia State Police, Richmond, VA, for the Northern Virginia and
District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
to train law enforcement officials............................178,600
Virginia State Police, Richmond, VA, to maintain databases and
technical infrastructure.......................................89,300
Wadesboro and Anson Counties, NC................................282,000
Wake County, NC Interoperable Communications Project............681,500
Wapello County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment...................126,900
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Lacey, WA, for
DNA testing for stranger rapes................................491,150
Washington County, OH Sheriff's Department.......................23,500
Wayne County, MI Radio Communications Interoperability..........211,500
Wayne County, OH, Sheriff's Office..............................655,180
Wayne County, WV Sheriff's Office...............................282,000
Weber County, UT................................................352,500
Weirton, WV Police Department....................................70,500
Wellsburg, WV Police Department..................................70,500
West Bloomfield, MI Police Department...........................590,320
West Columbia, SC Police Department.............................352,500
West Covina, CA Interagency Communications Interoperability.....517,000
West Linn, OR Emergency Communications Enhancement...............47,000
West Virginia University Forensic Science Initiative, Morganto3,572,000
Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY Law Enforcement Communications
Equipment...................................................1,034,000
Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY Law Enforcement Technology
Equipment.....................................................940,000
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, for campus public
safety........................................................188,000
Westfield, NJ Police Department.................................235,000
Whatcom County, WA, for an information sharing and exchange syst223,250
Wheeling, WV Police Department...................................70,500
Whitemarsh Township, PA Police Department Equipment..............32,900
Wilkinson County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment..............61,100
Will County, IL Sheriff's Office................................502,900
Will County, IL, for technology interoperability improvements...460,000
Williamsburg County, SC Law Enforcement Technology..............470,000
Windham, CT Dispatch Center Equipment...........................329,000
Winters, CA Public Safety Equipment.............................164,500
Woburn, MA Police Department Radio Communications and Police
Dispatch Center Upgrade.......................................470,000
Woodbridge, NJ Police Department................................235,000
Woodford County, KY Sheriff's Mobile Data Terminals.............202,100
Woodson County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment......94,000
Woonsocket, RI Police Technology Upgrades.......................188,000
York County, PA..................................................14,100
York, SC Police Department Technology and Records Management....235,000
Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction.--The amended bill includes
$20,000,000 for grant assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies to combat violent crime, with special
emphasis on areas plagued by violent gangs and drug-trafficking
crime involving firearms.
Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-up.--The amended bill includes
$61,187,000 for grants to address public safety and
methamphetamine manufacturing, sale, and use in ``hot spots.''
Within the amount provided, $20,000,000 is included to reimburse
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for assistance to
State and local law enforcement for proper removal and disposal
of hazardous materials at clandestine methamphetamine labs,
including funds for training, technical assistance, a container
program, and purchase of equipment. Within the funds provided,
the COPS program office, in consultation with DEA, is directed
to review the following projects, to provide funding consistent
with law and Congressional intent, and to report to the
Appropriations Committees regarding the disbursement of these
funds:
Project Amount
22nd Judicial District, Montezuma County, CO, for anti-meth
operations....................................................133,950
Alamosa Police Department, Alamosa, CO, for anti-meth equipment..22,325
Arkansas State Police, Little Rock, AR, to investigate, seize,
dismantle and direct the clean-up of meth labs................535,800
Asheville, NC Police Department Methamphetamine Enforcement......94,000
Atascosa and Wilson County, TX Sheriff's' and Constable's
Departments Methamphetamine Law Enforcement...................141,000
Bibb County, AL Sheriff's Department............................235,000
Boone, Kenton, Campbell Counties, KY, Boone County, for logistical
support for the task force....................................470,000
Broomfield Police Department, Broomfield, CO, for anti-meth
equipment.....................................................357,200
California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement,
Sacramento, CA, for the California Methamphetamine Strategy
(CALMS).......................................................258,500
California Department of Justice, California Methamphetamine
Strategy (CALMS)..............................................235,000
Cape Girardeau County Sheriff's Department, Cape Girardeau, MO, for
combating methamphetamine...................................1,175,000
Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force Methamphetamine Enforce284,820
City of Andalusia, Andalusia, AL, for anti-methamphetamine progr235,000
City of Baker, Baker, OR, for drug detection canines.............44,650
City of Carson City, Carson City, NV, for combating meth in Neva312,550
City of Greenville, MS..........................................658,000
City of Montrose, Montrose County, CO, for anti-meth equipment and
operations.....................................................89,300
City of Talladega, Talladega, AL, for anti-methamphetamine progra94,000
Clackamas County, OR Methamphetamine Initiative: Juvenile Outreach
and Community Prosecution.....................................211,500
Clackamas County, OR, Clackamas County, OR, to implement a strategy
for fighting meth problem.....................................235,000
Cleburne County, AR Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine Law
Enforcement...................................................188,000
Coconino County, AZ, Meth Initiative.............................94,000
County of Hawaii, County of Hawaii, HI, for the Comprehensive Meth
Response program..............................................357,200
County of Solano, Solano County, CA, for enforcement teams
addressing meth and gangs.....................................178,600
Criminal Justice Institute, Little Rock, AR, for meth-focused
training courses..............................................267,900
Crittenden County, AR Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine Law
Enforcement...................................................188,000
Daviess County, KY Sheriff's Department.........................188,000
Department of Public Safety, Polk County, IA, to intercept imported
meth..........................................................291,000
Eagle County Sheriff's Office, Eagle County, CO, for anti-meth
operations.....................................................89,300
Eastern Colorado Plains Drug Task Force.........................329,000
Etowah County, AL...............................................282,000
Franklin County, IL Sheriff's Department........................258,500
Franklin County, MO Sheriff's Office............................141,000
Frio and McMullen County, TX Sheriff's and Constable's Departments
Methamphetamine Law Enforcement...............................235,000
Gay Men's Health Crisis Center, New York, NY, for an anti-meth
program for substance abuse reduction and counseling..........303,150
Grant Parish, LA Sheriff's Department Meth Task Force...........658,000
Greater Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team (GRAMNET), Routt
County, for anti-meth operations...............................89,300
Greeley Police Department, Weld County, CO, for anti-meth equipm133,950
Heartland Family Service, Omaha, NE, to provide services to women
and children in methamphetamine abuse cases...................178,600
[[Page 34704]]
Heartland Family Services, Council Bluffs, IA, to provide family-
based residential meth treatment in western Iowa..............145,500
Heartland Family Services, Papillion, NE, for a collaborative,
clinically managed treatment service for substance abuse patien94,000
Illinois Sheriffs Association, Springfield, IL, for law enforcement
and clean-up of meth production and abuse.....................200,000
Iowa Office of Drug Control, Des Moines, IA, for coordinated
regional meth task forces.....................................339,500
Jackson County, MS Sheriff's Office Methamphetamine Initiative..211,500
Jasper Police Department, Jasper, AL, for technology and equipment
to combat meth................................................188,000
Jasper, AL Police Department....................................761,400
Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Jefferson County, CO, for anti-
meth equipment................................................111,625
Jefferson County, CO Methamphetamine Response Collaborative.....305,500
Jim Hogg and Starr County, TX Sheriff's and Constable's Departments
Methamphetamine Law Enforcement...............................235,000
Kanawha Valley Metro Drug Task Force............................117,500
Kansas Bureau of Investigation..................................141,000
Kids First, Marion County, OR, for programs and services to focus on
children affected by methamphetamine addiction................357,200
Kids Hope-Hudelson Region, Springfield, IL, for family preservation
services for meth-affected families...........................100,000
Lamar County, AL Sheriff's Department...........................131,600
Lane County, OR Methamphetamine Abatement Initiative............399,500
Larimer County Drug Task Force, Larimer County, CO, for anti-meth
equipment.....................................................133,950
Lincoln County, OR Methamphetamine Initiative...................258,500
Lincoln County, OR, Lincoln County, OR, for methamphetamine
initiatives...................................................282,000
Madison, NC Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine Enforcement.....94,000
Maine State Police Methamphetamine Project......................423,000
Marathon County, WI Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine Respons235,000
METH CHECK, Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy..............564,000
Meth Project Foundation, Missoula County, MT, for a methamphetamine
prevention program............................................446,500
Methodist University Methamphetamine Educational Training Projec399,500
Mineral Area, MO Drug Task Force................................202,100
Minnehaha County Sheriff's Department, Minnehaha County, SD, for
meth reduction programs........................................94,000
Minot State University, Minot, ND, for methamphetamine research and
public education..............................................669,750
Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Jackson, MS, for meth
enforcement, clean-up equipment, and training...............1,880,000
Montana Meth Project............................................470,000
Multnomah County, OR Stomp Out Meth Project.....................446,500
National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO, to research
the long-term consequences of the meth and chemical exposures..70,500
Nebraska State Patrol...........................................352,500
Nebraska State Patrol, Lincoln, NE, to combat methamphetamine...235,000
Nevada County, CA Narcotics Task Force..........................470,000
New Hampshire Attorney General's Office, Concord, NH, to fund a
statewide multi-jurisdictional task force.....................752,000
New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Santa Fe, NM, for equipment
to combat meth.................................................89,300
New Mexico Rural Meth Enforcement Initiative..................1,010,500
NH State Police, Concord, NH, to combat gang and drug-related
violence and crime............................................846,000
North Dakota Rural Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment....634,500
Northeast Law Enforcement Administrators Council Methamphetamine
Reduction Project, MN.........................................747,300
Northeast Missouri Narcotics Task Force.........................188,000
Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force.............................282,000
Northern Nevada Anti-Meth Initiative............................940,000
Northwest PA Anti-Meth Collaboration............................188,000
Northwest Regional Drug Task Force, VA..........................188,000
Office of the District Attorney, 2nd Judicial District, Albuquerque,
NM, to provide additional staff for the Meth Prosecution Unit..89,300
Orangeburg, SC Department of Public Safety Gang and Meth Lab
Tracking......................................................282,000
Oregon Partnership--Target Meth Oregon Program..................352,500
Pennyrile, KY Narcotics Task Force..............................352,500
Pierce County Alliance, Tacoma, WA, for Statewide meth initiativ394,800
Pierce County Alliance, Tacoma, WA, for the National Meth Center
training and assistance.......................................714,400
Polk County, FL Sheriff's Office................................235,000
Prairie View Prevention Services, SD Methamphetamine Awareness and
Prevention Project............................................141,000
Prevention and Recovery Services, Inc., Topeka, KS, for to fight
methamphetamine production and abuse...........................84,600
Riverside County, CA Sheriff's Department.......................940,000
Rockdale County, GA Methamphetamine Initiative..................188,000
Rusk and Barron County, WI Sheriffs' Departments................235,000
San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tribal Police Department, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, San Carlos Apache Reservation, AZ, for a law enforcement
initiative to target meth......................................94,000
Searcy County, AR Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine Law
Enforcement....................................................47,000
Sioux City, IA National Meth Training Center....................352,500
Skagit County, WA Meth Enforcement...............................47,000
Solano County, CA Gang and Methamphetamine Enforcement..........164,500
South Central Missouri Drug Task Force..........................235,000
South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team, Oregon Meth Enforcement.164,500
Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force..............................206,800
State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, for statewide methamphetamine
enforcement.................................................1,410,000
Target Meth Oregon, Salem, OR, to combat meth...................312,550
Tennessee Meth Task Force.......................................470,000
Tennessee Statewide Methamphetamine Task Force, Chattanooga, TN, for
anti-methamphetamine initiatives..............................282,000
Tennessee Technological University Methamphetamine Task Force...423,000
Tucson, AZ Methamphetamine Education Program....................258,500
Uintah County, Uintah County, UT, for methamphetamine enforcement
and clean-up..................................................470,000
Union County, IL Sheriff's Department...........................446,500
University of West Alabama, Livingston, AL, for research that
addresses meth in rural areas.................................188,000
Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative...................1,410,000
Washington State University Methamphetamine Research............517,000
Webster County, IA Sheriff's Office..............................94,000
Western North Carolina Methamphetamine Enforcement..............493,500
White Earth Band of Chippewa Reservation Tribal Nation, MN
Methamphetamine Enforcement...................................470,000
White Earth Tribal Nation, White Earth, MN, to educate, clean-up and
enforce the growing problem of meth use on reservation lands..178,600
Willmar, MN Methamphetamine Education Program....................23,500
Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation,
Madison, WI, to continue the statewide meth initiative........714,400
DNA Analysis Backlog Reduction/Crime Labs.--The amended
bill provides $152,272,000 to improve Federal and State DNA
collection and analysis systems, which are critical to the
prosecution of the guilty and the protection of the innocent
from wrongful prosecution. Within these amounts, $147,391,000
is for Debbie Smith DNA backlog grants and $4,881,000 is for
Post-Conviction DNA Testing grants.
Child Sexual Predator Elimination/Sex Offender
Management.--The amended bill includes $15,608,000 for a new
national initiative to provide grants to State and local
governments to locate, arrest, prosecute and manage sexual
predators. Within funds provided, $4,162,000 is made
available for sex offender management grants and $850,000 is
for the National Sex Offender Registry.
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
The amended bill includes $383,513,000 for Juvenile Justice
Programs, instead of
[[Page 34705]]
$399,900,000, as proposed by the House, and $345,000,000, as
proposed by the Senate.
Juvenile Justice Programs
(In thousands of dollars)
Amended
Program Bill Amount
Part A--Management and Administration..............................$658
Part B--State Formula............................................74,260
Part E--Challenge Grants and Projects............................93,835
Youth Mentoring Grants...........................................70,000
Title V--Incentive Grants........................................61,100
Tribal Youth.................................................(14,100)
Gang Prevention..............................................(18,800)
Alcohol Prevention...........................................(25,000)
Secure Our Schools Act...........................................15,040
Victims of Child Abuse Programs..................................16,920
Regional Child Advocacy Centers...............................(3,760)
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant..............................51,700
__________
Total......................................................$383,513
Youth Mentoring Grants.--National, regional and local
mentoring programs play a critical role in nurturing
America's children--helping them to become good citizens who
strengthen our communities. To support this vital work, the
amended bill provides $70,000,000 for a competitive program
of youth mentoring grants. Within 60 days of enactment of
this Act, the Office of Justice Programs is directed to
provide a report and spend plan to the Appropriations
Committees, which details the scope of the program and the
criteria and methodology the agency will employ to award
these grants. It is expected that national programs that have
received funding under the Byrne discretionary program or the
Juvenile Justice Part E program will be eligible for funding
under this competitive grant program.
Part E--Juvenile Justice Challenge Grants and Projects.--
The amended bill provides $93,835,000 for grants under the
Part E programs. Within the funds provided, the Office of
Justice Programs is directed to review the following
projects, to provide funding consistent with law and
Congressional intent, and to report to the Appropriations
Committees regarding the disbursement of these funds:
Project Amount
180 Turning Lives Around, Child and Teen Violence Reduction and
Treatment Program, Hazlet, NJ................................$564,000
4 Kids Early Learning Network, Braddock, PA......................94,000
A Better Way Gang Prevention Project, Columbia, SC..............470,000
A.J. McClung YMCA, Columbus, GA..................................47,000
Abraham House Programs for At-Risk Youth, Bronx, NY..............94,000
Abyssinian Development Corporation programs for at-risk youth, New
York, NY......................................................893,000
Abyssinian Development Corporation, New York, NY, to support and expand
youth and young adult after-school and summer programs........446,500
Adjudicated Youth Program at Texas A&M Corpus Christi...........188,000
Advancing and Inspiring Learning Education Outreach, 92nd Street Y, New
York, NY......................................................258,500
Aftercare for Phoenix House Clients in Western MA...............634,500
AIDS Council of Northeastern New York At-Risk Youth Prevention
Education Initiative, Albany, NY...............................94,000
Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, Talladega, AL, mentoring for
disabled at-risk youth........................................188,000
Alameda County, CA, Children's Assessment Center................470,000
Albany PAL After School Club for at-risk youth, Albany, NY......164,500
Albany, NY, Teen Challenge At-Risk Youth Drug Prevention Outreach47,000
Alianza Dominicana Inc. programs for at-risk youth, New York, NY188,000
Alief ISD Safe and Drug Free Schools, Houston, TX...............188,000
Amar Civic Club programs for at-risk youth, Reynolds, GA........117,500
American Ballet Theatre, New York, NY, to provide disadvantaged and at-
risk youth a hands on opportunity to create, produce, and execute all
aspects of an original performance. Formal evaluations of these
programs have demonstrated reduced truancy and delinquency....178,600
American Sailing Training Association, Newport, RI, for after-school
programs for at-risk youth to reduce truancy and delinquency..263,200
American Village Citizenship Trust, Montevallo, AL, for character
programs in at-risk areas.....................................329,000
AMISTAD Alliance Youth Program, New Haven, CT...................282,000
An Achievable Dream, Newport News, VA...........................352,500
An Achievable Dream, Newport News, VA, for at-risk youth program267,900
Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Prevention Program, Union City, NJ.282,000
ARISE Foundation................................................728,500
Arlington, MA, School Resource Officer...........................47,000
Armory Foundation Delinquency Prevention Program, New York, NY...47,000
Asian American Leadership Empowerment and Development, Wheaton, MD, for
programs for low-income families whose children are at-risk of
dropping out of school........................................267,900
Asian Youth Center Teen Leadership Training Center, Los Angeles, 94,000
Asociacion Tepeyac Community Center Programs for At-Risk Youth, South
Bronx, New York...............................................188,000
Aspire Program in Wheaton, IL...................................634,500
Back on Track, Goodwill Industries of San Francisco, San Mateo & Marin
Counties, CA..................................................282,000
Baltimore City Public School System, MD Public School Safety Ini399,500
Baltimore School for the Arts, Baltimore, MD, for the TWIGS (To Work in
Gaining Skills) program for arts programs for at-risk youth...267,900
BAM Youth and Community Initiatives, Brooklyn, NY...............282,000
Baptist Child and Family Services STAR program, San Antonio, TX.470,000
Barrio Action Youth and Family Center Learning Excellence-Achieving
Dreams, Los Angeles, CA........................................47,000
Barron County, WI, Restorative Justice and Truancy Prevention Pr235,000
Bates CDC programs for at-risk youth, Louisville, KY............141,000
Bay County, FL Junior Deputy and Law Enforcement Explorer.......188,000
Beltrami County, Bemidji, MN, for a program for at-risk children ages
and their families............................................133,950
Bethesda Home for Boys, Savannah, GA............................235,000
Bethesda Home for Boys, Savannah, GA, for at-risk youth this
organization serves............................................47,000
Big Brothers & Big Sisters Mentoring Program of Windham County, 235,000
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Alaska, Eagle River, AK, for at-risk youth
mentoring program...........................................1,128,000
Bolder Options of Minneapolis, MN...............................117,500
Bolder Options, Minneapolis, for programs to reduce truancy and
juvenile delinquency..........................................312,550
Boys & Girls Club of Toledo, OH.................................235,000
Bronx Cluster Delinquency Prevention, NY........................282,000
Brooklyn Arts Council at-risk youth programs, Brooklyn, NY......188,000
Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy at-risk youth programs, Brookly282,000
Brooks County, GA, After School Programs for At-Risk Youth.......47,000
Bucks County, PA, Truant Youth Counseling.......................188,000
Building Toward Wellness Community Coalition programs for at-risk
youth, Columbus, GA............................................94,000
[[Page 34706]]
BYU-Public School Partnership, Provo, UT, for statewide partnerships
for delinquency prevention....................................282,000
Camden Community Safe Zone Initiative, Camden, NJ...............658,000
Camp Fire USA, Kansas City, KS, for mentoring children of prison141,000
CAPPA Youth Intervention and Development, Williamsport, PA......272,600
CEDARS, Lincoln, NE, for an emergency shelter program for runaway and
homeless youth................................................133,950
Central City Action Committee Graffiti Abatement Program, Los Angeles,
CA.............................................................70,500
Central Indiana Teen Challenge...................................94,000
Central New Mexico YMCA, Albuquerque, NM, to provide life skills
development services for at-risk children.....................235,000
CHANGE, Inc. at-risk youth program, Wheeling, WV.................94,000
Chicago Public Schools After School Counts Program for at-risk youth,
IL..........................................................1,034,000
Childhelp of Fairfax, VA........................................470,000
Children and Families First, Wilmington, DE, to continue programs to
reduce truancy in New Castle and Kent County, Delaware........347,800
Children's Outing Association, Milwaukee, WI, for a city-wide teen
program.......................................................178,600
City and County of San Bernardino, CA Community Prosecutor Progr164,500
City of Boston, Suffolk County, MA, for a program to reduce reci312,550
City of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT, for a summer and after-school
program for youth.............................................312,550
City of Buffalo, NY, Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention P94,000
City of Charlotte, NC, Charlotte, NC, for a gang prevention prog282,000
City of Charlotte, NC, Gang of One Initiative...................940,000
City of Grand Rapids, MI, LOOP Programs.........................352,500
City of Hartford, Hartford, CT, for a program to provide summer
employment opportunities and job training for teens...........312,550
City of Irwindale, CA, Teen Activity Center......................28,200
City of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, for an anti-gang intervention and
prevention program............................................267,900
City of Lumpkin, GA, at-risk youth initiatives...................94,000
City of Miami Beach, FL, Gang and Drug Prevention Program.......681,500
City of Philadelphia, PA Youth Violence Reduction Partnership....94,000
City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for a program to reduce youth
violence and homicide rates...................................940,000
City of Providence, Providence, RI, for the Providence After School
Alliance (PASA)...............................................263,200
City of Sacramento, CA, Police Department School Attendance Center
Program.......................................................282,000
City of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino, CA, for a school-based
partnership to provide gang resistance education/training.....312,550
City of San Diego, CA Children's Initiative Youth Diversion Prog164,500
City of Springfield, Springfield, OH, for programs and resources for
at-risk youth.................................................312,550
City of Steubenville, OH, MLK Recreation Center At-Risk Youth Pro37,600
City of Trenton, NJ, YouthStat Crime Prevention Program.........305,500
City of Trenton, Trenton, NJ, for a YouthStat Crime Prevention P178,600
City Year of Rhode Island.......................................188,000
Cleveland Botanical Gardens Green Corps programs for at-risk you517,000
Coalition for the Homeless At-Risk Youth Services Program, New Y446,500
Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for gang prevention educ156,275
Communities in Schools, Decatur County, GA.......................47,000
Community and Schools Together Project, Huntington Station, NY...94,000
Community Connections, Bluefield, WV.............................39,480
Community Counseling Center, Portland, ME Trauma Prevention and
Treatment for At-Risk Youth...................................470,000
Community Outreach Center, Monsey, NY...........................188,000
Compton Unified School District Youth Safety Program, Willowbroo141,000
Courage to Speak Foundation, County of Fairfield, CT, for a drug abuse
prevention program............................................446,500
Court Appointed Special Advocates, Los Angeles County, CA.......235,000
Covenant House Regional Training Center Program, Brooklyn, NY....47,000
Covenant House, NJ Rights of Passage Program....................352,500
Creative Visions programs for at-risk youth, Des Moines, IA.....141,000
Cypress Park Junior Aztec Fire Fuels Program, Los Angeles, CA....70,500
D.A.R.E. New Jersey, Cranbury, NJ, for a youth prevention program89,300
Dauphin County, PA, Social Services for Children & Youth, Independent
Living Mentor Families........................................244,400
Dawson, GA, Public Safety Department Youth Advocacy Program......23,500
DC Children's Advocacy Center - Safe Shores, Washington, DC.....611,000
De La Salle Middle School at St. Matthew's programs for at-risk youth,
St. Louis, MO.................................................305,500
Des Plaines Teen Center, Des Plaines, IL, for prevention programming
for at-risk adolescents.......................................300,000
Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, Wildwood Ranch Youth Programs493,500
Detroit, MI, Business to Youth Mentoring Project................188,000
Dominico-American Society, Corona, NY...........................188,000
Duval County, FL, Youth Advocate Program, Juvenile Justice Recidivism
Reduction Project.............................................258,500
East Akron Community House Youth Programs, Akron, OH.............94,000
East End Cooperative Ministry of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, for at-
risk youth programs...........................................376,000
East Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, CA, for an anti-gang initiative.178,600
Eastern Michigan University Services for Teen Parents and their
Families, Ypsilanti, MI.......................................564,000
Eastern Shores of Maryland Education Consortium, Centerville, MD, to
expand the dropout prevention program to utilize a web-based
curriculum....................................................223,250
El Centro de Accion Social Pena Juvenil Programs for Youth, Pasadena,
CA.............................................................94,000
El Museo del Barrio Delinquency Prevention Program, New York, NY.47,000
El Museo del Barrio Juvenile Justice After School Programs, New York,
NY.............................................................47,000
El Museo del Barrio's Educational Programs in the Bronx for At-Risk
Youth, NY......................................................94,000
Elon University of Law, Juvenile Justice Intervention and Mediation
Clinic, Greensboro, NC........................................235,000
Elysian Valley United Community Services Center, Los Angeles, CA, Giant
Step Program...................................................65,800
Eon Youth Project, Tucson, AZ....................................94,000
Eskuwela Kultura Computer Lab, Los Angeles, CA...................37,600
[[Page 34707]]
Essex County Sheriff's Office, Essex County, MA, for an oxycontin
prevention program............................................223,250
Fairfax County, VA, Gang Prevention Programs....................188,000
Family and Children's Association, Mineola, NY, for the Hagedorn-
Hempstead Initiative...........................................89,300
Father Maloney's Boy's Haven Life Skills Program, Louisville, KY.47,000
Fire Towns Community Center Youth Gang and Violence Prevention Project,
Lawrence, NY...................................................47,000
Florida State Attorney's Community Prosecution Program..........376,000
Fontana, CA Teen Center for After School Programs................94,000
Four Oaks Family and Children's Services, Cedar Rapids, IA.......94,000
Franklin Community Action Programs for At-Risk Youth, Greenfield211,500
Freeport Pride Juvenile Diversion Program, Freeport, NY..........47,000
Gateway Youth Outreach After School Homework Assistance Program for At-
Risk Youth, Elmont, NY........................................305,500
Girl Scouts of the USA, New York, NY, for outreach and volunteer
training in New Mexico........................................188,000
Girls Inc. of the Greater Peninsula, Operation: IMPACT, Hampton,225,600
Girls, Inc......................................................470,000
Gladys Allen Brigham Community Center Youth Empowerment Services,
Pittsfield, MA................................................188,000
Grand Rapids Public Schools, Grand Rapids, MI, for an academic
prevention and workforces skills program......................178,600
Grand Street Settlement, Manhattan, NY..........................188,000
Granite School District START program, Salt Lake City, UT.......211,500
Granite School District, Salt Lake City, UT, for school district's gang
violence prevention program...................................188,000
Gwen's Girls, Pittsburgh, PA.....................................94,000
Harlem RBI, Inc. Delinquency Prevention, New York, NY...........141,000
Hidalgo County, TX, Truancy Program.............................517,000
Hillsborough County, FL Advocate Programs, Juvenile Justice Services
Project.......................................................141,000
Holy Family Institute, Pittsburgh, PA At-Risk Youth Services....141,000
Homenetmen Glendale Chapter After School Tutoring for At-Risk Youth,
Glendale, CA...................................................47,000
Human Resources Center of Edgar and Clark Counties, Paris, IL, to
combat substance abuse among high-risk youth..................200,000
I Have a Dream Foundation, TX...................................235,000
Improved Solutions for Urban Systems, Dayton, OH, for an employment
program for court-involved youth..............................178,600
Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra Partnership for At-Risk Youth, I164,500
Inner Harbor of Georgia-EXCEL Program...........................517,000
Institute for International Sport Nonviolence Program, Kingston, 94,000
Jackson, TN, Teen Crime Prevention Program......................752,000
James L. Barnes CDC programs for at-risk youth, Dawson, GA.......47,000
Juvenile Justice Center, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, 493,500
Juvenile Reentry Program, Essex County, NJ.......................94,000
Karamu House, Cleveland, OH, for after-school programs for at-risk
children in Cleveland, Ohio...................................178,600
Kickstart, Houston, TX, to expand children's character developmen94,000
Kids Averted from Placement Services (KAPS), San Antonio, TX, to
prevent juvenile delinquency...................................47,000
Kids Averted from Placement Services (KAPS), TX.................211,500
KidsPeace Rhode Island...........................................94,000
KidsPeace Therapeutic Services for At-Risk Foster Care Youth,
Alexandria, VA................................................282,000
KidsPeace, Columbia, MD, for supportive services for foster care
families......................................................357,200
KidsPeace, Inc., New Haven, CT, for a children's mental health crisis
program.......................................................223,250
KidsPeace/West Virginia KidConnect, Moundsville, WV.............235,000
Klingberg Family Centers Delinquency Prevention Initiative, New
Britain, CT...................................................540,500
La Esperanza Home for Boys, Austin, TX..........................705,000
Lafayette/Oxford/University Angel Ranch, Oxford, MS, for domestic
services for victims of abuse..................................47,000
Las Vegas, NV Youth Initiative..................................164,500
Latino Pastoral Action Center Programs for At-Risk Youth, Bronx,282,000
Learning Through Listening Program, Cambridge, MA...............305,500
Lexington, MA, School Resource Officer Program...................47,000
Liberty Theater at-risk youth initiatives, Columbus, GA.........235,000
Life Transformation Ministry, Americus, GA.......................47,000
LIFECamp Dropout Prevention Program, Jamaica, NY................117,500
Livingston County, NY, community service/youth court program.....70,500
Long Island University, NY Arts for At-Risk Youth...............329,000
Los Angeles Community Law Enforcement [LA CLEAR] and Recovery and Gang
Reduction Programs, Los Angeles, CA, for anti-gang intervention and
prevention programs...........................................357,200
Los Angeles Conservation Corps Environmental Jobs Program for At-Risk
Youth, CA......................................................94,000
Louisville Science Center at-risk youth programs, KY.............47,000
Maplewood, NJ, At-Risk Youth Program.............................94,000
Marcus Institute, Atlanta, GA...................................940,000
Marcus Institute, Atlanta, GA, for providing remediation for the
potential consequences of childhood abuse and neglect.........141,000
Marion County, OR, Kids First Initiative........................399,500
Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Center Youth violence prevention
program, Oakland, CA..........................................282,000
Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, Rock Island, IL.......282,000
Mary Mitchell Family and Youth Center for At-Risk Youth, Bronx, 329,000
Maryhurst Juvenile Delinquency Response Program, Louisville, KY..47,000
Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe Youth Program, MA................282,000
McKinley County, NM, Juvenile Substance Abuse Crisis Center.....352,500
Miami-Dade County, FL, Juvenile Assessment Center...............352,500
Minnesota Teen Challenge........................................235,000
Mobile, AL Team Focus Mentoring and Education...................352,500
Monterey County, Monterey County, CA, for a gang task force in Monterey
County........................................................267,900
Montgomery YMCA, Montgomery, AL, for after school activities to at-risk
youth.........................................................470,000
Mosholu Montefiore Community Center, Bronx, NY..................164,500
Mother Cabrini High School POWER Program, New York, NY...........47,000
Mother Cabrini High School, New York, NY, for an after school program
for at-risk youth.............................................178,600
MUR--Uniting Through Resolution, Los Angeles, CA.................70,500
Mural Arts Program for at-risk youth, Philadelphia, PA...........47,000
[[Page 34708]]
Muscogee County, GA, Marshal's Office Junior Marshal Program....117,500
Nassau County District Attorney's Office, Mineola, NY, for the
Redirection Enforcement and Learning program..................312,550
National Community Renaissance..................................258,500
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges............940,000
National Fatherhood Initiative, Gaithersburg, MD, for fathers of the
most at-risk children.........................................658,000
National Safe Place Youth Safety Awareness Initiative, Louisvill211,500
Neighborhood First Program, Inc. At-risk Youth Assistance, Brist117,500
Nelson Jordan Center Program for At-Risk Youth, Wheeling, WV.....23,500
New Directions for Youth Challenge Program for Gang and Delinquency
Prevention, Van Nuys, CA......................................141,000
New Mexico Sheriff and Police Athletic League...................658,000
New Mexico Sheriff's and Police Athletic Leagues, Albuquerque, NM, to
continue to implement a gang prevention program aimed at at-risk
youth.........................................................446,500
New Song Urban Ministries, Baltimore, MD, for comprehensive services to
at-risk youth.................................................401,850
Newburgh Center Youth Violence and Gang Prevention, NY..........300,800
Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, ID, to combat child abuse..............141,000
Nisqually Tribe of Washington Youth Justice Center..............446,500
No Workshops No Jumpshots program in Gary, IN....................94,000
North Carolina Central University Leadership Academy for African-
American Males................................................282,000
Northwest Oklahoma Family Services..............................352,500
Novato, CA, Juvenile Substance Abuse Program for Hamilton Commun188,000
Ocean Tides School, Narragansett, RI, to enhance its science and
computer labs to encourage the study of science and technology267,900
Ohel At-Risk Youth and Child Abuse Prevention Program, Teaneck, N94,000
Ohel At-Risk Youth and Child Abuse Prevention, Brooklyn, NY.....399,500
Olmstead County Community Services, Rochester, MN, to implement and
sustain a performance based child protection system preventing child
abuse and neglect.............................................133,950
Operation Quality Time After School Program, Paradise Valley, AZ564,000
Operation Save Our Streets, Miami, FL............................94,000
Oquirrh Recreation and Parks District, Kearns, UT, for after-school
activities.....................................................47,000
Outward Bound Adventures Gang Intervention Program, Pasadena, CA.94,000
Overtown Youth Center, Miami, FL................................235,000
PACE Center of Jacksonville, FL.................................676,800
Para Los Ninos Youth Development Center, Los Angeles, CA........235,000
Parent Corps, New York University Child Study Center, NY.........47,000
Parents in Action Project to prevent child maltreatment and gang
involvement, Pomona, CA.......................................446,500
Patterson Park Public Charter School, Baltimore, MD, for Rejecting
Violence, Building Resilience--a school violence prevention pr178,600
Phoenix Academy of Los Angeles, Services for Underserved Youth in LA
County, CA....................................................517,000
Phoenix Academy of Orange County Drug Treatment Program, CA.....188,000
Phoenix House Adolescent Drug Treatment Initiative for Dallas Area
Youth, TX.....................................................564,000
Phoenix House Adolescent Drug Treatment Initiative, Brentwood, NY94,000
Phoenix House, Dallas, TX, for residential substance abuse treatment
for adolescents................................................94,000
Phoenix House, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY..................173,900
Phoenix House, Yorktown, NY.....................................141,000
Pico Union Housing programs for at-risk youth, Los Angeles, CA...61,100
Plaza de la Raza Community Ambassadors Program, Los Angeles, CA.141,000
Police Athletic League Miccio Center in Red Hook, Brooklyn, NY...94,000
Prince George's County, MD, Juvenile Justice Center.............258,500
Program for Court-Involved Youth in Dayton, OH..................352,500
Project Amiga Transitional Life Skills for At-Risk Youth, South El
Monte, CA......................................................47,000
Project Avary, San Rafael, CA...................................225,600
Project Intercept, Brooklyn, NY.................................235,000
Prospect Park Alliance programs for at-risk youth, Brooklyn, NY.470,000
Prospect Park Yeshiva Save Our Children After School Program, Brooklyn,
NY.............................................................47,000
Providence After School Alliance programs for at-risk youth,
Providence, RI................................................423,000
Quad A for Kids, Rochester, NY...................................28,200
Quality of Life Center at-risk youth programs, Altadena, CA.....188,000
Queens Theatre in the Park, Flushing, NY Interventions for Juvenile
Offenders.....................................................188,000
Red River Children's Advocacy Center, Fargo, ND.................258,500
Residential Care Consortium, Omaha, NE, for a program for
underprivileged, at-risk, and disadvantaged children, young adults,
and their families in a residential care setting..............178,600
Richmond Police Activities League One-Stop Youth Center, Richmon423,000
Richmond Youth Academy, Richmond, CA............................188,000
RMBL, Richmond, VA..............................................141,000
Rockland County Youth Bureau Gang Prevention, New Square, NY....352,500
Rosemary Children's Services Positive Results Program, Pasadena, 94,000
Running Rebels Gang Prevention Program, Milwaukee, WI...........141,000
Ruth Ellis Center Street Outreach Program, Highland Park, MI....188,000
Ruth Ellis Center, Highland Park, MI, for an outreach program...178,600
S&B United Anti-Gang and Anti-Drug Program, Bronx, NY............47,000
Safe and Sound, Baltimore, MD, for juvenile delinquency prevention
through education.............................................446,500
Safe Haven After School and Mentoring Program, Columbia, SC.....470,000
Safe Haven Program, Irvington, NJ................................94,000
San Antonio Initiative for At-Risk Girls, TX....................446,500
San Fernando Valley Communities in Schools, Gang Intervention/Juvenile
Justice Project, North Hills, CA..............................376,000
San Francisco, CA, District Attorney's Office Community Response
Networks......................................................423,000
San Jose, CA, BEST Gang Intervention Program....................493,500
Sandy City, UT, Police Department Children At-Risk Intervention 493,500
Santa Clara County, CA, Juvenile Detention Evening Reporting Cen364,720
Save Our Future/Mothers on the March After-School Program, Los Angeles,
CA............................................................338,400
Save the Children Rural Literacy Program, Helena, AR............235,000
[[Page 34709]]
Save the Children, Washington, DC, for juvenile delinquency prevention
programs......................................................223,250
Save the Children, Westport, CT, to operate after school programs in
New Mexico communities........................................188,000
Save the Youth After-School and Summer Performing Arts Program for At-
Risk Youth, Hoboken, NJ.......................................235,000
Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN, for South Dakota Healthy
Communities-Healthy Youth Initiative..........................156,275
Sephardic Community Center programs for at-risk youth, Brooklyn, 94,000
Service Over Self, Georgetown, SC...............................235,000
Sexual Trauma Recovery Center, Orlando, FL......................305,500
SFI Anti-Drug Programs for At-Risk Youth, Bronx, NY..............94,000
Shedd Aquarium At-Risk Youth Mentoring Initiative, Chicago, IL...47,000
Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL, for a juvenile delinquency prevention
program.......................................................401,850
Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota Vocational Alternatives for Youth
Offenders, Isanti, MN..........................................47,000
Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota, Inver Grove Heights, MN...211,500
Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota, Marshall MN...............235,000
Sheriffs Youth Programs of MN....................................94,000
Solar One Programs for At-Risk Youth, New York, NY..............164,500
South Queens Boys & Girls Club, Richmond Hill, NY...............282,000
South Sumter, SC Resource Center programs for at-risk youth.....282,000
Southeastern North Dakota Community Action Agency, Fargo, ND, to
facilitate the coordination of community services in response to
child abuse...................................................352,500
Spectrum Youth and Family Services, Burlington, VT, to expand its
services to at-risk youth.....................................188,000
Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, OR, for upgrades to school
security equipment and technology.............................178,600
St. Joseph's Indian School, Chamberlain, SD, Expand programs and
services for students.........................................223,250
Stan Hywet Hall & Gardens' Programs for At-Risk Youth, Akron, OH282,000
State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, to support coordinate and train law
enforcement officers to teach drug abuse resistance education.197,400
State of Hawaii, Office of the Attorney General, City of Honolulu, HI,
for continuing improvements to the Juvenile Justice Information
System........................................................607,240
State of Vermont Judiciary, Office of Court Administrator, Montpelier,
VT, to develop a statewide court system that integrates treatment and
other services into the court process 350,000.................350,000
Stony Point, NY, School Resource Officer.........................65,800
STOP Organization, Norfolk, VA..................................291,400
Straight Ahead Ministries Ready4Work, Boston, MA.................94,000
Streetworkers Program, Institute for Study and Practice of Nonviolence,
Providence, RI................................................352,500
SUNY Ulster/Bardavon at-risk youth programs, Stone Ridge, NY.....47,000
SUNY Ulster/Woodstock at-risk youth programs, Stone Ridge, NY....28,200
Team Focus, Inc., Mobile, AL, for a youth mentoring program.....517,000
Team Focus, Inc., Morgan, TX, to establish a youth mentoring prog94,000
TechMission Youth Program, Boston, MA............................47,000
TeenMates Mentoring Program, Lincoln, NE, for mentoring services to
youth.........................................................258,500
Temple Terrace, FL Phoenix House................................564,000
The Asbury Park Enrichment and Student Success Center, Lincroft, 94,000
The Beloved Community Family Services, Chicago, IL..............305,500
The East End Cooperative Ministry, Pittsburgh, PA................94,000
The Paul and Lisa Program, Essex, CT............................658,000
The Point Community Development Programs for At-Risk Youth, NY..141,000
The Rock School RockReach Program, Philadelphia, PA.............423,000
Township of Irvington, Irvington, NJ, for the Youth Safe Haven Police
Mini-station program..........................................437,100
Township of Maplewood, Maplewood, NJ, for a prevention program for at-
risk youth.....................................................89,300
Truancy Reduction Initiative, Wayne County, MI..................376,000
Twin Cedars Youth Services, Columbus, GA.........................70,500
United Methodist Community Centers PATH Program, Youngstown and Warren,
OH............................................................235,000
United Way for Southeastern Michigan Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
Program.......................................................376,000
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, for the CU-Boulder
Colorado Schools Safety Program...............................312,550
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, to conduct a statewide survey of
delinquent and high risk youth behaviors.......................58,045
University of Montana, Missoula County, MT, for at-risk youth with a
focus on suicide prevention, high-risk behavior and violence..312,550
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, for domestic violence
reduction programs............................................329,000
Urban Dreams U-CARE Project, Des Moines, IA.....................470,000
Urban League of Greater Columbus, GA Youth Advocacy Program......70,500
Vermont Department of Children and Families, Waterbury, VT, for
programs to help at-risk youth................................714,400
Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, for an outreach
program for at-risk youth.....................................133,950
Visiting Nurse Association, Omaha, NE, for an intervention program for
vulnerable women, infants and children........................223,250
Waukon, IA, High School Youth Intervention Project...............79,900
Wayne County Department of Public Services, Detroit, MI, for a truancy
intervention program..........................................347,800
Wayne County, MI Juvenile Reentry Initiative....................188,000
Westchester Jewish Community Services, NY.......................282,000
Western PA CARES, Pittsburgh, PA................................188,000
Winona State University, Winona, MN, to teach investigators and
prosecutors the science of interviewing children victimized by446,500
Wittenberg University...........................................343,100
Women's Sports Foundation, Chicago, IL, for the GoGirlGo! Chicago
Initiative, a mentoring, education and development program....526,900
Women's Treatment Center, Chicago, IL, for preservation services for
incarcerated mothers and their children.......................230,000
World Impact St. Louis, MO, Youth Program.......................282,000
World Impact Youth Gang Prevention, Los Angeles, CA..............70,500
World Vision Appalachia at-risk youth programming, Moatsville, W141,000
YMCA Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, to provide crime prevention and outreach
services to the rural youth of Hawaii.........................357,200
YMCA of Greater Houston Juvenile Justice Outreach Program, TX...446,500
YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth, TX.............................282,000
[[Page 34710]]
YMCA of Middle Tennessee, Healthy Communities-Healthy Youth.....211,500
York County, PA, Children's Advocacy Center.....................112,800
Youth Aid Panel/Linkages, Beaver Springs, PA....................399,500
Youth Alternative to Violence and Crime Project, Oakland, CA.....47,000
Youth Crime Watch, Miami, FL....................................517,000
Youth Gang Violence Prevention Initiative, School District of Palm
Beach County, FL..............................................564,000
Youth Mentoring Program, Burbank, CA.............................70,500
Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice Programs for At-Risk Youth,
Bronx, NY.....................................................141,000
Youth Services System, Inc. at-risk youth program, Wheeling, WV..94,000
YouthWorks, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.................................47,000
YWCA Children's Services, Seattle-King-Snohomish County, WA.....282,000
Zero to Three Court Team for Maltreated Infants and Toddlers Project,
San Francisco, CA.............................................314,900
Zero to Three, for 5th Judicial District, Des Moines, IA, for
maltreated infants and toddlers...............................194,000
Zero to Three, Omaha, NE, for maltreated infants and toddlers....89,300
Zero to Three, Orleans Parish, LA, for maltreated infants and tod89,300
Victims of Child Abuse Act.--The amended bill provides
$16,920,000 for several programs authorized under the Victims
of Child Abuse Act (Public Law 101-647). Within funds
provided, $3,760,000 is made available for Regional Child
Advocacy Centers Programs.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFITS
The amended bill includes $74,834,000 for this account,
including $66,000,000 for death benefits, and $8,834,000 for
disability benefits and education benefits.
As stated in the House Report, the new Public Safety
Officers Benefits (PSOB) regulations have been implemented
poorly and there is concern about the slow progress in making
benefit payments to the families of those who died protecting
their community. The PSOB was established to give peace of
mind to our men and women in uniform who put their lives in
danger every day, and claims must be processed swiftly and
efficiently to provide the intended security.
General Provisions--Department Of Justice
The amended bill includes the following general provisions
for the Department of Justice:
Section 201 provides that up to $50,000 of the funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice shall be available
to the Attorney General for reception and representation
expenses.
Section 202 prohibits the use of funds to perform abortions
in the Federal Prison System.
Section 203 prohibits the use of the funds to require any
person to perform, or facilitate the performance of, an
abortion.
Section 204 provides that nothing in the previous section
removes the obligation of the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons to provide escort services to female inmates who seek
to obtain abortions outside a Federal facility.
Section 205 provides for the policy for transfers subject
to the Committees' reprogramming procedures, that not to
exceed 5 percent may be transferred between any
appropriation, but limits to 10 percent the amount that can
be transferred into any one appropriation and prohibits
Federal Prison System, Buildings and Facilities funds to be
transferred unless the President certifies.
Section 206 provides for the extension of the Personnel
Management Demonstration Project for certain positions of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Section 207 provides language extending section 102(b) of
Public Law 102-395 to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives.
Section 208 provides language prohibiting funds from being
used to transport prisoners classified as a maximum or high
security prisoner to a facility other than a prison or other
facility certified by the Federal Bureau of Prisons as
appropriately secure for housing such a prisoner.
Section 209 prohibits certain prisoner amenities.
Section 210 prohibits the use of funds for Sentinel or
other major new or enhanced information technology programs
unless the Deputy Attorney General and the Department IT
Investment Review Board certify to the Appropriations
Committees that the information technology program has
appropriate contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and
that the program is compatible with the enterprise
architecture of the Department of Justice.
Section 211 requires the availability of appropriations for
obligation beyond the current fiscal year to comply with
reprogramming procedures.
Section 212 authorizes changes to quarterly fees imposed in
chapter 11 cases.
Section 213 provides an increase to the quarterly fee
imposed in each case filed pursuant to chapter 11 of title
11, United States Code.
Section 214 prohibits the use of funds to plan for, begin,
continue, finish, process, or approve a public-private
competition under OMB Circular A-76 for work performed by
employees of the Bureau of Prisons or of Federal Prison
Industries, Incorporated.
Section 215 prohibits U.S. attorneys from simultaneously
holding multiple jobs outside of the scope of a U.S.
attorney's professional duties.
Section 216 withholds from obligation $25,000,000, until
the FBI reports on the results of an integrated baseline
review of the Sentinel program and requires a Government
Accountability Office review of FBI's baseline.
Section 217 prohibits funds for future phases of the FBI's
Sentinel program until the Attorney General certifies to the
Appropriations Committees that existing phases currently
under contract for development or fielding have completed a
majority of the work for that phase under the performance
measurement baseline validated by the integrated baseline
review.
Section 218 requires that the Attorney General shall submit
quarterly reports to the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice regarding the costs and contracting procedures
relating to each conference held by the Department of Justice
during fiscal year 2008 for which the cost to the Government
was more than $20,000.
Section 219 authorizes a public or private institution of
higher education to offer or provide an officer or employee
of any branch of the United States Government or of the
District of Columbia, financial assistance for the purpose of
repaying a student loan or forbearance of student loan
repayment.
Section 220 includes new Native American Methamphetamine
Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007 authorities.
TITLE III
SCIENCE
Office of Science and Technology Policy
The conference agreement includes $5,184,000, instead of
$5,515,000 as proposed by the House and $5,715,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The Appropriations Committees reiterate language included
in the Senate report directing OSTP to provide the
Committees, 90 days after enactment of the Act, with a
strategic budget plan in response to the National Research
Council Earth Science Decadal Survey.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The amended bill provides $17,309,400,000 for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) instead of
$17,622,500,000 as proposed by the House and $17,459,600,000
as proposed by the Senate. The Senate bill included an
additional $1,000,000,000 designated as an emergency
requirement. The amended bill does not include this emergency
funding.
The Appropriations Committees continue to be concerned
about the process of setting NASA priorities through
significant funding shifts in revised operating plans rather
than through the regular appropriations process. The guidance
proposed in the amended bill and this explanatory statement
provides a clear base funding level. The Committees must be
notified of any deviations that meet the criteria established
in section 505. Finally, language is included providing for
the transfer of funds between appropriations accounts through
the reprogramming process.
The House recommendation to provide funding for the agency
in the new account structure is not included. Instead, a
general provision is included, section 525, directing NASA to
implement this new structure beginning in fiscal year 2009.
This will allow the agency sufficient time to implement the
new budget structure. The Appropriations Committees are
disappointed that NASA chose not to test this new account
structure in a timelier manner. The new accounts are:
Science, Aeronautics, Exploration, Education, Cross-Agency
Support Programs, Space Operations, and Inspector General.
The Appropriations Committees reiterate concern expressed
in the House report that NASA is not able to anticipate
adequately technical problems and project overruns on
existing programs, and are especially concerned that new
programs, such as Project Constellation, will encounter
similar problems.
Additionally, the Appropriations Committees are concerned
about the NASA process that leads to the selection of a
course of action when such problems are encountered.
Consequently, NASA is directed to establish an ongoing
relationship with the National Academy of Sciences for the
purpose of providing an independent project review capability
using ad hoc committees established under the purview of the
Space Studies
[[Page 34711]]
Board and/or the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. It
is expected that these reviews will be arranged through
NASA's Office of the Chief Engineer and that the reports
prepared by the National Academies will be simultaneously
submitted to NASA and the Committees. In the future, the
Appropriations Committees do not intend to recommend approval
of any major program changes unless an independent review by
the National Academies concurs with NASA's proposed course of
action. During a review period, NASA should not take any
action that would prejudice the pursuit of any of the options
under consideration. A total of $1,000,000 is to be allocated
from funding provided for Cross-Agency Support Programs to
support creation of this review capability. The Committees
expect a report on NASA's progress in implementing this
directive by March 15, 2008.
The Appropriations Committees are concerned about
standardizing the reporting of cost, schedule and content for
NASA research and development projects including advanced
technology and operational systems upgrades. As a result, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to prepare
project status reports on selected large-scale NASA programs,
projects or activities. In undertaking these reports, GAO
should follow the guidance it recommended to the Congress in
GAO report GAO/NSIAD 90-40.
The Appropriations Committees are concerned about NASA's
use of term appointments for civil servant positions. The
Committees believe this trend should be examined more closely
and directs GAO to audit NASA's use of term positions.
Finally, NASA is encouraged to engage in long-term agency-
wide workforce planning.
A provision on enhanced-use leasing at NASA facilities is
included in the General Provisions, Title V of this Act. The
Appropriations Committees believe that this complicated issue
requires further investigation by the respective House and
Senate authorizing committees. Therefore, the language
proposed by the Senate will not become effective until
December 31, 2008. In the interim, NASA's current enhanced-
use leasing authority will be in effect. A modification has
been made to the Senate language, deleting the repeal of the
reporting requirements to Congress.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND EXPLORATION
The amended bill provides $10,543,100,000 for the Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration account instead of
$10,896,200,000 in a different account structure as proposed
by the House and $10,633,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Within this total, $5,577,310,000 is for science activities,
$625,280,000 is for aeronautics, $3,842,010,000 is for
exploration systems and $556,400,000 is for cross-agency
support programs including education.
The amended bill reduces amounts available for corporate
and general administrative expenses by $57,900,000 in this
account. These amounts are to be applied proportionally to
all amounts within the Science, Aeronautics, Exploration and
Cross-Agency Support Programs accounts.
Science.--Within the total amount proposed for Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration, the amended bill provides
$5,577,310,000 for science activities instead of
$5,696,100,000 as proposed by the House and $5,655,200,000 as
proposed by the Senate. This level includes a general
reduction of $42,090,000. The distribution of this reduction
should be outlined in NASA's operating plan, and the
reduction should not be applied to any programs, projects, or
activities that are specified in this explanatory statement.
The Appropriations Committees are disappointed by the
Administration's request of a less than one percent increase
for fiscal year 2008 and projected minimal increases of
approximately one percent over the next several years. The
Nation's investment in research at NASA has made the U.S. the
undisputed leader in the study of space and the earth's
environment. NASA's programs in space science, Earth science,
microgravity science, and astrobiology are the types of basic
research investments advocated in the National Academies'
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report.
The Appropriations Committees recognize the importance of
NASA Earth science research missions to the Nation to advance
our ability to monitor climate, weather, and hazards and
therefore recommends $40,000,000 for NASA to initiate
missions identified in the National Research Council (NRC)
report, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National
Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. To the extent
possible, the initial seven missions should begin in fiscal
year 2008. The Earth science decadal survey notes that in
2005, NASA had 18 Earth observation satellites carrying 64
research sensors. Yet in 2007, the capacity is down to 14
missions on orbit, and by 2010 only a few will still be
delivering data. Between now and 2010, NASA plans to deploy
only five new missions carrying 22 sensors. Currently, NASA's
future plans include starting just two new missions every two
years. At that rate, NASA Earth observation research missions
will have decreased from 18 down to four or five in the next
two decades in the 21st century. Further, the Appropriations
Committees are supportive of House direction to continue the
development of climate sensors. In order to better inform the
Committees on its plans for missions in the 2010-2016
timeframe, NASA should include in its fiscal year 2009 budget
submission its plan for meeting these unmet needs.
The amended bill includes:
Not less than $280,000,000 for the Hubble Space
Telescope
Not less than $545,400,000 for the James Webb
Space Telescope
Not less than $90,200,000 for the Global
Precipitation Measurement mission
Not less than $626,400,000 for the Mars
Exploration Program
Not less than $60,000,000 for the Space
Interferometry Mission
The Appropriations Committees acknowledge that these sums
are only floors. Should additional funding be required, the
Committees will work with the agency on a reprogramming of
funds.
As noted above, the Appropriations Committees support the
$90,200,000 requested for the Global Precipitation
Measurement mission. This project will improve our ability to
collect important data about hurricanes. This valuable
information will allow us to better prepare for powerful
storms and help minimize resulting damage.
The amended bill includes an increase of $24,000,000 above
the request for the research and analysis program. The
program has suffered significant cuts in recent years. This
program is important to maintaining the scientific vitality
of the agency and also provides opportunities for young
scientists and researchers to analyze data collected from
current NASA missions. The research and analysis funds should
be used to support both in-house and academic research.
Further, there has not been an assessment of the appropriate
balance between flight missions and research and analysis
activities in NASA's space and Earth science programs.
Therefore, NASA is directed to enter into an agreement with
the National Research Council for an assessment of NASA's
research and analysis activities.
A total of $60,000,000, an increase of $38,400,000 above
the budget request, has been provided for the Space
Interferometry Mission (SIM). The Appropriations Committees
disagree with the Administration's budget request of
refocusing the Navigator Program to fund only core
interferometry and related planet-finding science and
reducing SIM to a development program. It should be noted
that this mission was recommended by the National Academies
Decadal Astrophysics report in 1990 and 2000 and should be
considered a priority. With the funds proposed, NASA is to
begin the development phase of the program in order to
capitalize on more than $300,000,000 already invested by the
agency. The SIM program has successfully passed all its
technological milestones and is thus ready for development.
The Appropriations Committees await the upcoming results of
the NASA study to determine the next outer planet destination
and look forward to working with NASA to support funding for
an expedient launch of this future mission. The amended bill
includes $5,000,000 to define a mission and to assess its
scope and cost.
The Appropriations Committees agree with the comments in
the House report commending NASA for its robotic Mars program
which is one of the agency's most successful programs that
has made major scientific discoveries and engaged the public.
The Appropriations Committees continue to strongly support a
robust Mars Exploration Program with a rate of at least one
mission at every opportunity (every 26 months), which is
consistent with the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request
of $625,700,000. Full funding is provided to: continue
operating all present missions (Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter, Spirit, and Opportunity); prepare Phoenix for launch
in 2007, Mars Science Lab for a launch in 2009, and Scout in
2011; and to start the definition and development of Mars
Science orbiter for launch in 2013, and the Astrobiology
Field Lab or Mid size rovers for launch in 2016. NASA is
expected to continue with the development and launch of the
Mars Science Lab.
The recommendation includes an increase of $15,000,000
above the budget request for the NASA Earth Science
Applications Program. This funding increase shall only be
used to support new competitively selected applications
projects to be selected during fiscal year 2008. These
projects will integrate the results of NASA's Earth observing
systems and earth system models (using observations and
predictions) into decision support tools to serve
applications of national priority including, but not limited
to: homeland security; coastal management; agriculture
efficiency; and water management and disaster management.
The amended bill provides $17,000,000 for the solar probe
mission for continued technical risk reduction activities and
related studies. NASA is expected to request a new start for
this mission in fiscal year 2009.
The amended bill provides $93,000,000 for the
magnetospheric multiscale mission, $8,500,000 above the
budget request. NASA should maintain the full complement of
science instruments for this mission and work aggressively to
achieve the desired launch date of 2013.
[[Page 34712]]
NASA is directed to provide a plan on all continuity of
data for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) to the
Appropriations Committees no later than 120 days after
enactment of this Act. The amended bill provides $1,000,000
above the budget request for this mission to ensure data
continuity.
A critical factor that will affect future robotic missions
is the source of power for probes that cannot rely on solar
energy because they are traveling too far from the Sun (where
solar energy density is inadequate), or too close to it
(where solar arrays would be imperiled by the Sun's
proximity). Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) are required for
these spacecraft. The Appropriations Committees are aware of
concerns by NASA and the Department of Energy that a supply
of fuel would not be available. However, NASA has curtailed a
major part of its technology development for advanced RPS
devices. In order to permit effective planning for future
missions, NASA should contract with the National Research
Council to prepare a report no later than December 31, 2008
on these issues.
The amended bill includes $2,000,000 above the budget
request to ensure continuity of solar flare data.
While new data systems for Earth science missions should be
considered, NASA is directed to continue the EOSDIS core
system as the operational foundation for Earth science
missions.
The Appropriations Committees concur with language in the
Senate report regarding the Joint Dark Energy Mission and
have provided the budget request of $2,300,000 for this
mission. The Committees appreciate the National Research
Council's Beyond Einstein Program architecture report and
have provided an additional $2,000,000 to begin implementing
these recommendations. NASA is directed to conduct and
complete an open competition to select a Joint Dark Energy
Mission for a fiscal year 2009 new start.
The Appropriations Committees reject the Administration's
proposal to transfer the Near Earth Objects (NEO) program
from the Science Mission Directorate to the Exploration
Mission Directorate.
Further, the Appropriations Committees are concerned that
NASA may reduce support for the Arecibo Observatory which is
used by NASA to observe and detect NEOs. The Committees
believe that this observatory continues to provide important
scientific findings on issues of near-space objects, space
weather, and global climate change, as well as numerous other
research areas. The Committees believe that these endeavors
will have scientific merit far beyond the end of the decade.
NASA is directed to provide additional funding for the
Arecibo Observatory.
In order to assist Congress in determining the optimal
approach regarding the Arecibo Observatory, NASA shall
contract with the National Research Council to study the
issue and make recommendations. As part of its deliberations,
the NRC shall review NASA's report 2006 Near-Earth Object
Survey and Deflection Study--and its associated March 2007
Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Study as well as any
other relevant literature. An interim report, with
recommendations focusing primarily on the optimal approach to
the survey program, shall be submitted within 15 months of
enactment of this Act. The final report, including
recommendations regarding the optimal approach to developing
a deflection capability, shall be submitted within 21 months
of enactment of this Act. The NRC study shall include an
assessment of the costs of various alternatives, including
options that may blend the use of different facilities
(whether ground- or space-based), or involve international
cooperation. Independent cost estimating should be utilized.
Aeronautics.--Within the total amount proposed for Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration, the amended bill provides
$625,280,000 for aeronautics activities instead of
$700,000,000 as proposed by the House and $554,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate. This level includes a general
reduction of $4,720,000. The distribution of this reduction
should be outlined in NASA's operating plan, and the
reduction should not be applied to any programs, projects, or
activities that are specified in this explanatory statement.
The Administration's fiscal year 2008 request is
insufficient to allow the U.S. to maintain its edge in
aeronautics. These programs are critical to U.S.
competitiveness, national security, quality of life, and the
efficiency and safety of our future national air traffic
management systems. The Appropriations Committees expect this
priority to be reflected in NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget
request.
The continuation of our position as a leader in aviation
and aerospace is predicated on our ability to maintain
international leadership and sustain growth in aeronautics.
Air transportation is important throughout the world, but
leadership in upgrading the air transportation system is
absolutely vital to the U.S. For these reasons, the
Appropriations Committees believe that a portion of the
increase above the President's budget request should be
applied to the research, development and technology
demonstration activities of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) to address Air Traffic
Management (ATM) needs.
Additionally, the Appropriations Committees expect a
portion of this increase to address the top-ranked priorities
of the National Academies' Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics. The report presents findings and recommendations
on several important technological breakthroughs that the
NASA aeronautics research program should focus on during the
next decade. Some of the technological challenges need to be
addressed if the United States is to realize necessary
increases in capacity, safety, security and environmental
compatibility of its air transportation system and enable
high-speed civil travel and maintain U.S. leadership.
Finally, additional funding is proposed to carry out, with
the goal of demonstrating in a relevant environment, research
and development on engines and airframes that will result in
significantly reduced energy consumption, emissions, and
noise. NASA is directed to utilize a portion of these funds
for the development of a ``green aircraft initiative.'' In
addition, NASA should utilize additional intramural capacity
for technology readiness level activity above the current cap
for these and other aeronautics initiatives, and report back
to the Appropriations Committees about its efforts to
increase investment in this fashion through detailed
information proposed in the operating plan.
The Appropriations Committees are concerned by NASA's
handling of the National Aviation Operations Monitoring
Service (NAOMS) project and NASA's initial refusal to release
the data. The Committees believe that a comprehensive,
longitudinal survey tool and database to help identify
accident precursors and aviation safety trends would be a
useful addition to existing aviation safety databases. From
within additional funds provided for aeronautics, NASA is
directed to revalidate the NAOMS survey methodology and, if
needed, to restart the NAOMS survey data collection activity
as well as identify trends that may emerge. NASA should
provide a report to the Congress within 90 days of enactment
of this Act on its plans for completing the validation of the
survey methodology and restarting the NAOMS survey data
collection.
Exploration.--Within the total amount proposed for Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration, the amended bill provides
$3,842,010,000 for exploration activities instead of
$3,923,800,000 as proposed by the House and $3,972,490,000 as
proposed by the Senate. This level includes a general
reduction of $28,990,000. The distribution of this reduction
should be outlined in NASA's operating plan, and the
reduction should not be applied to any programs, projects, or
activities that are specified in this explanatory statement.
Within the amounts provided for exploration, $950,800,000
is for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, $1,224,800,000 is for
the Crew Launch Vehicle, and $271,500,000 is for the Lunar
Precursor Robotic Program (LPRP), of which $42,000,000 is for
the lunar lander mission.
The Appropriations Committees believe that the program,
management offices, and missions associated with LPRP are
essential to the success of the anticipated manned missions
to the Moon. Within funds provided for LPRP, $209,500,000
shall be for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and $20,000,000
shall be for the LPRP management office. The management
office associated with LPRP shall also be directly involved
in the planning and oversight of future lunar robotic
missions, integrating lunar data from NASA and other
international missions, oversee technology development,
support the Lunar Architecture Team, and lead NASA's public
outreach and education activities for understanding the lunar
environment.
In 2005, NASA selected a team for the development of a
lunar lander spacecraft consistent with the goals set forth
in the Administration's Renewed Spirit of Discovery and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155) which called for a robust
lunar robotic program, including robotic lunar landers. The
National Research Council's report: The Scientific Context
for Exploration of the Moon further supports robotic
precursor missions to the Moon's surface and the valuable
scientific resource such missions will provide for returning
humans to the Moon. The Appropriations Committees agree that
the NASA selected mission is of critical importance for the
exploration vision. For this purpose, $42,000,000 is provided
for this lunar lander mission.
Although NASA has claimed that a shortfall of more than
$600,000,000 (under the new full cost system) exists as a
result of the funding provided for exploration in the fiscal
year 2007 joint resolution, the NASA Administrator testified
at budget hearings on the Administration's budget request
that no additional funds were needed in fiscal year 2008 and
in fact, there would be carryover balances for the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in this account. Although NASA's
plan to bankroll funds fell short in fiscal year 2008, these
funds, which are not actually needed until fiscal years 2009
and 2010, can be made up in future budget requests. NASA is
pointing to this temporary reduction of funds as the reason
the CEV will be delayed
[[Page 34713]]
by approximately six months. The Appropriations Committees
believe, however, that it is fully within the power of the
Administration to request sufficient funds in NASA's fiscal
year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 budget submissions to Congress
to maintain the CEV schedule and urge NASA to do so.
The amended bill provides $160,000,000 for the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, which is
intended to demonstrate private sector technologies that
could potentially resupply the International Space Station in
the future. However, the Appropriations Committees note that
one of the two COTS contracts is currently in dispute, and
are concerned by NASA's recent decision to re-compete the
disputed contract before all challenges have been resolved.
In doing so, NASA could potentially create a liability to
fund three proposals instead of two as originally envisioned,
increasing the costs of this program to the taxpayers.
Therefore, NASA is directed not to select a new contractor
until all challenges are decided. Further, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to perform a full
review of COTS program expenditures and management.
Achieving the goals of the Exploration Initiative will
require a greater understanding of life and physical sciences
phenomena in microgravity as well as in the partial gravity
environments of the Moon and Mars. Therefore, the
Administrator is directed to enter into an arrangement with
the National Research Council to conduct a ``decadal survey''
of life and physical sciences research in microgravity and
partial gravity to establish priorities for research for the
2010-2020 decade. Further, within amounts provided, NASA is
directed to increase the amount for non-exploration
microgravity life and physical sciences research by
$13,500,000. These funds are for non-multi-user support and
services activities.
NASA should include specific funding recommendations for
the National Space Biomedical Research Institute in future
budgets.
Finally, bill language is included, as proposed by the
House, prohibiting funding of any research, development, or
demonstration activities related exclusively to the human
exploration of Mars.
Cross-Agency Support Programs.--Of the amounts provided for
Science, Aeronautics and Exploration, the amended bill
provides $556,400,000 for cross-agency support programs,
including education. This level includes a general reduction
of $4,200,000. The distribution of this reduction should be
outlined in NASA's operating plan, and the reduction should
not be applied to any programs, projects, or activities that
are specified in this explanatory statement.
Within the amounts provided, $1,000,000 is for the creation
of a review capability at the National Academies and the
amended bill also provides the full budget request of
$2,500,000 for the continued operations of the NASA National
Technology Transfer Center. Also, within the amount provided
for corporate general and administrative costs, the
Appropriations Committees recommend no less than the fiscal
year 2007 level for the NASA Independent Verification and
Validation Program.
Of the reductions made to corporate general and
administrative, $300,000 shall be derived from equal
reductions to both the Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer.
The amended bill does not provide any new funding in fiscal
year 2008 for the Centennial Challenges program. The funding
proposed in previous fiscal years for this program is
sufficient for NASA to run this prize-based competition.
Providing additional funds to a program based on prizes only
creates a sizeable amount of unused funds while other aspects
of NASA's mission are being cut or delayed due to a lack of
funds.
The following is a list of congressional directives. Funds
for these directives shall come from Cross-Agency Support
Programs, rather than from the various mission directorates.
Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, for science and education programming
for teachers and students.....................................260,000
Adler Planetarium's Space Exploration Center...................940,000
Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, to provide a comprehensive,
diverse, and flexible pool of talent at lower labor rates in the
civil service environment to facilitate research and development,
studies and analyses of all areas of higher temperature advanced
materials research and development............................564,000
Alliance for NanoHealth, Houston, TX, to facilitate the translation of
nanotechnology from the laboratory to clinical practice.......846,000
Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Sciences in Fayetteville, AR,
for research and technology...................................267,900
Baylor Physical Sciences Laboratory enhancement at Baylor Unive658,000
Bio-Info-Nano Research and Development Institute at University of
California, Santa Cruz........................................282,000
Burlington County College Science Learning Center............1,504,000
Center for Sustainable Life Support for Human Space Exploration376,000
Chesapeake Information Based Aeronautics Consortium, Maryland, for a
partnership of Morgan State University, University of Maryland
Eastern Shore and Bowie State University, MD, for continued aviation
safety research and development.............................3,572,000
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, for equipment.....267,900
Connecticut State University, City of New Britain, CT, for an
initiative to bring greater awareness of mechanical engineering and
aerospace disciplines to disadvantaged high school students...133,950
Development of photovoltaic capacity at Plum Brook Station...1,175,000
Distance learning program at Fairmont State University.........846,000
Educational Advancement Alliance Math, Science, and Technolog1,880,000
Expansion of the Cimmarusti/NASA Science Center Teacher Training and
Science Education Outreach Program............................235,000
Flight Research Training Center, Roswell, NM, for program to detect,
mitigate and recover from loss of control accidents in aircr1,786,000
Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, for the West Michigan
Science and Technology Institute's Biosciences Research and
Commercialization Project.....................................133,950
Gulf Coast Exploreum, Mobile, AL, to stimulate increased enrollment in
engineering, mathematics, and science in Alabama's universities by
instructing and inspiring K-12 students in the fundamentals and
application of these fields...................................235,000
Human-Robot Teams at Texas A&M University......................705,000
Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, use earth observations to
investigate the effect of land management decisions...........141,000
Imiloa Astronomy Center, Hilo, HI, for operations............1,339,500
Independent Verification and Validation research program.......540,500
Institute for NanoBio Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD, for breakthrough research in nano-bio technologies......1,786,000
Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL, for a tool for
educators to allow their students to reach their full potential
through participation in exciting hands on projects. The projects are
dynamic in scope and are structured to be less time restrictive on
the classroom schedule and the educator though self-directed
curriculum....................................................235,000
K-12 Science Education Enhancements at Middle Tennessee State
University.....................................................94,000
Large Millimeter Telescope at the University of Massachusetts, 705,000
Loma Linda University Space Radiation Health Research Program2,444,000
[[Page 34714]]
Manned Space Flight Education Foundation, Houston, TX, to bring
extensive learning opportunities to teachers, students and youth
organizations throughout our Nation utilizing educational technology
with Web casting, two-way videoconferencing and the Internet. The
program seeks to inspire the next generation of explorers that would
otherwise never have the opportunity to experience space explo282,000
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to develop a cost
effective nuclear power system to support the long-range objectives
of NASA for missions to the moon, to Mars and to deep space.1,645,000
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to help NASA/MSFC
accomplish its current and future missions by providing critical
information on composite materials as they relate to the NASA space
exploration programs........................................1,410,000
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to produce a common
intelligent sensor module through the near-term development of the
sensor technologies and integration algorithms necessary for on-orbit
assembly and other AR&D missions............................1,175,000
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to provide a secure,
retrievable storage solution for Marshall's Data Center that will
meet all Presidential Directives..............................940,000
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to provide critical,
breakthrough technology to NASA for materials development, testing,
and safety improvements to the Space Shuttle and Ares launch1,175,000
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to support the ongoing
technology maturation program for liquid oxygen/liquid methane
propulsion technology.........................................470,000
Marshall University, Huntington, WV, to support NASA-related
composites training at the Composites Technology and Training
Institute in Bridgeport, WV.................................2,232,500
Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, Baltimore,
MD, for continued construction of a broadband link between the
Wallops Island Flight Facility and the Patuxent River Naval Air
Station.....................................................3,572,000
McWane Science Center, Birmingham, AL, for a program will focus on
increasing interest and aptitude in the science fields in K-12
students through hands-on activities that will serve as an extension
of the classrooms. Teacher training will also play a major rol235,000
Micronauts Education Simulator at Wheeling Jesuit University...282,000
Mid-Atlantic Cooperative, Danville, VA, for installation of broadband
on the Eastern Shore of Virginia............................1,786,000
Mid-Atlantic Institute for Space Technology, Pocomoke City, MD, for
UAV testing and certification.................................223,250
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, Wallops Island, VA, for
infrastructure improvements to launch facilities..............223,250
Morehouse College Project Mars Program.........................188,000
Nano/Micro Devices Laboratory at the University of Alabama-Hunt611,000
NASA Exchange City Learning Lab................................188,000
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, for computer operations and
improvements..................................................564,000
National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law, University,
MS, to provide legal research and outreach on critical space and
aviation law issues.........................................2,820,000
National Youth Science Foundation..............................258,500
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, for the Southern New
Mexico Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Aerospace Academy for a
space education program to meet the math and science learning needs
of under-represented K-12 students............................178,600
Pittsburgh Engineering Initiatives, Pittsburgh, PA, to further
development of regenerative treatments for astronauts.........267,900
Research on Aviation Training at Middle Tennessee State Univers470,000
Robotic Exploration Technologies in Astrobiology, Global Undersea
Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks................282,000
Robotics and Exploration Testbed at Marshall Space Center....4,089,000
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, for a Integrated
Sensing Systems Testbed (ISST) to develop, demonstrate, and validate
advanced techniques for situational awareness.................178,600
Science, Engineering, Mathematics and Aerospace Academy at York
College.......................................................188,000
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Center at Tennessee
Tech University...............................................752,000
Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO, Enhancement
of K–12 teaching and learning of sciences, math, and technology
among schools, teachers, and students.........................846,000
Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, AL, for the development of
laboratory-based test methods and test standards for coupon and
component level characterization; development of subcomponent testing
capabilities for material, component and system characterization;
development and qualification of modeling and simulation techniques
for these applications; and development of an integrated modeling and
testing approach for evaluation and optimization of new material
concepts......................................................940,000
Space Engineering Institute at Texas A&M University............352,500
St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, for immunology research that will
complement NASA research on the immune system in microgravity.846,000
Stennis Space Center, MS, to continue a longstanding technology/
industry partnership in assisting in transitioning space technologies
into the commercial sector..................................3,760,000
Stennis Space Center, MS, to support infrastructure improvements for
Crew Exploration Vehicle testing............................2,820,000
Teach for America, New York, NY to engage teachers in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics.....................2,350,000
Thurgood Marshall College Fund Minority NASA Science Initiative940,000
[[Page 34715]]
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, for ongoing applied polymer
technology research and development that links NASA with Louisiana's
polymer industry and the State's academic polymer research pro446,500
U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, AL, for completion of a long
overdue update for the museum and exhibits will provide a more
stimulating and effective presentation of the history of our nation's
space exploration efforts and will serve to stimulate increased
interest in science and technology............................470,000
University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, to provide
research that will provide both fundamental insight into the
combustion behavior of this fuel with liquid oxygen which will assist
in realizing its full performance potential and will train the next
generation of propulsion scientists and engineers who will work for
or support NASA in implementing the chosen engine designs...1,410,000
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, to conduct the fundamental and
applied research needed to develop effective near-space technologies
for station-keeping...........................................470,000
University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, to continue the
establishment of the Center at NASA Ames Research Center in
collaboration with UC Santa Cruz..............................446,500
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, for technology that assists
trauma victims without immediate access to emergency medical care,
including astronauts........................................1,222,000
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, for environmental remote
sensing.....................................................1,786,000
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, for the Maryland Institute
for Dextrous Robotics for the creation of a new generation robotic
technology for space exploration............................2,679,000
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, to help establish a
degree program in space and telecommunications law..........1,786,000
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, to improve the use of
geospatial data by State and local governments................613,000
University of Redlands Education Technology Program............470,000
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for the UVM Center for Advanced
Computing...................................................1,700,000
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium at the University of North Dakota,
Grand Forks, ND, to help make data received from NASA satellite
images accessible to the public for management decisions....2,679,000
Utah State University Research Foundation, Logan, UT, To develop a
modern infrared calibration capability for current and future remote
sensing instruments...........................................376,000
Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV, to expand the reach of the
HealtheWV program, an electronic medical records system.....2,679,000
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, to improve facilities and
equipment at the National Center for Advanced Materials Performance
(NCAMP), which provides shared-database methodology addressing
material, structural, manufacturing, and repair qualification
processes for use of affordable polymeric composite materials in
commercial and military applications..........................329,000
Women in Science and Engineering Scholars Program at Spelman Co188,000
Education.--The amended bill provides $180,000,000 for
education instead of $220,300,000 as proposed by the House in
its account structure and $149,500,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes an additional $3,243,000 for a
total of $15,500,000 for the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitiveness in Research (EPSCoR) program. This
will help the 27 EPSCoR jurisdictions contribute to
innovation and competitiveness initiatives and other efforts
as well as fund the administrative costs of the program.
The amended bill also includes an additional $7,664,000 for
a total of $43,200,000 for the Space Grant College and
Fellowship program and the associated administrative costs of
the program. The amount proposed will fund 35 states or
jurisdictions at $750,000 each and 17 states or jurisdictions
at $550,000 each. The Space Grant program is a nationwide
network of over 800 universities and colleges and affiliates
including research and development centers and business
partners. Space Grant helps introduce young people to the
exciting world of space and engineering, thereby opening the
door to future involvement in scientific or high technology
jobs.
The amended bill also includes an additional $9,400,000 for
a competitive program as authorized by section 616 of P.L.
109-155 for science museums and planetariums to enhance
programs related to space exploration, aeronautics, space
science, earth science or microgravity.
The amended bill also includes an additional $14,100,000
for a competitive education grant program. These grants shall
be awarded to public schools and non-profit organizations on
a competitive basis. NASA is directed, no later than 90 days
after enactment of the Act, to report to the Committees the
criteria it will use in reviewing and ranking grant
proposals.
The amended bill also includes $8,500,000 for a competitive
program to educate students on global climate change as
recommended in the National Academies' Earth Decadal survey.
Although no additional funds have been specifically
provided for the NASA Graduate Students Research Program, or
for a competitive program as authorized by section 431 of
P.L. 109-155 for engineering scholarships, NASA is urged to
consider providing additional funds.
To the extent possible, NASA is urged to use education
funds to address the educational needs of women, minorities,
and other historically underrepresented groups.
The Committees provide the full budget request for the
Classroom of the Future.
The amended bill provides $7,000,000 for the development of
educational activities at NASA's field centers, as proposed
by the Senate, and direct NASA to distribute this amount in
equal $700,000 increments to each center's official visitor
center for the development of educational activities in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including
exhibits.
Below is a table of funding levels provided for the various
missions and themes. Some additional items have been included
for emphasis.
(In millions of dollars)
Science, Aeronautics and Exploration..........................$10,543.1
Science.........................................................5,577.4
Planetary Science................................................1405.5
Discovery.........................................................181.6
New Frontiers.....................................................146.8
Technology.........................................................66.4
Planetary Science Research........................................384.3
Planetary Science Research and Analysis.........................146.6
Outer Planets Missions Studies....................................5.0
Mars Exploration..................................................626.4
Heliophysics....................................................1,070.4
Heliophysics Research.............................................206.4
Heliophysics Research & Analysis.................................37.9
ACE.............................................................7.0
New Millennium.....................................................65.2
NMP Program Management and Future................................12.1
Near Earth Networks................................................64.8
Deep Space Mission Systems (DSMS).................................258.4
Living with a Star................................................266.3
Solar Probe......................................................17.0
Solar Terrestrial Probes..........................................134.5
Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS)..................................93.0
Heliophysics Explorer Program......................................74.8
Astrophysics....................................................1,599.5
Navigator..........................................................95.0
Space Interferometer (SIM)-PlanetQuest...........................60.0
James Webb Space Telescope........................................545.4
Hubble Space Telescope............................................280.0
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy...................75.9
Gamma-ray Large Space Telescope (GLAST)............................41.4
Discovery..........................................................91.4
Astrophysics Explorer..............................................97.3
Astrophysics Research.............................................312.7
Astrophysics R&A.................................................59.4
[[Page 34716]]
International Space Science Collaboration..........................26.6
Beyond Einstein....................................................33.8
Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)..................................2.3
NRC Study Implementation..........................................2.0
Earth Science...................................................1,544.1
Earth Systematic Missions.........................................642.7
Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)...........................90.2
Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM)..........................161.2
Decadal Implementation Downpayment...............................40.0
Earth System Science Pathfinder...................................130.9
Earth Science Multi-Mission Operations............................200.8
Earth Science Research............................................435.3
Research and Analysis.............................................273.7
R&A.............................................................173.1
Near Earth Object Observations....................................4.1
Applied Sciences...................................................55.3
Education and Outreach.............................................23.0
Earth Science Technology...........................................56.0
General Reduction................................................(42.1)
Exploration Systems.............................................3,842.0
Constellation Systems...........................................3,030.1
Program Integration and Operations................................650.7
Crew Exploration Vehicle..........................................950.8
Crew Launch Vehicle.............................................1,224.8
Cargo Launch Vehicle...............................................43.8
Commercial Cargo Crew Capability..................................160.0
Advanced Capabilities.............................................840.9
Human Research Program............................................180.1
Exploration Technology Development................................389.3
Lunar Precursor Robotic Program...................................271.5
Lunar Precursor Robotic Program Mgmt.............................20.0
Lunar Robotics Lander............................................42.0
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter....................................209.5
General Reduction................................................(29.0)
Aeornautic's Research.............................................625.3
Cross-Agency Support Programs.....................................556.4
Education.........................................................180.0
Classroom Of The Future...........................................2.6
Competitive Educational Grant Program............................14.1
NASA Space Grant.................................................43.2
EPSCoR...........................................................15.5
Global Climate Change Education...................................8.5
Science Center, Museum, Planetarium Grants........................9.4
General Reduction.................................................(4.2)
Advanced Business Systems..........................................83.5
Inovative Partnerships Program....................................180.0
Shared Capability Assets Program...................................33.7
Congressionally Directed Projects..................................83.3
SAE Corp G&A Reduction............................................57.90
EXPLORATION CAPABILITIES
The amended bill provides $6,733,700,000 for the
Exploration Capabilities account instead of $6,691,700,000 as
proposed by the House in a similar structure entitled ``Space
Operations'' and $6,792,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Of the amount provided, $4,000,000,000 is for space shuttle
activities and $2,220,000,000 is for space station
activities.
According to NASA's budget request, the content and
estimates for the space shuttle transition and retirement
will be further defined in the fiscal year 2009 budget
submission to Congress. The Appropriations Committees are
concerned about this immense and unprecedented undertaking of
transitioning assets and facilities to another NASA program,
for external use, or for disposal, as well as the
transitioning of the space shuttle workforce. The Committees
direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to begin an
immediate and ongoing review of NASA's plans and progress in
this area and expect to receive quarterly updates beginning
30 days after enactment of this Act.
Within the amounts provided, the amended bill provides
$2,500,000 for the Deep Space Network (DSN) for initial
implementation of the Space Communication Architecture
Working Group's recommendations. NASA's Apollo era
infrastructure is of concern. The condition of the aging and
fragile Deep Space Network (DSN) is especially disconcerting.
According to GAO, this system, which has some crucial
components more than 40 years old, has lost science data
during routine operations and critical events. NASA began
early studies of DSN upgrade options in 2000, but has yet to
put forth a budget request to refurbish the existing network
or provide for a new generation DSN. Although the agency
states that funding will be requested as a part of the fiscal
year 2009 submission to Congress, the Committees believe that
it is critical to start upgrades to this system as soon as
possible.
The Administrator is directed to study the possibility of
delivering the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) to the
International Space Station. Not only will this mission
enable researchers to prepare NASA and our international
partners for future space exploration, it has widespread
support in Congress. This study shall be submitted to the
Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of the
Act and should include the steps necessary to prepare for
such a mission.
(In millions of dollars)
Exploration Capabilities.......................................$6,733.7
Space Operations................................................6,765.7
Space Shuttle...................................................4,000.0
International Space Station.....................................2,220.0
Space and Flight Support (SFS)....................................545.7
Space Communications..............................................371.4
Launch Services...................................................112.3
Rocket Propulsion Testing..........................................51.3
Crew Health & Safety...............................................10.6
EC Corp G&A Reduction..............................................32.0
Office of Inspector General
The amended bill provides $32,600,000 for Office of
Inspector General, instead of $34,600,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
Return to Flight
The amended bill provides no funding for Return to Flight
as an emergency designation as proposed by the Senate. The
House did not propose a similar provision.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
The amended bill includes provisions regarding construction
of facilities at NASA, including the availability of funds.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding prizes.
The amended bill includes a provision on transfer of funds.
The amended bill includes a provision prohibiting funds to
be used to implement any Reduction in Force or other
involuntary separation prior to September 30, 2008.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding space
shuttle transition.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding its budget
justifications. The Appropriations Committees continue to be
disappointed in the lack of detail provided in NASA's annual
congressional budget justification document. Budget
justifications are critical to the Committees' ability to
make informed decisions concerning the administration's
funding requests and must be submitted in a format with the
greatest level of detail possible. Therefore, the amended
bill includes language that stipulates the minimum acceptable
details for each fiscal year budget submission. NASA shall
submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, no
later than January 4, 2008, a template for its fiscal year
2009 budget justification document that complies with this
direction.
In previous years, NASA has chosen to make major
programmatic decisions through comprehensive operating plans.
While such changes are allowed, it is the view of the
Appropriations Committees that this should not be a regular
occurrence. Instead, after an initial operating plan has been
submitted, individual reprogramming letters should be
utilized for minor adjustments in programs as they arise and
only in exceptional circumstances should additional
comprehensive measures be taken. Any reprogramming or
operating plan request submitted shall contain a detailed
explanation of where each adjustment of funds is proposed to
be taken from, the exact destination of those funds, and the
extenuating circumstances that have arisen to cause a need
for the reprogramming of funds. Also, for fiscal year 2009
and each year thereafter, NASA is directed to include the
out-year budget impacts in all reprogramming requests.
The amended bill includes a provision that requires NASA to
provide the NASA Inspector General a quarterly report on
conferences and meetings that exceed $20,000 in total cost.
The Inspector General shall analyze these reports, make
recommendations if necessary, and provide a report citing
each occurrence and recommendation to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2008.
National Science Foundation
The amended bill provides a total of $6,065,000,000 for the
National Science Foundation instead of $6,499,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $6,553,400,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
Research and Related Activities
The amended bill provides $4,821,474,000 for research and
related activities at the National Science Foundation instead
of $5,139,690,000 as proposed by the House and $5,156,090,000
as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes language making up to $57,000,000
available for the procurement of icebreaking services. The
Coast Guard shall only be reimbursed for those sums agreed to
in the existing memorandum of agreement.
The amended bill provides $8,000,000 above the requested
amount for EPSCoR from within amounts available in this
account. The House had proposed this level above the request
and the Senate proposed $10,470,000 above the request for
this account. Of the additional amount, at least $4,000,000
is for Research Infrastructure Improvements and at least
$1,000,000 is for co-funding. As stated in the House report,
the Committees are pleased that the Director has chosen to
give higher visibility to the EPSCoR program by relocating it
to the Office of Integrative Activities within the Office of
the Director.
The Appropriations Committees strongly support increases
for the math and physical sciences, computer sciences, and
engineering directorates in fiscal year 2008 for research and
related activities (R&RA). However, the Committees also
believe the Foundation
[[Page 34717]]
should maintain comparable growth in fiscal year 2008, to the
extent possible, for the biological sciences and social,
behavioral and economic sciences directorates. Each of the
science disciplines is valuable in maintaining U.S.
competitiveness. The Committees urge NSF to provide each
directorate with funding levels that are consistent with the
goals of the America COMPETES Act and look forward to the
Foundation's operating plan in addressing these concerns.
Transformative research is considered to be both
revolutionary and ``cutting edge.'' While the Foundation
currently conducts research that could be considered
transformational, several reports including the National
Science Board's (NSB) Enhancing Support of Transformative
Research at the National Science Foundation notes that no
funds are dedicated for this express purpose. The
Appropriations Committees direct the Foundation to review
current practices supporting the solicitation of, and the
support of, transformational proposals. The Foundation shall
provide a report regarding this review to the Committees on
how this emerging area can be addressed, 90 days after
enactment of this Act, and provide semi-annual reports with
any updates thereafter. The initial report should include the
Foundation's definition of transformative research.
The Appropriations Committees endorse the language in the
House report expressing concern with the current status and
future outlook for the academic research fleet and for other
critical physical infrastructure improvements at older NSF
facilities. Too often, agencies neglect routine
infrastructure improvements of older facilities and programs.
As described in the House language, the Foundation is
directed to allocate additional resources for physical
infrastructure improvements at the facilities noted, and
request additional money in fiscal year 2009 to alleviate the
shortfall in academic fleet funding.
The loss of buying power resulting from the decline of the
dollar and other commodity-related impacts such as the recent
dramatic increase in the cost of oil and steel is of concern
to the Committees. Taken together these two factors seriously
affect many of the international programs operated by the
NSF. These include the Arctic and Antarctic programs, earth,
ocean, and atmospheric programs, and both radio and optical
telescope facilities operated at various locations worldwide.
The NSF should provide a report to the Committees within 90
days after the enactment of this Act on current actions and
future plans, including an analysis of establishment of a
currency and commodity internal reserve fund, to address this
issue.
The Appropriations Committees express concern over the
conclusions of the NSF's Division of Astronomical Sciences
Senior Review with regard to the Arecibo Observatory. The
Committees believe that this Observatory continues to provide
important scientific findings on issues of near-space
objects, space weather, and global climate change, as well as
numerous other research areas. The Committees believe that
these endeavors will have scientific merit far beyond the end
of this decade. As such, the Committees hope the Division of
Astronomical Sciences will reconsider its conclusions
regarding future funding for the Arecibo Observatory. In
addition, the Appropriations Committees direct the Foundation
to provide the budget request for operations at its
astronomical facilities.
The Appropriations Committees believe that while both the
Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) and RaDiUS
serve a useful purpose, the funds provided within the budget
for NSF have been solely provided for use by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Bill language has been
included that provides funds via transfer to OSTP for costs
associated with the use of STPI and RaDiUS. The Committees
note that because it is OSTP that primarily utilizes STPI and
RaDiUS for its activities, OSTP should request funds in its
own budget rather than having funds earmarked within NSF. NSF
is directed to charge OSTP the same overhead rates as is done
for any activities initiated by other federal agencies. NSF
shall notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
prior to initiating any activities on behalf of OSTP.
Further, in future years, OSTP is expected to request funds
for the use of STPI and Radius as part of its budget request.
Finally, the National Science Foundation is directed to
await the report on service science and its merits by the
National Academies, as required in P.L. 110-69, before it
evaluates the applicability of such research to the mission
of NSF.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
The amended bill provides $220,740,000 for the Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account,
instead of $244,740,000 as proposed by the House and by the
Senate.
Education and Human Resources
The amended bill provides $725,600,000 for the Education
and Human Resources account, instead of $822,600,000 as
proposed by the House and $850,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
NSF not only includes research, but also shares in the
responsibility for promoting quality math and science
education as intertwining objectives at all levels of
education across the United States. Math and science
educators play a major role in keeping the U.S. competitive
in the 21st century. Increasing the number of highly
qualified K-12 math and science teachers is critical to the
creation of a new generation of innovators. Recommendations
included in the National Academies' Rising Above the
Gathering Storm report discussed the importance of expanding
programs to enhance the undergraduate education of the future
science and engineering workforce. Within the amounts
provided, an additional $5,000,000, for a total of
$15,000,000, shall be provided for the Robert Noyce
Scholarship program. The House had proposed $36,000,000 above
the budget request and the Senate had proposed $15,000,000
above the budget request for this activity. The Robert Noyce
Scholarship program encourages talented Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) undergraduate students
and postgraduate professionals to become K-12 mathematics and
science teachers.
The Math and Science Partnership program remains a high
priority of the Committees. The Math and Science Partnership
program provides for the collaboration between pre-college
and college to promote excellence in teaching and learning.
The Committees reiterate the direction provided in the
House report that the Foundation provide the Committees with
a detailed breakdown of funding disbursements for fiscal year
2006 and urge NSF to work within its peer-review process for
these programs to incorporate rural communities,
universities, and school districts.
The Committees are strongly supportive of the following
programs and urge the Foundation to provide funding at the
requested level for these programs: the Undergraduate/
Graduate Student Support account and the Graduate Teaching
Fellowships in K-12, the NSF Academies for Young Scientists,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), the
HBCU Undergraduate Program, the Louis Stokes Alliance for
Minority Participation (LSAMP), the Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program (TCUP) and the STEM Talent Expansion
program.
Further, the Committees support the Foundation's request
for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) and the
Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology
(CREST). The conferees urge the Foundation to broaden
Hispanic participation and expect that NSF will begin to
address this issue in its operating plan.
Finally, the amended bill does not provide funds for Earth
observation education and training as proposed by the House.
Agency Operations and Award Management
The amended bill provides $281,790,000 for the Agency
Operations and Award Management account, instead of
$275,590,000 as proposed by the House and $285,590,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
Office of the National Science Board
The amended bill provides $3,969,000 for the National
Science Board, instead of $4,030,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
Office of Inspector General
The amended bill provides $11,427,000 for Office of
Inspector General, instead of $12,350,000 as proposed by both
the House and the Senate.
TITLE IV
RELATED AGENCIES
Commission on Civil Rights
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $8,460,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, instead of
$9,000,000 as proposed by both the House and the Senate.
The Appropriations Committees have serious reservations
about the Commission's current capacity and commitment to
fulfilling its civil rights mission in a fair and effective
manner. The Commission continues to grapple with leadership
accountability issues, including management and operational
deficiencies. It is expected that the Commission will more
effectively support its regional and grassroots network,
including the State Advisory Committees. It is further
expected that the Commission will establish fair and
transparent policies and procedures to ensure the objectivity
of written Commission reports.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $329,300,000 instead of
$332,748,000 as proposed by the House and $378,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is
directed to provide a spend plan within 60 days after
enactment on the investments the Commission intends to make
to reduce the backlog and to handle call intake during
transition after the closing of the National Contact Center.
Funds have been provided above the request to upgrade
telephone technology in the Commission's offices and hire
staff in its field offices to address calls from the public.
The Commission is commended for beginning the termination of
the National Contact Center and transfer of its functions
back into district offices. However, this transition is
taking
[[Page 34718]]
longer than necessary. The Commission had indicated that the
transition would be completed by the end of 2007. Therefore,
if any funds are used for operation of the National Contact
Center beyond February 1, 2008, the Appropriations Committees
expect to be notified and consulted.
The Inspector General is directed to submit, within 90 days
of enactment of this Act, an evaluation of the impact the
EEOC's repositioning plan has had on the delivery of core
services. The report should include an evaluation of cost
savings attributable to the repositioning, and the impact
that the repositioning has had on the EEOC's capacity to
deter, detect, and litigate violations of the Nation's civil
rights laws.
International Trade Commission
OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
The amended bill includes $68,400,000 as proposed by the
House and Senate for the International Trade Commission
(ITC).
Legal Services Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
The amended bill includes $350,490,000 for payment to the
Legal Services Corporation (LSC), instead of $377,000,000 as
proposed by the House, and $390,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate. Within the funds provided, $332,390,000 is for basic
field programs, to be used for competitively awarded grants
and contracts; $3,000,000 is for the Inspector General;
$12,500,000 is for management and administration; $2,100,000
is for client self-help and information technology; and
$500,000 is for loan repayment assistance.
Current LSC locality pay represents reasonable compensation
for LSC officers and employees, and language is included to
authorize the continuation of locality pay.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
The amended bill includes bill language to continue the
terms and conditions included under this section in previous
appropriations Acts.
Marine Mammal Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $2,820,000 for the Marine Mammal
Commission instead of $3,000,000 as proposed by both the
House and the Senate.
National Veterans Business Development Corporation
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $1,410,000 for the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation (TVC) instead of
$2,500,000 as proposed by the House, and no funding as
proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes report language directing TVC to
submit a spend plan to both the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations outlining the allocation of funding
provided; the plan should describe the level of funding
proposed to be used for overhead costs, salary, benefits, and
the distribution of funds among the Corporation's existing
places of operations.
Office of the United States Trade Representative
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill includes $44,120,000 for the Office of the
United States Trade Representative instead of $48,407,000 as
proposed by the House and $47,800,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The Committees support the USTR's pursuit of an
active trade agenda and an increased focus on intellectual
property protection in China, including full staffing of the
new office in Beijing, and the filling of attorney vacancies.
The amended bill includes language in the House report
regarding CAFTA and directs USTR to submit a report. The
amended bill includes language in the Senate report regarding
WTO Appellate Body ruling regarding the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act (P.L. 106-307). The amended bill includes
report language as proposed by the Senate, regarding
negotiations within the WTO.
The amended bill includes report language in the House
report directing the USTR to provide a report to the
Appropriations Committees on Russia's progress in complying
with intellectual property commitments and a report on the
WTO negotiations concerning textiles and apparel.
State Justice Institute
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $3,760,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the State Justice Institute, instead of
$4,640,000 as proposed by the House, and $3,500,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Of the amount appropriated, $470,000
may be used for strategic initiatives that will have national
implications for the courts.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The amended bill includes the following General Provisions:
Section 501--The amended bill includes section 501
regarding the use of appropriations for publicity and
propaganda purposes.
Section 502--The amended bill includes section 502
regarding the availability of appropriations for obligation
beyond the current fiscal year.
Section 503--The amended bill includes section 503
regarding the use of funds for consulting purposes.
Section 504--The amended bill includes section 504
providing that should any provision of the Act be held to be
invalid, the remainder of the Act would not be affected.
Section 505--The amended bill includes section 505
regarding the policy by which funding available to the
agencies funded under this Act may be reprogrammed for other
purposes.
Section 506--The amended bill includes section 506
prohibiting construction, repair, overhaul, conversion, or
modernization of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration ships outside of the United States.
Section 507--The amended bill includes section 507
prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to implement,
administer, or enforce any guidelines of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) similar to proposed guidelines
covering harassment based on religion published by the EEOC
in October 1993.
Section 508--The amended bill includes section 508
regarding the purchase of American made products.
Section 509--The amended bill includes section 509 that
requires agencies to provide quarterly reports to the
Appropriations Committees regarding unobligated balances.
Section 510--The amended bill includes section 510
requiring agencies and departments funded in this Act to
absorb any necessary costs related to downsizing or
consolidation within the amounts provided to the agency or
department.
Section 511--The amended bill includes section 511
regarding the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products.
Section 512--The amended bill includes section 512 that
prohibits a user fee from being charged for background checks
conducted pursuant to the Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993,
and prohibits implementation of a background check system
which does not require or result in destruction of certain
information.
Section 513--The amended bill includes section 513
regarding amounts available under the Crime Victims Fund.
Section 514--The amended bill includes section 514
prohibiting the use of Department of Justice funds for
programs that discriminate against, denigrate, or otherwise
undermine the religious beliefs of students participating in
such programs.
Section 515--The amended bill includes section 515
regarding transfers of funds.
Section 516--The amended bill includes section 516
regarding the negotiation or reevaluation of international
agreements.
Section 517--The amended bill includes section 517
regarding E-government initiatives.
Section 518--The amended bill includes section 518
regarding firearms tracing studies.
Section 519--The amended bill includes section 519
requiring the Inspectors General of the Departments of
Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation to
conduct reviews of activities funded in this Act; prohibits
the use of funds for certain banquets and conferences; and
requires certifications regarding conflicts of interest.
Section 520--The amended bill includes section 520
regarding patents.
Section 521--The amended bill includes section 521 that
prohibits the use of funds to support or justify the use of
torture.
Section 522--The amended bill includes section 522
regarding the export of firearms.
Section 523--The amended bill includes section 523
regarding the use of funds to process permits to import
certain products.
Section 524--The amended bill includes section 524
prohibiting funds to include certain language in new trade
agreements.
Section 525--The amended bill includes section 525
directing NASA to modify its financial management system.
Section 526--The amended bill includes section 526
prohibiting funds to authorize a national security letter in
contravention of the statutes authorizing the FBI to issue
national security letters.
Section 527--The amended bill includes section 527
prohibiting funds for a public-private competition conducted
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 unless
certain appeal rights are included.
Section 528--The amended bill includes section 528 amending
Section 605 of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act of 1998, providing new authorized funding
levels for 2008 through 2010.
Section 529--The amended bill includes section 529
correcting two enrollment errors in P.L. 109-479 which
amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a).
Section 530--The amended bill includes section 530
requiring notification to the Committees in the event of cost
overruns.
Section 531--The amended bill includes section 531 limiting
reprogrammings and transfers after June 30 to extraordinary
circumstances.
Section 532--The amended bill includes section 532
authorizing funds appropriated for intelligence activities
for the Department of Justice during fiscal year 2008 until
the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008.
[[Page 34719]]
Section 533--The amended bill includes section 533
modifying NASA's enhanced use lease authority.
Section 534--The amended bill includes section 534
directing that the Departments, agencies, and commissions
funded under this Act, shall establish and maintain on the
homepages of their Internet websites a link to their Offices
of Inspectors General and a method by which individuals may
anonymously report cases of waste, fraud, or abuse.
Section 535--The amended bill includes section 535
prohibiting funds to enter into a contract in an amount
greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such
amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee has filed
certain Federal tax returns.
Section 536--The amended bill includes section 536
authorizing the Digital and Wireless Networks for Higher
Education Pilot Program--the `ED 1.0 Act'.
Section 537--The amended bill includes section 537
prohibiting the use of funds in a manner that is inconsistent
with the principal negotiating objective of the United States
with respect to trade remedy laws.
Section 538--The amended bill includes section 538
prohibiting the use of funds to purchase first class or
premium airline travel in contravention of current
regulations.
Section 539--The amended bill includes section 539 to
correct a citation related to ``the `911 Modernization
Act'.''.
Section 540--The amended bill includes section 540 related
to services of the Legal Services Corporation.
Section 541--The amended bill includes section 541
prohibiting the use of funds in contravention of the Federal
government's participation in the basic pilot program.
Section 542--The amended bill includes section 542
prohibiting the use of funds to employ aliens who are
unauthorized to work.
Section 543--The amended bill includes section 543
prohibiting the use of funds to send or otherwise pay for the
attendance of more than 50 employees from a Federal
department or agency at any single conference occurring
outside the United States.
TITLE VI
RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $5,700,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations.
Economic and Statistical Analysis
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $800,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $18,800,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations, instead of $10,000,000 as proposed by
the Senate.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $11,372,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $7,400,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account.
JUSTICE INFORMATION SHARING TECHNOLOGY
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $5,000,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $41,000,000 from
unobligated balances in this account as proposed by the House
and the Senate.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER COMPLIANCE FUND
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $1,300,000 from
unobligated balances in this account.
DETENTION TRUSTEE
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $145,000,000 from
unobligated balances in this account, instead of $135,000,000
as proposed by the House and the Senate.
Legal Activities
ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $240,000,000 from
unobligated balances in this account as proposed by the House
and the Senate.
Office of Violence Against Women
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $14,700,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations.
Office of Justice Programs
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $87,500,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations as proposed by the House and the Senate.
Rescinded funds should be derived from deobligations and
recoveries from completed grant activities.
Community Oriented Policing Services
(RESCISSIONS)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $87,500,000 from
unobligated balances available in this account from prior
year appropriations as proposed by the House instead of
$37,500,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a rescission of $10,278,000 from
unobligated balances appropriated from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund as proposed by the House.
Rescinded funds should be derived from deobligations and
recoveries from completed grant activities.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $192,475,000 from
unobligated balances available from prior year
appropriations, instead of $69,832,000 as proposed by the
House. The amended bill includes language requesting that
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
section the Administrator shall submit to the Appropriations
Committees of the House and Senate a report specifying the
amount of each rescission made pursuant to this section.
National Science Foundation
(RESCISSION)
The amended bill includes a rescission of $33,000,000 from
unobligated balances available from prior year
appropriations, instead of $24,000,000 as proposed by the
House. The amended bill includes language requesting that
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
section the Director shall submit to the Appropriations
Committees of the House and Senate a report specifying the
amount of each rescission made pursuant to this section.
Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressional Directed Spending Items
Following is a list of congressional earmarks and
congressionally directed spending items (as defined in clause
9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives
and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
respectively) included in the House amendment or this
explanatory statement, along with the name of each Senator,
House Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
submitted a request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each
item so identified. There are no items in this division which
did not appear in the House or Senate versions of H.R. 3093
or the accompanying committee reports. Neither the House
amendment nor the explanatory statement contains any limited
tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in the
applicable House and Senate rules.
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Project Amount Member(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-DM Planning and Design for new exhibits and Hoover Building $714,400 Mikulski
rent, National Aquarium-DC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-ITA Arkansas World Trade Center, Funding to support efforts to $446,500 Lincoln, Pryor, Boozman
develop international trade initiatives in Northwest
Arkansas, University of Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-ITA National Textile Centers and Textile/Clothing Technology $4,700,000 Aderholt, Butterfield, Coble, Etheridge, Frank, Hayes,
Corporation Hinchey, Jones (Walter), Lungren, McHenry, McIntyre,
Miller (Brad), Myrick, Price (David), Scott (David),
Shuler, Thompson, Watt, Wilson (Joe), Burr, Chambliss,
Clinton, Dole, Graham, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Shelby,
Specter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34720]]
DOC-ITA Novel Polymerics Research, Within the funds provided for $1,316,000 Shelby
NTC, these funds will examine this new generation of
advanced polymeric materials and their best applications
to benefit our commercial competitiveness in the global
market, Auburn University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-MBDA Project for Public Spaces, preservation and revitalization $235,000 Velazquez
of the Moore Street Market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NIST Biotechnology Research Park, Construction of the $7,332,000 Cochran
Biotechnology Research Park in close proximity to an
academic medical center offering opportunities for
scientific and commercial synergies and serving as a
catalyst for economic development in Jackson, MS,
University of Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NIST Engineering and Science Center, This facility will provide $30,000,000 Shelby
state-of-the-art laboratory and research space for future
engineers, scientists, and researchers, and provide
laboratory and research space to facilitate the
University's support of local and regional industry,
University of South Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NIST Innovation and Commercialization Park Infrastructure and $1,598,000 Cochran
Building Construction and Equipment This funding will
complete the construction projects at the Park located at
the University of Southern Mississippi and furnish
necessary equipment, which will generate high technology
jobs and enhance the overall economic development of the
region, University of Southern Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NIST Life Sciences Building, This facility will house the new $5,000,000 Shelby
microbiology doctoral program along with many other
biological science graduate and undergraduate activities,
Alabama State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NIST New York Center for National Competitiveness in Nanoscale $893,000 Schumer, Clinton, McNulty
Characterization (NC)3, Partnership between the National
Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) and the
College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE),
University at Albany-SUNY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NIST Research, Technology and Economic Development Park $7,332,000 Cochran
Expansion, Expansion of the Research, Technology and
Economic Development Park to generate high technology jobs
and enhance the overall economic development of the
region, Mississippi State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Advanced Undersea Vehicle, For an advanced undersea mapping $401,850 Dodd, Lieberman
sonar, Mystic Aquarium--Institute for Exploration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Alabama GIS Mapping, Montgomery, AL, To plan and produce a $423,000 Shelby, Cramer
high resolution large scale geospatial database of
Alabama, Alabama Department of Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Alaska Survey Current and Tide Data $1,316,000 Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Alliance for Coastal Technology $940,000 Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Anacostia Watershed Education, Support for classroom $133,950 Mikulski
education and teacher training on conservation, Anacostia
Watershed Society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Aquatic Genomics and Biosecurity Research, To serve as a $940,000 Shelby
system for early detection and warnings for pathogens and
other contaminants in our aquatic environments, Auburn
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Aquatic Resources Environmental Initiative, Eastern $1,128,000 Rogers (Hal)
Kentucky PRIDE - ORF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Aquatic Resources Environmental Initiative, Eastern $470,000 Rogers (Hal)
Kentucky PRIDE - PAC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Aquidneck Island Westside Plan $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Assisting smaller fisheries-dependent coastal communities, $188,000 Stevens, Young (Don)
Funds will be used to assist the smaller fisheries-
dependent coastal communities of the Gulf of Alaska with
the regulatory process by participating on research boards
and developing management plans, Gulf of Alaska Coastal
Communities Coalition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Bronx River Restoration, NY $940,000 Serrano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA B-WET, California $2,350,000 Pelosi, Farr, Feinstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Center for Aquatic Resource Management, To work together $1,551,000 Shelby, Rogers (Mike)-AL
with state and federal partners to develop and implement
strategies for sustainable practices that will protect and
restore aquatic resources, Auburn University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Center for Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management, Operations $2,632,000 Shelby
to conduct fisheries based research in the Northern Gulf
of Mexico from in-shore shallow waters out across the
continental shelf, Dauphin Island Sea Lab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Center for Marine Aquaculture, To construct a center to $7,520,000 Cochran
provide scientists, engineers, and economists the
capability to apply recent advances in aquaculture,
biotechnology, pathology, nutrition, genetics,
engineering, microbiology, and economics to remove the
technical and profitability constraints to growth of a
marine aquaculture industry, University of Southern
Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Center for the Great Lakes, Conservation education, Shedd $260,000 Durbin
Aquarium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Chesapeake Bay Multi-Species Fisheries Management $352,500 Gilchrest, Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration, Funding for on the water/ $1,786,000 Mikulski, Cardin
in the field oyster restoration efforts, Oyster Recovery
Partnership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Coastal and Inland Hurricane Monitoring and Protection $611,000 Shelby, Sessions (Jeff)
Program, To acquire the ability to predict the intensity
and potential damage of hurricanes affecting the Gulf
Coast, University of South Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Coastal and ocean navigation and hazards assistance, $188,000 Graham, Brown (Henry)
Columbia, SC, To provide a new capacity for access to
assets for navigation and hazards assistance, University
of South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Coastal Restoration and Enhancement through Science and $1,518,100 Landrieu, Vitter, Alexander (Rodney), Jindal
Technology--CREST, Advances in science and technology in
restoration programs, Louisiana State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Coastal vulnerability to climate change study, To look at $940,000 Stevens
impacts, response strategies and predictions for rural
Alaska coastal communities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Coastal Weather for Catastrophic Events, To provide coastal $258,500 Shelby
Alabama appropriate weather monitoring equipment to
measure wind gusts, water surge and rain fall levels
during a catastrophic event such as hurricane, University
of South Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Collaborative R&D Initiative for the Gulf of Mexico, For $752,000 Shelby
collaboration between federal agencies in Alabama and
research universities to more effectively complete NOAA
missions, Von Braun Center for Science and Innovation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34721]]
DOC-NOAA Conservation of habitats in Great Bay, NH, For continued $3,525,000 Gregg, Shea-Porter
conservation of critical habitats, Great Bay Partnership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Research $352,500 Young (Don), Murkowski, Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Cooperative Institute for Remote Sensing Applications, For $1,034,000 Shelby
the purpose of advancing knowledge and understanding of
the environment using information technologies and remote
sensing systems, University of Alabama at Huntsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Delaware River Enhanced Flood Warning System $235,000 Holt, Dent, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Drought Research Study, To continue to study potential $752,000 Shelby
options to minimize the impact of droughts on Alabama and
the Southeast, University of Alabama at Huntsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA DUNE System Assessment and Shoreline Change Analysis $869,500 LoBiondo, Lautenberg, Mendendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA East Coast Shellfish Research Institute $423,000 DeLauro
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Educational Simulations of Extreme Weather Events, Wheeling $188,000 Mollohan
Jesuit University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Eye-On-The-Sky, Continue and expand meteorology reporting, $229,400 Leahy
education and outreach efforts, Fairbanks Museum and
Planetarium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Fisheries Infrastructure, Investigation, Assessment and $376,000 Shelby
Improvement Project, To develop the intelligent command
and control infrastructure systems stewardship
architecture needed to support a sustainable fishing
industry and fisheries ecosystem in this region,
University of Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Fishery Survey Vessel (Number 5 Shallow Draft) $940,000 Cochran, Lott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Fishing Mortality Education Program, To develop a local $94,000 Shelby
educational program for K-12 students and other user
groups in order to minimize discard or release mortality
of reef fishes, City of Orange Beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Reef $940,000 Putnam
Fish Monitoring and Research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Geodesy, Kentucky $376,000 Rogers (Hal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Geodesy/Height Modernization, Illinois $352,500 Johnson (Timothy)-IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Geospatial Data Analysis Center, Normal, AL, To provide $423,000 Shelby
weather stations for the purpose of providing near-real
time data on soil moisture and temperature, Alabama A&M
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Groundline Exchange Program, To coordinate a Maine $376,000 Collins, Snowe
groundline exchange program providing financial assistance
to lobstermen by enabling them to purchase `whale-safe'
rope in exchange for their existing groundline, Gulf of
Maine Lobster Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Gulf of Farralones NMS Exhibit, To enhance the public $669,750 Feinstein, Eshoo, Lantos
awareness of the Sanctuary and human dependence upon a
healthy ocean ecosystem, Fitzgerald Marine Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center $11,060,000 Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Gulf Oyster Industry Program $188,000 Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Harbor seal and stellar sea lion protection program, For $3,478,000 Stevens
management measures to protect harbor seals and steller
sea lions and multi-year interdisciplinary research and
standing rehabilitation program in partnership with NMFS,
Alaska Sea Life Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Harbor seal management, To work together with NOAA on co- $141,000 Stevens
management issues of harbor seals and subsistence
harvests, Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Hawaii Rain Gages, To purchase, install and maintain rain $321,480 Akaka
gages, NOAA National Weather Service Pacific Region
Headquarters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Hawaii Seafood Safety and Inspections, Assistance for the $669,750 Inouye
Hawaii fishing and seafood industries to comply with new
Food and Drug Administration seafood regulations, Pacific
Marine Resources Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Hawaii Weather Buoy, For the installation of buoy northeast $1,250,200 Akaka
of main Hawaiian Islands, National Weather Service Pacific
Region Headquarters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Horseshoe Crab Research, For continued research projects $446,500 Warner, Webb
deemed essential for effective, science-based management
of this critically important species, Virginia Tech
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Hurricane Mitigation Alliance, Research to develop cost $446,500 Nelson (Bill), Martinez, Wasserman Schultz
effective techniques for reduction of hurricane hazards to
life and property, Florida International University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Improved hydrologic modeling of water resources for snow- $94,000 Craig, Crapo
dominated regions, Funds will be used to develop an
operational hydrology model for mountain-front hydrologic
systems based on new research that advances knowledge on
physical mechanisms by which water moves from mountains to
valleys, Boise State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Integrated Data and Environmental Applications Center, $2,455,750 Inouye
Funding support for critical regional needs for ocean,
climate, and ecosystem information (IDEA), NOAA IDEA
Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA International Arctic Research Center, To support further $2,397,000 Stevens
integrating and synthesizing arctic research efforts in
terms of climate change, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA International Pacific Research Center, To conduct $1,786,000 Inouye
systematic and reliable climatographic research of the
Pacific region, University of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA JASON Project $2,209,000 Regula, DeLauro, Langevin, Wolf, Reed, Whitehouse, Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA John Smith Water Trail, Installation of interactive buoys $446,500 Warner, Mikulski, Cardin, Webb, Gilchrest, Ruppersberger
marking the John Smith National Water Trail on the
Chesapeake Bay, The Conservation Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Lake Champlain Emerging Threats, Research targeting $400,000 Leahy
understanding and mitigating invasive species, University
of Vermont
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Lake Champlain Research Consortium, research to identify $250,000 Leahy
sources of harmful bacteria, University of Vermont
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Lake Erie Monitoring at Bowling Green State University $352,500 Gillmor, Brown (Sherrod), Voinovich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve $94,000 Obey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Lobster Institute CORE Initiative $188,000 Allen, Snowe, Collins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34722]]
DOC-NOAA Louisiana Environmental Research Center at McNeese State $352,500 Boustany
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Louisiana Fisheries Recovery Resource Center, Funding for $491,150 Landrieu
planning and initial costs to launch center in
coordination with Seedco Financial Services, Xavier
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Lower Elwha River Habitat Restoration, Dam removal-- $446,500 Murray
restoration and mitigation, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Maine and New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey $188,000 Michaud, Allen, Collins, Snowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Marine Debris Removal and Detection, Alaska $1,316,000 Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Maritime Museum, A collaborative effort with NOAA for the $470,000 Shelby
development of educational activities and exhibits, City
of Mobile, AL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Massachusetts Groundfish Disaster, To provide relief due to $13,395,000 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
economic loses due to new fishing limitations on
fishermen, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Meteorological equipment at Valparaiso University $817,800 Visclosky, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Migratory Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory $1,504,000 Buchanan, Davis (Jo Ann), Farr, Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Mill Creek Conservation, Conservation of coastal $893,000 Reed
environment, Mill Creek Conservation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Mill River, MA Habitat Restoration $376,000 Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Monitoring and restoration of salmon stocks, Funds will be $188,000 Stevens
used to allow the monitoring and restoration of depressed
salmon stocks under the management of one organization
that serves and represents all affected fishermen, Bering
Sea Fishermen's Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Monkfish and Migratory Finfish Trawl Surveys, Collection of $1,339,500 Lautenberg, Menendez
data to accurately and efficiently manage fish resources,
Garden State Seafood Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Mount Washington Observatory Educational Outreach Expansion $423,000 Hodes, Gregg
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA NAIB Conservation and Education Programs, For conservation $893,000 Mikulski
and education programs of the marine environment, National
Aquarium of Baltimore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Narragansett Bay Marine Education, Curriculum development $893,000 Reed, Whitehouse
and operation of youth and adult education programs, Save
the Bay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Narragansett Bay Window Program $470,000 Kennedy (Patrick), Langevin, Reed, Whitehouse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Narragansett Bay Window Program, Monitoring the $446,500 Reed, Whitehouse, Kennedy (Patrick), Langevin
Narragansett Bay, University of Rhode Island Costal
Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA National Institute of Undersea Science and Technology $4,700,000 Cochran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Learning Center, For construction $1,786,000 Inouye
of learning center, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
National Marine Sanctuary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA New England Multi-Species Survey, For multi-species $2,679,000 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Frank
groundfish surveys, School of Marine Science and
Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA New England Weather Technology Initiative, For continued $188,000 Gregg
weather technology and observation, Plymouth State
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA New Hampshire Lake Host Program, For education program to $188,000 Gregg
prevent the spread of milfoil and other invasive species
in lakes and ponds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA New Hampshire Volunteer Lake Assessment Program, For $94,000 Gregg, Sununu, Hodes
evaluation of quality of lakes and ponds in NH through
trained volunteer program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Next Generation Weather Forecasters at San Jose State $211,500 Honda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA NGI Science Center Building, Stennis Space Center, MS $4,700,000 Cochran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA NOAA Save the Bay Educational Programs and Shellfish $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick), Reed, Whitehouse
Restoration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Northwest Straits Citizens Advisory Commission, Citizen- $1,562,750 Murray, Cantwell, Larsen
driven environmental protection, Washington State
Department of Ecology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Oregon Salmon Weak Stock Solutions Research, Research $446,500 Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
reducing by-catch of weak salmon stocks and avoiding long
term closures of the salmon fishery, Hatfield Marine
Science Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Oyster Bed Reseeding and Fishery Habitat Enhancement, To $940,000 Shelby
conduct research on factors which adversely or
beneficially affect oyster habitats in Alabama's
estuaries, as well as actively enhance fishery habitat in
both Alabama's estuaries and offshore waters,, University
of South Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Oyster Hatchery Economic Pilot Program at Morgan State $470,000 Hoyer, Cardin
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Fishery $6,697,500 Inouye
Disaster, To compensate NWHI fishermen for future lost
revenue due to closure of fishing grounds, National Marine
Fisheries, Hawaiian Islands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Pelagic Tagging, For a west coast blue-fin tuna research $446,500 Feinstein, Farr
program, Monterey Bay Aquarium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Perdido Pass Navigation Assistance, For a weather buoy for $282,000 Shelby
the near-shore waters of Perdido Pass along the Gulf Coast
of Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Point Loma Enhanced Monitoring Program, To monitor the $893,000 Feinstein
local coastal ocean environment, City of San Diego, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA PORTS Pilot $1,410,000 Shelby, Cochran, Vitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Preserving endangered wetlands, To preserve endangered $329,000 Hutchison, Ortiz
wetlands and help stop severe erosion in Port Aransas and
along the Corpus Christi ship channel, Port Aransas Nature
Preserve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Project STORM Air Quality Initiative, air quality research, $613,000 Harkin, Grassley
University of Northern Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Promoting healthy wild salmon fisheries, Funds will be used $376,000 Stevens, Young (Don)
by the Association to promote healthy wild salmon
fisheries by monitoring efforts, conducting research, and
education efforts aimed at improving subsistence and
commercial fisheries management, Yukon River Drainage
Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34723]]
DOC-NOAA Radar technology study, A feasibility study to determine $94,000 Enzi, Cantwell
the applicability of advanced radar technologies to cover
the radar hole in northeastern Wyoming with low level
radar coverage, Advanced Radar Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Real time monitoring and observations of marine mammals, To $117,500 Stevens
continue the real time monitoring of subsistence harvest,
haul-out and shoreline observations of marine mammals in
the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula Region, Aleut
Pacific Marine Resources Observers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Regional Climate Centers, cooperative agreement with the $3,572,000 Schumer, Clinton, Nelson (Ben), Nelson (Bill), Obama,
National Climatic Data Center: Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Ensign, Hinchey, Johnson (Timothy)-IL, LaHood
NE; Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL; Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY; Louisiana State Univ., Baton
Rouge, LA; Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV; UNC-Chapel
Hill, NC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Regional Ensembling System for Atmospheric Dispersion $1,410,000 Cochran
Forecasting, To construct a dispersion forecasting
capability tailored for application in the Gulf Coast
Region with activity focused on the development of
ensemble methods and data assimilation techniques, Jackson
State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Rehabilitation of Alaska Crab, Funds will be used to allow $282,000 Stevens
the monitoring and restoration of depressed Alaskan crab,
Kodiak Island; the Pribilof Islands; and Dutch Harbor, AK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Remote Infrasonic Monitoring of Natural Hazards, To support $1,645,000 Cochran
research in long-ranging atmospheric sound below the
perception of human hearing to provide better warnings to
those in danger of the effects of hurricanes and volcanic
eruptions, Joint Project with University of MS, University
of HI, University of AK, and University of California at
San Diego
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Right Whale Disentanglement Program, Center for Coastal $94,000 Delahunt
Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA River frontage and watershed conservation, To continue the $188,000 Gregg, Hodes
program to proactively conserve undeveloped river frontage
and upland watershed, Merrimack River Fish Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study, For data and analysis to $133,950 Feinstein, Boxer
support the upcoming 8-hour ozone attainment plans,
Central California Air Quality Control Study Policy
Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Scallop Fishery Assessment (MFI), To determine conservation $1,786,000 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Frank
and sustainability measures to ensure a strong future for
the New England Scallop fishery, Massachusetts Marine
Fisheries Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Science Consortium for Ocean Replenishment at Mote Marine $846,000 Buchanan, Putnam
Lab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA SE Seiners Capacity Reduction Program $235,000 Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Sea lion conservation and management research program, To $202,100 Stevens
establish a research program with local communities for
sea lion conservation and management, Alaska Sea Otter and
Steller Sea Lion Commission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Shedd Aquarium Invasive Species Program $940,000 Kirk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Southern New England Cooperative Research Initiative, $1,339,500 Reed
Cooperative research and monitoring projects in southern
New England, Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Susquehanna River Basin Flood System, Funding for flood $1,786,000 Specter, Mikulski, Hinchey, Gilchrest, Platts,
inundation maps and capitol improvements to flood warning Ruppersberger
system, Susquehanna River Basin Commission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Thunder Bay NMS Exhibit, For the completion of permanent $1,786,000 Levin (Carl), Stabenow
displays for the facility's new visitor center, Thunder
Bay NMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Tornado and Hurricane Operations and Research, To improve $846,000 Shelby
detection, tracking, and forecasting of tornadic
thunderstorms and land-falling hurricanes in the Southeast
United States, University of Alabama at Huntsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Trawl Survey, To establish population assessments of $446,500 Warner, Webb, Moran
juvenile marine and estuarine fish and invertebrates in
the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay, VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Understanding Abrupt Global Climate Change, for researchers $376,000 Snowe, Collins, Allen
to address relevant issues related to the range,
magnitude, forcing, and predictability of abrupt climate
change events, University of Maine-Orono
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Urban Coast Institute, Program support that establishes $893,000 Lautenberg, Menendez, Pallone, Smith (Christopher)
critical links necessary for integration of policy
management decisions related to regional and coastal
watershed, Monmouth University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Urbanet III, for continuation of the NOAA Air Resource $5,358,000 Mikulski, Cardin, Ruppersberger
Laboratory's Urbanet Partnership to expand the number of
metropolitan areas covered by the Urbanet system to
improve weather forecasting, AWS Convergence Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Vanderburgh County Outdoor Warning Siren System $126,900 Ellsworth, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Vermont Weather & Wind Data Integration, Integration of $200,000 Leahy
National Weather Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to conduct monitoring of bird migration patterns,
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Weather Buoy for Nantucket Sound $235,000 Delahunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA West Alabama Marine Shrimp and Fish Aquaculture, To develop $235,000 Shelby
new methods and find efficiency in the development of
marine shrimp and fish aquaculture using ponds and the
salinic water of West Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Western Kentucky Environmental Monitoring Network, To $705,000 McConnell
complete the development of a monitoring system that will
collect real-time observations through a statewide grid of
stations in Kentucky administered, Western Kentucky
University Research Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Western Pacific pelagic fisheries research, Research to aid $1,116,250 Inouye, Hirono
efforts to develop and implement strategies for the
conservation and management of pelagic fish species,
University of Hawaii--Joint Institute of Marine and
Atmospheric Research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Wind Hazards Reduction Program, For research into reducing $613,000 Harkin, Grassley
wind related damage from storms and tornados, Iowa State
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC-NOAA Woods Hole Berthing Area for new R/V Bigelow $235,000 Delahunt, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne "Missing Persons" (Locating the Ones We Love), Detroit, MI $423,000 Kilpatrick, Conyers, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child is Missing GA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, to assist law $70,500 Chambliss, Isakson
enforcement in finding missing children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child is Missing, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for A Child $89,300 Johnson (Tim)-SD, Thune
Is Missing--South Dakota Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34724]]
DOJ-Byrne A Child is Missing, Indiana $47,000 Carson, Burton, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child Is Missing, Montgomery, AL, for maintaining and $47,000 Shelby
upgrading technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child Is Missing, New Haven, CT $94,000 DeLauro
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child is Missing, New York $188,000 McNulty, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child is Missing, Texas $446,500 Granger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne A Child is Missing, UT, Fort Lauderdale, FL, to assist law $70,500 Hatch, Bennett
enforcement in finding missing children for program in
Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Abilene, TX, Police Department $253,800 Neugebauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Abundant Life Church of God Family and Group Counseling $94,000 Israel
Program, Holbrook, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Access Community Health Network Reentry Demonstration $470,000 Gutierrez, Davis (Danny)
Project, Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Aces for Kids program for at-risk youth, White Plains, NY $235,000 Dicks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Administrative Office of the Courts, Atlanta, GA, to assist $47,000 Chambliss
drug court efforts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alabama Center for Law and Civic Education, Birmingham, AL, $94,000 Shelby
for law-related education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC), $470,000 Shelby
Montgomery, AL, for a criminal data system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alabama Department of Corrections, Montgomery, AL, for $376,000 Shelby, Everett
computer based corrections training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-yrne Alabama District Attorneys Association Data Protection $117,500 Bachus, Shelby
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alabama District Attorneys Association, Montgomery, AL, for $752,000 Shelby, Bachus
computer forensics labs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alabama District Attorneys Association, Montgomery, AL, for $1,692,000 Shelby
the state's drug problem and gang activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alachua County, FL Comprehensive Management of Offenders $188,000 Brown (Corrine)
with Co-occurring Mental Illness and Addiction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alameda County, CA Violence Prevention Initiative $94,000 Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alaska Native Justice Center, Anchorage, AK, for programs $940,000 Stevens
to support Native Alaskans involved in legal issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Alcorn State University, Lorman, MS, to fund a judicial $1,598,000 Cochran
threat analysis center at Alcorn State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne ALERT Regional Prevention Center, Ashland, KY $18,800 Davis (Geoff)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne All Kids Count $470,000 Gerlach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Area Resources for Community and Human Services, St. Louis, $94,000 Bond
MO, for gang prevention and intervention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Arlington County, VA GED Program for Recently Released $94,000 Moran (James)
Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Ascension Parish, LA Sheriff's Office $352,500 Baker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Asheville, NC Police Department Fire Range Equipment $211,500 Shuler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Asian Pacific Women's Center, victims services, Los $56,400 Roybal-Allard
Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Atlanta, GA City Safe Project $399,500 Lewis (John), Johnson (Hank), Chambliss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Baltimore County, MD Ex-Offender Program Equipment $329,000 Ruppersberger, Cummings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Bedford County, VA Sheriff's Office - Operation Blue Ridge $188,000 Goode
Thunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Bergen Community College, Paramus, NJ, to strengthen the $178,600 Lautenberg, Menendez, Rothman
policy, research, and training institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Bergen County Community College, Center for Suburban $94,000 Rothman, Lautenberg, Menendez
Justice, Paramus, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Bonneville County Sherriff's Office, Children's $47,000 Craig, Crapo
Identification & Location Database (CHILD) Project - Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Border Law Enforcement Training Program, Eagle Pass, TX $658,000 Rodriguez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Bridge to Success, Detroit, MI $188,000 Kilpatrick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association $940,000 Hobson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Building Life Skills for Youth, Independence, MO $117,500 Cleaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Burbank, CA Police Department $235,000 Schiff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Butler County Community College $1,222,000 English
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Calhoun and Cleburne Counties, AL Drug and Crime Task Force $61,100 Rogers (Mike)-AL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne California Indian Legal Services Tribal Court Development $282,000 Honda
Project, Oakland, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne California Innocence Project $423,000 Berman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Capital District Women's Bar Association Domestic Violence, $211,500 Gillibrand, McNulty, Schumer, Clinton
Civil Legal Assistance, and Military Families legal
project, Albany, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Carmel, IN $94,000 Burton, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Carson and Rural Elderly (CARE), Carson City, NV, for legal $44,650 Reid
assistance to rural seniors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne CASA of Wood County, WV $47,000 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Centenary College, Law Enforcement and Community Response $940,000 Garrett
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Center for Collaborative Network Security Development, Ann $705,000 Dingell, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
Arbor, MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34725]]
DOJ-Byrne Center Point Re-entry and Community Integration, San $470,000 Woolsey
Rafael, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Central Piedmont Community College, NC $352,500 Myrick, Hayes, Watt, Burr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Central Wyoming College, Riverton, WY, for equipping a $235,000 Thomas, Barrasso, Cubin
criminal justice training center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Chapman University Domestic Violence Clinic, Anaheim, CA $376,000 Sanchez (Loretta)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, Eagle Butte, SD, for $183,300 Johnson (Tim)-SD
technology upgrades to 9-1-1 system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South $446,500 Johnson (Tim)-SD
Dakota, for law enforcement, court, and detention
equipment and operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Chicago Public Schools After School Counts Program for at- $188,000 Jackson, Jr.
risk youth, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Children's Home Society of South Dakota, Forensic $94,000 Herseth Sandlin, Johnson (Tim)-SD, Thune
Interviewing Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Hill $446,500 Baucus, Tester
County, MT, for upgrades to infrastructure, equipment and
rehabilitation of detention center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Chrysalis Ex-Offender and Homeless Job Training Initiative, $376,000 Waxman, Berman
CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Cincinnati, OH Police Department $2,068,000 Chabot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Cincinnati, OH Police Department - Records Management $225,600 Schmidt, Brown (Sherrod)
Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Citizens for NYC Community Crime Stoppers, NY $305,500 Crowley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City and County of San Francisco, CA Forensic Services $1,551,000 Pelosi
Crime Lab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Albertville, AL $141,000 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Anaheim, CA $352,500 Royce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Austin, TX $188,000 McCaul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Bakersfield, CA Police Department $70,500 McCarthy (Kevin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Baltimore, Baltimore MD, to sustain and $446,500 Cardin, Cummings
institutionalize the Felony Drug Initiative pilot project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Baltimore, MD Felony Drug Initiative $258,500 Cummings, Cardin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Barre, VT Police Department Drug, Law Enforcement, $282,000 Welch
Education and Treatment Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Baton Rouge/Parish of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, LA, $133,950 Landrieu, Vitter
for a communication technology pilot program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Bessemer, Bessemer, AL, for emergency operations $141,000 Shelby, Davis (Artur)
and communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Boston, MA Youth and Gang Strategic Crime $94,000 Capuano, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Carrollton, TX $352,500 Marchant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Dallas, Dallas, TX, for re-entry programs $470,000 Cornyn, Hutchison, Johnson (Eddie Bernice)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Denver, Denver, CO, for a gang task force $267,900 Allard, Salazar (Ken), DeGette
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Detroit, Detroit, MI, for a program for parolees, $223,250 Levin (Carl), Stabenow
technical parole violators, and ex-offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Fort Wayne, City of Fort Wayne, IN, for a public $133,950 Bayh, Souder
safety training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Fort Wayne, IN $282,000 Souder, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Henderson, NV $432,400 Porter, Reid, Ensign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Indianapolis, City of Indianapolis, IN, for a male $223,250 Bayh
prisoner reentry program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo, MI, for a training program $178,600 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Upton
for law enforcement personnel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, for an after-school $223,250 Boxer
program for at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Madison, Madison, AL, to fund a domestic assault $141,000 Shelby
unit to handle domestic violence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Missoula, Missoula County, MT, for equipment and $580,450 Baucus, Tester, Rehberg
upgrades for Internet Crimes Against Children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Montgomery, Montgomery, AL, for courthouses and $470,000 Shelby, Everett
detention facility communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Nacogdoches, TX Counter Narcotics Project $352,500 Gohmert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Newark Police Department, Newark, DE, for drug $44,650 Biden, Carper
prevention units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Newark, Newark, NJ, for a returning offender $446,500 Lautenberg, Menendez
initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Oakland, CA Radical Roving Recreation Program (RRR) $235,000 Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA $44,180 Miller (Gary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Rosemead, CA Graffiti Deterrence Technologies $98,700 Solis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for a gun violence $223,250 Boxer
interdiction initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, to replace the warning $223,250 Coleman, Klobuchar, McCollum
sirens and the associated communications and control
system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Talladega, AL Drug Enforcement Initiative $47,000 Rogers (Mike)-AL, Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne City of Yakima, WA $352,500 Hastings (Doc), Murray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Claremont Community Center programs for at-risk youth, NH $211,500 Hodes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Coalition of Neighborhood Councils, Youth Development $258,500 Filner
Training and Education, San Diego, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Community Crime Prevention Initiative in Langley Park, MD $235,000 Van Hollen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Community Foundation of Wyandotte County, KS Neighborhood $329,000 Moore (Dennis), Brownback
Safety Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34726]]
DOJ-Byrne Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR)+ Program, $188,000 Berman, Feinstein
Los Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Community Law Enforcement and Recovery Program (CLEAR) for $470,000 Roybal-Allard
Hollenbeck, Los Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Concurrent Technologies Corporation, PA Corrections $705,000 Murtha
Learning Environment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) of Lycoming County, $103,400 Carney
PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Creighton University, Omaha, NE, for personnel training, $178,600 Nelson (Ben)
equipment, and technological upgrades for the Milton R.
Abrahams Legal Clinic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Criminal Justice Institute, Little Rock, AR, for a law $679,150 Lincoln, Pryor, Boozman, Snyder
enforcement education and training program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Crossroads Safehouse in Fort Collins, CO $56,400 Musgrave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, Crow Creek $446,500 Johnson (Tim)-SD
Sioux Tribe, South Dakota, for law enforcement, court, and
detention equipment and operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Dallas, TX Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative $352,500 Johnson (Eddie Bernice), Cornyn, Hutchison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Davidson County Mental Health Court, Nashville, TN $446,500 Cooper, Alexander (Lamar)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Davidson County Mental Health Court, Nashville, TN, to $188,000 Alexander (Lamar), Cooper
provide safe and affordable transitional housing for
individuals who suffer from mental illness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne DeKalb County, IL Drug Court $171,080 Hastert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Delaware County Community College Institute for Public $188,000 Sestak
Safety and Emergency Preparedness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Delaware Office of Highway Safety, Dover, DE, to purchase $223,250 Biden, Carper
equipment and implement sobriety check points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Denver Rescue Mission STAR Program, CO $282,000 DeGette, Salazar (Ken)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Denver, CO Police Department Gang Bureau $376,000 DeGette, Allard, Salazar (Ken)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Des Moines, IA Area Community College $1,753,100 Latham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Detroit, MI Drug Violence Enforcement $376,000 Kilpatrick, Conyers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Developing Options for Violent Emergencies (DOVE) Program, $47,000 Ryan (Tim), Brown (Sherrod), Voinovich
Akron, OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne DIVA, Inc. Domestic Violence Initiative, Columbia, SC $188,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline Community $141,000 Abercrombie
Outreach, Honolulu, HI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Donnelly College, Kansas City, KS, for inmate education $235,000 Brownback
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Dooly County Family Resource Center, Vienna, GA $141,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Dover, NH Police Department Drug and Gang Safety Initiative $235,000 Shea-Porter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr. Training Academy, Oakland CA $188,000 Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Duquesne University Cyber-Security program, Pittsburgh, PA $376,000 Doyle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Durham, NC Police Department Forensic Unit $376,000 Price (David)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne EAC Child Advocacy Center, Central Islip, NY $423,000 Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne EAC Offender Treatment Alternatives, Hempstead, NY $470,000 Ackerman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne EAC Women's Alternative-to-Incarceration Program, $47,000 McCarthy (Carolyn)
Hempstead, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne East Carroll Parish, LA Sheriff's Office $75,200 Alexander (Rodney)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne East Central University, OK Forensic Justice Center $352,500 Cole, Inhofe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne East Palo Alto, CA Violence and Gang Prevention Initiative $446,500 Eshoo, Boxer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA, for law $223,250 Casey, Kanjorski
enforcement training in cyber crime technologies and
forensics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Eastern Montgomery County, PA Law Enforcement Training and $164,500 Schwartz
Emergency Preparation Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Eau Claire, WI Child Advocacy Center $211,500 Kind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Eisenhower Foundation Re-Entry Project, Toledo, OH $564,000 Kaptur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Essex County Sheriff, MA Heroin and Oxycontin Enforcement $282,000 Tierney, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Essex County, Essex, NJ, for a juvenile re-entry program $357,200 Lautenberg, Menendez, Sires, Pascrell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne F.A.I.T.H. Inc., Offenders and Ex-Offenders Re-Entry $305,500 Davis (Danny)
Program, Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Fairfield, CA Gang Suppression Project $47,000 Tauscher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Farleigh Dickinson University Cybercrime Computer Forensic $705,000 Frelinghuysen, Rothman, Lautenberg, Menendez
Security, Teaneck, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Father's Day Rally Committee, Inc., Men United Program, $846,000 Fattah
Philadelphia, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne First Step SAFE Program for Wayne County, MI $94,000 Dingell, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Florida Gulf Coast University $352,500 Mack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Ford County Sheriff's Office, Ford County, KS, for $282,000 Roberts, Brownback
addressing and preventing terror risks in rural areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Fort Bend County, TX Court Team for Maltreated Infants and $305,500 Lampson
Toddlers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Gallatin County Sheriff's Office, Gallatin County, MT, to $277,300 Baucus, Tester
purchase of a mobile communication equipment, and upgrade
command vehicle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Gang and Violent Crime Intervention Project, Madison, WI $94,000 Baldwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Gardena, CA Police Department Security Enhancements $47,000 Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34727]]
DOJ-Byrne Generations, Inc., Camden, NJ, for a domestic violence $133,950 Lautenberg, Menendez
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Georgia State University HIV/Prisoner Reentry Program, $94,000 Lewis (John), Chambliss, Isakson
Atlanta, GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Glenville State College, WV Anti-recidivism prisoner $188,000 Mollohan
education program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Glenville State College, WV Criminal Justice Program $705,000 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake, Baltimore, MD, to $223,250 Mikulski
provide ex-offenders with services, including drug
treatment, housing, and job placement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Grace College $1,128,000 Souder, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Grambling State University, Grambling, LA, for forensics $89,300 Landrieu
lab equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Grands As Parents, Very Important People (VIP) Program, $47,000 Fattah
Philadelphia, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Grant Sawyer Center Justice Education Program, Reno, NV, $178,600 Reid
for operating support and scholarships for judges in the
Judicial Studies degree program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Greater Philadelphia Boyz to Men Fatherhood Initiative, PA $446,500 Brady (Robert)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Greenburgh, NY Drug Court Program $47,000 Lowey, Schumer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne H.O.P.E. Center of Shade Tree Domestic Abuse Center, Las $357,200 Reid
Vegas, NV, for services including life skills training for
victims of domestic abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Hamburg, PA Area School District, Safety and Security $23,500 Holden
project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Hamilton County, OH Reentry Project $94,000 Schmidt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Hamilton County, TN Drug Court $150,400 Wamp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Harris County, TX Sheriff's Office $2,232,500 Culberson, Lampson, Green (Gene), McCaul, Green (Al),
Jackson Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Hawaii Innocence Project $305,500 Abercrombie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Haymarket Center Furlough Program for Women, Chicago, IL $305,500 Schakowsky, LaHood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Hennepin County, Minneapolis, to create an electronic $178,600 Coleman, Klobuchar
charging process to allow for electronic signature of
court charging documents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science Cold Case $470,000 DeLauro, Lieberman
Center, University of New Haven, CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Henry Lee Institute for Forensic Science, West Haven, CT, $223,250 Lieberman, DeLauro
for equipment and other costs for the National Forensic
Crisis Management and Investigation Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Homestead Borough Police Department Crime Prevention and $47,000 Doyle
Assistance, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Honolulu, HI Police Department Forensic Laboratory $446,500 Abercrombie, Inouye
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Hope House Children Services Program, Independence, MO $70,500 Cleaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Houston, TX Domestic Violence Enforcement Initiative $893,000 Jackson Lee, Green (Al)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Houston, TX Police Department $352,500 Poe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Idaho Department of Corrections $1,222,000 Simpson (Mike), Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Idaho State Police $1,128,000 Simpson (Mike), Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Elder $188,000 Jackson Jr.
Abuse Prevention Pilot Program, Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Indian River Community College, FL Public Safety $141,000 Mahoney
Communications/IT Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Iowa Central Community College $423,000 Latham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Iowa Department of Public Health, Polk County, IA, for an $582,000 Harkin, Boswell
in-jail treatment program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Iowa Drug Endangered Children Response Teams $141,000 Boswell, Harkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Iowa Legal Aid, Des Moines, IA, to provide legal assistance $145,500 Harkin
at community health centers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Iowa State University Cyber project $611,000 Latham, Grassley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Iowa State University Forensic Science $2,820,000 Latham, Harkin, Grassley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne John Jay College Criminal Justice Center, NY $305,500 Kennedy (Patrick), Nadler, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne John Jay College, New York, NY, for the Regenhard Center $178,600 Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy (Patrick), Nadler
for Emergency Response Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, for the Johns $178,600 Mikulski
Hopkins Prisoner Career Re-Entry Program to provide job
training and placement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Johnson County, KS Safety for Behavioral Healthcare Workers $94,000 Moore (Dennis)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Johnson County, NC Schools Critical Infrastructure $164,500 Etheridge
Protection System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Johnson County, TX Stop the Offender Program $188,000 Edwards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Joseph J. Peterman Institute, Philadelphia, PA Latino Child $164,500 Brady (Robert)
Abuse Prevention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Kane County, IL Mental Health Court $235,000 Hastert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Kane County, IL Sheriff's Office $705,000 Hastert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Kansas Bureau of Investigation $70,500 Moran (Jerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Kansas City, MO Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual $47,000 Cleaver, Bond
Assault
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Kansas Regional Community Policing Institute $564,000 Tiahrt, Brownback
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne KidsPeace Arizona Foster Care & Family Services Program $141,000 Grijalva
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne KidsPeace in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA $188,000 Lewis (Jerry), Baca, Calvert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne King County, WA Sheriff's Office for school resource $329,000 Reichert, Cantwell
officers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34728]]
DOJ-Byrne King County, WA Sheriff's Office Gang Intervention $352,500 McDermott, Cantwell
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Lafayette County, AR Sheriff's Office $47,000 Ross
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Lafayette Parish Bar Foundation, Lafayette Parish, LA, to $89,300 Landrieu, Boustany
increase the level of services through the Lafayette
Parish Bar Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Laguna Pueblo Integrated Justice Center, Mescalero, NM, for $267,900 Bingaman
law enforcement, courts, detention equipment and
operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Lancaster County, SC Sheriff's Office Firing Range $94,000 Spratt
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Lane County, OR Adult Corrections Mental Health Recidivism $94,000 DeFazio, Smith (Gordon)
Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Larimer County, CO Sheriff's Department, Specialized $258,500 Musgrave
Prosecution Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Las Vegas, NV, to upgrade $446,500 Reid
command vehicle to coordinate law enforcement activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Latin American Youth Center, Langley Park, MD, for juvenile $669,750 Mikulski
delinquency prevention programs through intervention,
prevention and prosecution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Liberty Hall II Offender Re-Entry Program, Indianapolis, IN $446,500 Carson, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Living Classrooms, Baltimore, MD, for a prisoner re-entry $200,925 Mikulski
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Livingstone College, NC Criminal Justice Program $329,000 Watt, Dole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Local Initiative Support Corporation, Jackson, MS, to $705,000 Cochran
provide community law enforcement training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Local Initiatives Support Corporation Community Safety $329,000 Moore (Gwen), Kennedy (Patrick)
Initiative, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Long County, GA Sheriff's Office $347,800 Kingston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Los Angeles County CDC Comprehensive Crime Prevention $423,000 Harman
Program, Monterey Park, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Los Angeles, CA Gang Reduction Program $940,000 Schiff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Louisiana District Attorneys Association $352,500 Jindal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Lower Makefield, PA Police Department, Bucks County $352,500 Murphy (Patrick)
Security Threat Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Luna County Sheriff's Department, Deming, NM, to purchase $223,250 Bingaman
equipment and to train law enforcement agencies along the
New Mexico-Mexico border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Lutheran Settlement House, Philadelphia, PA Bilingual $70,500 Brady (Robert)
Domestic Violence Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Luzerne County Community College, Nanticoke, PA, for $329,000 Specter, Casey
training and equipment acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Luzerne County, PA Drug Court Program $940,000 Kanjorski
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Macon County, Macon County, IL, for gun violence prevention $150,000 Durbin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mahoning County, OH Substance Abuse Interventions and $94,000 Ryan (Tim)
Treatment Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mahoning Valley, OH Law Enforcement Task Force $376,000 Ryan (Tim)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, Gang Elimination $2,820,000 Ruppersberger
Task Force, Baltimore, MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Maryland Regional Gang Initiative, Montgomery and Prince $446,500 Van Hollen, Cardin, Mikulski
George's Counties, MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office, Baltimore, MD, for a $2,679,000 Mikulski
program to stop gang violence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne McLean County, McLean County, IL, for a drug court $350,000 Durbin, Obama, Weller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation - Check 'em Out Program $470,000 Smith (Christopher)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mentoring Incarcerated Parents (MIP), Philadelphia, PA $329,000 Fattah, Brady (Robert)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Metropolitan Crime Commission, New Orleans, LA, to $329,000 Vitter
eliminate public corruption and to reduce white-collar
crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Metropolitan Family Services Domestic Violence Services, $235,000 Jackson Jr.
Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault, $329,000 Bond, Cleaver
Jackson County, MO, for intervention and advocacy services
for victims of sexual violence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Regional $94,000 Moran (James)
Pawn Database Sharing System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Midland County, MI Courts $314,900 Camp, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI, $401,850 Kohl, Moore (Gwen)
to maintain staff and services in domestic violence unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Milwaukee County, WI Benedict Center Women's Harm Reduction $94,000 Moore (Gwen), Kohl
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Milwaukee Public Schools, Milwaukee, MN, to continue safe $223,250 Kohl
summer sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Minneapolis, MN Gunfire Detection System $564,000 Ellison, Coleman, Klobuchar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Minnesota State Patrol, Drug Sniffing K-9's for $32,900 Oberstar
Northeastern MN Patrol Districts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne MISSING Internet Safety Program in Anderson, IN $352,500 Pence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, for knowledge $940,000 Cochran
based data integration and intelligence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, provide $1,598,000 Cochran
technical assistance to law enforcement regarding
electronic and computer crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Missoula, MT Police Department $75,200 Rehberg, Baucus, Tester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mobile County Commission, Mobile, AL, for interoperable $470,000 Shelby, Bonner
communications systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Monroe County Department of Public Safety, Monroe County, $446,500 Schumer, Clinton, Slaughter
NY, for the Fingerprint and Trace module
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34729]]
DOJ-Byrne Monroe County, NY Crime Lab Computer and Document Forensic $625,100 Slaughter, Schumer, Clinton
and Digital Evidence Module
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Monroe County, NY Drug Analysis Module $1,598,000 Walsh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Monroe County, NY Firearms Analysis Crime Lab $1,673,200 Reynolds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association $203,980 Rehberg, Baucus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Montana State University $188,000 Rehberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Montana State University at Billings, Yellowstone County, $267,900 Tester, Rehberg
MT, for an academic development program targeted at
inmates at the Montana Women's Prison in Billings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Montana Supreme Court, Lewis and Clark County, MT, to $312,550 Baucus, Tester
enhance and sustain Montana's adult, family and juvenile
drug courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Monterey County, CA Street Violence and Anti-Gang Project $1,269,000 Farr, Boxer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Morgan County, AL Child Advocacy Center $78,020 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Morgan County, CO $188,000 Musgrave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Mujeres Latinas en Accion, Parent Support Program, Chicago, $188,000 Gutierrez
IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Multnomah County, OR Elder Abuse Prosecution Project $47,000 Blumenauer, Wu, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Muskegon County, MI Alternatives to Incarceration Program $352,500 Hoekstra, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Nassau County, NY District Attorney's Office, Get REAL Anti- $188,000 Israel, Clinton, Schumer
Gang Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Association of Court Management $188,000 Gingrey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, $89,300 Landrieu
Alexandria, VA, to provide equipment and training to
reunite displaced children and adults
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, DC, $470,000 Shelby, Coble
National hotline that provides information and services to
crime victims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Children's Advocacy Center, Huntsville, AL, $423,000 Cramer
Support Services for Child Abuse Victims in North Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Crime Victims Law Institute $4,465,000 Mikulski, Cardin, Kyl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Forensic Science Training Center, FL $2,030,400 Young (C.W.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC, for a $89,300 Reid
study to assess the need for a Nevada Indian tribal
detention facility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Institute on State Policy on Trafficking of Women $648,600 Pastor, Honda, DeLauro, Payne, Woolsey
and Girls, Washington, DC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne National Judicial College, Reno, NV, to provide training to $893,000 Reid, Ensign
judges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Nation's Missing Children Organization and National Center $94,000 Enzi
for Missing Adults, Wyoming, for technology to locate
missing persons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne New Directions for Youth program, Van Nuys, CA $141,000 Sherman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne New Hope Academy Drug Treatment to Low-Income Families, $211,500 Carney
Rehrersburg, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, to develop $267,900 Lautenberg, Menendez, Pascrell
grip recognition on guns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, Santa Fe, $267,900 Domenici, Bingaman
NM, to continue drug court programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne North Brooklyn Development Corporation, Brooklyn, NY at- $94,000 Velazquez
risk youth programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation State Crime $282,000 Price (David), Dole
Lab DNA Enhancement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne North Metro Task Force, Adams County and City/County of $587,500 Perlmutter, Salazar (Ken)
Broomfield, CO Police Departments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Northampton County, PA Child Advocacy Center $235,000 Dent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Northeast Regional Forensic Institute, Albany, NY $540,500 McNulty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Northern Kentucky University Research Foundation, Highland $329,000 McConnell
Heights, KY, for increasing the security of the Internet
and electronic systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force $2,350,000 Wolf, Davis (Tom), Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Northwest Missouri NITRO Task Force $352,500 Graves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Northwest Regional Gang Task Force, VA $564,000 Wolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne NY State Sheriffs Association $352,500 McHugh, Hinchey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Oak Ridge, TN Police Department $1,034,000 Wamp, Alexander (Lamar)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Oakland Center for Public Safety at Merritt College, CA $94,000 Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Office of the District Attorney, 3rd Judicial District, $133,950 Bingaman
Rural Domestic Violence I Initiative, Las Cruces, NM, for
outreach to rural, underserved areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Office of the Tulare County, CA, District Attorney $352,500 Nunes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Oglala Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South Dakota, $893,000 Johnson (Tim)-SD, Thune, Herseth Sandlin
for law enforcement, court, and detention equipment and
operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Oglala Sioux Tribe Department of Public Safety, Community $564,000 Herseth Sandlin, Johnson (Tim)-SD, Thune
Policing, Pine Ridge, SD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne On-Site Academy's Law Enforcement Counseling Program, $470,000 Olver
Gardner, MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Operation Our Town, Altoona, PA $235,000 Shuster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Operation UNITE, KY $3,572,000 Rogers (Hal), Chandler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Pace University Women's Justice Center, White Plains, NY $47,000 Lowey, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Painesville, OH Police Department $70,500 LaTourette
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34730]]
DOJ-Byrne Parents for Megan's Law, Stony Brook, NY, for the National $334,875 Schumer, Clinton, Bishop, McCarthy
Megan's Law Helpline, Crime Victims Center, Advocacy, &
Counseling program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Dauphin $312,550 Casey
County, PA, for a training, education, and prevention
institute on domestic violence and homicide prevention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Phoenix House Families Facing Addiction Program, NY, NY $47,000 Lowey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Phoenix House in Dublin, NH $352,500 Hodes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Phoenix House, Capital Region of New York $601,600 Gillibrand, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Pinellas County, FL Forensic Lab $695,600 Young (C.W.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Pitt County, NC Gang Prevention program $47,000 Butterfield
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Polytechnic University, NY Large Scale Network Forensics $376,000 Towns, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Portage County, OH Adult Probation Department, Community $188,000 Ryan (Tim)
Integration and Socialization Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Prince George's County, MD State's Attorney Office, $42,300 Hoyer
Bilingual Victims Advocate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Public Safety Officer Training Center, Casper, WY $470,000 Cubin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Red Bay, AL Police Department $18,800 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Regional Counterdrug Training Academy, Meridian, MS $291,400 Pickering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Regional Fingerprint ID project, San Bernardino and $1,880,000 Lewis (Jerry), Calvert, Feinstein
Riverside Counties, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rhode Island Family Court Mental Health Services, $223,250 Reed, Whitehouse
Providence, RI, to provide rapid psychological evaluations
and treatment recommendations to youth and the courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rhode Island Municipal Police Academy $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Ridley Park, PA Police Community Educational Programs $79,900 Sestak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Riverside County, CA Sheriff's Department $352,500 Issa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Riverside County, CA Sheriff's Department Endangered $1,094,160 Calvert
Children Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Riverside County, CA Web Wise Kids program $235,000 Lewis (Jerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Roca Inc, Alternatives to Youth Violence, Boston, MA $305,500 Capuano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rose Brooks Center Project SAFE program, Kansas City, MO $376,000 Cleaver
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rose Hill, KS Police Department $235,000 Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rosebud Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South Dakota, $446,500 Johnson (Tim)-SD, Thune
for law enforcement, court, and detention equipment and
operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rural Criminal Justice Center at Central Wyoming College $470,000 Cubin, Barrasso
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Rural Justice Institute at Alfred University $752,000 Kuhl, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Safe and Sound, Milwaukee, WI, to provide continued $535,800 Kohl
operational support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Safer Foundation, Transitional Program for Ex-Offenders, $470,000 Jackson Jr.
Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA Violence $70,500 Brady (Robert), Gerlach, Casey
Prevention and Response Training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sam Houston State University Regional Crime Lab $352,500 Brady (Kevin), Hutchison, Cornyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne San Francisco, CA Community Justice Center $1,034,000 Pelosi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne San Francisco, CA Ex-Offender Reentry Services $1,504,000 Pelosi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department $282,000 McCarthy (Kevin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sankofa Safe Child Initiative, Chicago, IL $47,000 Davis (Danny)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Santa Ana, CA Police Department, Missing Program/Internet $94,000 Sanchez (Loretta)
Safety for Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne School Resource Officers for South Gate, CA $376,000 Sanchez (Linda)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne School Safety Project in Derby, KS $235,000 Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne School Safety Project in Newton, KS $235,000 Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne School Security Program in Tulsa, OK $352,500 Sullivan, Inhofe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sea Research Foundation After School Program for at-risk $282,000 DeLauro, Courtney, Dodd, Lieberman
youth, Mystic, CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Second Chance Prisoner Re-entry Project, San Diego, CA $681,500 Filner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sedgwick County, KS District Attorney's Office $470,000 Tiahrt, Brownback
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sedgwick County, KS Sheriff's Office $423,000 Tiahrt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sex Offender Alert and Child Sexual Abuse Prevention $258,500 Bishop (Tim), McCarthy (Carolyn), Schumer, Clinton
Education Programs, Stony Brook, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Shelby County, KY Drug/Alcohol Advisory Council $75,200 Lewis (Ron)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sheriff's Association of New Jersey, State-wide $78,960 Frelinghuysen, Rothman
Accreditation Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Shreveport-Bossier Community Renewal, Shreveport, LA, for a $89,300 Landrieu, Alexander (Rodney), McCrery
crime prevention initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Simon Wiesenthal Center, Los Angeles, CA, To provide $1,598,000 Shelby
sensitivity training to law enforcement when investigating
hate crimes and civil rights abuses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Department of Justice, correctional $94,000 Herseth Sandlin
rehabilitation strategies, Agency Village, SD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Solano County, CA Probation Enhanced Supervision of High $47,000 Tauscher
Risk Domestic Violence Offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34731]]
DOJ-Byrne South Dakota Children's Home Society, Sioux Falls, South $361,900 Johnson (Tim)-SD, Herseth Sandlin
Dakota, for family support services, forensic interviewing
centers, and emergency shelter operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne South Florida Anti-Gang Task Force, Broward County, FL, to $357,200 Nelson (Bill)
fight gang violence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, Center for Rural $94,000 Costello
Violence and Prevention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Southern Virginia Child Advocacy Center $28,200 Goode
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Spokane County, WA Sheriff's Office $352,500 McMorris Rodgers, Murray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne St. Louis County, MO Police Crime Laboratory $141,000 Carnahan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Criminal Justice System, South $446,500 Johnson (Tim)-SD
Dakota, for law enforcement, court, and detention
equipment and operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, for rural law enforcement $940,000 Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, to continue alcohol $752,000 Stevens
interdiction, investigation and prosecution of bootlegging
crimes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne State of New Mexico First Judicial District Court Mental $188,000 Domenici
Health Court Program, Santa Fe, NM, to expand services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Stepping Stones Child Advocacy, La Crosse, WI $211,500 Kind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Stop It Now, Northampton, MA $94,000 Neal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Stop Violence in Ross County, OH $305,500 Space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Suffolk County, NY District Attorney's Office, Senior Abuse $282,000 Israel
Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Suffolk County, NY Internet Crimes Against Children $399,500 Bishop (Tim)
Prevention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Summa Health Systems, Akron, OH, for care to domestic $401,850 Brown (Sherrod), Voinovich, Ryan (Tim)
violence victims and assistance to law enforcement
personnel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Tahirih Justice Center, VA legal and social services $1,175,000 Moran (James)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Tallahassee Community College, FL Pat Thomas Law $188,000 Boyd
Enforcement Academy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Tallapoosa County, AL Sheriff's Office $94,000 Rogers (Mike)-AL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Tarleton State University Rural Law Enforcement Project $705,000 Carter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne TASC Center for Health and Justice, Chicago, IL $47,000 Davis (Danny)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition $4,982,000 Culberson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Texas State University Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid $927,780 Granger, Doggett, Edwards, Cornyn
Response Training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Texas State University and Texas Engineering Extension $470,000 Edwards, Doggett
Service, Project Protect, San Marcos, TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne The Doe Fund, Inc., Ready, Willing, and Able, NY $564,000 Towns, Maloney, Nadler, Weiner, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne The Doe Fund, Ready, Willing & Able, Jersey City, NJ $141,000 Rothman, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Thiel College, PA Community Partnership Security Center $423,000 English
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Tifton, GA Police Department, Neighborhood Watch Programs $61,100 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Town of Eureka, Lincoln County, MT, for upgrades law $223,250 Baucus, Tester
enforcement training facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Towson University, MD Forensic Chemistry Institute $141,000 Sarbanes, Cardin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Troy University, Troy, AL, for cyber crime prevention and $493,500 Shelby
training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Tulsa Public Schools, Tulsa, OK, for public schools campus $47,000 Inhofe, Sullivan
police force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Turtle Mountain Community College, Belcourt, ND, for the $223,250 Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy
continued development of an innovative tribal justice
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne UAB, Birmingham, AL, for an anti-cyber-crime computational $470,000 Shelby
operation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Unified Government of Kansas City, KS Victims of Crime $376,000 Moore (Dennis)
Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, KS, $282,000 Brownback, Moore (Dennis)
for crime victim services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne UNITE law enforcement pilot project, Beverly Hills, CA $893,000 Waxman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, OK Domestic $188,000 Boren
Violence and Victims Assistance programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne United Way of Southeastern Michigan Ex-Offender Reentry $634,500 Rogers (Mike)-MI, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Levin (Carl),
Program Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Alabama School of Law, Family Law Clinic $141,000 Davis (Artur), Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, for mediation and $282,000 Shelby, Davis (Artur)
dispute resolution services in family courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Arkansas Criminal Justice Institute School $305,500 Boozman, Snyder, Lincoln, Pryor
Resource Officer Training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Arkansas Methamphetamine Education and $352,500 Berry, Snyder, Boozman
Training Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Colorado at Denver - Audio and Video $352,500 Tancredo, Allard, Salazar (Ken)
Forensics project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Connecticut Health Center, Breaking the Cycle $470,000 DeLauro
of Behavioral Health Problems and Crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, for $380,000 Durbin, Davis (Danny)
community-based gun violence prevention and intervention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Illinois at Chicago, Project on Violence $47,000 Davis (Danny), Durbin
Prevention CeaseFire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY, $376,000 McConnell
to encourage and prepare students from economically-
disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue careers in law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34732]]
DOJ-Byrne University of Louisville Research Foundation, Louisville, $376,000 McConnell
KY, to develop methods for detecting child abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, for combined law $1,880,000 Alexander (Lamar), Corker, Cohen
enforcement efforts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Memphis, TN Integrated Gang and Violent Crime $564,000 Cohen, Alexander (Lamar), Corker
Reduction Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, provide legal $2,538,000 Cochran
analysis and training to judges and prosecutors regarding
electronic and computer crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Missouri - St. Louis, Family Intervention $249,100 Carnahan
Program for Parents Who have Abused Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Immigrant Resource $267,900 Reid
Project, Las Vegas, NV, for a legal education program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Las Vegas, NV, for $580,450 Reid, Porter
the ITFFRO Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of North Dakota, School of Law, Grand Forks, ND, $178,600 Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy
for the recruitment and retention of American Indian law
students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, SC, $188,000 Graham
law clinic support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of South Carolina, Gangnet $282,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Tennessee Law Enforcement Innovation Center $446,500 Wamp, Duncan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne University of Toledo Program to Increase Effective Services $423,000 Kaptur, Voinovich
for Child Victims of Commercial Exploitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Upper Darby, PA Center for Family Safety $352,500 Sestak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Utah Sheriffs' Association Jail Inspection Systems, St. $94,000 Matheson
George, UT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Utah Valley State College Forensic program $352,500 Cannon, Bennett, Hatch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation Native American Law $493,500 Salazar (John), Salazar (Ken)
Enforcement, Court System, Detention Improvement Program,
CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Utica College, NY Sex Offender Authentication Research $705,000 Arcuri, Clinton
Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Venango, PA Internet Safety Project $188,000 Peterson (John)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Ventura County, CA District Attorney's Office $164,500 Gallegly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Ventura County, CA Sheriff's Department $188,000 Gallegly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, to $1,000,000 Leahy
combat increased heroin, methamphetamine and other drug
activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Vermont Judiciary, Court Administrator's Office, $223,250 Sanders
Montpelier, VT, to provide victims of domestic violence
with access to the courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VT, to allow the Legal $250,000 Leahy
Clinic Services Expansion program at the Vermont Law
School to expand its work on immigration matters and
increase services available to Vermonters in western part
of the state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Vermont Police Academy, Pittsford, VT, to train new $188,000 Sanders
recruits to deal with violent and drug related crimes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Vermont Protection and Advocacy, Montpelier, VT, for $89,300 Sanders
communication support for the disabled in court
proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Villa Julie College, MD Forensic Studies and Training $423,000 Sarbanes, Cardin
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA, for Virginia Tech $53,580 Warner, Webb
expenses related to shooting on campus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne VIVA: Adult Volunteer Hispanic Outreach Program in FL and $705,000 Wasserman Schultz, Domenici
NM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Volunteers of America Delaware Valley, Collingswood, NJ, $446,500 Lautenberg, Menendez
for a re-entry program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Voorhees College, SC Dating Violence and Sexual Assault $470,000 Clyburn
Prevention and Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs DNA $470,000 Reichert, Dicks, Murray, Cantwell
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Washington County, NC Courthouse Security $47,000 Butterfield
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Washington County, OR Drug Court $446,500 Wu, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Washington County, OR Recovery Mentors $211,500 Wu, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Reno, NV, for a pilot $89,300 Reid
program to house mentally ill offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Reno, NV, to secure $893,000 Reid
improvements at the justice center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Waukegan, IL Police Department - North Suburban Gang Task $846,000 Kirk
Force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Waynesburg College, PA Electronic Crime Prevention and $470,000 Murtha
Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Weld County, CO Gang Task Force $235,000 Musgrave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Westfield State College, MA Law Enforcement Training $305,500 Neal
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Westminster, CA Police Department $352,500 Rohrabacher, Royce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Westside Health Authority Neighborhood Re-Entry Center $164,500 Davis (Danny)
(NRC), Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Whatcom County Executive's Office, Bellingham, WA, for $679,150 Murray
northern border-related prosecution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Will County, IL Sheriff's Office $202,100 Biggert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Willmar, MN Gang Enforcement Team $141,000 Peterson (Collin), Coleman, Klobuchar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Winona State University, MN National Child Protection $775,500 Walz, Oberstar, Coleman, Klobuchar
Training Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Women's Center of Tarrant County, TX $235,000 Granger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34733]]
DOJ-Byrne Women's Council on African American Affairs, Little Rock, $89,300 Lincoln, Pryor
AR, for support for the Center for Healing Hearts and
Spirits Prevention of Black on Black Crime Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne YMCA of Greater New York $47,000 Maloney, Schumer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Yonkers, NY Outstanding Warrants Program $94,000 Lowey, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Zero to Three Court Teams for Maltreated Infants and $408,900 Hirono, Abercrombie
Toddlers, Honolulu, HI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Byrne Zero to Three Court Teams Project, New Haven, CT $329,000 DeLauro
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth 22nd Judicial District, Montezuma County, CO, for anti-meth $133,950 Salazar (Ken)
operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Alamosa Police Department, Alamosa, CO, for anti-meth $22,325 Salazar (Ken)
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Arkansas State Police, Little Rock, AR, to investigate, $535,800 Lincoln, Pryor, Boozman, Snyder
seize, dismantle and direct the clean-up of meth labs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Asheville, NC Police Department Methamphetamine Enforcement $94,000 Shuler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Atascosa and Wilson County, TX Sheriff's' and Constable's $141,000 Cuellar
Departments Methamphetamine Law Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Bibb County, AL Sheriff's Department $235,000 Bachus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Boone, Kenton, Campbell Counties, KY, Boone County, for $470,000 Bunning, Davis (Geoff)
logistical support for the task force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Broomfield Police Department, Broomfield, CO, for anti-meth $357,200 Salazar (Ken)
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics $258,500 Feinstein, Cardoza, Lundgren
Enforcement, Sacramento, CA, for the California
Methamphetamine Strategy (CALMS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth California Department of Justice, California $235,000 Cardoza, Lungren, Feinstein
Methamphetamine Strategy (CALMS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Cape Girardeau County Sheriff's Department, Cape Girardeau, $1,175,000 Bond
MO, for combating methamphetamine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force Methamphetamine $284,820 Space
Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth City of Andalusia, Andalusia, AL, for anti-methamphetamine $235,000 Shelby
programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth City of Baker, Baker, OR, for drug detection canines $44,650 Wyden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth City of Carson City, Carson City, NV, for combating meth in $312,550 Ensign, Reid
Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth City of Greenville, MS $658,000 Wicker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth City of Montrose, Montrose County, CO, for anti-meth $89,300 Salazar (Ken)
equipment and operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth City of Talladega, Talladega, AL, for anti-methamphetamine $94,000 Shelby, Rogers (Mike)-AL
programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Clackamas County, OR Methamphetamine Initiative: Juvenile $211,500 Blumenauer, Hooley, Smith (Gordon), Wyden
Outreach and Community Prosecution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Clackamas County, OR, Clackamas County, OR, to implement a $235,000 Smith (Gordon), Wyden, Blumenauer, Hooley
strategy for fighting meth problem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Cleburne County, AR Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine $188,000 Berry
Law Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Coconino County, AZ, Meth Initiative $94,000 Renzi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth County of Hawaii, County of Hawaii, HI, for the $357,200 Inouye
Comprehensive Meth Response program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth County of Solano, Solano County, CA, for enforcement teams $178,600 Boxer, Tauscher
addressing meth and gangs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Criminal Justice Institute, Little Rock, AR, for meth- $267,900 Lincoln, Pryor, Berry, Boozman, Snyder
focused training courses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Crittenden County, AR Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine $188,000 Berry
Law Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Daviess County, KY Sheriff's Department $188,000 Lewis (Ron)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Department of Public Safety, Polk County, IA, to intercept $291,000 Harkin
imported meth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Eagle County Sheriff's Office, Eagle County, CO, for anti- $89,300 Salazar (Ken)
meth operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Eastern Colorado Plains Drug Task Force $329,000 Musgrave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Etowah County, AL $282,000 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Franklin County, IL Sheriff's Department $258,500 Costello
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Franklin County, MO Sheriff's Office $141,000 Hulshof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Frio and McMullen County, TX Sheriff's and Constable's $235,000 Cuellar
Departments Methamphetamine Law Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Gay Men's Health Crisis Center, New York, NY, for an anti- $303,150 Schumer, Clinton
meth program for substance abuse reduction and counseling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Grant Parish, LA Sheriff's Department Meth Task Force $658,000 McCrery, Alexander (Rodney), Landrieu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Greater Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team $89,300 Salazar (Ken)
(GRAMNET), Routt County, for anti-meth operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Greeley Police Department, Weld County, CO, for anti-meth $133,950 Salazar (Ken)
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Heartland Family Service, Omaha, NE, to provide services to $178,600 Nelson (Ben)
women and children in methamphetamine abuse cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Heartland Family Services, Council Bluffs, IA, to provide $145,500 Harkin, King (Steve)
family-based residential meth treatment in western Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Heartland Family Services, Papillion, NE, for a $94,000 Hagel
collaborative, clinically managed treatment service for
substance abuse patients
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Illinois Sheriffs Association, Springfield, IL, for law $200,000 Durbin
enforcement and clean-up of meth production and abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34734]]
DOJ-COPS-Meth Iowa Office of Drug Control, Des Moines, IA, for $339,500 Harkin, Braley
coordinated regional meth task forces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Jackson County, MS Sheriff's Office Methamphetamine $211,500 Taylor, Lott
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Jasper Police Department, Jasper, AL, for technology and $188,000 Shelby, Aderholt
equipment to combat meth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Jasper, AL Police Department $761,400 Aderholt, Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Jefferson County, CO, $111,625 Salazar (Ken), Perlmutter
for anti-meth equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Jefferson County, CO Methamphetamine Response Collaborative $305,500 Perlmutter, Salazar (Ken)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Jim Hogg and Starr County, TX Sheriff's and Constable's $235,000 Cuellar
Departments Methamphetamine Law Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Kanawha Valley Metro Drug Task Force $117,500 Capito
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Kansas Bureau of Investigation $141,000 Moran (Jerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Kids First, Marion County, OR, for programs and services to $357,200 Wyden, Smith (Gordon), Hooley
focus children affected by methamphetamine addiction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Kids Hope-Hudelson Region, Springfield, IL, for family $100,000 Durbin
preservation services for meth-affected families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Lamar County, AL Sheriff's Department $131,600 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Lane County, OR Methamphetamine Abatement Initiative $399,500 DeFazio, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Larimer County Drug Task Force, Larimer County, CO, for $133,950 Salazar (Ken)
anti-meth equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Lincoln County, OR Methamphetamine Initiative $258,500 Hooley, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Lincoln County, OR, Lincoln County, OR, for methamphetamine $282,000 Wyden, Smith (Gordon), Hooley
initiatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Madison, NC Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine $94,000 Shuler
Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Maine State Police Methamphetamine Project $423,000 Michaud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Marathon County, WI Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine $235,000 Obey
Response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth METH CHECK, Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy $564,000 Davis (Geoff), Rogers (Hal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Meth Project Foundation, Missoula County, MT, for a $446,500 Baucus, Tester, Rehberg
methamphetamine prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Methodist University Methamphetamine Educational Training $399,500 Etheridge, McIntyre, Dole, Burr
Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Mineral Area, MO Drug Task Force $202,100 Emerson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Minnehaha County Sheriff's Department, Minnehaha County, $94,000 Thune
SD, for meth reduction programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Minot State University, Minot, ND, for methamphetamine $669,750 Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy
research and public education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Jackson, MS, for $1,880,000 Cochran
meth enforcement, clean-up equipment, and training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Montana Meth Project $470,000 Rehberg, Baucus, Tester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Multnomah County, OR Stomp Out Meth Project $446,500 Blumenauer, Wu, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO, to $70,500 Allard
research the long-term consequences of the meth and
chemical exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Nebraska State Patrol $352,500 Fortenberry, Hagel, Nelson (Ben)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Nebraska State Patrol, Lincoln, NE, to combat $235,000 Hagel, Nelson (Ben), Fortenberry
methamphetamine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Nevada County, CA Narcotics Task Force $470,000 Doolittle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth New Hampshire Attorney General's Office, Concord, NH, to $752,000 Gregg
fund a statewide multi-jurisdictional task force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Santa Fe, NM, for $89,300 Domenici, Bingaman, Pearce, Wilson (Heather), Udall (Tom)
equipment to combat meth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth New Mexico Rural Meth Enforcement Initiative $1,010,500 Udall (Tom), Pearce, Wilson (Heather), Domenici, Bingaman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth NH State Police, Concord, NH, to combat gang and drug- $846,000 Gregg
related violence and crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth North Dakota Rural Methamphetamine Enforcement and $634,500 Pomeroy
Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Northeast Law Enforcement Administrators Council $747,300 Oberstar
Methamphetamine Reduction Project, MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Northeast Missouri Narcotics Task Force $188,000 Hulshof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force $282,000 Davis (Geoff), Bunning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Northern Nevada Anti-Meth Initiative $940,000 Heller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Northwest PA Anti-Meth Collaboration $188,000 Peterson (John)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Northwest Regional Drug Task Force, VA $188,000 Wolf, Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Office of the District Attorney, 2nd Judicial District, $89,300 Bingaman
Albuquerque, NM, to provide additional staff for the Meth
Prosecution Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Orangeburg, SC Department of Public Safety Gang and Meth $282,000 Clyburn
Lab Tracking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Oregon Partnership - Target Meth Oregon Program $352,500 Walden, Blumenauer, Hooley, Wu, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Pennyrile, KY Narcotics Task Force $352,500 Whitfield
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Pierce County Alliance, Tacoma, WA, for Statewide meth $394,800 Murray, Cantwell, Dicks, Inslee, Larsen, Baird, Hastings
initiative (Doc), McMorris Rodgers, Reichert, Smith (Adam)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Pierce County Alliance, Tacoma, WA, for the National Meth $714,400 Murray, Larsen
Center training and assistance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Polk County, FL Sheriff's Office $235,000 Putnam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34735]]
DOJ-COPS-Meth Prairie View Prevention Services, SD Methamphetamine $141,000 Herseth Sandlin
Awareness and Prevention Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Prevention and Recovery Services, Inc., Topeka, KS, for to $84,600 Brownback
fight methamphetamine production and abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Riverside County, CA Sheriff's Department $940,000 Calvert, Bono
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Rockdale County, GA Methamphetamine Initiative $188,000 Johnson (Hank), Westmoreland, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Rusk and Barron County, WI Sheriffs' Departments $235,000 Obey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tribal Police Department, San $94,000 Kyl, Renzi
Carlos Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Reservation, AZ,
for a law enforcement initiative to target meth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Searcy County, AR Sheriff's Department Methamphetamine Law $47,000 Berry
Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Sioux City, IA National Meth Training Center $352,500 King (Steve), Harkin, Grassley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Skagit County, WA Meth Enforcement $47,000 Larsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Solano County, CA Gang and Methamphetamine Enforcement $164,500 Tauscher, Boxer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth South Central Missouri Drug Task Force $235,000 Emerson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team, Oregon Meth $164,500 DeFazio
Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force $206,800 Emerson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, for statewide methamphetamine $1,410,000 Stevens
enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Target Meth Oregon, Salem, OR, to combat meth $312,550 Wyden, Smith (Gordon), Walden, Blumenauer, Hooley, Wu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Tennessee Meth Task Force $470,000 Wamp, Cooper, Duncan, Gordon, Alexander (Lamar)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Tennessee Statewide Methamphetamine Task Force, $282,000 Alexander (Lamar), Wamp, Cooper, Duncan, Gordon
Chattanooga, TN, for anti-methamphetamine initiatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Tennessee Technological University Methamphetamine Task $423,000 Gordon
Force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Tucson, AZ Methamphetamine Education Program $258,500 Giffords, Grijalva
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Uintah County, Uintah County, UT, for methamphetamine $470,000 Bennett
enforcement and clean-up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Union County, IL Sheriff's Department $446,500 Costello
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth University of West Alabama, Livingston, AL, for research $188,000 Shelby
that addresses meth in rural areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative $1,410,000 Dicks, Inslee, Larsen, Baird, Hastings (Doc), McMorris
Rodgers, Reichert, Smith (Adam), Murray, Cantwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Washington State University Methamphetamine Research $517,000 Baird, McMorris Rodgers, Cantwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Webster County, IA Sheriff's Office $94,000 Latham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Western North Carolina Methamphetamine Enforcement $493,500 Shuler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth White Earth Band of Chippewa Reservation Tribal Nation, MN $470,000 Peterson (Collin), Coleman, Klobuchar
Methamphetamine Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth White Earth Tribal Nation, White Earth, MN, to educate, $178,600 Coleman, Klobuchar, Peterson
clean-up and enforce the growing problem of meth use on
reservation lands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Willmar, MN Methamphetamine Education Program $23,500 Peterson (Collin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Meth Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal $714,400 Kohl
Investigation, Madison, WI, to continue the statewide meth
initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Accomack County, VA Sheriff's Office $37,600 Drake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Adams County, IL $376,000 LaHood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Adams County, IL, Sheriff's Department $282,000 LaHood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Albuquerque Police Department, Albuquerque, NM, for an $223,250 Domenici, Bingaman, Wilson (Heather)
information system to enhance communication and facilitate
sharing among law enforcement jurisdictions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Alexandria, VA Law Enforcement Technology $94,000 Moran (James), Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Alleghany County, VA Sheriff's Department $470,000 Boucher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Allegheny County, PA Chiefs of Police $352,500 Murphy (Tim)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Allentown, PA Police Department $470,000 Dent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Alsip, IL, Police Department equipment $94,000 Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Altoona, AL Police Department $28,200 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Alvernia College, Reading, PA, for equipment to train $223,250 Casey
police officers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ambler Township, PA Police Department Equipment $126,900 Schwartz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Amherst County, VA $164,500 Goodlatte
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Amherst, NY, Police Department $164,500 Reynolds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Anderson County, KY Sheriff's Mobile Data Terminals $188,000 Chandler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Arkansas State Police, Little Rock, AR, for a Forensic $401,850 Lincoln, Pryor
Recovery of Evidence Data Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Arkansas State Police, Little Rock, AR, to provide wireless $223,250 Lincoln, Pryor, Boozman, Ross, Snyder
technology to investigators in the field
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Arlington County, VA Emergency Mobile Technology Support $94,000 Moran (James)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ashburn, GA Police Department Equipment $84,600 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Atchison County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety $94,000 Boyda
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34736]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech Austin, TX Police Department Technology $211,500 Doggett, McCaul, Smith (Lamar)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Baldwin County Commission, Baldwin County, AL, for $282,000 Shelby
interoperable communications equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Baltimore City Police Department, Baltimore, MD, to upgrade $446,500 Mikulski, Ruppersberger
forensics laboratory equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Baltimore County Police Department, Baltimore County, MD, $446,500 Mikulski
to upgrade forensics laboratory equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Barboursville, WV Police Department $94,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Barren County Fiscal Court, Barren County, KY, for mobile $235,000 McConnell
data terminals and other communication equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Barrington-Inverness, IL Police Department Interoperable $493,500 Bean
Communications Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bayfield County, WI Law Enforcement Pictometry Technology $940,000 Obey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Beaver County, PA Emergency Communications $446,500 Altmire, Specter, Casey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Beaver County, Pennsylvania Emergency Services Center, $235,000 Specter, Altmire, Casey
Beaver County, PA, for public safety radio systems
acquisition and upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bell Gardens, CA Police Communications Interoperability $188,000 Roybal-Allard
project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bell, CA Police Department Law Enforcement and Technology $235,000 Roybal-Allard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bellingham, WA Police Department Technology Equipment $258,500 Larsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Beloit, WI Police Department $164,500 Baldwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bergen County, NJ Countywide Interoperable Communication $394,800 Rothman, Lautenberg, Menendez
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Berkeley, CA Public Safety Interoperability Program $94,000 Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Berkley Heights, NJ Police Department $188,000 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bethlehem, PA Police Department $940,000 Dent, Specter, Casey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Police Department, Bethlehem, PA, $329,000 Specter, Dent, Casey
for interoperable in-car digital video camera systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Billings, MT, Police Department $206,800 Rehberg, Baucus, Tester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bloomington, IN Law Enforcement Technologies and $345,920 Hill
Interoperable Communications Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Blount County, TN Sheriff's Office $188,000 Duncan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bowie, MD Police Law Enforcement Technology Upgrades $470,000 Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Braintree, MA Police Department Equipment $164,500 Lynch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Brisbane, CA and Millbrae, CA Police Equipment $470,000 Lantos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bristol, PA Law Enforcement Equipment $94,000 Murphy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Buchanan County, IA law enforcement equipment $987,000 Braley, Grassley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Bucks County, PA Law Enforcement Interoperability $235,000 Murphy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Buffalo, NY Law Enforcement Technology $470,000 Slaughter, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Buffalo, NY Police Department Law Enforcement Technology $376,000 Higgins, Slaughter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cabell County, WV Sheriff's Office $376,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Calaveras County, CA $352,500 Lungren
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Caldwell County, NC, Sheriff's Department $352,500 McHenry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Calvert County, MD Sheriff's Office Mobile Command Unit $752,000 Hoyer
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cambria County, PA $117,500 Shuster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Camden County, Camden, NJ, for emergency communication $446,500 Lautenberg, Menendez
hardware and software upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cameron County, TX Interoperable Communications $47,000 Ortiz, Hinojosa, Cornyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Capital Wireless Information Network (CapWIN), Greenbelt, $893,000 Mikulski, Ruppersberger, Van Hollen
MD, for wireless database access and for public safety
personnel in the National Capital region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Carmel, IN $258,500 Burton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cary, NC Police Department Technology Upgrades $352,500 Price (David), Miller (Brad), Dole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Castle Hayne, NC VisionAIR Data Integration Network $399,500 McIntyre
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech CAT Lab at UNH, University of Durham, NH, for law $658,000 Gregg
enforcement technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech CCE Central Dispatch Authority, MI $531,100 Stupak, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Center for Technology Commercialization (CTC)--Public $312,550 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
Safety Technology Center, Worchester County, MA, to
enhance the capability of state and local law enforcement
officials
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Central Missouri Regional Justice Information System $1,269,000 Skelton, Hulshof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Central Piedmont Community College, Charlotte, NC, for high- $470,000 Burr, Myrick, Hayes, Watt
tech crime scene investigation training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ceredo, WV Police Department $47,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chautauqua County, NY Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement $141,000 Higgins
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chester County, PA $376,000 Gerlach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chester County, Pennsylvania District Attorney's Office, $235,000 Specter, Gerlach, Sestak, Casey
Chester County, PA, for incident response management
technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34737]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chesterfield County, VA $126,900 Forbes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chicago, IL Police Department Citizen and Law Enforcement $1,034,000 Emanuel
Analysis and Reporting (CLEAR) Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chippewa County, WI Public Safety Dispatch Enhancements $470,000 Obey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Chowan County, NC Emergency Operations Center Equipment $282,000 Butterfield, Dole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cities of Concord, Kannapolis, NC, for Regional Radio $188,000 Dole, Burr, Hayes
Upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Abilene, TX $84,600 Neugebauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Albuquerque, NM $2,068,000 Wilson (Heather), Domenici, Bingaman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Athens, Athens, AL, for mobile data units in police $211,500 Shelby
cars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Auburn, Auburn, AL, for a mobile data system $305,500 Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Bastrop, LA $1,645,000 Alexander (Rodney), Landrieu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Bellevue, City of Bellevue, WA, for provide $357,200 Murray, Cantwell
equipment upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Bellevue, WA $1,410,000 Reichert, Cantwell, Murray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Billings, Yellowstone County, MT, for a new crime $178,600 Baucus, Tester, Rehberg
scene investigation equipment upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Bridgeport, City of Bridgeport, CT, for the $223,250 Dodd, Lieberman
purchase and installation of six wireless surveillance
cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Bridgeport, CT, Police Department $188,000 Shays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Brockton Police Department, Plymouth County, MA, $223,250 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Lynch
for a modernized dispatch and wireless network to meet
public safety and emergency response needs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, for a camera system within $535,800 Schumer, Clinton, Slaughter
the City of Buffalo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Calera Police Department, Calera, AL, for $141,000 Shelby
technology upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Chattanooga, TN, Police Department $634,500 Wamp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Cincinnati Police Department, Cincinnati, OH, for $308,320 Voinovich, Brown (Sherrod), Schmidt
retention and protection of digital audio and video files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Claremont, CA $1,880,000 Dreier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Como, MS $94,000 Wicker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Daphne, Daphne, AL, for wireless technology $94,000 Shelby
upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Decatur, AL $404,200 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Dothan, Alabama, Dothan, AL, For an interoperable $470,000 Shelby, Everett
communications system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of East Point, East Point, GA, for law enforcement $282,000 Chambliss, Lewis (John)
technology upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Elizabeth, Elizabeth, NJ, for installation of $357,200 Lautenberg
wireless cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Evansville, City of Evansville, IN, for $267,900 Lugar, Bayh, Ellsworth
communications equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Flagler Beach, FL $211,500 Mica, Nelson (Bill)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Flagler Beach, Flagler County, FL, for emergency $178,600 Nelson (Bill), Mica
and law enforcement equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Flint Police Department, Flint, MI, for in-car $669,750 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Kildee
computers for patrol vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Fresno, Fresno, CA, for in-vehicle video camera $267,900 Feinstein, Radanovich
units and mobile data terminals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Gadsden, Gadsden, AL, for cameras and laptops for $258,500 Shelby
police vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Glen Cove, NY $178,600 King (Peter), Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Glendale, AZ $352,500 Franks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Glendale, Glendale, CA, for the Interagency $89,300 Feinstein, Schiff
Communications Interoperability System (ICIS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Great Falls, Cascade County, MT, for law $446,500 Baucus, Tester
enforcement equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Green Bay Police Department, Green Bay, WI, to $89,300 Kohl, Kagen
install in-car cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Greenville, Greenville, AL, for mobile data $235,000 Shelby, Everett
terminals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Greenville, SC $352,500 Inglis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Gulf Shores, Gulf Shores, AL, for law enforcement $164,500 Shelby
technology upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Headland, Headland, AL, for mobile data terminals $94,000 Shelby, Everett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Henderson, Henderson, NV, for equipment for $410,780 Reid, Ensign, Porter
forensic lab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Henderson, NV $1,917,600 Porter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, to provide $564,000 Shelby
interoperability to local law enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Jackson, Jackson, MS, for law enforcement $376,000 Cochran
technology upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Kerrville, TX, Police Department $352,500 Smith (Lamar)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of La Habra, CA $49,820 Miller (Gary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Lake County, Lake County, IL, for communications $357,200 Obama, Bean
equipment purchases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Livermore, Livermore, CA, for interoperable $267,900 Boxer, McNerney, Tauscher
communications between different agencies and disciplines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Luverne, Luverne, AL, for police technology $117,500 Shelby
upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34738]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Madison Police Department, Madison, WI, for $446,500 Kohl, Baldwin
equipment upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Melbourne, Brevard County, FL, for radio system $133,950 Nelson (Bill)
upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Modesto, Modesto, CA, for an interoperable dispatch $133,950 Feinstein, Cardoza, Radanovich
system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Montrose, Montrose, CO, to improve public safety $178,600 Allard, Salazar (Ken)
communication technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Moultrie, GA $329,000 Kingston, Marshall, Chambliss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Muncie, City of Muncie, IN, to acquire and $267,900 Lugar, Bayh, Pence
integrate a radio system with a public communications
system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Muncie, City of Muncie, IN, to acquire replacement $133,950 Lugar, Bayh
software and provide improved functionality of the
emergency response system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Murray, Murray, KY, for a computer aided dispatch $117,500 McConnell
system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Newport, Newport, RI, for 800 MHz public safety $357,200 Reed, Whitehouse
radio spectrum interoperability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Norwalk, CT $1,316,000 Shays, Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Norwalk, Norwalk, CT, for interoperability $223,250 Lieberman, Shays
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Oroville, CA $282,000 Doolittle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Petersburg, Petersburg, VA, for planning and $223,250 Warner, Webb
installation of a fixed mobile WiMax Data System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Phenix City, Phenix City, AL, for public safety $329,000 Shelby
communications up- grades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Phoenix (Phoenix Police Department), Phoenix, AZ, $94,000 Kyl
for an interoperable communications network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Puyallup, Puyallup, WA, for Tacoma/Puyallup law $446,500 Murray, Reichert, Smith (Adam)
enforcement interoperability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Reading, PA $1,175,000 Gerlach, Specter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Reading, Pennsylvania Police Department, Reading, $611,000 Specter, Gerlach
PA, for security enhancements and camera acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Redlands, CA, Justice Communications Center $470,000 Lewis (Jerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Reno, Reno, NV, for an interoperable network $223,250 Reid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Rockford, AL $150,400 Rogers (Mike)-AL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Sedona, AZ $564,000 Renzi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Shelbyville, Shelbyville, IN, for interoperable $267,900 Lugar, Bayh, Burton
wireless communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of South Bend, City of South Bend, IN, to obtain an $178,600 Lugar, Bayh
automatic fingerprint identification system for latent
palm prints
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Southaven, MS $846,000 Wicker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Springfield, IL $376,000 LaHood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Stamford, CT $94,000 Shays, Dodd, Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Suffolk, VA $141,000 Forbes, Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County, FL, for an $312,550 Nelson (Bill)
interoperable communications system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Terre Haute, City of Terra Haute, IN, for $267,900 Lugar, Bayh, Ellsworth
communications equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Troy, Troy, AL, for mobile data terminals $211,500 Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Whitefish, Flathead County, MT, to upgrade $178,600 Baucus, Tester
investigative equipment and work stations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Winston-Salem, NC $376,000 Foxx, Watt, Dole, Burr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Yakima, Yakima, WA, for new technology and $357,200 Murray, Cantwell
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of York, Pennsylvania, York, PA, for records $282,000 Specter
management system acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech City of Yuma, Yuma, AZ, for a regional communications $94,000 Kyl, Grijalva
network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Clarksburg, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech CLEMIS Consortium, Pontiac, MI for equipment purchase $223,250 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Knollenberg, Levin (Sander)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cleveland, OH Countywide Interoperability Communication $893,000 Jones (Stephanie), Kucinich, Voinovich, Brown (Sherrod)
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cobb County, GA $493,500 Price (Tom), Scott (David), Gingrey, Chambliss, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Collier County, FL $352,500 Diaz-Balart (Mario), Mack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles, Lakewood, CO, for $376,000 Allard
identity theft prevention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Colquitt, GA Police Department $70,500 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Columbus, OH, Police Department $1,222,000 Pryce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA, to purchase $31,255 Warner, Webb
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Connecticut Department of Public Safety Forensic $235,000 DeLauro
Investigative Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Contra Costa County, CA ARIES Integrated Justice $658,000 Miller (George), Tauscher
Information Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Conyers, GA Police Technology and 911 Center Improvements $423,000 Johnson (Hank), Chambliss, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cook County, IL Interoperable Safety and Emergency $2,256,000 Roskam, Lipinski, Kirk
Communications Radios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Corcoran, CA Narcotics and Gang Task Force Equipment $611,000 Costa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Corona, CA $172,960 Calvert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34739]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech County of Fairfax, Fairfax County, VA, for law enforcement $267,900 Warner, Webb
technology up- grades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech County of Wasco, Wasco, OR, Replace outdated and unreliable $223,250 Smith (Gordon), Wyden
Emergency Responder Communication equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech County of Westchester, Westchester County, NY, for $89,300 Schumer, Clinton
surveillance and video equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Craig County, VA Sheriff's Office $329,000 Boucher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cranford, NJ Police Department $235,000 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cudahy, WI Police Department Equipment $141,000 Moore (Gwen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Culver City, CA In-Car Police Vehicle Digital Video $84,600 Watson
Recording
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Culver City, CA Law Enforcement Interoperable $235,000 Watson
Communications System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cumberland County, NC Regional Public Safety Communications $352,500 McIntyre, Etheridge, Hayes, Dole, Burr
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Cumberland, RI Police Technology Upgrades $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Dakota County, Hastings, MN, for upgrades to Dakota County $223,250 Coleman, Klobuchar
Criminal Justice Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Dallas, TX Police Technology $94,000 Johnson (Eddie Bernice)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Delaware County, NY Integrated Automated Fingerprint $32,900 Gillibrand
Identification System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Delaware State Police Department $352,500 Castle, Biden, Carper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Delaware State Police, Dover, DE, for the state-wide $893,000 Biden, Carper
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Delaware State University, Dover, to test and evaluate a $893,000 Biden, Castle
mobile crime scene and evidence tracking solution for U.S.
law enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Denton, TX $352,500 Burgess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Department of Public Safety, Polk County, IA, for $194,000 Harkin
investigation and prosecution of unsolved crimes using DNA
evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Des Moines, IA Emergency Communications $141,000 Boswell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Dothan, AL $352,500 Everett, Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Douglas County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment $94,000 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Downriver Community Conference, Southgate, MI, for $446,500 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Dingell
equipment upgrades for The Downriver Mutual Aid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Durham and Wake Counties, NC Visual Intelligence Tool $235,000 Price (David)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech East Central University, Ada, OK, for forensics equipment $235,000 Inhofe, Cole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech East Orange, NJ Criminal Regional Intelligence Sharing $493,500 Payne
Project (C.R.I.S.P)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech East Point, GA Law Enforcement Technology Upgrade $164,500 Lewis (John), Chambliss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Eastchester, NY, Law Enforcement Emergency Management $47,000 Lowey
Command Center Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech E-COM Consolidated Dispatch Center, IL for Public Safety $141,000 Jackson Jr.
Radio Interoperability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Edgecombe County, NC Public Safety Technology $235,000 Butterfield
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Effingham County, IL, Sheriff's Office $141,000 Shimkus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech El Paso, TX Broadband Mobile Network $1,222,000 Reyes, Cornyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Erie County, PA $235,000 English, Specter, Casey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Erie County, Pennsylvania Department of Public Safety, Erie $564,000 Specter, English, Casey
County, PA, for a mobile communication system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Escambia County, FL $352,500 Miller (Jeff), Martinez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Escondido, CA wireless modems for police vehicles $141,000 Bilbray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Essex County, MA Sheriff's Office Information Sharing $235,000 Tierney, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Essex County, NJ $940,000 Frelinghuysen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Evanston, IL Emergency Response Equipment $9,400 Schakowsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Evanston, IL Integrated Vehicle Tracking and Information $94,000 Schakowsky
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Evanston, IL Public Safety Radio and Telecommunications $249,100 Schakowsky
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fairfax City, VA Police Department $117,500 Davis (Tom)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fairfield, CA Police CAD/RMS Dispatch and Records Project $399,500 Tauscher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fairmont, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fayette County, IL, Sheriff's Office $211,500 Shimkus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fayetteville Police Department, Fayetteville, AR, for a $446,500 Lincoln, Pryor
simulcast communications system that will meet the needs
of local public safety agencies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fitchburg, WI Police Department $493,500 Baldwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Flathead County, Flathead County, MT, to enhance emergency $223,250 Baucus, Tester
communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Flint, MI Police Department In-Car Technology $799,000 Kildee, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Foley Police Department, Foley, AL, for communications $235,000 Shelby
upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Follansbee, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fort Lee, NJ Interoperable Communications System $282,000 Rothman, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34740]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech FoxComm, Green Bay, WI, to implement interoperable $446,500 Kohl
communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Framingham, MA Emergency Interoperable Wireless $517,000 Markey
Communications Equipment Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Franklin Park, IL Law Enforcement Strategic Technology $940,000 Emanuel
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Franklin Regional Council of Governments, MA Law $329,000 Olver
Enforcement Communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Fremont, CA Interoperable Public Safety Communications $470,000 Stark
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ft. Lauderdale, FL Law Enforcement Technology $94,000 Klein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Gaithersburg, MD Police Department Public Safety and Anti- $117,500 Van Hollen
Gang Initiatives Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Gallia County, OH Sheriff's Department $47,000 Wilson (Charlie)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Garden Grove, CA Law Enforcement Technology $94,000 Sanchez (Loretta)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Gardena, CA Law Enforcement Technology $235,000 Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Gary, IN Police Department Gunfire Detection System $451,200 Visclosky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Georgetown County, SC $352,500 Brown (Henry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Gillette, WY $470,000 Cubin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Glades County, FL Sheriff's Office Communications Equipment $385,400 Mahoney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Glendale, AZ Public Safety Equipment $940,000 Pastor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Glendale, CA Interagency Communications Interoperability $564,000 Schiff, Feinstein
System (ICIS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Government of the Virgin Islands Law Enforcement Technology $658,000 Christensen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Greater Georgetown, CT, Interoperability Initiative $470,000 Shays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Greece, NY, Police Department $159,800 Reynolds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Green Bay, WI Police Department Marksmanship Range $249,100 Kagen
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Green Bay, WI Police Squad Video System $371,300 Kagen, Kohl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Green Bay, WI Public Safety Video Surveillance $94,000 Kagen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Greene County, MO $940,000 Blunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hallandale Beach, FL Law Enforcement Communications $94,000 Wasserman Schultz
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hampton, VA Police Department $235,000 Drake, Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hancock County, MS Public Safety Wireless Network $587,500 Taylor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hartford, CT Public Safety Equipment $1,950,500 Larson, Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Haverstraw, NY, Police Department Equipment $47,000 Lowey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Henderson County Fiscal Court, Henderson County, KY, for $564,000 McConnell
equipment up- grades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hendry County, FL Law Enforcement Communications Equipment $366,600 Mahoney, Nelson (Bill), Martinez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hendry County, Hendry County, FL, for law enforcement $178,600 Nelson (Bill), Martinez, Mahoney
communications equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Henry County, GA Law Enforcement Technology $470,000 Scott (David), Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Henry County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment $126,900 Loebsack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech High Point, NC $352,500 Coble, Dole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Holden, MA Police Department Technology $446,500 McGovern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hollywood, FL Mobile Command Unit Equipment $376,000 Wasserman Schultz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu, HI, for improvements $893,000 Inouye, Abercrombie
to the Honolulu Police Department's crime lab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hot Springs, AR Police Department Mobile Data Equipment $329,000 Ross
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hot Springs, AR S.W.A.T Ballistic Vests and Tactical $47,000 Ross
Assault Rifles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Howard County, IA, Sheriff's Department $188,000 Latham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Huntington, WV Police Department $188,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Hyattsville, MD Regional Data and Communications Law $658,000 Hoyer
Enforcement Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Idaho Department of Corrections, Boise, ID, for a web-based $47,000 Craig, Simpson (Mike)
offender information system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Idaho State Police, Pocatello, ID, to support criminal $470,000 Craig, Simpson (Mike)
information sharing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Independence County, AR Sheriff's Department Campus Digital $235,000 Berry, Lincoln, Pryor
Card Access System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Inglewood, CA Computer-Aided Dispatch/Records Management $423,000 Waters
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Iowa State University, Ames, IA, for forensics equipment $194,000 Harkin, Grassley, Latham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Irwindale, CA Communications Interoperability $225,600 Solis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Isle of Wight County, VA $84,600 Forbes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Itasca County, MN Emergency Radio System $376,000 Oberstar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jackson State University, Jackson, MS, for computer $1,175,000 Cochran
software and mapping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jasper County, MO $846,000 Blunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Birmingham, AL, for $188,000 Shelby
wireless communications upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jefferson County, AL Sheriff's Office Integrated Law $470,000 Davis (Artur), Aderholt
Enforcement Records Management
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34741]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jefferson County, OH Sheriff's Department $75,200 Wilson (Charlie)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jefferson County, WV Sheriff's Department $235,000 Capito
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jefferson Parish, LA Sheriff's Department Integrated In-Car $672,100 Melancon, Jefferson, Landrieu
Mobile Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Johnson County, KS Emergency Communications $94,000 Moore (Dennis), Brownback, Roberts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Jupiter, FL Law Enforcement Technology $399,500 Klein, Mahoney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Kearny, NJ Police Department Law Enforcement Technology $94,000 Rothman, Lautenberg, Menendez
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Kenosha County Sheriff's Department, Kenosha, WI, for in $178,600 Kohl
car cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Kenova, WV Police Department $47,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Keyser, WV Police Department $79,900 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech King County, WA Court Technology $305,500 McDermott, Cantwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Kiryas Joel, NY Security Equipment and Emergency Services $521,700 Hall (John), Schumer
Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lake County Sheriff's Department, Lake County, IN, to $446,500 Bayh
augment and replace helicopters used for public safety
purposes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lake County, FL $352,500 Stearns, Keller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lake County, IL Integrated Criminal Justice Information $94,000 Bean, Obama
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lake County, IN Sheriff's Office Technology $658,000 Visclosky, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lake Zurich, IL Police Department Firing Range Equipment $211,500 Bean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech LaPorte County, IN Sheriff's Office In-Car Video Recording $413,600 Donnelly
Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Las Vegas, NV, for equipment $89,300 Reid, Porter
upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Las Vegas, NV Metropolitan Police Department Technology $94,000 Berkley
Upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lauderdale Lakes, FL Law Enforcement Technology $164,500 Hastings (Alcee)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Laurel, MD Radio Communications $611,000 Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Laurens County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment $159,800 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lawrence County, OH Sheriff's Department $75,200 Wilson (Charlie)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lawrence, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment $61,100 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Leavenworth, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment $70,500 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lee County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment $65,800 Loebsack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Leominster, MA Police Department Law Enforcement $493,500 Olver
Information and Analysis Sharing Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Leon County, FL Joint Emergency Communications Center $188,000 Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lewiston, NY Law Enforcement Technology $98,700 Slaughter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lexington, KY Police Air Support Unit $329,000 Chandler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Linn County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment $103,400 Loebsack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lodi, CA, Police Department equipment $94,000 McNerney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Logan County, IL, Sheriff's Department $846,000 LaHood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lorain County, OH Sheriff's Office Mobile Data Terminal $47,000 Sutton
Installation Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Lorain, OH Police Department Communications and Emergency $235,000 Sutton
Operations Center Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Louisville, GA Police Department $658,000 Barrow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Louisville, KY Metropolitan Police Department Mobile Data $493,500 Yarmuth
Computers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Macomb County Emergency Management and Communications, Mt. $669,750 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Levin (Sander)
Clemens, MI, for equipment purchases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Macomb County, MI $352,500 Miller (Candice), Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Madison County, Richmond, & Berea, KY Mobile Data Terminals $216,200 Chandler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Manchester, NH Police Department Law Enforcement Technology $117,500 Shea-Porter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Marion County, FL $282,000 Keller, Stearns, Nelson (Bill)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Marion County, Marion, FL, for fingerprint identification $178,600 Nelson (Bill), Keller, Stearns
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Marshall University, Forensic Science DNA Laboratory, $4,465,000 Byrd
Huntington, WV, for forensic lab equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Massachusetts Sheriff's Association, Norfolk County, MA, $223,250 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Tierney
for an information-sharing network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech McHenry County Sherriff's Department, McHenry County, IL, $446,500 Obama, Bean
for radio equipment acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech McHenry County, IL Integrated Criminal Justice Information $94,000 Bean
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech McHenry County, IL Law Enforcement Communication System $94,000 Bean, Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Meigs County, OH Sheriff's Department $94,000 Wilson (Charlie)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Mendocino, CA Public Safety Communications $493,500 Thompson (Mike)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Mesa, AZ Police Department Equipment $305,500 Mitchell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Miami County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment $94,000 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Miami Gardens, FL Community Policing Equipment $141,000 Meek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34742]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech Michigan Public Safety Communications, Lansing, MI, for the $223,250 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Stupak
International Border Interoperability Communications
enhancement project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Michigan State Police, Lansing, MI, for technology to $312,550 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Stupak
compare all of the DNA profiles from the participating
States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Middlesex Community College, Middlesex County, MA, to $223,250 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Markey
expand the Regional Technology Training Law Enforcement
Collaborative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Middletown, RI Police Technology Upgrades $282,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Midland, TX $235,000 Conaway
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Milton, WV Police Department $47,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee, WI, to install in- $357,200 Kohl
car cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Mineral County Search and Rescue Training Facility, Mineral $223,250 Baucus, Tester
County, MT, to upgrade investigative equipment and work
stations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal $223,250 Coleman, Klobuchar, Ramstad
Apprehension, St. Paul, MN, for a system to improve
accurate identification of individuals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Minnesota State Patrol, 8th Congressional District, Digital $18,800 Oberstar
Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Minnesota State Patrol, Tasers for Northeastern Minnesota $47,000 Oberstar
Patrol Districts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Jackson, MS, to $1,880,000 Cochran
provide technology and equipment upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Missoula County, Missoula County, MT, to purchase equipment $89,300 Baucus, Tester, Rehberg
for interoperable communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Missoula County, MT $291,400 Rehberg, Baucus, Tester
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Molalla, OR Police Department Technology Improvements $47,000 Hooley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Monroe County, OH Sheriff's Department $70,500 Wilson (Charlie)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers, Lewis and Clark $446,500 Baucus, Tester, Rehberg
County, MT, for an electronic monitoring for violent
offenders and sexual predators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Montebello, CA Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch $164,500 Napolitano
and Records Management System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Monterey Park, CA Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch $235,000 Schiff
and Records Management System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Montgomery Township, NJ Police Department $235,000 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Montrose, CO Dispatch Center $94,000 Salazar (John), Allard, Salazar (Ken)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Moreno Valley, CA Police Department $141,000 Bono
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Morgantown, WV Police Department $282,000 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Morris County, NJ $940,000 Frelinghuysen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Moundsville, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Municipalities of Arroyo, Manati, Luquillo, and Rio Grande, $188,000 Fortuno
PR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Municipality of Ponce, PR $164,500 Fortuno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Narragansett, RI Police Department Interoperable $188,000 Langevin
Communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Navasota, TX Communications Technology $376,000 Edwards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Albany, IN Police Department Law Enforcement $170,140 Hill
Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Bedford, MA Police Equipment and Technology Upgrades $658,000 Frank, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Britain, CT Interoperable Public Safety Information $634,500 Murphy (Christopher)
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Cumberland, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Haven, CT Police Department Gunshot Location System $376,000 DeLauro, Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Jersey Network $1,410,000 Frelinghuysen, Pallone, Rothman, Sires, Lautenberg,
Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Jersey Network, Trenton, NJ, for an inter-operable $178,600 Lautenberg, Menendez, Pallone, Rothman
first responders communications network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Orleans Police Foundation, Orleans Parish, LA, to $223,250 Landrieu, Jefferson
design and implement an integrated information system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Orleans, LA Police Department $658,000 Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech New Rochelle, NY, Police Department Communications System $47,000 Lowey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Newark, CA Police Technology Improvements $235,000 Stark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Newberry County, SC, Sheriff's Office Technology $705,000 Spratt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Norfolk, VA Police Department $1,052,800 Drake, Scott (Bobby), Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Norman Park, GA Police Department Equipment $32,900 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Carolina State Highway Patrol Communication Equipment $329,000 Price (David), Dole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Carolina State Highway Patrol Law Enforcement $188,000 Watt
Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, West New York, NJ, for $267,900 Lautenberg, Menendez, Sires
a mobile radio interconnect system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Judson, IN Police Department Mobile Data Recorders $56,400 Donnelly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Las Vegas Police Department, North Las Vegas, NV, for $223,250 Reid, Berkley
a new records management system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34743]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Las Vegas, NV Police Department Dispatch/Records $399,500 Berkley, Reid
Management System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory Commission, $94,000 Vitter, McCrery
Shreveport, LA, for forensics equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Northern IL Law Enforcement Initiative $352,500 Manzullo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Northern Lake County, IN Automated Fingerprint $376,000 Visclosky
Identification System (AFIS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Nye County Sheriff's Office, Pahrump, NV, for a law $178,600 Reid
enforcement license plate scanner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Oak Ridge Police Department, Oak Ridge, TN, for law $141,000 Alexander (Lamar), Wamp
enforcement communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Oakland County Sheriff's Department (CLEMIS) $651,420 Knollenberg, Levin (Sander), Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Odessa, TX $117,500 Conaway
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ohio County Fiscal Court, Ohio County, KY, for mobile data $211,500 McConnell
terminals and other equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Oneida County, WI Northeast Wisconsin Public Safety $235,000 Obey
Interoperable Communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Onondaga County, NY, communications project $1,410,000 Walsh, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Onondaga County, NY, records management project $1,128,000 Walsh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Onondaga County, Onondaga County, NY, for a County-City $446,500 Schumer, Clinton
Interoperable Communications System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Opa Locka, FL Community Policing Equipment $141,000 Meek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Orange County, NC and Chapel Hill, NC Law Enforcement $235,000 Price (David)
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Orem City Police Department, Orem, UT, for in-car video $164,500 Hatch, Bennett, Cannon
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ouachita County, AR Sheriff's Department $235,000 Ross
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Oxnard, CA Police Records Management System $470,000 Capps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ozark, MO $94,000 Blunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Parkersburg, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Parsons Police Department Public Safety Equipment $70,500 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Passaic County Prosecutor's Office, Passaic County, NJ, for $267,900 Lautenberg, Menendez
a fiber optic network and interoperable communications
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Passaic, NJ, Police Command and Communication Vehicle $211,500 Pascrell, Lautenberg, Menendez
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Paterson, NJ Police Department Security Upgrades $446,500 Pascrell, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Perry, GA Police Department Mobile Data Terminals $61,100 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Phoenix, AZ Prosecutors Criminal Record System $56,400 Pastor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pierce County, WA Sheriff's Office Automated Finger Imaging $1,198,500 Dicks, Smith (Adam), Cantwell
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pigeon Forge, TN Police Department $352,500 Davis (David)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pima County, AZ Wireless Integrated Network $634,500 Giffords, Grijalva
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pine Bluff Police Department, Pine Bluff, AR, for an $535,800 Lincoln, Pryor
interoperable communications system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota, for technology $178,600 Johnson (Tim)-SD
upgrades to the 9-1-1 system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Placer County, CA $1,598,000 Doolittle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Plant City, FL Police Department $131,600 Bilirakis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Plantation, FL Law Enforcement Technology $282,000 Wasserman Schultz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pomona, CA Police Department Public Radio System $47,000 Napolitano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pompano Beach, FL Law Enforcement Technology $446,500 Klein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Port Aransas, TX Communications Equipment $47,000 Ortiz, Cornyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Portsmouth, NH Police Department Police Records On-line $117,500 Shea-Porter
Service (PROS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pottawatomie County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety $94,000 Boyda
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Powell County, KY Sheriff's Mobile Data Terminals $28,200 Chandler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Presidio, TX Interoperable Communications $23,500 Rodriguez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Prince George's County, MD Interoperable Radio Systems $1,997,500 Hoyer, Wynn, Mikulski
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Prince George's County, MD, Prince George's County, MD, to $893,000 Mikulski, Hoyer, Wynn
upgrade first responder equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Providence, RI Public Safety Communications Equipment $305,500 Langevin, Reed, Whitehouse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Pueblo County, CO Sheriff's Office Technology $305,500 Salazar (John)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Putnam County, FL $141,000 Mica
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Radford, VA Police Department $188,000 Boucher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Rainier Communications Commission, WA $235,000 Dicks, Reichert, Smith (Adam), Cantwell, Murray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Raleigh, NC Police Department Interoperable Communications $376,000 Price (David), Etheridge, Dole, Burr
Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Rehoboth, MA Police Department Technology $117,500 McGovern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Richmond County, GA Sheriff Mobile Data Terminal $188,000 Barrow
Replacement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Riley County, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment $47,000 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Riverton Police Department, City of Riverton, Wyoming, for $94,000 Enzi
communications equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34744]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech Riviera Beach, FL Law Enforcement Technology Improvement $94,000 Klein
Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Roane County, TN Emergency Communications $611,000 Davis (Lincoln)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Robbins, IL, Police Department equipment $258,500 Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Rochester, NH Police Department Law Enforcement Training $235,000 Shea-Porter
and Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Rock Hill and York County, SC Public Safety Communications $282,000 Spratt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Rockland County, NY, Police Information Network $47,000 Lowey, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Ross Township, PA Police Department Equipment $399,500 Altmire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Sacramento County, CA Sheriff's Department Computer Aided $329,000 Matsui
Dispatch Replacement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Saginaw, MI Police Department Gunfire Detection System $282,000 Kildee, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Saint Clair, PA Police Drug Enforcement Initiative $211,500 Holden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Salem, OR Police Technology $47,000 Hooley, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Salt Lake City, UT In-Car Video Surveillance Technology $94,000 Matheson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, for crime lab $705,000 Hutchison, Cornyn, Brady (Kevin)
technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Bernardino County, CA Sheriff Department $352,500 Baca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Bernardino, CA Police Department $282,000 Lewis (Jerry), Baca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Carlos Apache Tribe, AZ $94,000 Renzi, Kyl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Diego County, CA Sheriff's Department $1,198,500 Bilbray, Hunter, Feinstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Diego, CA Police Department $681,500 Davis (Susan), Bilbray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Joaquin County, CA Interoperable Communications $94,000 McNerney, Cardoza
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Luis Obispo County, CA Criminal Justice Records $188,000 Capps
Management System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech San Mateo County, CA Sheriff's Office Jail Management $916,500 Lantos, Eshoo
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Santa Clara County, CA Crime Laboratory Equipment $1,269,000 Honda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Santa Cruz County, AZ Collaborative Border Regional $376,000 Grijalva
Alliance (CoBRA) Communications Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Saranac Lake, NY Radio Communication System $47,000 Gillibrand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, MI Radio and $56,400 Stupak
Computer Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Savannah River National Laboratory Southeast Security $352,500 Barrett, Graham
Technology Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Scotch Plains, NJ Police Department $75,200 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Scott County, IA, Scott County, IA, for equipment and $94,000 Grassley, Braley
software for the consolidated dispatch center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Searcy, AR Police Department Law Enforcement Equipment $188,000 Snyder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Sellersburg, IN Police Department Law Enforcement $127,840 Hill
Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Shawnee County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment $61,100 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Smith County, MS, Sheriff's Department $61,100 Pickering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Snyder County, Pennsylvania Emergency Services, Snyder $164,500 Specter
County, PA, for interoperable communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Somerset County, NJ $940,000 Frelinghuysen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Somerset, Fayette, Greene, Cambria, Westmoreland, Indiana, $1,974,000 Murtha
Armstrong, Allegheny, and Washington Counties, PA Police
Department Law Enforcement Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech South Plainfield, NJ Police Department $188,000 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech South River, NJ Hand Held Radio Replacement $117,500 Holt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech SouthCom Dispatch Center, IL for Technological Improvements $211,500 Jackson Jr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Southeast Missouri Local Emergency Planning District $1,391,200 Emerson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Southern Macomb County, MI Interoperable Communications $987,000 Levin (Sander), Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Southgate, MI Downriver Community Conference Centralized $188,000 Dingell, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
Emergency Dispatch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Southington, CT Police Mobile Command Post Technology $352,500 Larson, Dodd, Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Southside Virginia Law Enforcement $705,000 Goode
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Clair County Commission, St. Clair County, AL, for law $164,500 Shelby
enforcement technology upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Clair County, Port Huron, MI, for the purchase of $178,600 Levin (Carl), Stabenow
mobile radios for public safety agencies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Louis County Sheriff's Office, Duluth, MN, for $133,950 Coleman, Klobuchar, Oberstar
equipment to support interoperability, such as base
stations, microwave towers, and installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Louis County, MO East Central Dispatch System Upgrade $220,900 Carnahan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Mary's County, MD Sheriff's Office Mobile Data Terminal $738,840 Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Paul, MN Police Department Interoperable 800 MHz Radio $564,000 McCollum, Coleman, Klobuchar
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech St. Paul, MN Police Department Police Car Camera and Audio $470,000 McCollum, Coleman, Klobuchar
Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Stanislaus County, CA $352,500 Radanovich, Cardoza, Feinstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Starke County, IN Sheriff Department Interoperable $517,000 Donnelly
Communications Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34745]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, for remote access to criminal $235,000 Stevens
justice information from a single point
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech State of Maryland, Annapolis, MD, for equipment to attain $669,750 Cardin, Ruppersberger
interoperability among all state law enforcement agencies
as well as local jurisdictions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech State of Michigan Public Safety Communications System $164,500 Stupak, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Steelton, PA Police Defense and Enforcement Initiative $155,100 Holden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Stockton, CA Police Equipment $634,500 Cardoza, McNerney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Sultan, WA Police Department Technology Improvement Program $117,500 Larsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Summit, NJ Police Department $235,000 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Sussex County, NJ $940,000 Frelinghuysen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Swain County, NC Law Enforcement Communications $94,000 Shuler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Swainsboro, GA Police Department $282,000 Barrow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Talladega County Commission, Talladega, AL, for $211,500 Shelby
technological upgrades to the public safety infrastructure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Tempe, AZ Public Safety Communications/ Interoperability $681,500 Mitchell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Terre Haute, IN Emergency Communications $719,100 Ellsworth, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Thibodaux, LA Police Department Equipment $220,900 Melancon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Topeka, KS Police Department Public Safety Equipment $65,800 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Towamencin Township, PA Police Department Equipment $42,300 Schwartz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Town of Johnston, Johnston, RI, to purchase communications $89,300 Reed, Whitehouse
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Town of Manchester, Town of Manchester, CT, for equipment $446,500 Dodd
for an emergency operations center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Town of Redding, CT, Town of Redding, CT, for equipment for $312,550 Dodd
a new regional Centralized Communications Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Town of Westerly, Westerly, RI, for communications $133,950 Reed
equipment to improve community policing capabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Town of Windham, Town of Windham, CT, for equipment $223,250 Dodd, Lieberman
upgrades at the Town of Windham's Public Safety Complex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Travis County, TX Sheriff Regional Law Enforcement Training $352,500 Doggett
Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Tri-Valley Cities, CA East Bay Regional Communications $540,500 McNerney, Tauscher, Boxer
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Tucson, AZ Finger Imaging System Upgrade $94,000 Giffords, Grijalva
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Turner County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment $61,100 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Twiggs County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment $159,800 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Uhrichsville, OH Police Department Emergency Radio System $47,000 Space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Union City, CA Law Enforcement Technologies $94,000 Stark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, OK Police $423,000 Boren
Technology and Equipment Enhancement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, for forensics $235,000 Inhofe, Fallin
equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech University of Colorado/National Center for Audio and Video $357,200 Allard, Salazar (Ken), Tancredo
Forensics, Denver, CO, to establish a cutting edge
forensics center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech University of Louisville Research Foundation, Louisville, $705,000 McConnell
KY, for forensics equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech University of North Alabama, Florence, AL, criminal justice $282,000 Shelby
outreach initiatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, for a $1,175,000 Cochran
state-wide and regional information sharing system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Upper Peninsula 15 County Consortium, Marquette, MI, for $446,500 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Stupak
interoperable communications equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, for the $400,000 Leahy
Vermont Justice Information Sharing System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, for the $400,000 Leahy
Vermont State Police mobile/remote computing project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Vienna, VA Police Department $235,000 Davis (Tom)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Virginia Beach, VA Police Department $188,000 Drake, Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Virginia State Police, Richmond, VA, for the Northern $178,600 Warner, Webb
Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force to train law enforcement officials
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Virginia State Police, Richmond, VA, to maintain databases $89,300 Warner, Webb
and technical infrastructure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wadesboro and Anson Counties, NC $282,000 Hayes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wake County, NC Interoperable Communications Project $681,500 Price (David), Miller (Brad), Etheridge, Dole, Burr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wapello County, IA Sheriff's Office Equipment $126,900 Loebsack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, $491,150 Murray, Cantwell, Reichert, Dicks
Lacey, WA, for DNA testing for stranger rapes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Washington County, OH Sheriff's Department $23,500 Wilson (Charlie)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wayne County, MI Radio Communications Interoperability $211,500 Conyers, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34746]]
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wayne County, OH, Sheriff's Office $655,180 Regula
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wayne County, WV Sheriff's Office $282,000 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Weber County, UT $352,500 Bishop (Rob), Bennett, Hatch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Weirton, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wellsburg, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech West Bloomfield, MI Police Department $590,320 Knollenberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech West Columbia, SC, Police Department $352,500 Wilson (Joe)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech West Covina, CA Interagency Communications Interoperability $517,000 Solis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech West Linn, OR Emergency Communications Enhancement $47,000 Hooley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech West Virginia University Forensic Science Initiative, $3,572,000 Byrd
Morgantown, WV, for the Forensic Science Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY, Law Enforcement $1,034,000 Lowey
Communications Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY, Law Enforcement $940,000 Lowey
Technology Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, for campus $188,000 Bunning
public safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Westfield, NJ Police Department $235,000 Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Whatcom County, Whatcom County, WA, for an information $223,250 Murray, Cantwell, Larsen
sharing and exchange system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wheeling, WV Police Department $70,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Whitemarsh Township, PA Police Department Equipment $32,900 Schwartz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Wilkinson County, GA Sheriff's Department Equipment $61,100 Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Will County, IL Sheriff's Office $502,900 Weller, Biggert, Durbin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Will County, Will County, IL, for technology $460,000 Durbin, Weller, Biggert
interoperability improvements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Williamsburg County, SC Law Enforcement Technology $470,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Windham, CT Dispatch Center Equipment $329,000 Courtney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Winters, CA Public Safety Equipment $164,500 Thompson (Mike)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Woburn, MA Police Department Radio Communications and $470,000 Markey
Police Dispatch Center Upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Woodbridge, NJ Police Department $235,000 Ferguson, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Woodford County, KY Sheriff's Mobile Data Terminals $202,100 Chandler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Woodson County, KS Sheriff's Office Public Safety Equipment $94,000 Boyda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech Woonsocket, RI Police Technology Upgrades $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech York County, PA $14,100 Platts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-COPS-Tech York, SC Police Department Technology and Records $235,000 Spratt
Management
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice 180 Turning Lives Around, Child and Teen Violence Reduction $564,000 Pallone, Smith (Christopher), Lautenberg, Menendez
and Treatment Program, Hazlet, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice 4 Kids Early Learning Network, Braddock, PA $94,000 Doyle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice A Better Way Gang Prevention Project, Columbia, SC $470,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice A.J. McClung YMCA, Columbus, GA $47,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Abraham House Programs for At-Risk Youth, Bronx, NY $94,000 Serrano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Abyssinian Development Corporation programs for at-risk $893,000 Rangel, Schumer, Clinton
youth, New York, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Abyssinian Development Corporation, New York, NY, to $446,500 Schumer, Clinton, Rangel
support and expand youth and young adult after-school and
summer programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Adjudicated Youth Program at Texas A&M Corpus Christi $188,000 Ortiz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Advancing and Inspiring Learning Education Outreach, 92nd $258,500 Maloney
Street Y, New York, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Aftercare for Phoenix House Clients in Western MA $634,500 Neal, Kerry, Kennedy (Edward)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice AIDS Council of Northeastern New York At-Risk Youth $94,000 Gillibrand, McNulty, Clinton, Schumer
Prevention Education Initiative, Albany, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, Talladega, AL, $188,000 Shelby
mentoring for disabled at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Alameda County, CA, Children's Assessment Center $470,000 Stark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Albany PAL After School Club for at-risk youth, Albany, NY $164,500 McNulty, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Albany, NY, Teen Challenge At-Risk Youth Drug Prevention $47,000 McNulty, Schumer, Clinton
Outreach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Alianza Dominicana Inc. programs for at-risk youth, New $188,000 Rangel, Schumer, Clinton
York, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Alief ISD Safe and Drug Free Schools, Houston, TX $188,000 Green (Al)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Amar Civic Club programs for at-risk youth, Reynolds, GA $117,500 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice American Ballet Theatre, New York, NY, to provide $178,600 Schumer, Clinton, Maloney
disadvantaged and at-risk youth a hands on opportunity to
create, produce, and execute all aspects of an original
performance. Formal evaluations of these programs have
demonstrated reduced truancy and delinquency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice American Sailing Training Association, Newport, RI, for $263,200 Reed, Whitehouse
after-school programs for at-risk youth to reduce truancy
and delinquency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice American Village Citizenship Trust, Montevallo, AL, for $329,000 Shelby
character programs in at-risk areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34747]]
DOJ-Juv Justice AMISTAD Alliance Youth Program, New Haven, CT $282,000 DeLauro
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice An Achievable Dream, Newport News, VA $352,500 Davis (Jo Ann), Scott (Bobby), Warner, Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice An Achievable Dream, Newport News, VA, for at-risk youth $267,900 Warner, Webb, Davis (Jo Ann), Scott
programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Prevention Program, Union $282,000 Sires, Lautenberg, Menendez
City, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice ARISE Foundation $728,500 Hastings (Alcee), Crenshaw, Wasserman Schultz, Diaz-Balart
(Lincoln), Mahoney, Nelson (Bill), Martinez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Arlington, MA, School Resource Officer $47,000 Markey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Armory Foundation Delinquency Prevention Program, New York, $47,000 Rangel
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Asian American Leadership Empowerment and Development, $267,900 Mikulski
Wheaton, MD, for programs for low-income families whose
children are at-risk of dropping out of school
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Asian Youth Center Teen Leadership Training Center, Los $94,000 Schiff
Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Asociacion Tepeyac Community Center Programs for At-Risk $188,000 Serrano
Youth, South Bronx, New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Aspire Program in Wheaton, IL $634,500 Roskam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Back on Track, Goodwill Industries of San Francisco, San $282,000 Pelosi
Mateo & Marin Counties, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Baltimore City Public School System, MD Public School $399,500 Cummings, Ruppersberger
Safety Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Baltimore School for the Arts, Baltimore, MD, for the TWIGS $267,900 Mikulski, Cummings
(To Work in Gaining Skills) program for arts programs for
at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice BAM Youth and Community Initiatives, Brooklyn, NY $282,000 Towns, Clarke, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Baptist Child and Family Services STAR program, San $470,000 Rodriguez
Antonio, TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Barrio Action Youth and Family Center Learning Excellence- $47,000 Solis
Achieving Dreams, Los Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Barron County, WI, Restorative Justice and Truancy $235,000 Obey
Prevention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bates CDC programs for at-risk youth, Louisville, KY $141,000 Yarmuth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bay County, FL Junior Deputy and Law Enforcement Explorer $188,000 Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Beltrami County, Bemidji, MN, for a program for at-risk $133,950 Coleman, Klobuchar
children ages and their families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bethesda Home for Boys, Savannah, GA $235,000 Kingston, Chambliss, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bethesda Home for Boys, Savannah, GA, for at-risk youth $47,000 Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston
this organization serves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Big Brothers & Big Sisters Mentoring Program of Windham $235,000 Welch
County, VT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Alaska, Eagle River, AK, for at- $1,128,000 Stevens
risk youth mentoring program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bolder Options of Minneapolis, MN $117,500 Ramstad, Ellison, Coleman, Klobuchar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bolder Options, Minneapolis, for programs to reduce truancy $312,550 Coleman, Klobuchar, Ramstad, Ellison
and juvenile delinquency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Boys & Girls Club of Toledo, OH $235,000 Kaptur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bronx Cluster Delinquency Prevention, NY $282,000 Engel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Brooklyn Arts Council at-risk youth programs, Brooklyn, NY $188,000 Velazquez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy at-risk youth programs, $282,000 Velazquez
Brooklyn, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Brooks County, GA, After School Programs for At-Risk Youth $47,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Bucks County, PA, Truant Youth Counseling $188,000 Murphy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Building Toward Wellness Community Coalition programs for $94,000 Bishop (Sanford)
at-risk youth, Columbus, GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice BYU-Public School Partnership, Provo, UT, for statewide $282,000 Bennett
partnerships for delinquency prevention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Camden Community Safe Zone Initiative, Camden, NJ $658,000 Andrews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Camp Fire USA, Kansas City, KS, for mentoring children of $141,000 Brownback
prisoners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice CAPPA Youth Intervention and Development, Williamsport, PA $272,600 Carney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice CEDARS, Lincoln, NE, for an emergency shelter program for $133,950 Nelson (Ben)
runaway and homeless youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Central City Action Committee Graffiti Abatement Program, $70,500 Becerra
Los Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Central Indiana Teen Challenge $94,000 Buyer, Lugar, Bayh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Central New Mexico YMCA, Albuquerque, NM, to provide life $235,000 Domenici
skills development services for at-risk children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice CHANGE, Inc. at-risk youth program, Wheeling, WV $94,000 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Chicago Public Schools After School Counts Program for at- $1,034,000 Emanuel
risk youth, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Childhelp of Fairfax, VA $470,000 Wolf, Davis (Tom)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Children and Families First, Wilmington, DE, to continue $347,800 Biden, Carper, Castle
programs to reduce truancy in New Castle and Kent County,
Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Children's Outing Association, Milwaukee, WI, for a city- $178,600 Kohl
wide teen program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City and County of San Bernardino, CA Community Prosecutor $164,500 Baca
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Boston, Suffolk County, MA, for a program to reduce $312,550 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
recidivism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT, for a summer and after- $312,550 Lieberman, Shays
school program for youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Buffalo, NY, Youth Violence Prevention and $94,000 Higgins, Schumer
Intervention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Charlotte, NC, Charlotte, NC, for a gang prevention $282,000 Dole, Hayes
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34748]]
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Charlotte, NC, Gang of One Initiative $940,000 Hayes, Dole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Grand Rapids, MI, LOOP Programs $352,500 Ehlers, Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Hartford, Hartford, CT, for a program to provide $312,550 Lieberman, DeLauro
summer employment opportunities and job training for teens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Irwindale, CA, Teen Activity Center $28,200 Solis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, for an anti-gang $267,900 Boxer, Millender-McDonald
intervention and prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Lumpkin, GA, at-risk youth initiatives $94,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Miami Beach, FL, Gang and Drug Prevention Program $681,500 Ros-Lehtinen, Wasserman Schultz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Philadelphia, PA Youth Violence Reduction $94,000 Brady (Robert), Specter, Casey
Partnership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for a program to $940,000 Specter, Casey, Brady
reduce youth violence and homicide rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Providence, Providence, RI, for the Providence $263,200 Reed, Whitehouse, Kennedy (Patrick), Langevin
After School Alliance (PASA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Sacramento, CA, Police Department School Attendance $282,000 Matsui
Center Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino, CA, for a $312,550 Boxer
school-based partnership to provide gang resistance
education/training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of San Diego, CA Children's Initiative Youth Diversion $164,500 Davis (Susan)
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Springfield, Springfield, OH, for programs and $312,550 Brown (Sherrod), Hobson
resources for at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Steubenville, OH, MLK Recreation Center At-Risk $37,600 Wilson (Charlie)
Youth Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Trenton, NJ, YouthStat Crime Prevention Program $305,500 Holt, Smith (Christopher), Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City of Trenton, Trenton, NJ, for a YouthStat Crime $178,600 Lautenberg, Menendez, Holt, Smith (Christopher)
Prevention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice City Year of Rhode Island $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Cleveland Botanical Gardens Green Corps programs for at- $517,000 Kucinich
risk youth, OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Coalition for the Homeless At-Risk Youth Services Program, $446,500 Nadler, Schumer, Clinton
New York, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for gang prevention $156,275 Warner, Webb
education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Communities in Schools, Decatur County, GA $47,000 Bishop (Sanford), Chambliss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Community and Schools Together Project, Huntington Station, $94,000 Israel, Schumer
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Community Connections, Bluefield, WV $39,480 Rahall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Community Counseling Center, Portland, ME Trauma Prevention $470,000 Allen, Collins, Snowe
and Treatment for At-Risk Youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Community Outreach Center, Monsey, NY $188,000 Engel, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Compton Unified School District Youth Safety Program, $141,000 Sanchez (Linda)
Willowbrook, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Courage to Speak Foundation, County of Fairfield, CT, for a $446,500 Dodd, Lieberman
drug abuse prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Court Appointed Special Advocates, Los Angeles County, CA $235,000 McKeon, Roybal-Allard, Napolitano, Schiff, Solis, Waters,
Watson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Covenant House Regional Training Center Program, Brooklyn, $47,000 Towns, Schumer, Clinton
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Covenant House, NJ Rights of Passage Program $352,500 LoBiondo, Payne, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Creative Visions programs for at-risk youth, Des Moines, IA $141,000 Boswell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Cypress Park Junior Aztec Fire Fuels Program, Los Angeles, $70,500 Becerra
CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice D.A.R.E. New Jersey, Cranbury, NJ, for a youth prevention $89,300 Lautenberg, Menendez, Andrews, LoBiondo, Pascrell, Sires
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Dauphin County, PA, Social Services for Children & Youth, $244,400 Holden
Independent Living Mentor Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Dawson, GA, Public Safety Department Youth Advocacy Program $23,500 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice DC Children's Advocacy Center - Safe Shores, Washington, DC $611,000 Norton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice De La Salle Middle School at St. Matthew's programs for at- $305,500 Clay
risk youth, St. Louis, MO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Des Plaines Teen Center, Des Plaines, IL, for prevention $300,000 Durbin
programming for at-risk adolescents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, Wildwood Ranch Youth $493,500 Conyers, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
Programs, MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Detroit, MI, Business to Youth Mentoring Project $188,000 Kilpatrick, Conyers, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Dominico-American Society, Corona, NY $188,000 Crowley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Duval County, FL, Youth Advocate Program, Juvenile Justice $258,500 Brown (Corrine)
Recidivism Reduction Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice East Akron Community House Youth Programs, Akron, OH $94,000 Ryan (Tim)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice East End Cooperative Ministry of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, $376,000 Specter, Casey, Doyle
PA, for at-risk youth programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice East Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, CA, for an anti-gang $178,600 Boxer, Eshoo
initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Eastern Michigan University Services for Teen Parents and $564,000 Dingell, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
their Families, Ypsilanti, MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Eastern Shores of Maryland Education Consortium, $223,250 Mikulski, Cardin
Centerville, MD, to expand the dropout prevention program
to utilize a web-based curriculum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice El Centro de Accion Social Pena Juvenil Programs for Youth, $94,000 Schiff
Pasadena, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice El Museo del Barrio Delinquency Prevention Program, New $47,000 Rangel
York, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice El Museo del Barrio Juvenile Justice After School Programs, $47,000 Maloney
New York, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice El Museo del Barrio's Educational Programs in the Bronx for $94,000 Serrano
At-Risk Youth, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34749]]
DOJ-Juv Justice Elon University of Law, Juvenile Justice Intervention and $235,000 Miller (Brad), Coble, Dole
Mediation Clinic, Greensboro, NC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Elysian Valley United Community Services Center, Los $65,800 Becerra
Angeles, CA, Giant Step Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Eon Youth Project, Tucson, AZ $94,000 Grijalva
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Eskuwela Kultura Computer Lab, Los Angeles, CA $37,600 Becerra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Essex County Sheriff's Office, Essex County, MA, for an $223,250 Kennedy (Edward), Kerry, Tierney
oxycontin prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Fairfax County, VA, Gang Prevention Programs $188,000 Moran (James)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Family and Children's Association, Mineola, NY, for the $89,300 Schumer, Clinton, McCarthy
Hagedorn-Hempstead Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Father Maloney's Boy's Haven Life Skills Program, $47,000 Yarmuth
Louisville, KY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Fire Towns Community Center Youth Gang and Violence $47,000 McCarthy (Carolyn)
Prevention Project, Lawrence, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Florida State Attorney's Community Prosecution Program $376,000 Young (C.W.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Fontana, CA Teen Center for After School Programs $94,000 Baca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Four Oaks Family and Children's Services, Cedar Rapids, IA $94,000 Boswell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Franklin Community Action Programs for At-Risk Youth, $211,500 Olver
Greenfield, MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Freeport Pride Juvenile Diversion Program, Freeport, NY $47,000 McCarthy (Carolyn)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Gateway Youth Outreach After School Homework Assistance $305,500 McCarthy (Carolyn)
Program for At-Risk Youth, Elmont, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Girl Scouts of the USA, New York, NY, for outreach and $188,000 Domenici, Schultz
volunteer training in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Girls Inc. of the Greater Peninsula, Operation: IMPACT, $225,600 Scott (Bobby)
Hampton, VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Girls, Inc. $470,000 Crenshaw, Bayh, Clinton, Lincoln, Pryor, Nelson (Bill),
Schumer, Hutchison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Gladys Allen Brigham Community Center Youth Empowerment $188,000 Olver
Services, Pittsfield, MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Grand Rapids Public Schools, Grand Rapids, MI, for an $178,600 Stabenow, Ehlers
academic prevention and workforces skills program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Grand Street Settlement, Manhattan, NY $188,000 Velazquez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Granite School District START program, Salt Lake City, UT $211,500 Matheson, Hatch, Bennett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Granite School District, Salt Lake City, UT, for school $188,000 Hatch, Bennett, Matheson
district's gang violence prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Gwen's Girls, Pittsburgh, PA $94,000 Doyle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Harlem RBI, Inc. Delinquency Prevention, New York, NY $141,000 Rangel, Schumer, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Hidalgo County, TX, Truancy Program $517,000 Hinojosa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Hillsborough County, FL Advocate Programs, Juvenile Justice $141,000 Castor
Services Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Holy Family Institute, Pittsburgh, PA At-Risk Youth $141,000 Altmire
Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Homenetmen Glendale Chapter After School Tutoring for At- $47,000 Schiff
Risk Youth, Glendale, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Human Resources Center of Edgar and Clark Counties, Paris, $200,000 Durbin
IL, to combating substance abuse among high-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice I Have a Dream Foundation, TX $235,000 Granger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Improved Solutions for Urban Systems, Dayton, OH, for an $178,600 Brown (Sherrod), Voinovich, Turner
employment program for court-involved youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra Partnership for At-Risk $164,500 Carson, Bayh
Youth, IN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Inner Harbor of Georgia - EXCEL Program $517,000 Westmoreland, Gingrey, Chambliss, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Institute for International Sport Nonviolence Program, $94,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
Kingston, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Jackson, TN, Teen Crime Prevention Program $752,000 Tanner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice James L. Barnes CDC programs for at-risk youth, Dawson, GA $47,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Juvenile Justice Center, Suffolk University Law School, $493,500 Lynch, Kennedy (Edward), Kerry
Boston, MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Juvenile Reentry Program, Essex County, NJ $94,000 Sires, Pascrell, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Karamu House, Cleveland, OH, for after-school programs for $178,600 Brown (Sherrof), Voinovich
at-risk children in Cleveland, Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Kickstart, Houston, TX, to expand children's character $94,000 Hutchison, Sessions (Pete)
development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Kids Averted from Placement Services (KAPS), San Antonio, $47,000 Hutchison, Gonzalez
TX, to prevent juvenile delinquency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Kids Averted from Placement Services (KAPS), TX $211,500 Gonzalez, Hutchison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice KidsPeace Rhode Island $94,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice KidsPeace Therapeutic Services for At-Risk Foster Care $282,000 Moran (James)
Youth, Alexandria, VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice KidsPeace, Columbia, MD, for supportive services for foster $357,200 Mikulski
care families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice KidsPeace, Inc., New Haven, CT, for a children's mental $223,250 Dodd
health crisis pro- gram
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice KidsPeace/West Virginia KidConnect, Moundsville, WV $235,000 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Klingberg Family Centers Delinquency Prevention Initiative, $540,500 Murphy (Christopher), DeLauro, Dodd, Lieberman
New Britain, CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice La Esperanza Home for Boys, Austin, TX $705,000 Ortiz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Lafayette/Oxford/University Angel Ranch, Oxford, MS, for $47,000 Cochran
domestic services for victims of abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Las Vegas, NV Youth Initiative $164,500 Berkley, Porter, Reid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34750]]
DOJ-Juv Justice Latino Pastoral Action Center Programs for At-Risk Youth, $282,000 Serrano
Bronx, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Learning Through Listening Program, Cambridge, MA $305,500 Capuano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Lexington, MA, School Resource Officer Program $47,000 Markey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Liberty Theater at-risk youth initiatives, Columbus, GA $235,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Life Transformation Ministry, Americus, GA $47,000 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice LIFECamp Dropout Prevention Program, Jamaica, NY $117,500 Meeks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Livingston County, NY, community service/youth court $70,500 Reynolds
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Long Island University, NY Arts for At-Risk Youth $329,000 Ackerman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Los Angeles Community Law Enforcement [LA CLEAR] and $357,200 Feinstein, Berman
Recovery and Gang Reduction Programs, Los Angeles, CA, for
anti-gang intervention and prevention programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Los Angeles Conservation Corps Environmental Jobs Program $94,000 Sanchez (Linda)
for At-Risk Youth, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Louisville Science Center at-risk youth programs, KY $47,000 Yarmuth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Maplewood, NJ, At-Risk Youth Program $94,000 Payne, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Marcus Institute, Atlanta, GA $940,000 Kingston, Linder, Johnson (Hank), Chambliss, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Marcus Institute, Atlanta, GA, for providing remediation $141,000 Chambliss, Isakson, Kingston, Linder, Johnson (Hank)
for the potential consequences of childhood abuse and
neglect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Marion County, OR, Kids First Initiative $399,500 Hooley, Wyden, Smith (Gordon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Center Youth violence $282,000 Lee
prevention program, Oakland, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, Rock Island, IL $282,000 Hare
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mary Mitchell Family and Youth Center for At-Risk Youth, $329,000 Serrano
Bronx, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Maryhurst Juvenile Delinquency Response Program, $47,000 Yarmuth
Louisville, KY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe Youth Program, MA $282,000 Delahunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice McKinley County, NM, Juvenile Substance Abuse Crisis Center $352,500 Udall (Tom)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Miami-Dade County, FL, Juvenile Assessment Center $352,500 Diaz-Balart (Lincoln)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Minnesota Teen Challenge $235,000 Ramstad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mobile, AL Team Focus Mentoring and Education $352,500 Bonner, Shelby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Monterey County, Monterey County, CA, for a gang task force $267,900 Boxer, Feinstein, Farr
in Monterey County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Montgomery YMCA, Montgomery, AL, for after school $470,000 Shelby
activities to at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mosholu Montefiore Community Center, Bronx, NY $164,500 Crowley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mother Cabrini High School POWER Program, New York, NY $47,000 Rangel, Clinton, Schumer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mother Cabrini High School, New York, NY, for an after $178,600 Clinton, Schumer, Rangel
school program for at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice MUR -- Uniting Through Resolution, Los Angeles, CA $70,500 Becerra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Mural Arts Program for at-risk youth, Philadelphia, PA $47,000 Fattah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Muscogee County, GA, Marshal's Office Junior Marshal $117,500 Bishop (Sanford)
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Nassau County District Attorney's Office, Mineola, NY, for $312,550 Clinton, Schumer, Israel
the Redirection Enforcement and Learning program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice National Community Renaissance $258,500 Miller (Gary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges $940,000 Heller, DeLauro, Porter, Regula, Ensign, Reid, Hatch,
Bennett, Leahy, Biden, Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice National Fatherhood Initiative, Gaithersburg, MD, for $658,000 Shelby
fathers of the most at-risk children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice National Safe Place Youth Safety Awareness Initiative, $211,500 Yarmuth
Louisville, KY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Neighborhood First Program, Inc. At-risk Youth Assistance, $117,500 Murphy (Patrick)
Bristol, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Nelson Jordan Center Program for At-Risk Youth, Wheeling, $23,500 Mollohan
WV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice New Directions for Youth Challenge Program for Gang and $141,000 Sherman
Delinquency Prevention, Van Nuys, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice New Mexico Sheriff and Police Athletic League $658,000 Wilson (Heather), Udall (Tom), Domenici, Bingaman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice New Mexico Sheriff's and Police Athletic Leagues, $446,500 Domenici, Bingaman, Wilson (Heather), Udall (Tom)
Albuquerque, NM, to continue to implement a gang
prevention program aimed at at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice New Song Urban Ministries, Baltimore, MD, for comprehensive $401,850 Mikulski, Cummings
services to at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Newburgh Center Youth Violence and Gang Prevention, NY $300,800 Hinchey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, ID, to combat child abuse $141,000 Craig, Crapo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Nisqually Tribe of Washington Youth Justice Center $446,500 Smith (Adam)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice No Workshops No Jumpshots program in Gary, IN $94,000 Visclosky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice North Carolina Central University Leadership Academy for $282,000 Price (David)
African-American Males
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Northwest Oklahoma Family Services $352,500 Lucas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Novato, CA, Juvenile Substance Abuse Program for Hamilton $188,000 Woolsey
Communities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Ocean Tides School, Narragansett, RI, to enhance its $267,900 Reed, Whitehouse, Langevin
science and computer labs to encourage the study of
science and technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Ohel At-Risk Youth and Child Abuse Prevention Program, $94,000 Rothman, Garrett, Lautenberg, Menendez
Teaneck, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34751]]
DOJ-Juv Justice Ohel At-Risk Youth and Child Abuse Prevention, Brooklyn, NY $399,500 Weiner, McCarthy (Carolyn)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Olmstead County Community Services, Rochester, MN, to $133,950 Coleman, Klobuchar
implement and sustain a performance based child protection
system preventing child abuse and neglect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Operation Quality Time After School Program, Paradise $564,000 Pastor
Valley, AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Operation Save Our Streets, Miami, FL $94,000 Meek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Oquirrh Recreation and Parks District, Kearns, UT, for $47,000 Bennett, Hatch
after-school activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Outward Bound Adventures Gang Intervention Program, $94,000 Schiff
Pasadena, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Overtown Youth Center, Miami, FL $235,000 Meek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice PACE Center of Jacksonville, FL $676,800 Crenshaw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Para Los Ninos Youth Development Center, Los Angeles, CA $235,000 Roybal-Allard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Parent Corps, New York University Child Study Center, NY $47,000 Maloney, Kennedy (Patrick), King (Peter), Clinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Parents in Action Project to prevent child maltreatment and $446,500 Napolitano
gang involvement, Pomona, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Patterson Park Public Charter School, Baltimore, MD, for $178,600 Mikulski
Rejecting Violence, Building Resilience--a school violence
prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix Academy of Los Angeles, Services for Underserved $517,000 Sherman, Harman, Napolitano, Roybal-Allard
Youth in LA County, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix Academy of Orange County Drug Treatment Program, CA $188,000 Sanchez (Loretta)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix House Adolescent Drug Treatment Initiative for $564,000 Sessions (Pete), Johnson (Eddie Bernice), McCaul,
Dallas Area Youth, TX Hutchison, Cornyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix House Adolescent Drug Treatment Initiative, $94,000 Israel
Brentwood, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix House, Dallas, TX, for residential substance abuse $94,000 Hutchison, Cornyn, McCaul, Johnson (Eddie Bernice),
treatment for adolescents Sessions (Pete)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix House, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY $173,900 King (Peter), Schumer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Phoenix House, Yorktown, NY $141,000 Hall (John)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Pico Union Housing programs for at-risk youth, Los Angeles, $61,100 Becerra
CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Plaza de la Raza Community Ambassadors Program, Los $141,000 Becerra
Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Police Athletic League Miccio Center in Red Hook, Brooklyn, $94,000 Velazquez
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Prince George's County, MD, Juvenile Justice Center $258,500 Wynn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Program for Court-Involved Youth in Dayton, OH $352,500 Turner, Brown (Sherrod), Voinovich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Project Amiga Transitional Life Skills for At-Risk Youth, $47,000 Solis
South El Monte, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Project Avary, San Rafael, CA $225,600 Pelosi, Woolsey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Project Intercept, Brooklyn, NY $235,000 Weiner, Schumer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Prospect Park Alliance programs for at-risk youth, $470,000 Clarke
Brooklyn, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Prospect Park Yeshiva Save Our Children After School $47,000 Weiner
Program, Brooklyn, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Providence After School Alliance programs for at-risk $423,000 Kennedy (Patrick), Langevin, Reed, Whitehouse
youth, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Quad A for Kids, Rochester, NY $28,200 Slaughter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Quality of Life Center at-risk youth programs, Altadena, CA $188,000 Schiff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Queens Theatre in the Park, Flushing, NY Interventions for $188,000 Ackerman
Juvenile Offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Red River Children's Advocacy Center, Fargo, ND $258,500 Pomeroy, Dorgan, Conrad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Residential Care Consortium, Omaha, NE, for a program for $178,600 Nelson (Ben)
underprivileged, at-risk, and disadvantaged children,
young adults, and their families in a residential care
setting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Richmond Police Activities League One-Stop Youth Center, $423,000 Miller (George)
Richmond, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Richmond Youth Academy, Richmond, CA $188,000 Miller (George)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice RMBL, Richmond, VA $141,000 Scott (Bobby)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Rockland County Youth Bureau Gang Prevention, New Square, $352,500 Hall (John), Engel
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Rosemary Children's Services Positive Results Program, $94,000 Schiff
Pasadena, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Running Rebels Gang Prevention Program, Milwaukee, WI $141,000 Moore (Gwen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Ruth Ellis Center Street Outreach Program, Highland Park, $188,000 Conyers, Kilpatrick, Levin (Sander)
MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Ruth Ellis Center, Highland Park, MI, for an outreach $178,600 Levin (Carl), Conyers, Kilpatrick
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice S&B United Anti-Gang and Anti-Drug Program, Bronx, NY $47,000 Serrano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Safe and Sound, Baltimore, MD, for juvenile delinquency $446,500 Mikulski
prevention through education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Safe Haven After School and Mentoring Program, Columbia, SC $470,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Safe Haven Program, Irvington, NJ $94,000 Payne, Lautenberg, Menendez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice San Antonio Initiative for At-Risk Girls, TX $446,500 Gonzalez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice San Fernando Valley Communities in Schools, Gang $376,000 Berman
Intervention/Juvenile Justice Project, North Hills, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice San Francisco, CA, District Attorney's Office Community $423,000 Pelosi
Response Networks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice San Jose, CA, BEST Gang Intervention Program $493,500 Honda, Lofgren
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sandy City, UT, Police Department Children At-Risk $493,500 Matheson, Bennett
Intervention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34752]]
DOJ-Juv Justice Santa Clara County, CA, Juvenile Detention Evening $364,720 Honda, Lofgren
Reporting Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Save Our Future/Mothers on the March After-School Program, $338,400 Watson
Los Angeles, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Save the Children Rural Literacy Program, Helena, AR $235,000 Berry, Lincoln, Pryor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Save the Children, Washington, DC, for juvenile delinquency $223,250 Lincoln, Pryor
prevention programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Save the Children, Westport, CT, to operate after school $188,000 Domenici, Bingaman
programs in New Mexico communities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Save the Youth After-School and Summer Performing Arts $235,000 Sires, Lautenberg, Menendez
Program for At-Risk Youth, Hoboken, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN, for South Dakota Healthy $156,275 Johnson (Tim)-SD
Communities-Healthy Youth Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sephardic Community Center programs for at-risk youth, $94,000 Weiner
Brooklyn, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Service Over Self, Georgetown, SC $235,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sexual Trauma Recovery Center, Orlando, FL $305,500 Brown (Corrine), Martinez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice SFI Anti-Drug Programs for At-Risk Youth, Bronx, NY $94,000 Serrano
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Shedd Aquarium At-Risk Youth Mentoring Initiative, Chicago, $47,000 Davis (Danny)
IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL, for a juvenile delinquency $401,850 Obama
prevention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota Vocational $47,000 Oberstar
Alternatives for Youth Offenders, Isanti, MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota, Inver Grove Heights, $211,500 Walz
MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota, Marshall MN $235,000 Peterson (Collin), Coleman, Klobuchar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Sheriffs Youth Programs of MN $94,000 Bachman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Solar One Programs for At-Risk Youth, New York, NY $164,500 Maloney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice South Queens Boys & Girls Club, Richmond Hill, NY $282,000 Meeks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice South Sumter, SC Resource Center programs for at-risk youth $282,000 Clyburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Southeastern North Dakota Community Action Agency, Fargo, $352,500 Dorgan, Conrad
ND, to facilitate the coordination of community services
in response to child abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Spectrum Youth and Family Services, Burlington, VT, to $188,000 Leahy, Sanders
expand its services to at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, OR, for upgrades $178,600 Wyden, Smith (Gordon), DeFazio
to school security equipment and technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice St. Joseph's Indian School, Chamberlain, SD, Expand $223,250 Johnson (Tim)-SD, Thune
programs and services for students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Stan Hywet Hall & Gardens' Programs for At-Risk Youth, $282,000 Sutton
Akron, OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice State of Alaska, Juneau, AK, to support coordinate and $197,400 Stevens
train law enforcement officers to teach drug abuse
resistance education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice State of Hawaii, Office of the Attorney General, City of $607,240 Akaka
Honolulu, HI, for continuing improvements to the Juvenile
Justice Information System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice State of Vermont Judiciary, Office of Court Administrator, $350,000 Leahy
Montpelier, VT, to develop a statewide court system that
integrates treatment and other services into the court
process 350,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Stony Point, NY, School Resource Officer $65,800 Hall (John)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice STOP Organization, Norfolk, VA $291,400 Scott (Bobby)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Straight Ahead Ministries Ready4Work, Boston, MA $94,000 Capuano, McGovern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Streetworkers Program, Institute for Study and Practice of $352,500 Kennedy (Patrick), Langevin, Reed, Whitehouse
Nonviolence, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice SUNY Ulster/Bardavon at-risk youth programs, Stone Ridge, $47,000 Hinchey
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice SUNY Ulster/Woodstock at-risk youth programs, Stone Ridge, $28,200 Hinchey
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Team Focus, Inc., Mobile, AL, for a youth mentoring program $517,000 Shelby, Sessions (Jeff), Bonner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Team Focus, Inc., Morgan, TX, to establish a youth $94,000 Hutchison
mentoring program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice TechMission Youth Program, Boston, MA $47,000 McGovern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice TeenMates Mentoring Program, Lincoln, NE, for mentoring $258,500 Nelson (Ben)
services to youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Temple Terrace, FL Phoenix House $564,000 Castor, Bilirakis, Nelson (Bill)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice The Asbury Park Enrichment and Student Success Center, $94,000 Pallone
Lincroft, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice The Beloved Community Family Services, Chicago, IL $305,500 Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice The East End Cooperative Ministry, Pittsburgh, PA $94,000 Doyle, Specter, Casey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice The Paul and Lisa Program, Essex, CT $658,000 Courtney, Lieberman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice The Point Community Development Programs for At-Risk Youth, $141,000 Serrano
NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice The Rock School RockReach Program, Philadelphia, PA $423,000 Sestak, Brady (Robert), Casey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Township of Irvington, Irvington, NJ, for the Youth Safe $437,100 Lautenberg, Menendez, Payne
Haven Police Mini-station program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Township of Maplewood, Maplewood, NJ, for a prevention $89,300 Lautenberg, Menendez, Payne
program for at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Truancy Reduction Initiative, Wayne County, MI $376,000 Conyers, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Twin Cedars Youth Services, Columbus, GA $70,500 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice United Methodist Community Centers PATH Program, Youngstown $235,000 Ryan (Tim)
and Warren, OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice United Way for Southeastern Michigan Juvenile Delinquency $376,000 Knollenberg, Dingell
Prevention Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34753]]
DOJ-Juv Justice University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, for the CU- $312,550 Salazar (Ken)
Boulder Colorado Schools Safety Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice University of Delaware, Newark, DE, to conduct a statewide $58,045 Biden, Carper
survey of delinquent and high risk youth behaviors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice University of Montana, Missoula County, MT, for at-risk $312,550 Baucus, Tester
youth with a focus on suicide prevention, high-risk
behavior and violence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, for domestic $329,000 Shelby
violence reduction programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Urban Dreams U-CARE Project, Des Moines, IA $470,000 Boswell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Urban League of Greater Columbus, GA Youth Advocacy Program $70,500 Bishop (Sanford)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Vermont Department of Children and Families, Waterbury, VT, $714,400 Sanders
for programs to help at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, VT, for an $133,950 Sanders
outreach program for at-risk youth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Visiting Nurse Association, Omaha, NE, for an intervention $223,250 Nelson (Ben)
program for vulnerable women, infants and children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Waukon, IA, High School Youth Intervention Project $79,900 Latham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Wayne County Department of Public Services, Detroit, MI, $347,800 Levin (Carl), Stabenow, Conyers
for a truancy intervention program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Wayne County, MI Juvenile Reentry Initiative $188,000 Conyers, Kilpatrick, Levin (Carl), Stabenow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Westchester Jewish Community Services, NY $282,000 Engel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Western PA CARES, Pittsburgh, PA $188,000 Doyle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Winona State University, Winona, MN, to teach investigators $446,500 Coleman, Klobuchar, Walz, Oberstar
and prosecutors the science of interviewing children
victimized by abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Wittenberg University $343,100 Hobson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Women's Sports Foundation, Chicago, IL, for the GoGirlGo! $526,900 Durbin, Obama
Chicago Initiative, a mentoring, education and development
program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Women's Treatment Center, Chicago, IL, for preservation $230,000 Durbin
services for incarcerated mothers and their children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice World Impact St. Louis, MO, Youth Program $282,000 Clay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice World Impact Youth Gang Prevention, Los Angeles, CA $70,500 Becerra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice World Vision Appalachia at-risk youth programming, $141,000 Mollohan
Moatsville, WV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice YMCA Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, to provide crime prevention $357,200 Inouye
and outreach services to the rural youth of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice YMCA of Greater Houston Juvenile Justice Outreach Program, $446,500 Green (Gene)
TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth, TX $282,000 Granger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice YMCA of Middle Tennessee, Healthy Communities-Healthy Youth $211,500 Cooper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice York County, PA, Children's Advocacy Center $112,800 Platts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Aid Panel/Linkages, Beaver Springs, PA $399,500 Carney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Alternative to Violence and Crime Project, Oakland, $47,000 Lee
CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Crime Watch, Miami, FL $517,000 Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Gang Violence Prevention Initiative, School District $564,000 Wexler, Mahoney
of Palm Beach County, FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Mentoring Program, Burbank, CA $70,500 Schiff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice Programs for At-Risk $141,000 Serrano
Youth, Bronx, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Youth Services System, Inc. at-risk youth program, $94,000 Mollohan
Wheeling, WV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice YouthWorks, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA $47,000 Doyle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice YWCA Children's Services, Seattle-King-Snohomish County, WA $282,000 Inslee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Zero to Three Court Team for Maltreated Infants and $314,900 Pelosi
Toddlers Project, San Francisco, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Zero to Three, for 5th Judicial District, Des Moines, IA, $194,000 Harkin, Grassley
for maltreated infants and toddlers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Zero to Three, Omaha, NE, for maltreated infants and $89,300 Nelson (Ben)
toddlers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-Juv Justice Zero to Three, Orleans Parish, LA, for maltreated infants $89,300 Landrieu
and toddlers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOJ-VAWA Native American/Native Alaskan Liaison Office $2,820,000 Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, for science and education $260,000 Durbin, Kirk, Jackson Jr.
programming for teachers and students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Adler Planetarium's Space Exploration Center $940,000 Kirk, Jackson Jr., Durbin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, to provide a $564,000 Shelby, Cramer
comprehensive, diverse, and flexible pool of talent at
lower labor rates in the civil service environment to
facilitate research and development, studies and analyses
of all areas of higher temperature advanced materials
research and development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Alliance for NanoHealth, Houston, TX, to facilitate the $846,000 Hutchison
translation of nanotechnology from the laboratory to
clinical practice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Sciences in $267,900 Lincoln, Pryor, Boozman
Fayetteville, AR, for research and technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Baylor Physical Sciences Laboratory enhancement at Baylor $658,000 Edwards
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Bio-Info-Nano Research and Development Institute at $282,000 Honda, Eshoo, Feinstein
University of California, Santa Cruz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34754]]
NASA Burlington County College Science Learning Center $1,504,000 Saxton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Center for Sustainable Life Support for Human Space $376,000 Price (David), Dole
Exploration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Chesapeake Information Based Aeronautics Consortium, $3,572,000 Mikulski, Cardin, Cummings, Ruppersberger
Maryland, for a partnership of Morgan State University,
University of Maryland Eastern Shore and Bowie State
University, MD, for continued aviation safety research and
development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, for equipment $267,900 Allard, Salazar (Ken)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Connecticut State University, City of New Britain, CT, for $133,950 Dodd, Lieberman, Larson, Murphy (Christopher)
an initiative to bring greater awareness of mechanical
engineering and aerospace disciplines to disadvantaged
high school students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Development of photovoltaic capacity at Plum Brook Station $1,175,000 Kaptur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Distance learning program at Fairmont State University $846,000 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Educational Advancement Alliance Math, Science, and $1,880,000 Fattah
Technology Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Expansion of the Cimmarusti/NASA Science Center Teacher $235,000 Schiff
Training and Science Education Outreach Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Flight Research Training Center, Roswell, NM, for program $1,786,000 Domenici, Bingaman
to detect, mitigate and recover from loss of control
accidents in aircraft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, for the West $133,950 Levin (Carl), Stabenow
Michigan Science and Technology Institute's Biosciences
Research and Commercialization Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Gulf Coast Exploreum, Mobile, AL, to stimulate increased $235,000 Shelby
enrollment in engineering, mathematics, and science in
Alabama's universities by instructing and inspiring K-12
students in the fundamentals and application of these
fields
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Human-Robot Teams at Texas A&M University $705,000 Edwards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, use earth $141,000 Craig, Crapo, Simpson (Mike)
observations to investigate the effect of land management
decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Imiloa Astronomy Center, Hilo, HI, for operations $1,339,500 Inouye, Hirono
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Independent Verification and Validation research program $540,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Institute for NanoBio Technology, Johns Hopkins University, $1,786,000 Mikulski
Baltimore, MD, for breakthrough research in nano-bio
technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL, for a tool $235,000 Shelby
for educators to allow their students to reach their full
potential through participation in exciting hands on
projects. The projects are dynamic in scope and are
structured to be less time restrictive on the classroom
schedule and the educator though self-directed curriculum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA K-12 Science Education Enhancements at Middle Tennessee $94,000 Gordon
State University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Large Millimeter Telescope at the University of $705,000 Olver
Massachusetts, Amherst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Loma Linda University Space Radiation Health Research $2,444,000 Lewis (Jerry)
Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Manned Space Flight Education Foundation, Houston, TX, to $282,000 Hutchison
bring extensive learning opportunities to teachers,
students and youth organizations throughout our Nation
utilizing educational technology with Web casting, two-way
videoconferencing and the Internet. The program seeks to
inspire the next generation of explorers that would
otherwise never have the opportunity to experience space
exploration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to develop a $1,645,000 Shelby
cost effective nuclear power system to support the long-
range objectives of NASA for missions to the moon, to Mars
and to deep space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to help NASA/ $1,410,000 Shelby
MSFC accomplish its current and future missions by
providing critical information on composite materials as
they relate to the NASA space exploration programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to produce a $1,175,000 Shelby
common intelligent sensor module through the near-term
development of the sensor technologies and integration
algorithms necessary for on-orbit assembly and other AR&D
missions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to provide a $940,000 Shelby
secure, retrievable storage solution for Marshall's Data
Center that will meet all Presidential Directives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to provide $1,175,000 Shelby, Cramer
critical, breakthrough technology to NASA for materials
development, testing, and safety improvements to the Space
Shuttle and Ares launch systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, to support $470,000 Shelby
the ongoing technology maturation program for liquid
oxygen/liquid methane propulsion technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Marshall University, Huntington, WV, to support NASA- $2,232,500 Byrd
related composites training at the Composites Technology
and Training Institute in Bridgeport, WV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, $3,572,000 Mikulski, Cardin
Baltimore, MD, for continued construction of a broadband
link between the Wallops Island Flight Facility and the
Patuxent River Naval Air Station
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA McWane Science Center, Birmingham, AL, for a program will $235,000 Shelby
focus on increasing interest and aptitude in the science
fields in K-12 students through hands-on activities that
will serve as an extension of the classrooms. Teacher
training will also play a major role
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Micronauts Education Simulator at Wheeling Jesuit $282,000 Mollohan
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Mid-Atlantic Cooperative, Danville, VA, for installation of $1,786,000 Warner, Webb
broadband on the Eastern Shore of Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Mid-Atlantic Institute for Space Technology, Pocomoke City, $223,250 Mikulski
MD, for UAV testing and certification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, Wallops Island, VA, for $223,250 Mikulski
infrastructure improvements to launch facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Morehouse College Project Mars Program $188,000 Lewis (John), Johnson (Hank), Chambliss, Isakson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34755]]
NASA Nano/Micro Devices Laboratory at the University of Alabama- $611,000 Cramer
Huntsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NASA Exchange City Learning Lab $188,000 Kennedy (Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, for computer $564,000 Hutchison, Lampson
operations and improvements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law, $2,820,000 Cochran, Lott, Wicker
University, MS, to provide legal research and outreach on
critical space and aviation law issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA National Youth Science Foundation $258,500 Mollohan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, for the $178,600 Bingaman
Southern New Mexico Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and
Aerospace Academy for a space education program to meet
the math and science learning needs of under-represented K-
12 students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Pittsburgh Engineering Initiatives, Pittsburgh, PA, to $267,900 Casey
further development of regenerative treatments for
astronauts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Research on Aviation Training at Middle Tennessee State $470,000 Gordon
University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Robotic Exploration Technologies in Astrobiology, Global $282,000 Honda
Undersea Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Robotics and Exploration Testbed at Marshall Space Center $4,089,000 Aderholt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, for a $178,600 Schumer, Clinton
Integrated Sensing Systems Testbed (ISST) to develop,
demonstrate, and validate advanced techniques for
situational awareness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Science, Engineering, Mathematics and Aerospace Academy at $188,000 Meeks, Schumer, Clinton
York College
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Center at $752,000 Gordon
Tennessee Tech University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO, $846,000 Bond
Enhancement of K-12 teaching and learning of sciences,
math, and technology among schools, teachers, and students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, AL, for the $940,000 Shelby
development of laboratory-based test methods and test
standards for coupon and component level characterization;
development of subcomponent testing capabilities for
material, component and system characterization;
development and qualification of modeling and simulation
techniques for these applications; and development of an
integrated modeling and testing approach for evaluation
and optimization of new material concepts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Space Engineering Institute at Texas A&M University $352,500 Hall (Ralph)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, for immunology $846,000 Bond
research that will complement NASA research on the immune
system in microgravity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Stennis Space Center, MS, to continue a longstanding $3,760,000 Cochran, Lott
technology/industry partnership in assisting in
transitioning space technologies into the commercial
sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Stennis Space Center, MS, to support infrastructure $2,820,000 Cochran
improvements for Crew Exploration Vehicle testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Teach for America, New York, NY to engage teachers in $2,350,000 Mikulski
science, technology, engineering and mathematics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Thurgood Marshall College Fund Minority NASA Science $940,000 Jackson Lee, Norton, Cummings, Meek, Watt
Initiative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, for ongoing applied $446,500 Landrieu, Vitter, Jefferson, Jindal, Melancon
polymer technology research and development that links
NASA with Louisiana's polymer industry and the State's
academic polymer research programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA U.S. Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, AL, for $470,000 Shelby
completion of a long overdue update for the museum and
exhibits will provide a more stimulating and effective
presentation of the history of our nation's space
exploration efforts and will serve to stimulate increased
interest in science and technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, to $1,410,000 Shelby
provide research that will provide both fundamental
insight into the combustion behavior of this fuel with
liquid oxygen which will assist in realizing its full
performance potential and will train the next generation
of propulsion scientists and engineers who will work for
or support NASA in implementing the chosen engine designs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, to conduct the $470,000 Shelby
fundamental and applied research needed to develop
effective near-space technologies for station-keeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, to $446,500 Feinstein, Honda, Eshoo
continue the establishment of the Center at NASA Ames
Research Center in collaboration with UC Santa Cruz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, for technology $1,222,000 McConnell, Yarmuth
that assists trauma victims without immediate access to
emergency medical care, including astronauts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, for $1,786,000 Mikulski, Hoyer, Ruppersberger
environmental remote sensing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Maryland, College Park, MD, for the Maryland $2,679,000 Mikulski, Hoyer, Bartlett
Institute for Dextrous Robotics for the creation of a new
generation robotic technology for space exploration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, to help $1,786,000 Nelson (Ben)
establish a degree program in space and telecommunications
law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, to improve $613,000 Harkin, Grassley, Braley
the use of geospatial data by State and local governments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Redlands Education Technology Program $470,000 Lewis (Jerry)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for the UVM Center $1,700,000 Leahy
for Advanced Computing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium at the University of $2,679,000 Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy
North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, to help make data received
from NASA satellite images accessible to the public for
management decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Utah State University Research Foundation, Logan, UT, To $376,000 Bennett
develop a modern infrared calibration capability for
current and future remote sensing instruments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV, to expand the $2,679,000 Byrd
reach of the HealtheWV program, an electronic medical
records system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34756]]
NASA Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, to improve $329,000 Brownback
facilities and equipment at the National Center for
Advanced Materials Performance (NCAMP), which provides
shared-database methodology addressing material,
structural, manufacturing, and repair qualification
processes for use of affordable polymeric composite
materials in commercial and military applications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Women in Science and Engineering Scholars Program at $188,000 Lewis (John), Chambliss, Isakson
Spelman College
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34757]]
TH17DE07.023
[[Page 34758]]
TH17DE07.024
[[Page 34759]]
TH17DE07.025
[[Page 34760]]
TH17DE07.026
[[Page 34761]]
TH17DE07.027
[[Page 34762]]
AMENDED BILL TOTAL--WITH COMPARISONS
The total new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal
year 2008 provided in the amended bill, with comparisons to
the fiscal year 2007 amount, the 2008 budget estimates, and
the House and Senate bills for 2008 follow:
(In thousands of dollars)
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007.......$52,482,417
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year52,945,491
House bill, fiscal year 2008.................................55,142,430
Senate bill, fiscal year 2008................................57,009,430
Amended bill, fiscal year 2008...............................53,734,969
Amended bill compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007......+1,252,552
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year+789,478
House bill, fiscal year 2008...............................-1,407,461
Senate bill, fiscal year 2008..............................-3,274,461
DIVISION C--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Following is an explanation of the effects of this division
of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764
(hereafter referred to as ``the amended bill'') relative to
the versions of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2641 and S. 1751) passed by
the House of Representatives and reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
The language and allocations set forth in House Report 110-
185 and Senate Report 110-127 should be complied with unless
specifically addressed to the contrary in the amended bill
and explanatory statement. Report language included by the
House which is not contradicted by the report of the Senate
or the explanatory statement, and Senate report language
which is not contradicted by the report of the House or the
explanatory statement, is approved. The explanatory
statement, while repeating some report language for emphasis,
does not intend to negate the language referred to above
unless expressly provided herein. In cases where both the
House report and Senate report address a particular issue not
specifically addressed in the amended bill or explanatory
statement, the House report and Senate report are not
inconsistent and are to be interpreted accordingly. In cases
in which the House or Senate have directed the submission of
a report, such report is to be submitted to both House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
The summary tables included in this title set forth the
dispositions with respect to the individual appropriations,
projects and activities of the Corps of Engineers. Additional
items of the amended bill are discussed below.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION
The Appropriations Committees agree that continued
improvements in the Corps' program management and execution
are necessary and appropriate; previous direction regarding
these areas is refined. The civilian and military leadership
of the Corps of Engineers should continue to manage the Corps
of Engineers and the Civil Works program in a manner
consistent with Congressional intent.
Fiscal year 2008 budget initiatives.--The Administration's
proposals to appropriate the Operations and Maintenance
account on a regional basis and to migrate four categories of
projects from the Construction account to the Operations and
Maintenance account are rejected. The Appropriations
Committees support a systemized budget for operating
projects; however, the Corps has not yet demonstrated the
value of this approach. The Corps is directed to prepare four
systemized, integrated budgets for four different areas of
the Nation--the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas coast,
and the California coast--to demonstrate the value of system
or watershed planning and budgeting. Further, the Corps is
directed to develop a comprehensive capital expense policy to
distinguish clearly between activities that should be
considered routine maintenance and those that should be
considered a capital expense consistent with industry
practices. Capital improvements are appropriately budgeted in
the Construction account; routine activities associated with
the upkeep of existing projects budgeted in the Operations
and Maintenance account.
Five-year comprehensive budget planning.--The Corps is
directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations concurrent with each annual budget hereafter
an updated five-year comprehensive development plan.
Emphasis on expenditures.--Recent changes to the Corps
budgeting and contracting policies have resulted in the
carryover of higher levels of funding from year to year.
While the Appropriations Committees agree that there are
circumstances which will necessitate obligated carryover, the
Corps is directed to minimize unobligated carryover to the
extent practicable. This direction should not be viewed as a
method or excuse to reprogram funds liberally between
projects or activities, but rather an admonition to the Corps
to estimate capabilities accurately and execute projects
within baseline scope and schedules.
Reprogramming.--The amended bill includes new reprogramming
guidance for the Corps of Engineers which provides additional
flexibility to meet existing obligations and unforeseen
operations and maintenance needs. This additional flexibility
is given as a result of the Corps efforts to tighten fiscal
management of its program and in recognition of the dynamic
nature of civil works project execution. This additional
flexibility will be reconsidered should the Corps return to
its cavalier approach to baseline schedules and budgets and
Congressional intent. The guidance contained herein
supersedes all previous Congressional direction with respect
to all available balances in the Corps' accounts. For the
purposes of carrying out this section, a reprogramming of
funds is defined as any reallocation of funds into or from a
line item set forth in the tables accompanying this Act. In
no case shall a reprogramming for less than $50,000 be
submitted to the Committees for approval.
Not later than 60 days following the enactment of this Act,
the Corps shall submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations to establish the baseline for
application of reprogramming and transfer authorities for the
current fiscal year. That report shall contain a table for
each appropriation, showing among other items, each program,
project and activity in each appropriation. For each day
after the required date that the report has not been
submitted to Congress, the amount appropriated for salaries
and expenses of the Corps of Engineers shall be reduced by
$100,000 per day. In addition, the Corps is directed to
provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations detailing all projects from which and to
which funds were reprogrammed pursuant to the authorities
provided in this Act. The report shall also include reasons
for the transfers of funds. The thresholds contained in
section 101 shall apply to cumulative totals on a project-by-
project basis.
Continuing contracts.--The amended bill includes the same
legislative provision carried in fiscal year 2006 making
continuing contracts optional rather than mandatory. The
Appropriations Committees continue to believe that the
continuing contract has a role; however, Congress should not
mandate the use of any specific contracting mechanism given
the vastly varied scope of projects executed by the Corps of
Engineers.
The amended bill also includes a provision that prohibits
the use of funds to execute any new continuing contract, or
modifications to an existing contract, that commits an amount
for a project in excess of the amounts appropriated for such
project or otherwise available through legitimate
reprogramming or carryover.
The Appropriations Committees are aware of eight instances
where this limitation resulted in contract bid protests
during fiscal year 2007. While this number of protests is not
significant in the context of the thousands of contracts the
Corps issues every year, the issues surrounding continuing
contracts remain of concern. Consequently, the GAO is
directed to study continuing contracts issued with the new
clause to determine whether its use has resulted in a
quantifiable adverse impact to the Corps program, either in
terms of price, competition or execution. Should the study,
or other relevant information, show an adverse impact, this
policy will be reconsidered in future years.
Further, the Corps is directed to provide a report, no
later than May 1, 2008, to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations describing the overall effects, both positive
and negative, of this new policy in relation to the Corps'
ability to execute the Civil Works mission. Additionally, the
report should include any recommendations for changes or
improvements to this policy if necessary and appropriate.
The commitment to reevaluate this policy in the future does
not in any way change the existing direction that the Corps
use continuing contracts only where they are justified. Once
issued, these contracts should be managed to existing and
realistically expected future year appropriations. Under no
circumstance should the contractor be allowed to dictate the
pace of expenditures; the Corps as the contracting agent
holds this responsibility.
The Appropriations Committees restate the House direction
that the Corps develop criteria and standards for the use of
continuing contracts as well as examine alternatives to this
contracting mechanism.
Study and project policy reviews.--The Chief of Engineers
is directed to work with the ASA(CW) and OMB to develop a
plan to complete study and project policy compliance reviews
as expeditiously as possible and forward the recommendations
of these reports
[[Page 34763]]
to Congress. This plan should be presented to the appropriate
House and Senate Appropriations and authorizing Committees no
later than March 31, 2008. The Corps shall complete reviews
of all documents no later than December 31, 2008.
INVESTIGATIONS
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
The amended bill provides $167,261,000 for Investigations,
instead of $120,000,000 as proposed by the House and
$172,147,000 as proposed by the Senate and includes a
$100,000 rescission as proposed by the House.
The allocation for projects and activities within the
Investigations account is shown in the following table:
[[Page 34764]]
TH17DE07.028
[[Page 34765]]
TH17DE07.029
[[Page 34766]]
TH17DE07.030
[[Page 34767]]
TH17DE07.031
[[Page 34768]]
TH17DE07.032
[[Page 34769]]
TH17DE07.033
[[Page 34770]]
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
The Appropriations Committees remain supportive of this
effort; however, due to large unobligated balances,
$2,952,000 is provided, rather than the budget request of
$13,000,000. The Science and Technology line item under this
study is not funded and the Corps is directed not to include
this line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget. This line item
appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal agencies to
undertake science activities that are not being funded within
those agencies. If the Administration believes this is
worthwhile science, then they should budget for this work
under the appropriate agency. Any funds from the fiscal year
2007 allocation that remain unexpended in the Science and
Technology line should be utilized on advancing the study,
not on science activities.
Blackstone River Watershed Restoration, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island.--Funding in the amount of $98,000 is included
for the ongoing feasibility study and $99,000 is included to
study recent flooding in Rhode Island.
Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.--The funds provided are to be used to complete the
supplement to the reconnaissance report of the Great Lakes
St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on a
previous agreement between the Secretary, the Ministry of
Transportation Canada, and the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Transportation, is to be limited in scope to
evaluating the economic, engineering and environmental
impacts of maintaining the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at
current size, draft and length of locks. The Secretary is
directed to complete the supplemental report by September
2008, after which Congress, interested State and Federal
agencies, and the public shall review the report for one year
to determine whether additional study is warranted.
Chief's Twelve Actions.--Funding is not included for this
item. The Appropriations Committees believe that the
activities proposed in the budget request for this line item
should be incorporated into the various funded planning
activities that the Corps has underway.
National Shoreline Study.--Additional funds have been
provided above the budget request for the National Planning
Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction to
develop a process for managing shore protection projects as
part of a systems approach to coastal protection for the
purpose of achieving improved project performance, increased
cost effectiveness, and enhanced benefits.
Reprogramming Payback.--Funding under this heading includes
$4,526,000 to meet prior reprogramming obligations identified
by the Corps of Engineers. This funding provides the full
amount for all paybacks in this account; any additional
requirements are the sole responsibility of the Corps.
CONSTRUCTION
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)
The amended bill provides $2,294,029,000 for Construction,
instead of $2,004,186,000 as proposed by the House and
$2,059,474,000 as proposed by the Senate and includes the
$4,688,000 of rescissions as proposed by the House.
The allocation for the projects and activities within the
Construction account is shown in the following table:
[[Page 34771]]
TH17DE07.034
[[Page 34772]]
TH17DE07.035
[[Page 34773]]
TH17DE07.036
[[Page 34774]]
TH17DE07.037
[[Page 34775]]
TH17DE07.038
[[Page 34776]]
TH17DE07.039
[[Page 34777]]
TH17DE07.040
[[Page 34778]]
TH17DE07.041
[[Page 34779]]
TH17DE07.042
[[Page 34780]]
Santa Ana River mainstem, California.--Funding in addition
to the budget request for this project is included to
continue studies to ascertain the nature and extent of water
quality degradation in the Santa Ana River resulting from the
construction and operation of Seven Oaks Dam and to amend the
Seven Oaks Dam water control plan in light of current
conditions and requirements.
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise),
California.--Within the funds provided for this project,
$14,000,000 is for completion of the bridge.
Dade County (Miami-Dade), Florida.--The Appropriations
Committees are aware of the ongoing study by the Corps to
determine the availability of a domestic source of sand for
the Miami-Dade Project, which was directed and funded by the
Appropriations Committees in fiscal year 1999. The Committees
continue to have concerns over the lack of finalization of
this study and thereby direct the Corps to identify a
compatible sand source for the project using previously
appropriated funds no later than March 1, 2008.
Modified Waters Delivery Plan, Florida.--The Appropriations
Committees recognize the national importance of this project,
but are concerned about the open-ended scope and the
increasing costs for the Corps participation in this project.
When the project was authorized in 1989, the plan was to
utilize the culverts under the Tamiami Trail to provide the
needed flows to Everglades National Park. The next plan was a
3,000 foot opening in the Tamiami Trail. Now various bridge
options are being considered.
Another option under consideration is raising the water
level in the L-29 canal, utilizing the culverts to provide
the flows and raising the low spots on the Tamiami Trail. The
Appropriations Committees are concerned that this constantly
changing endpoint for completion of Mod Waters is delaying
the Corps from undertaking critical Everglades restoration
projects authorized under the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan.
Funds provided for Everglades restoration include
$9,840,000 for this project in fiscal year 2008. This is the
Corps' full stated capability and is based on the apparent
disarray in determining exactly what will be accomplished in
fiscal year 2008. The Corps is directed to use this funding
to improve flows through the culverts under the Tamiami
Trail. Any use of these funds for other activities requires a
reprogramming request and House and Senate Appropriations
Committee approval. Within 90 days of enactment, the Corps is
directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations its plan for completion of its role in the
Modified Waters Delivery Plan, providing a final project
scope and identifying, not only Corps funding requirements,
but also corresponding contributions from the Department of
Interior and State of Florida.
To most effectively utilize the funding provided to the
Corps of Engineers for the Modified Waters Delivery project
in fiscal year 2008, the Committees on Appropriations expect
that the Department of Interior will provide funding to match
or exceed that provided to the Corps this fiscal year. The
Committees further expect that the Department of Interior
share of the project costs will not be provided in the form
of in-kind services or credit for work previously performed.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--
Neither funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project
nor funds available within this account are available to
reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
Muddy River, Boston, and Brookline, Massachusetts.--Funding
is included to continue project design and construction,
including ecosystem restoration features, of the Muddy River
Project in Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Upper Mississippi Restoration, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri and Wisconsin.--Funding included for this activity
shall be available only to continue ongoing design and
construction projects and shall not be available to initiate
new construction projects.
Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.--
Within the funds provided, the Corps is directed to make
modifications to the Intake Dam to provide additional habitat
for the pallid sturgeon.
Southeast Louisiana project, Louisiana.--No funding is
provided for this project. It is the understanding of the
Appropriations Committees that legislation and funding will
be proposed in the forthcoming Administration supplemental
request.
Bois Brule drainage and levee district, Missouri.--Funding
is provided for continuing work related to this project.
Legislative text is included in the bill that reallocates the
unexpended balance of $597,000 from the terminated continuing
authorities project at Bois Brule, Missouri.
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Hurricane and Storm
Protection Project, New Jersey.--Within the funds provided,
$65,000 is available to evaluate the use of periodic
backpassing of sand as part of the Townsends Inlet to Cape
May Inlet shore protection project.
Atlantic Coast of NYC, Rockaway inlet to Norton Point, New
York.--Funding is provided for continuing work related to
this project. Further, legislative text is included in the
bill that reallocates the unexpended balance of $881,000 from
engineering and design activities that are complete.
Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The original health care
facility for the Three Affiliated Tribes was permanently
inundated due to the impoundment of Lake Sakakawea. A
replacement health care facility was promised but never
constructed. Legislative text has been included in the bill
that directs the Corps to construct this replacement
facility. Funding is provided in the amount of $2,952,000 for
design of the replacement health care facility. The Corps
should work closely with the Indian Health Service and the
Three Affiliated Tribes on the design and construction of
this facility. The Corps is directed to utilize the expertise
in their military programs office for this project.
North Dakota (Environmental Infrastructure), North
Dakota.--Funding provided under this heading includes
$5,904,000 for work related to the replacement of the Devils
Lake Water supply pipeline. Legislative text is included in
the bill that reallocates the unexpended balance of
$4,972,000 from the Devils Lake outlet to this project.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South
Dakota.--The Appropriations Committees note that title IV of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
53 as amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative
expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans,
activities associated with land transferred or to be
transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational
areas. Funding under this heading includes $3,936,000 for
this effort. Within the funds provided, not more than
$1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative expenses. The
Corps is directed to distribute the remaining funds as
directed by title IV to the State of South Dakota, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
Central City, Fort Worth, Texas.--The Appropriations
Committees continue to be interested in the efficiencies and
additional benefits potentially available from reformulation
of the project now underway by the Corps of Engineers. The
funds provided for this project are to be used to pursue
design and construction of the authorized project,
maintaining schedule commitments, while capturing the
efficiencies and benefits from the reformulation effort.
Further, the Corps is expected to incorporate all changes
resulting from the reformulation as soon as they are
identified. Additionally, the Corps is directed to consider
the planned, complementary efforts of other Federal agencies,
state and local governments in the project area that are, or
will be, in place as it defines the reformulated Central City
project.
Lake Champlain Watershed Initiative.--Funding in the amount
of $2,460,000 is provided for the continuation of this
project. Legislative text is included in the bill that
reallocates the unexpended balance of $1,500,000 from the
completed Waterbury Dam Seepage Correction repairs to this
project.
Levisa and Tug Forks & Upper Cumberland River, West
Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--Funding under this heading
includes $28,290,000 for this project. Within the amounts
provided, $4,920,000 shall be for elements of the project in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky; $5,166,000 shall be available
for the Commonwealth of Virginia elements of the project; and
$18,204,000 shall be for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell
County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia.
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program.--The Appropriations Committees understand that this
program was considerably expanded and modified in the recent
Water Resources Development Act. Therefore, the amended bill
includes legislative text to extend the duration of this
program so that the Corps can continue monitoring of
completed projects and finish work on projects, where
possible with previously appropriated funds. No new funds are
provided.
Reprogramming Payback.--Funds are provided to meet
reprogramming obligations identified by the Corps of
Engineers under this account. The Corps shall analyze
existing obligations giving priority to project completion
and useful increments of work. The Corps shall coordinate the
allocation of these funds with the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. Provision of this funding is
intended to assist the Corps in meeting obligations made to
Members of Congress and local sponsors. It does not in any
way lessen the Corps' responsibility of meeting commitments
made to repay ``borrowed'' funds.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
The Appropriations Committees remain concerned with the
management of the Continuing Authorities Program. While
progress has been made in gaining an understanding of
existing obligations and the inventory of unfinished
projects, the Corps must continue to refine its policies and
approach to this program. The Appropriations Committees are
frustrated by the level of Congressional oversight required
of a program that remains a small part of the Corps' Civil
Works Program. The Appropriations Committees are
[[Page 34781]]
particularly disturbed that, despite clear guidance
restricting the Corps from initiating new projects without
the consent or direction of Congress, more than 40 projects
were initiated during the Fiscal Year 2007 Continuing
Resolution. Until such time as the Corps can demonstrate that
the inventory of unfinished projects associated with this
program has been sufficiently reduced to allow new investment
decisions, the Appropriations Committees fail to see the
wisdom in making further commitments to non-federal sponsors
which cannot be met. Consequently, the Corps is directed not
to initiate or restart any Section 205, 206 or 1135 project
which has not been named in a conference report from fiscal
year 2002-2008. The term ``restart'' shall mean funding any
project that had received funding before fiscal year 2002 but
not since. The Corps may only initiate new projects in the
remaining authorities subject to meeting existing project
requirements and determining that the program appropriation
levels can support additional investment.
The prohibition on executing new cost sharing agreements is
not extended to fiscal year 2008; however, approval authority
for all cost share agreements shall be maintained by the
Chief of Engineers. This authority cannot be delegated.
The Corps is directed to terminate all continuing
authorities projects that have not received funding or have
not been named specifically in a conference report during the
period of fiscal year 2002-2008. Not later than 30 days after
enactment, the Corps shall forward a report summarizing the
inventory of active but unfinished projects, by authority, to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The report also shall summarize the review process that the
Corps intends to follow to reclassify unfinished projects to
better control and manage the inventory of unfinished
projects over time. The position of the non-federal sponsor
shall be considered in this process. Should the sponsor
remain interested in pursuing a project that has been
terminated or proposed for termination, the sponsor should
officially re-affirm its support for the project and
establish that it is a willing and capable sponsor with the
financial capability to execute the project, including the
ability to obtain required real estate necessary for the
implementation of the project. Lacking such re-affirmation by
the non-federal sponsor, the project should be or remain
terminated. This action should be taken only as a method to
assess accurately the inventory of unfinished projects in the
program. Any projects in Sections 205, 206, or 1135 that had
been terminated but that are re-affirmed by the non-federal
sponsor may not be initiated or restarted without the
explicit consent of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. Not later than 180 days after enactment, the
Corps shall forward a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations summarizing the results of the
first iteration of the reclassification review.
The Corps is directed to maintain an approximately 80-20
percent split between the Design and Implementation (D&I)
phase and the Feasibility phase within each authority. This
split should be considered a guideline only, as there may be
specific circumstances that require a slightly different
weighting.
In the following tables, two categories of projects are
included: projects with a specific funding amount designated
by Congress for fiscal year 2008; and projects the Corps may
consider for funding after the first category of projects is
addressed. The Corps shall prioritize the second category of
projects (i.e., those listed without dollar amounts) based on
the following criteria:
Priorities for Design and Implementation (D&I) Phase:
1. D&I work for continuing projects that have executed
PCAs.
2. D&I funding for projects approved by Corps Headquarters
to execute a PCA.
3. D&I work which does not require executed agreements
(e.g. continuing or pre-PCA design) for ongoing projects.
4. D&I funding for projects with approved Feasibility
Reports moving into D&I.
Priorities for Feasibility Phase:
1. Feasibility phase funding for projects with executed
FCSAs.
2. Feasibility phase funding for projects approved by Corps
Headquarters to execute a FCSA.
3. Feasibility phase work which does not require a FCSA for
ongoing projects.
4. Feasibility phase funding for initiations or restarts.
Within the last-funded priority level within the D&I and
Feasibility phases, if the projects qualifying for funding
exceed the available funding, funds shall be allocated based
on project outputs and the non-federal sponsor's ability to
meet local obligations.
Remaining funds, if any, may be allocated to additional
projects in accordance with the aforementioned priorities,
except that remaining funds for Section 14 projects shall be
allocated to the most urgently needed projects.
For all projects that receive a specific dollar amount, the
Corps shall make this funding available for a period of two
years, after which time the funding may be used to meet other
project requirements. The funds may also be used to meet
other requirements upon termination of these projects. The
Corps shall also make available for two years from enactment
of this Act any project funds remaining from Congressional
direction in fiscal year 2006.
The Chief of Engineers should provide a report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of
enactment of this Act detailing how funds will be distributed
to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the
fiscal year. The Chief should also provide an annual report
at the end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on
the backlog of projects. The report should include the
completions and terminations as well as progress of on-going
work. The Appropriations Committees are willing to work with
the Corps on any reforms that they might suggest to improve
this program.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
The amended bill provides $387,402,000 for Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T), instead of $278,000,000 as
proposed by the House and $375,000,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
The allocation for projects and activities within the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account is shown in the
following table:
[[Page 34782]]
TH17DE07.043
[[Page 34783]]
MR&T CONSTRUCTION
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Additional
funds above the budget request shall be used for the
following activities: $6,691,000 for the New Madrid levee
closure and box culvert and mitigation land acquisition;
continue Item 2, award contracts for Reid-Bedford-King, Item
424-L; Magna Vista-Brunswick, Item 468-L; Bayou Vidal-
Elkridge, Item 421-R; Carrollton Levee Enlargement; continue
Floodway assessments; Trotters, Mississippi, relief wells;
Wilson, Arkansas, relief wells; Cairo, Illinois, Grade Raise
and complete LMRMRIS.
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, Mississippi.--Funding under
this heading includes $246,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
design and construct a multi-agency wildlife and
environmental interpretative and education center in the
South Delta area of the State of Mississippi.
It is the intent of Congress that the conservation easement
as stated in the Real Estate Plan section of the draft 2000
Yazoo Backwater reformulation report be acquired for the non-
structural flood damage reduction component of the project.
The conservation easement is to be used as a flood damage
reduction measure and is adequate for the Yazoo Backwater
Project. The Chief of Engineers, acting by and through the
Vicksburg District, is directed to proceed with real estate
activities as may be accomplished in advance of final project
approval.
MR&T OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--Funding under this heading
includes $6,396,000, in addition to the budget request, to
address actions related to the relocation of U.S. Highway 67
necessary as a result of changes to the operation of the
project. The Appropriations Committees direct the Corps to
budget fully for the remaining cost of relocations that have
resulted from changes to the operation of the project.
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Funds
provided above the budget request are for gravel surfacing of
selected locations along roads on top of levees in Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Louisiana to ensure all-weather access for
flood response and backlog maintenance.
Additional funding is also included to address the
maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada
Lakes in Mississippi.
Collection and Study of Basic Data.--Funds provided under
this heading include $1,378,000 for these efforts. Funds
provided above the budget request are for LIDAR mapping to be
undertaken in the Delta portion of Mississippi.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The amended bill provides $2,243,637,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, instead of $2,655,241,000 as proposed by the
House and $2,291,971,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The allocation for projects and activities within the
Operation and Maintenance account is shown in the following
table:
[[Page 34784]]
TH17DE07.044
[[Page 34785]]
TH17DE07.045
[[Page 34786]]
TH17DE07.046
[[Page 34787]]
TH17DE07.047
[[Page 34788]]
TH17DE07.048
[[Page 34789]]
TH17DE07.049
[[Page 34790]]
TH17DE07.050
[[Page 34791]]
TH17DE07.051
[[Page 34792]]
TH17DE07.052
[[Page 34793]]
TH17DE07.053
[[Page 34794]]
TH17DE07.054
[[Page 34795]]
TH17DE07.055
[[Page 34796]]
TH17DE07.056
[[Page 34797]]
TH17DE07.057
[[Page 34798]]
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--
Funding under this heading includes $27,599,000 for this
project. Funds above the budget request are provided for the
construction of mooring cells near Columbus, Mississippi, for
safety of tows tying up during high water levels and lock
closure at Whitten and Stennis Locks due to dam safety
issues.
McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.--An additional $2,534,000 is provided, above
the budget request, to begin Planning, Engineering and Design
(PED) for the Arkansas/White Cutoff project and to complete
repairs on the south end of the Jim Smith Lake Structure.
Dry Creek (Warm Springs) lake and channel, California.--
Within the funds provided for this project, $102,000 shall be
available to update the inundation maps for the project and
$544,000 for hatchery requirements.
San Francisco Bay Harbor, California.--Within the funds
provided, $394,000 is to advance the Ocean Beach Nourishment
project.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--In
addition to the budget request, funds are included for
continued repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way
is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and
property accountability policies. The Appropriations
Committees understand that the State of Colorado has agreed
to cost share this project on a 50-50 basis and that the
Secretary is not to assume any share in the future of the
operation and maintenance of these recreation facilities.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.--In addition to the budget request,
funds are included for repairs to the Summit Bridge.
Mississippi River Project (MVR), Illinois.--Within the
funds provided, $148,000 is provided for Mill Creek South
Slough, Illinois.
Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.--Dredging activities for
this project should place priority on the Bailly intake pipe
area.
Great Lakes Navigation, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.--
Within the funds provided under this heading, $6,544,000 is
included to execute backlog dredging at commercial navigation
projects within the Great Lakes. This funding shall be
allocated based on maximizing transportation cost savings,
taking into account relationships among harbors. The Corps
shall coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as well as other interested parties in
allocating this funding.
Clinton Lake, Kansas.--Funding provided under this heading
includes $692,000, in addition to the budget request, for the
dam toe road access and dam road repairs.
Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The
Appropriations Committees note that Lake Cumberland has been
drastically lowered for on-going seepage/stability correction
repairs to Wolf Creek Dam. Additional funds provided above
the budget request are for pool-lowering mitigation features.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana.--Funds above the
budget request are provided for additional maintenance
activities associated with the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal
Lock.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--Funding provided
under this heading includes additional funds for bank
stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes,
routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging
requirements, and backlog maintenance.
Michigan Harbors, Michigan.--The Appropriations Committees
note that there are some 30 federally maintained harbors in
Michigan; however, fewer than 10 are budgeted. The
Appropriations Committees have attempted to provide for some
of the dredging needs of the State. However, recognizing that
conditions at these harbors are constantly changing and that
the Great Lakes are continuing to suffer from historic low
water levels, the Corps is directed to propose a dredging
program for fiscal year 2008 that would most effectively
utilize the scarce funds available for these harbor projects.
This plan should be presented within 30 days of enactment of
this Act as a reprogramming action for approval by the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--
Funding provided under this heading includes $492,000 to
develop an outline for an integrated management plan of the
Rio Grande in New Mexico in cooperation with the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--Funding
provided under this heading includes $197,000 for mosquito
control and $935,000 for the Corps to work in cooperation
with the Friends of Lake Sakakawea to ensure the recreation
sites around the lake can be utilized.
Ohio River Navigation, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia.--Funding provided
under this heading includes $2,804,000 to meet the needs
identified in the Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation
System Five-Year Development Perspective. The Corps shall
allocate this funding on a systems basis taking into account
the level of funding and urgent requirements of the
navigation system. The Corps shall report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the allocation of the
funds.
Willamette Falls Lock, Oregon.--Additional funding is
provided above the budget request for continued operations of
the lock.
However, the Appropriations Committees have recently become
aware of safety and stability concerns with this more than
100 year old multi-chambered lock that primarily serves
recreational interests. However, these concerns, and their
concomitant funding requirements were raised with the
Appropriations Committees after a final agreement had been
reached on the Corps of Engineers funding. Further, the
information provided by the Corps was grossly inadequate for
the Appropriations Committees to make informed decisions
which balance competing needs across the Nation. The Corps is
therefore directed to initiate the Hydraulic Steel Structure
Investigation (HSSI) utilizing the funds provided herein for
this project. The Corps should also evaluate the Operation
and Maintenance account and determine what non-essential
activities may be deferred in the Corps' Northwestern
Division to fund completion of this study in fiscal year
2008. The Corps is also instructed to work with local
interests to determine what additional funding may be
available from state and local sources. The Corps will report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations once it
has identified additional funding sources, but not later than
45 days after enactment of this Act. Upon completion of the
HSSI, the Corps shall report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on measures to be taken to
address any safety and stability issues to maintain the
operation and the associated costs of these measures. The
Appropriations Committees are aware that the safety and
stability issues for the lock may prohibit operation of the
lock during calendar year 2008.
Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.--Within the funds provided,
$98,000 is to complete necessary document preparation to
allow clearance to the authorized 40-foot depth.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South
Dakota.--The Appropriations Committees note that title VI of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 requires that
funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic
sites along the Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry
out the terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be
provided from the Operation and Maintenance account. Funding
under this heading includes $2,804,000 to protect cultural
resource sites and provide funding to the State and tribes
for approved restoration and stewardship plans and, in
compliance with the requirements of title VI. The Corps is
directed to contract with or reimburse the State of South
Dakota and affected tribes to carry out these duties.
Waco Lake, Texas.--The funding under this heading includes
$1,433,000 for this project, in addition to the budget
request, for the replacement of failing water delivery
systems and for necessary repairs resulting from recent
flooding.
Whitney Lake, Texas.--In addition to the budget request,
$1,908,000 is provided for Ham Creek and $940,000 is provided
for necessary repairs resulting from recent flooding.
Town Bluff Dam, Texas.--Additional funding is provided for
improvements at Campers Cove, Sandy Creek, and East End.
Chinook, Head of Sand Island and Baker Bay, Washington.--
The Appropriations Committees note the proximity of Corps
navigation facilities on the Columbia River between Chinook
and the Head of Sand Island, Washington, and at Baker Bay,
Washington, and encourage the Corps of Engineers to seek ways
to achieve cost savings and efficiency, such as by utilizing
appropriate contracting methods while having these two
projects be considered together when seeking bids and
awarding contracts.
Mud Mountain Dam, Washington--Within the funds provided,
the Corps is directed to use up to $903,000 to satisfy
Federal fish passage obligations for the term of the
cooperative agreement with Puget Sound Energy.
Ohio River Locks & Dams, West Virginia, Kentucky & Ohio--
Additional funding is provided for recreation improvements at
Parkersburg.
Fox River, Wisconsin--Additional funds above the budget
request are to reimburse the State of Wisconsin, in
accordance with the agreement, for the costs of repairs and
rehabilitation of the transferred locks and for the Corps of
Engineers to undertake major repairs for the dams and
associated infrastructure.
Lake Superior Small Harbor Dredging, Wisconsin--Additional
funding is included to respond to maintenance needs of small
harbors on Lake Superior.
Chief's Twelve Actions--Funding under this heading includes
$2,481,000 for this item. The Appropriations Committees
believe that these funds can serve to make significant
improvements to the way the Corps administers completed
projects to account for changed conditions since
construction.
National Coastal Mapping--Additional funds provided above
the budget request are for LIDAR bathymetry for use in
regional sediment management and for Coastal Zone Mapping and
Imaging LIDAR/LASER to be conducted in cooperation with the
University of Southern Mississippi.
[[Page 34799]]
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
The amended bill provides no funding for Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies, instead of $40,000,000 as proposed by
the House and $50,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $180,000,000 for Regulatory
programs and activities as proposed by both the House and
Senate.
The Appropriations Committees are concerned that the Corps
is not completing regulatory approvals and Environmental
Impact Reports (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statements
(EIS) in an expeditious manner. The Appropriations Committees
urge the Corps of Engineers to ensure a 12-month time frame
for completion of all EIR/EIS and to undertake other
improvements that would expedite regulatory processes, such
as requiring an EIR/EIS on major dredge and fill projects
only, and expediting or waiving superfluous review at the
division level.
The Corps is directed to work with the Office of Surface
Mining (OSM) to develop a more efficient process for
expediting permit decisions associated with surface coal
mining operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and
duplication of agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the
availability of a meaningful general permit for surface coal
mining that may be issued in coordination with and for the
term of the permit already required pursuant to the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The Corps should
also dedicate sufficient personnel and financial resources to
support a consistent program for permit review and issuance.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
The amended bill provides $140,000,000 for Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program as proposed by the
Senate, instead of $130,000,000 as proposed by the House. The
Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing
completion and initiate cleanup expeditiously for the former
Sylvania nuclear fuel site in Hicksville, New York.
Legislative language is included in the bill providing an
additional disposal option for FUSRAP waste.
EXPENSES
The amended bill provides $175,046,000 for Expenses as
proposed by the Senate, instead of $171,000,000 as proposed
by the House.
The Appropriations Committees are concerned that oversight
of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program is being
negatively impacted by tight personnel funding in this
account. Accordingly, additional funds have been provided in
this account to allow the Corps' Headquarters Office to hire
additional personnel to help perform oversight functions.
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
The amended bill provides $4,500,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as proposed by
the Senate, instead of $6,000,000 as proposed by the House.
The amended bill provides only salaries and expenses as in
previous years.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The amended bill includes a provision proposed by both the
House and Senate relating to reception and representation
expenses and the replacement and hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The amended bill modifies a provision contained in both the
House and Senate bills relating to reprogramming.
The amended bill includes a provision proposed by the House
that limits the availability of funds for certain continuing
contracts.
The amended bill includes a provision prohibiting
implementation of competitive sourcing or High Performing
Organization, as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained a similar provision.
The amended bill includes a provision prohibiting the Corps
from divesting or transferring Civil Works functions as
proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill modifies a provision concerning report
notifications as proposed by the Senate. The House bill
contained no similar provision.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning
reallocations of Lake Cumberland, Kentucky, as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision allowing the use of
the revolving fund for construction of two buildings at the
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Design Center as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning in-kind
services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study as proposed
by the Senate. The provision allows for local sponsors of
this project to be reimbursed for overpayment of the non-
Federal share of the costs of the study.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding the Middle
Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico, as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning the
conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi,
as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill modifies a provision relating to section
594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 as
proposed by the Senate. The provision provides authority for
North Dakota to be eligible for environmental infrastructure
assistance.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding the Kahuku
Storm Damage Reduction Project, Hawaii, as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision related to the
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision related to
congressional budget justifications as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding a
replacement health care facility at Lake Sakakawea, North
Dakota.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning
reimbursement for expenses incurred by locals carrying out
portions of authorized Federal flood and storm damage
reduction projects as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding Johnson
Creek, Texas, as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding
reimbursements as proposed by the Senate. This provision
increases the limits allowed on certain reimbursements for
work undertaken by local interests.
The amended bill includes a provision on the Coronado,
California, project as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision for the Navajo
Reservation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico, project as
proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning the
visitor reservation services for Corps of Engineers
recreation sites as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning the
Marshall, Minnesota, project as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a modified provision concerning
the St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, Missouri, Project.
The provision reaffirms the recent District Court decision
concerning the economic feasibility and non-separability of
the project as currently described in the June 2002 Revised
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and further
supplemented by the March 2006 Revised Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement 2.
The amended bill includes a provision allowing funds
provided in Public Law 110-28 to be utilized for the purposes
for which they were appropriated as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision relating to the Cedar
Hammock (Wares Creek), Florida, project.
The amended bill includes a provision relating to the
Manatee Harbor, Florida, project.
The amended bill includes a provision relating to
continuing contracts. This provision was carried in the
fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations conference
report.
The amended bill includes a provision relating to the
Terminus Dam, California, project.
The amended bill includes a provision providing an
additional disposal option for FUSRAP waste.
The amended bill includes a provision relating to the cost
share of the American and Sacramento Rivers, California,
project.
The amended bill includes a provision relating to the White
River Navigation project.
The amended bill includes a provision modifying Section 103
under title I of Public Law 109-103 regarding certain
landfills in the Muskingum River watershed.
The amended bill includes a provision that transfers
approximately 197 acres of surplus Corps of Engineers land to
Story County, Iowa. The land is a former site for a Corps of
Engineers flood control reservoir initiative, the Skunk River
Reservoir Project. The project was abandoned and deauthorized
by Congress.
The amended bill modifies a provision regarding
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama,
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida,
as proposed by the Senate. The House bill included no similar
provision. The Appropriations Committees are supportive of
finding mutually agreeable solutions to water allocation of
the Apalachicola-Chattahootchee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-
Tallapoosa river systems between the states of Alabama,
Florida and Georgia. The Corps is directed to continue to
support the interstate discussions and to take no actions
that adversely impact the outcome.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning the
Southeast Louisiana project as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding a reporting
requirement for Alaska Coastal Erosion.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate repealing Section 108 under title I of Public Law
109-103 concerning continuing contracts.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the House relating to the dredge McFarland.
The amended bill does not include three provisions proposed
by the Senate relating to the Federal dredge fleet.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the House relating to the
[[Page 34800]]
Sacramento District Office of the Corps of Engineers.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Lower Mud River, Milton, West
Virginia, project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate concerning cooperative agreements.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Rio De Flag, Arizona, project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to Avian Predation in the Columbia River
Fish Mitigation project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Santa Ana, California, project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Upper Guadalupe, California,
project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Missouri River mitigation project.
The amended bill does not include a provision limiting
Corps of Engineers expenditure on a project as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the McAlpine Lock and Dam project.
The amended bill does not include a provision regarding
crediting of non-Federal expenditures on the San Lorenzo
River, California, project as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Missouri and Middle Mississippi
Rivers Enhancement project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Nogales Wash, Arizona, project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona,
project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Rural Utah (Environmental
Infrastructure) project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Connecticut River Watershed Study,
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont,
project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to the Asian carp barriers on the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois, project.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate relating to a funding limitation on the Modified
Waters Deliveries, Florida, project.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
Central Utah Project Completion Account
The amended bill includes a total of $43,000,000 as
proposed by both the House and Senate. Within the funds
provided, $40,404,000 is included for Central Utah project
construction; $976,000 for fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation; and $1,620,000 for program
oversight and administration.
The amended bill also includes legislative language which
allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative costs,
as proposed by the Senate. This one-time increase in
administrative expenses provides funding for costs associated
with securing new office space and relocating the
Commission's office in fiscal year 2008.
Bureau of Reclamation
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The amended bill includes a total of $949,882,000 for Water
and Related Resources, instead of $871,197,000 as proposed by
the House and $950,106,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Reclamation is directed to conform to the following
reprogramming guidelines:
The Bureau is permitted to transfer, without prior
Congressional approval and without regard to percentage
limitation, not more than $5,000,000 per project to provide
adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased
contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations,
and real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such
reprogramming is necessary to discharge legal obligations of
the Bureau of Reclamation.
For each project within the Resources Management and
Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is
available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is
permitted to transfer to such project in that fiscal year no
more than fifteen percent of the amount available at the
beginning of the fiscal year for such project, without prior
approval from the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
For each project within the Resources Management and
Development category for which less than $2,000,000 is
available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is
permitted to transfer to such project no more than $300,000
in that fiscal year without prior approval from the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. A transfer is defined as
any movement of funds into or out of a program, project or
activity.
The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within
the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation
category without prior Congressional approval and without
regard to percentage or dollar limitation.
The Bureau may not transfer, without prior Congressional
approval, more than $500,000 from either the Facilities
Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category or the
Resources Management and Development category to any project
in the other category. The Bureau is prohibited from using an
internal reprogramming action to initiate, restart, or resume
any program, project, or activity that does not receive a
Congressional appropriation in fiscal year 2008.
Reclamation is directed to provide quarterly reports to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriation detailing all
reprogrammings between projects, activities, or categories of
funding.
Funding under this heading is intended to be used as
outlined in the following table:
[[Page 34801]]
TH17DE07.058
[[Page 34802]]
TH17DE07.059
[[Page 34803]]
TH17DE07.060
[[Page 34804]]
TH17DE07.061
[[Page 34805]]
Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin, Arizona.--
Within the funds provided, $590,000 is included for
activities related to the Gila River settlement in New
Mexico.
San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona.--Funds have been
provided to initiate advance planning and environmental
compliance for the San Carlos Irrigation Project.
Central Valley Project, American River Division,
California.--Within funds provided, $640,000 shall be
available for the El Dorado temperature control device.
Central Valley Project, Friant Division, California.--The
recommendation includes an additional $984,000 for the
Friant-Kern and Madera canals capacity improvements and an
additional $984,000 for the Semitropic Phase II groundwater
banking.
Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The
recommendation provides $1,132,000 for the Salton Sea
research project, including $492,000 to continue
environmental restoration efforts for the Alamo and New
Rivers, and for other authorized pilot projects.
Southern California investigations program.--The
recommendation provides $1,073,000 for the Southern
California investigations program, including $394,000 for the
Water Replenishment District regional groundwater monitoring
program and $492,000 to assist the Lake Arrowhead Community
Services District to develop an integrated water resource
plan.
Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.--Funding in addition to the
budget request is included as follows: $197,000 to assess the
rehabilitation of radial gates at Sumner Dam, New Mexico, and
$738,000 for implementation of water salvage in partnership
with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission under the
Pecos River Settlement.
Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--Funding under this
heading includes $38,918,000 for the Middle Rio Grande
project, $20,325,000 for Resources Management and $18,593,000
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the
$20,325,000 for Resources Management, $16,010,000 is included
for the Collaborative Program and $984,000 for the Silvery
Minnow Sanctuary operations. Within the $18,593,000 for
Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, $2,165,000 is
included for further development of the Upper Rio Grande
Water Operations Model and ESA Water conservation planning;
$492,000 for initial development of an integrated management
plan in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
and $1,968,000 to be transferred to the U.S. Geological
Survey for stream gauge repair and development in New Mexico.
The Bureau of Reclamation is encouraged to be transparent in
its communication of the cost of administration of the Middle
Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program and to
implement project management improvements promptly to address
the issues and recommendations of the non-Federal partners to
the Collaborative Program. Further, the Bureau of Reclamation
is also encouraged to work closely with the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
develop a rehabilitation plan for the levee system in the
Middle Rio Grande.
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin, Garrison Diversion Unit, North
Dakota.--An additional $48,000,000 has been provided for
rural water projects. Of this amount, $24,000,000 shall be
expended for the following projects: $9,840,000 for the
Northwest Area Water Supply; $492,000 for the Lakota Water
Supply; $2,952,000 for the South Central Regional Water
District; $984,000 for the Walsh Rural Water District;
$984,000 for the South Benson County/North Central Rural
Water System; $984,000 for the Traill Rural Water District;
$492,000 for the Upham/All Seasons Rural Water System;
$1,968,000 for the Williston Water Treatment Plant;
$3,936,000 for the Southwest Pipeline; and $1,368,000 for
Garrison Water Treatment.
Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--An additional
$491,000 is included for the Rural Water Technology Alliance.
Southern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The
recommendation provides $407,000 for the Southern Utah
investigations program, including $295,000 for the San Juan
River water pipeline study.
Brackish groundwater national desalination research
facility.--Of the $5,805,000 provided under this heading,
$2,066,000 is provided to undertake operations and
maintenance of the newly constructed Brackish Groundwater
National Desalination Research Facility in Alamogordo, New
Mexico; $1,181,000 is provided to New Mexico State University
for research activities undertaken at or associated with the
Facility; and $2,558,000 is provided to New Mexico State
University to undertake a research program for development
and commercialization of water treatment technology in
collaboration with Federal agencies, national laboratories,
State agencies, local agencies, industry, educational
institutions or other water research entities.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--In
the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109-
275), the Appropriations Committees expressed their concern
that the Bureau of Reclamation was making excess releases of
approximately 100,000 acre-feet of water per year from
storage in Colorado River reservoirs to help meet the United
States' Colorado River water quality obligations to Mexico.
The excess releases are being made because Wellton-Mohawk
Irrigation and Drainage District's agricultural return
flows--that bypass the Colorado River and are discharged to
the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass flows)--are not
counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of water that
the United States is required to deliver annually to Mexico.
Because the bypass flows are not counted, system storage from
the Colorado River has been used to make up for the bypass
flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally constructed to
treat the flows and return a portion of them to the river,
thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River reservoirs.
The current drought and projected long-term water demands
have heightened concern about this demand on the river
system. Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the Appropriations
Committees indicated their support for Reclamation's ongoing
public process to address this complex hydrologic problem,
considering various methods of recovering or replacing the
flows, including options that address potential impacts to
wetlands in the Cienega de Santa Clara. Reclamation is
encouraged to continue this stakeholder process. In fiscal
year 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation was also directed to
dedicate sufficient resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so
that one-third operational capacity may be achieved by the
end of calendar year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-
third operational, although Reclamation did conduct a
demonstration run at one-tenth capacity for 90 days in 2007.
The Appropriations Committees, once again, direct the Bureau
of Reclamation, within the funds provided for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Project, title I, to dedicate
sufficient funds to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-
third operational capacity may be achieved by the end of
calendar year 2007. The Bureau of Reclamation is also
directed to provide the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations with a status report of the plant's
operational status by no later than March 1, 2008. If the
plant is not one-third operational by the end of calendar
year 2007, the report shall include an explanation as to why
the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to comply with the
Appropriations Committees' directive.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The budget request is
provided for this program. Within the funds provided, the
Bureau of Reclamation is urged to provide full and fair
consideration for drought assistance requests for the State
of Hawaii.
Native American Affairs Program.--The Appropriations
Committees are aware of the successful Sid Yates Scholarship
Program, particularly at Arizona State University, which
focuses on American Indian law students. Tribes, State and
Federal agencies have all benefited from this highly
leveraged program. The Bureau is encouraged to continue this
program beyond the current student enrollment and look for
innovative ways to enhance the program for future years.
Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--Funding under this
heading includes $3,444,000 for this program. Within the
funds provided, $2,657,000 is included for the WateReuse
Foundation. These are available to support the Foundation's
research priorities.
Water Conservation Field Services Program.--Funding under
this heading provides $6,510,000 for the Water Conservation
Field Services Program. Within the amounts provided,
Reclamation is urged to continue urban water conservation
projects identified through the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California Innovative Conservation Program;
industrial water efficiency surveys to assess opportunities
to conserve water in industrial water use; and weather-based
irrigation controller activities to speed distribution and
acceptance of these landscape water efficiency devices.
Water 2025.--The dire drought the West is currently
experiencing combined with an unprecedented number of water
users and endangered species requirements and related needs,
make water use efficiencies more critical than ever. Funding
under this heading provides $5,929,000 for this initiative as
proposed by the administration. Funding is included to
provide for continued efficiency and water improvements
related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. A
critical component of reducing tension among multiple water
users is collaborative planning and joint operations. Within
the funds provided, funds are provided for the Desert
Research Institute to address water quality and environmental
issues in ways that will bring industry and regulators to
mutually acceptable answers.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
The amended bill provides $59,122,000 for the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund as proposed by the House
instead of $51,622,000 as proposed by the Senate. Legislation
for the San Joaquin River Restoration fund was not enacted by
Congress; therefore, the Appropriations Committees direct the
$7,500,000 in assumed transferred receipts to be expended as
follows: Sacramento River Fish Screens, $2,952,000; Trinity
River Restoration, $3,000,000; Anadromous Fish Screen
Program, $1,548,000.
The funds provided are intended to support the following
activities, as delineated below:
[[Page 34806]]
Anadromous fish restoration program..........................$4,500,000
Other Central Valley project impacts..........................1,500,000
Dedicated project yield.........................................800,000
Flow fluctuation study...........................................50,000
Restoration of riparian habitat and spawning gravel...........1,000,000
Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring program......300,000
Anadromous fish screen program................................8,932,000
Sacramento fish screens.....................................(2,952,000)
Refuge wheeling conveyance....................................8,800,000
Refuge water supply, facility construction....................5,000,000
Ecosystem/water systems operations model......................7,650,000
Water acquisition program.....................................9,990,000
San Joaquin Basin action plan.................................2,800,000
Land retirement program.......................................1,000,000
Clear Creek restoration.........................................800,000
Trinity River restoration program.............................4,000,000
San Joaquin River Basin resource management initiative........2,000,000
________________
Total, Central Valley project restoration fund.............59,122,000
CALIFORNIA BAY--DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill includes $40,098,000 for the California
Bay-Delta Restoration program, as proposed by both the House
and Senate. The funds provided are intended to support the
following activities, as delineated below:
Science......................................................$3,000,000
Environmental water account...................................7,000,000
Storage program..............................................11,770,000
Los Vaqueros..............................................(3,270,000)
San Joaquin river basin study.............................(2,500,000)
Sites Reservoir...........................................(3,000,000)
Shasta enlargement........................................(3,000,000)
Conveyance....................................................7,000,000
Enlarged DMC Intertie w/Cal Aqueduct Feasibility study....(1,400,000)
San Luis lowpoint feasibility study.......................(1,400,000)
Delta studies: through delta evaluation...................(1,000,000)
Recirculation feasibility study...........................(1,000,000)
South Delta temporary barriers..............................(200,000)
Delta vision..............................................(1,348,000)
Ecosystem restoration.........................................3,000,000
Ecosystem restoration projects to be identified...........(1,000,000)
Lower San Joaquin fish screens............................(1,500,000)
Refuge water supply diversification.........................(500,000)
Water Use Efficiency..........................................1,500,000
Water Quality.................................................6,250,000
San Joaquin River salinity management.....................(4,250,000)
Contra Costa Water District alternative intake............(1,000,000)
Interagency ecological program............................(1,000,000)
Planning and management activities............................1,230,000
CALFED program management...................................(230,000)
Performance measures and program tracking.................(1,000,000)
________________
Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration..................40,098,000
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill includes $58,811,000 for Policy and
Administration as proposed by both the House and Senate.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The amended bill includes a provision limiting the purchase
of not to exceed 14 passenger vehicles, as proposed by both
the House and Senate.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The amended bill includes a provision regarding the San
Luis Unit and Kesterson Reservoir in California, as proposed
by both the House and Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision prohibiting the use
of funds for any water acquisition or lease in the Middle Rio
Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless the
acquisition is in compliance with existing state law and
administered under state priority allocation as proposed by
the Senate.
The amended bill modifies a provision proposed by the
Senate regarding Drought Emergency Assistance.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning Water 2025
as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding the Rio
Grande Collaborative water operations team as proposed by the
Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision concerning the
project at Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead, Nevada, as proposed
by the Senate.
The amended bill modifies a provision concerning expended
funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for the Truckee
River Settlement Act as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill modifies a provision concerning expended
funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for a number of
purposes within Nevada as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision extending the
authorization of the Mni Wiconi project from 2008 to 2013 as
proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding the Inland
Empire regional recycling project in California.
The amended bill modifies a provision proposed by the
Senate for a reporting requirement to the appropriate House
and Senate Appropriations and authorizing Committees
concerning changed land use determinations.
The amended bill includes a provision increasing the
appropriations ceiling for the Indian Irrigation projects in
the Pick-Sloan--Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota and
South Dakota, as proposed by the Senate.
The amended bill includes a provision extending the
authorization for water service contracts in Montana.
The amended bill includes a provision regarding the
Southern California Desert Region Integrated Water and
Economic Sustainability Plan.
The amended bill does not include a provision proposed by
the Senate concerning operations of the Tularosa Basin
National Desalination Research Facility.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The summary tables at the end of this title set forth the
amended bill with respect to the individual appropriations,
programs, and activities of the Department of Energy.
Additional items in the amended bill are discussed below.
The allocations for specific projects and earmarks that
were proposed in the separate House and Senate reports are
superseded by the detailed allocations contained herein.
Other programmatic guidance and reporting requirements
identified in the separate House and Senate reports remain
effective unless modified by this explanatory statement.
The amended bill provides $24,675,025,000 for the
Department of Energy in fiscal year 2008 to fund programs in
its five primary mission areas: science, energy, environment,
nuclear non-proliferation and national security, instead of
$25,243,119,000 as proposed by the House and $25,897,985,000
as proposed by the Senate.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Department of Energy is directed to manage all projects
in excess of $100,000,000 total cost in full compliance with
DOE Management Order 413.3A.
REPROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS
The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner
fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines.
A reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations for consideration before any implementation
of a reorganization proposal which includes moving previous
appropriations between appropriation accounts. The Department
is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when
a change in program execution and funding is required during
the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the
following guidance is provided for programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act. The Department is directed to
follow this guidance for all programs and activities unless
specific reprogramming guidance is provided for a program or
activity.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation,
or any significant departure from a program, project,
activity, or organization described in the agency's budget
justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project
identified in the justifications to another project or a
significant change in the scope of an approved project.
Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or
prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees
in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by
the Committees on Appropriations.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
The amended bill provides $1,739,541,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs, instead of
$1,873,844,000 as proposed by the House, and $1,715,551,000
as proposed by the Senate.
Hydrogen Technology.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $213,000,000 for hydrogen technology,
the same as the budget request. Within available funds, the
Department is directed to fund research on solid oxide fuel
cells for small-to-medium scale applications.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $200,000,000 for
integrated research and development on biomass and
biorefinery systems, an increase of $20,737,000
[[Page 34807]]
over the budget request for additional biomass research
solicitations. The Department is directed to include algae as
a potential feedstock in its biomass research and
development.
Solar Energy.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill provides $170,000,000 for solar energy systems, an
increase of $21,696,000 over the budget request, to include
$138,000,000 for photovoltaic (PV) energy systems,
$30,000,000 for concentrating solar power, and $2,000,000 for
solar heating and lighting. The agency should, within
available funds, accelerate the development and adoption of a
solar PV rating system, and the demonstration of thermo-
chemical processes in conjunction with high-temperature solar
facilities for hydrogen production.
Wind Energy.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill includes $50,000,000 for wind energy systems, an
increase of $9,931,000 over the budget request. The increase
is to support integration of wind power and other renewable
sources into the electricity grid.
Geothermal Technology.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $20,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000
over the budget request, for deployment of large-scale
enhanced geothermal systems, to include accelerating the
development of subsurface technologies, including geological
and geophysical data collection and synthesis.
Water Power Energy R&D.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $10,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000
over the budget request, for research on conventional
hydropower technologies and innovative waterpower
technologies, such as thermal and wave technologies, for
ocean, tidal and instream-based generation.
Vehicle Technologies.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $215,000,000 for vehicle technologies,
an increase of $38,862,000 over the budget request, to
include $95,000,000 for hybrid electric systems, an increase
of $14,336,000 over the request for advanced battery storage
technology research, development and demonstration for
electric, hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The
Department is directed to fund $45,000,000 for advanced
combustion engine research and development, $40,000,000 for
materials technology, $18,000,000 for fuels technology, and
$17,000,000 for technology integration. The agency should
within available funds competitively bid an award for the
Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity within the FreedomCAR and
Vehicle Technologies Program to independently test and
evaluate all vehicles developed in the upcoming plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle demonstration. The Appropriations
Committees support the lightweight materials technology
research and development on advanced high-strength steels to
reduce the weight of commercial and passenger vehicles.
Building Technologies.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $110,000,000 for building technologies,
an increase of $23,544,000 over the budget request. The
Department is directed to fund $10,000,000 of this increase
for the residential and commercial building technologies
program, $5,000,000 for solid state lighting, and $8,544,000
for equipment standards and analysis.
Industrial Technologies.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $65,000,000 for industrial
technologies, an increase of $19,002,000 over the budget
request. The Office of EERE should reconstitute a distributed
energy research and development program, and direct
$10,000,000 of the increase for the advanced reciprocating
engines system program and $5,000,000 for the combined heat
and power program. The agency should, within available funds,
provide no less than $3,700,000 for steel in the industries
(specific) program, and $3,000,000 for the information
technology industry, from chip scale to data centers.
Federal Energy Management Programs.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $20,000,000 for the
Federal Energy Management Programs, an increase of $3,209,000
over the budget request.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--Funding under this heading
in the amended bill provides $76,876,000 for the renewable
energy Facilities and Infrastructure account, an increase of
$69,144,000 over the budget request. This amount includes
$6,982,000 for operations and maintenance of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, the
same as the budget request, an increase of $6,894,000 for
South Table Mountain infrastructure, an increase of
$8,000,000 for NREL solar equipment recapitalization, and an
increase of $55,000,000 to begin the NREL Energy Systems
Integration Facility.
Program Support.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill provides $10,900,000 for Program Support, a decrease of
$2,381,000 below the budget request, but the same as fiscal
year 2007 levels. Within available funds, the Office of EERE
should establish a FACA-chartered Federal Advisory Council to
advise the Office of EERE for Finance, Investment and
Technology Deployment.
Program Direction.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $105,013,000 for Program Direction, the
same as the budget request.
Federal Energy Assistance Programs.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides a total of $473,752,000
for federal energy assistance programs, instead of
$314,947,000 as proposed by the House and $398,575,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The details of these accounts are as
follows:
Weatherization Assistance.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $224,758,000 for weatherization
assistance program grants, an increase of $85,308,000 over
the budget request, and $4,550,000 for training and technical
assistance, the same as the budget request. The funds
provided for federal technical assistance and training are
intended to be used exclusively to support the effective
delivery of weatherization services as set forth in statute
and applicable regulations. Any change in program
implementation should be proposed to Congress in the
Department's budget submission and not implemented before
congressional approval is obtained.
International Renewable Energy Program.--No funds are
provided for the International Renewable Energy Program, the
same as the budget request.
Asia Pacific Initiative.--No funds are provided for the
Asia Pacific Initiative, a decrease of $7,500,000 below the
budget request.
Tribal Energy Activities.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $6,000,000 for tribal energy
activities, an increase of $3,043,000 over the budget request
for additional tribal energy projects.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $5,000,000 for the
Renewable Energy Production Incentive, an increase of $54,000
over the budget request.
State Energy Program.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $44,500,000 for the State Energy
Program, a decrease of $1,001,000 below the budget request,
to include $10,000,000 for competitive energy projects.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $188,944,000 for
Congressionally directed projects, for the purposes of
research, development, and demonstration of energy efficiency
or renewable energy technologies or programs. The agency
should remind recipients that statutory cost sharing
requirements may apply to these projects. The fiscal year
2006 Energy and Water Development Conference Report (P.L.
109-103), included language within the Wind Energy program of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account directing
$750,000 for the Tower Power Project. Because the project did
not come to fruition, the agency should redirect the
remaining $742,500 of prior funds from the Tower Power
Project to fund the University of Maryland Energy Research
Center.
[[Page 34808]]
TH17DE07.062
[[Page 34809]]
TH17DE07.063
[[Page 34810]]
TH17DE07.064
[[Page 34811]]
TH17DE07.065
[[Page 34812]]
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
The amended bill provides $140,000,000 for the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, instead of
$134,161,000 as proposed by the House, and $168,437,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
Program Direction.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $17,765,000 for electricity delivery
and energy reliability program direction, an increase of
$378,000 over the budget request.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $24,685,500 for
Congressionally directed projects, for the purposes of
research, development, and demonstration of energy
technologies or programs. The agency should remind recipients
that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these
projects.
[[Page 34813]]
TH17DE07.066
[[Page 34814]]
NUCLEAR ENERGY (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill provides $970,525,000 for nuclear energy
programs, instead of $759,227,000 as proposed by the House,
and $720,558,000 as proposed by the Senate. The total amount
available for Nuclear Energy programs and facilities is
$1,046,474,000, including $75,949,000 of costs allocated to
the 050 budget function (i.e. defense activities) for Idaho
Site-wide and Security activities. The amended bill includes
a provision that authorizes and funds the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication facility in the Nuclear Energy appropriation, as
proposed by the House. The amended bill includes a provision
that codifies the application of DOE Order 413.3A to MOX
construction management.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--Funding
under this heading in the amended bill provides no direct
funds for grants and fellowships that support nuclear science
and engineering education at the Department of Energy. DOE
annually requests no funding for education assistance, and
the Congress sees fit every year to restore it. For fiscal
year 2008, the funding for the university nuclear education
assistance program is provided in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission appropriation account to provide a sustainable
education assistance program.
Nuclear Power 2010.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $135,000,000 for Nuclear Power 2010, an
increase of $21,000,000 over the budget request to accelerate
the preparation and approval of combined operating licenses.
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.--Funding
under this heading in the amended bill provides $116,000,000
for Generation IV nuclear energy systems. The Department is
directed to accelerate work on the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant (NGNP). Of this amount $74,000,000 is for the NGNP
project, of which no less than $38,000,000 is for
establishing a reference conceptual design and baseline cost.
Funding under this heading in the amended bill provides
$36,000,000 for establishing a licensing strategy and an
aggressive pre-application program with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that includes: developing substantial
industry involvement; advancing and testing key enabling
technologies; developing a cost-and-risk sharing concept for
the NGNP; and establishing a project plan, vendor team and
international cooperation framework. The Appropriations
Committees emphasize the importance of developing a strong
private sector-based partner for the NGNP, and provide
$26,000,000 for advancing critical-path enabling gas reactor
technology including materials testing and qualification and
fuel development, testing and qualification, $9,000,000 to
continue work with Russia on gas reactors, and $7,000,000 for
deep burn (actinide management) characteristics of gas-cooled
reactors.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $10,000,000 for the nuclear
hydrogen initiative.
Fuel Cycle Research and Facilities.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $462,349,000 for fuel
cycle research and facilities, and is intended to be used as
follows: $233,849,000 for the construction of the Mixed-Oxide
Fuel Fabrication (MOX) facility, and $47,500,000 for MOX
facility other project costs, for a total of $281,349,000 of
new budget authority for the MOX project at the Savannah
River Site. The Appropriations Committees are concerned about
the management of the MOX fuel fabrication facility, and the
amended bill includes a provision that codifies the
application of DOE Order 413.3A to MOX construction
management. The Appropriations Committees direct the
Government Accountability Office to monitor the construction
and management of the MOX facility, and report to the
Committees on a quarterly basis on the progress of the fuel
fabrication facility, regarding scope, cost and schedule
changes and performance. The Appropriations Committees direct
the Department to provide the Committees a revised cost
baseline and schedule for the MOX facility based on the level
of funding provided by the Committees. The Department is
directed to utilize $115,000,000 of prior-year unobligated
balances for MOX in the nuclear energy research and
development program, available for transfer from the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation account.
Funding under this heading in the amended bill provides
$181,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI).
Of this amount, $151,000,000 is for continued research and
development on spent fuel recycling and advanced reactor
design, and no funds are provided for facility construction
for technology demonstration or commercialization. The
Department is directed to make available 50 percent of the
AFCI funds for research and development in an agency-wide
solicitation for universities, national laboratories, and
commercial entities. Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $15,000,000 for hot-cell upgrades at
Los Alamos National Laboratory, and $15,000,000 at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
Space and defense infrastructure.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $30,650,000 for space
and defense infrastructure.
Medical isotopes infrastructure.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $14,964,000 for medical
isotopes infrastructure.
Research reactor infrastructure.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $2,947,000 for fresh
reactor fuel and disposal of spent fuel for university
reactors.
Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure.--No funds are provided in
the nuclear infrastructure account for Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL). Instead, funding is provided within the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) operations and
infrastructure.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill provides $117,000,000 for INL operations and
infrastructure, an increase of $9,837,000 over the budget
request for the Advanced Test Reactor national scientific
user facility infrastructure transition activities and
experiments.
Idaho site-wide safeguards and security.--Funding under
this heading in the amended bill is provided as a transfer of
$75,949,000 from the Other Defense Activities account to the
Nuclear Energy program.
Program Direction.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides a total funding level for program
direction of $81,615,000, to accommodate federal personnel
associated with the increased activities in the Nuclear
Energy program.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The agency should,
within available funds, provide $4,000,000 for
Congressionally directed projects, for the purposes of
research, development, and demonstration of nuclear energy
technologies or programs: CVD single-crystal diamond optical
switch (MD) $1,000,000 and Technologies Ventures Corporation
for technology transfer activities (NM) $3,000,000. The
agency should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing
requirements may apply to these projects.
legacy management
The amended bill provides $34,183,000 for the activities of
the Office of Legacy Management. The Appropriations
Committees do not support the consolidation of Legacy
Management activities within the Non-Defense Environmental
Management account, and continue the Office of Legacy
Management as a stand-alone appropriation.
clean coal technology
(including deferral and transfer of funds)
The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 110-5) deferred $257,000,000 in
unobligated Clean Coal Technology balances to fiscal year
2008. The amended bill transfers $166,000,000 to the Fossil
Energy Research and Development account in fiscal year 2008,
and recommends the deferral of $149,000,000 in Clean Coal
Technology balances until fiscal year 2009, as proposed by
the Senate, and not the rescission of the balances in fiscal
year 2008 as proposed by the House.
fossil energy research and development
(including transfer of funds)
The amended bill provides $750,000,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development programs, instead of $708,801,000
proposed by the House and $808,113,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The amended bill includes a provision that permits
the hire of passenger vehicles and other items as proposed by
the House. The amended bill includes provisions proposed by
the Senate that would encourage participation in the Clean
Coal Power Initiative Round III, addressing cost increases,
cost sharing, and repayment. The amended bill includes a
provision that affirms Round III of the Clean Coal Power
Initiative must focus on demonstrating advanced coal-based
technologies that capture and sequester carbon, or put carbon
dioxide emissions to beneficial reuse. The House bill
contained no similar provisions. The amended bill includes
provisions as proposed by the Senate that permit up to 4
percent of National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
program direction funds to be used for DOE activities not in
the Fossil Energy account, and allow Federal employees
performing research and development at NETL to be funded from
any appropriate program account. The amended bill does not
include a provision proposed by the Senate that reduces
overall cost-sharing requirements for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative as this is redundant with the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct).
Report requirement.--The Department is directed to submit
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report
on liquefied natural gas (LNG), as outlined in the House
report, by December 1, 2008, which is to be funded in
Advanced Research within Fuels and Power Systems.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill includes $70,000,000 for the Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI), a decrease of $3,000,000 below the
budget request.
FutureGen.--Funding under this heading in the amended bill
includes $75,000,000 for FutureGen, $33,000,000 below the
budget request due to unused prior year funds. The
Appropriations Committees are concerned about maintaining
adequate funding for the core fossil energy research,
development, and demonstration programs. Should the FutureGen
program continue to maintain
[[Page 34815]]
significant balances of unused funds or the project not
continue, the Department is directed to submit a request to
the Appropriations Committees for approval to reprogram the
balances for other coal research and development activities.
Fuels and Power Systems.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $352,912,000 for Fuels and Power
Systems, an increase of $107,310,000 over the budget request.
Within the funds provided, $36,412,000 is for Innovations of
Existing Plants, an increase of $36,412,000 over the budget
request to include carbon capture, innovative CO2
compression, energy/water technologies or beneficial uses of
CO2; $54,000,000 for Advanced Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle, an increase of $4,000,000 over
the budget request; and $24,000,000 for Advanced Turbines, an
increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request. Funding under
this heading provides $120,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration,
an increase of $40,923,000 over the budget request. The
Department is encouraged to study the CO2
accelerated growth algae technology to recycle carbon and
produce fuels. Funding under this heading includes
$25,000,000 for Fuels, an increase of $15,000,000 over the
budget request for coal-biomass and hydrogen fuels research;
$56,000,000 for Fuel Cells, a decrease of $6,025,000 below
the budget request; and $37,500,000 for Advanced Research, an
increase of $15,000,000 above the budget request, of which
$8,000,000 is to support the liquefied natural gas report.
Natural gas technologies.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $20,000,000 for natural gas
technologies, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget
request, to include $15,000,000 for methane gas hydrates
research and development, and $5,000,000 for effective
environmental production programs.
Petroleum-oil technologies.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $5,000,000 for petroleum-oil
technologies, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget
request to include $1,500,000 for the Stripper Well
Consortium, $1,200,000 for the Risk Based Data Management
System, and $2,300,000 for the unconventional and enhanced
oil recovery programs.
Program direction.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $149,962,000 for program direction, an
increase of $19,989,000 over the budget request for
shortfalls in the budget request to cover cost escalations
and other needs at various NETL sites.
Other.--Funding is provided in the amended bill for the
following activities: $13,000,000 for Plant and Capital
Equipment; $9,570,000 for Fossil Energy Environmental
Restoration; $656,000 for Special Recruitment Programs; and
$5,000,000 for Cooperative Research and Development. No funds
have been provided for Section 964 of EPAct as proposed by
the Senate.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $48,900,000 for
Congressionally directed projects, for the purposes of
research, development, and demonstration of coal and other
fossil energy related technologies or programs. The
Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-
sharing requirements may apply to these projects.
[[Page 34816]]
TH17DE07.067
[[Page 34817]]
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
The amended bill provides $20,472,000 for the operation of
the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, instead of
$17,301,000 as proposed by the House and $21,301,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Within available funds, $1,441,000 is
directed for the Naval Petroleum Reserve #3 and $2,000,000
for Los Alamos National Laboratory to support in basin scale
environmental impacts for oil shale production.
strategic petroleum reserve
The amended bill provides $188,472,000 for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $143,137,000 below the
budget request, instead of $163,472,000 as proposed by the
House and the Senate. The Department is directed to use
$25,000,000 to acquire land at a new site consistent with the
budget request. The Appropriations Committees provide for the
operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but do not
support the expansion of the reserve to 1.5 billion barrels.
northeast home heating oil reserve
The amended bill provides $12,448,000 for the Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve, instead of $5,325,000 as proposed
by the House and $12,825,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
increase of $7,123,000 over the budget request is to
accommodate increased costs for storage leases.
energy information administration
The amended bill provides $96,337,000 for the Energy
Information Administration instead of $105,095,000 as
proposed by the House and the Senate. Within available funds,
$1,000,000 is provided for the National Academy of Sciences
to support the International Institute for Advanced Systems
Analysis's Global Energy Assessment.
non-defense environmental cleanup
The amended bill provides $183,937,000 for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup instead of $286,041,000 as proposed by
the House or $195,437,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funding
under this heading in the amended bill includes an increase
of $5,000,000 for the acceleration of the decontamination and
decommissioning of the graphite reactor at Brookhaven
National Laboratory.
The amended bill does not support the consolidation of
Legacy Management activities within the Non-Defense
Environmental Management account. The amended bill includes a
provision regarding the cleanup requirements at the Energy
Technology and Engineering Center at the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory, as proposed by the Senate.
Energy Technology and Engineering Center.--The
Appropriations Committees are aware of the suspension of the
Department's deactivation and decommissioning activities at
the Energy Technology and Engineering Site, Santa Susana
Field Laboratory, in Simi Valley, California. The
Appropriations Committees are very concerned with the need to
assure thorough site characterization and cleanup and will be
monitoring the Department's actions closely.
Internal reprogramming authority.--The agency should follow
the internal reprogramming authority as directed in the House
report, omitting Legacy Management as a control point.
Economic development.--None of the Non-Defense
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in
the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for
economic development activities.
Report requirement.--The Appropriations Committees direct
the Department to provide a report within 180 days of
enactment of this Act on the annual funding requirements
needed to complete remediation of the Moab uranium mill
tailings site and removal of the tailings to the Crescent
Junction site in Utah no later than the year 2019.
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund
The amended bill provides $627,876,000 for activities
funded from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, instead of $618,759,000 proposed by the
House and $573,509,000 proposed by the Senate. Funding under
this heading includes an increase of $54,367,000 over the
budget request for decontamination and decommissioning
activities at the Oak Ridge East Tennessee Technology Park K-
25 process building. Funding under this heading provides the
budget request for cleanup at Paducah and Portsmouth
facilities. The amended bill also provides $20,000,000 for
the Title X uranium and thorium reimbursements program, the
same as the budget request and the House, and instead of no
funds as proposed by the Senate.
science
The amended bill provides $4,055,483,000 for Science
instead of $4,514,082,000 as proposed by the House and
$4,496,759,000 as proposed by the Senate. Funds previously
provided for the Coralville, Iowa, project in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, are rescinded.
High Energy Physics.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $694,638,000 for High Energy Physics.
Within funding for Proton Accelerator-Based Physics, no funds
are provided for the NOvA activity in Tevatron Complex
Improvements. Within Advanced Technology R&D, in the current
constrained environment and without a Critical Decision 0 by
the Department, only $15,000,000 is provided for
International Linear Collider R&D and $5,455,000 for
Superconducting RF R&D.
The Committees on Appropriations appreciate the Beyond
Einstein Program architecture report by the National Research
Council and support its recommendations. Accordingly, the
Department of Energy is directed to proceed jointly with NASA
to conduct and complete an open, competitive selection of the
science investigation and payload for the Joint Dark Energy
Mission (JDEM) during 2008. This selection should use the
NASA Announcement of Opportunity process and have as its
primary science selection criterion the achievement of
improved understanding of dark energy and include improved
understanding in astrophysics generally as a secondary
criterion. The selection should be made jointly by one
official each from NASA and DOE. If DOE and NASA cannot agree
on a joint approach for mission implementation, DOE should
provide no future year support for this activity or for other
space science satellite missions. The Department is directed
to continue support for the Super Nova Acceleration Probe
during fiscal year 2008.
The control level is at the High Energy Physics level.
Nuclear Physics.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill includes $436,700,000 for Nuclear Physics. Within
Nuclear Physics, construction is funded at $17,700,000, the
same as the request.
Biological and Environmental Research.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $549,397,000 for
Biological and Environmental Research. This area of the
Office of Science encompasses two distinct research efforts:
Biological Research, using biology to address energy
production and environmental remediation, and Climate Change
Research. The Department is directed to request funds for
Biological Research and Climate Change Research as separate
subaccounts in fiscal year 2009 and future fiscal years.
Biological Research.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $411,273,000 for Biological Research,
including $31,500,000 for Medical Applications and
Measurement Science. The increase of $17,500,000 is for
nuclear medicine research. All of the added funds must be
awarded competitively in one or more solicitations that
include all sources--universities, the private sector, and
government laboratories--on an equal basis. The Committees on
Appropriations support the language contained in the Senate
report on Advanced Materials Testing and Low Dose Research.
The Committees on Appropriations also note that diagnostics
are currently in development between the University of New
Mexico (UNM) and Los Alamos National Laboratory utilizing the
unique capabilities of Los Alamos National Laboratory at the
IPF at LANSCE and the radiopharmaceutical expertise of UNM at
the Center for Isotopes in Medicine.
Climate Change Research.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $138,124,000 for Climate Change
Research, the same as the request.
Basic Energy Sciences.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $1,281,564,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences. Within Basic Energy Sciences, $15,000,000 is
provided for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
Reprogramming.--For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal
year 2008, the Department may allocate funding among all
operating accounts within Basic Energy Sciences, consistent
with the reprogramming guidelines outlined in House Report
110-185.
Nanoscience Research Centers.--The Committees on
Appropriations support ongoing research at the Nanoscale
Science Research Centers and Manuel Lujan Jr. Neutron
Scattering Center.
Construction.--Given current budget constraints, funding
under this heading in the amended bill includes less funding
than requested for two projects where the start of major
construction activity can be delayed.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $354,398,000 for
Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Within Advanced
Scientific Computing Research, $19,500,000 is included for
the Office of Science to continue the Department's
participation in the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency High Productivity Computing Systems partnership and an
increase of $7,700,000 is included for the Oak Ridge
Leadership Computing Facility to maintain the planned budget
and cost schedule.
The Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) are directed to establish the Institute
for Advanced Architectures and Algorithms with Centers of
Excellence at Sandia National Laboratories and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. These Centers will execute a national
program involving industry, universities and national
laboratories that is focused on technologies to sustain the
U.S. leadership in high performance computing. The NNSA ASC
and Office of Science ASCR programs will jointly fund the
program and provide direction needed to support the goal of
developing exascale computing for the Nation.
[[Page 34818]]
Fusion Energy Sciences.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy
Sciences. Within Fusion Energy Sciences, $162,910,000 is
provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility
Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be used to increase
facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e.,
the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical Torus
Experiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of
$1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S.
contribution to ITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for
ITER. Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$12,281,000 for High Energy Density Physics. Funding may not
be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy
Sciences to restore the U.S. contribution to ITER.
Science Laboratories Infrastructure.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $65,456,000 for
infrastructure activities. Within Science Laboratories
Infrastructure, $1,520,000 is provided to continue payments
in lieu of taxes for Argonne and Brookhaven National
Laboratories, $5,079,000 for Oak Ridge Laboratory landlord
expenses, and $8,828,000 for excess facilities disposition,
as requested. Also included is $50,029,000 for MEL-001
Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects at
various locations.
The Committees on Appropriations continue to be supportive
of the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, and $25,000,000 for this facility is
included in funding provided for MEL-001. This amount is
$10,000,000 below the request for this facility in the Office
of Science. The Department is directed to increase the future
year funding contribution of the Office of Science for this
facility by $10,000,000 to restore the baseline funding
contribution from the Office of Science. To keep this project
on schedule, $25,000,000 is included in Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
The Committees on Appropriations understand that the
modernization of Laboratory 4500 at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory can be accomplished more efficiently than
originally proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
The Department is directed to use the existing $2,000,000 of
PED funding, plus the requested construction funding under
the MEL-001 infrastructure project, for the design and
construction of a new multi-purpose laboratory to replace
4500N.
Safeguards and Security.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $76,592,000 for Safeguards and
Security, the same as the request.
Science Workforce Development.--Funding under this heading
in the amended bill includes $8,118,000 for Science Workforce
Development.
Science Program Direction.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill includes $179,412,000 for Science Program
Direction including $6,644,000 to support the New Brunswick
Laboratory.
Funding Adjustments.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes an offset of $5,605,000 for the
safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $125,633,000 for
Congressionally Directed Projects.
[[Page 34819]]
TH17DE07.068
[[Page 34820]]
TH17DE07.069
[[Page 34821]]
TH17DE07.070
[[Page 34822]]
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
The amended bill provides $189,000,000 for Nuclear Waste
Disposal instead of $202,454,000 as proposed by the House and
$204,054,000 as proposed by the Senate. The amended bill also
provides $201,000,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal,
$91,046,000 less than the request. This provides a total of
$390,000,000 for the repository program in fiscal year 2008.
Funding under this heading in the amended bill provides
funds for affected elements of state and local government
including $1,600,000 for the cooperative agreement between
the Department of Energy and Inyo County, California.
The Department is directed to develop a plan to take
custody of spent fuel currently stored at decommissioned
reactor sites to both reduce costs that are ultimately borne
by the taxpayer and demonstrate that DOE can move forward in
the near-term with at least some element of nuclear waste
policy. The Department should consider consolidation of the
spent fuel from decommissioned reactors either at an existing
federal site, at one or more existing operating reactor
sites, or at a competitively-selected interim storage site.
The Department should engage the sites that volunteered to
host Global Nuclear Energy Partnership facilities as part of
this competitive process.
The control level is at the Nuclear Waste Disposal account
level, so the Department may move funding between the
repository program and program direction subaccounts.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Following the specific request from the Department of
Energy for congressional approval to transfer appropriations
among accounts as part of the implementation of the
Department's reorganization associated with the formation of
the Office of Health, Safety and Security, the Committees on
Appropriations have approved the request and provided funds
formerly included in Environment, Safety and Health in the
accounts for which they were requested. Consequently, the
amended bill provides no funds for Environment, Safety and
Health instead of $31,625,000 as proposed by the House.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
The amended bill restates loan guarantee authority as
provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and makes this
authority available until September 30, 2009. The Department
is directed to make no authority available in excess of
$38,500,000,000, to be allocated as follows: $18,500,000,000
of loan guarantees are for nuclear power facilities;
$6,000,000,000 of loan guarantees are for coal-based power
generation and industrial gasification activities at
retrofitted and new facilities that incorporate carbon
capture and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon;
$2,000,000,000 of loan guarantees are for advanced coal
gasification; $10,000,000,000 of loan guarantees are for
renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing,
and distributed energy generation, transmission and
distribution; and $2,000,000,000 of loan guarantees are for
advanced nuclear facilities for the ``front-end'' of the
nuclear fuel cycle.
Prior to the issuance of a loan guarantee solicitation, the
Department of Energy is directed to submit a loan guarantee
implementation plan within 45 days of a solicitation,
defining the award levels and eligible technologies, to the
Committees on Appropriations for approval. No funds can be
made available for the execution of a loan guarantee
solicitation until a plan is submitted and approved. Should
the plan change after approval by the Committees, it must be
submitted again for approval by the Committees. Funding under
this heading in the amended bill includes $5,500,000 for
administrative expenses for the loan guarantee office,
instead of $2,390,000 as proposed by the House, and
$8,390,000 as proposed by the Senate. The amended bill
includes a provision that enables the Department to credit
loan guarantee fees as offsetting collections.
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill provides a net appropriation of
$149,778,000 for Departmental Administration expenses. This
amount includes a transfer of $99,000,000 from Other Defense
Activities for defense-related Departmental Administration
activities and the Congressional Budget Office estimate of
$161,818,000 for revenues. Specific funding levels for each
organization funded under the Departmental Administration
account are detailed in the accompanying table. The amended
bill provides representation expenses not to exceed $30,000
instead of $5,000 as proposed by the House, and $35,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
DOE pension and medical benefits.--The Appropriations
Committees reaffirm the House report language regarding the
revised contract reimbursement policy concerning pension and
medical benefits. A final report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) assessing the adequacy of the
Department's analysis of pension and medical liabilities is
due to the Appropriations Committee by April 1, 2008.
Management.--Funding under this heading in the amended bill
provides $65,439,000 for the Management account, an increase
of $1,500,000 above the budget request for the Office of
Management to contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA), as specified in the House report, for
a review of procurement and contracting practices.
Chief Financial Officer.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $42,260,000 for the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget
request to complete financial systems upgrades and training.
Loan Guarantee Office.--No funds are provided for the loan
guarantee office within the Departmental Administration
account. Funding in the amount of $5,500,000 is provided for
the loan guarantee office as a separate appropriation.
General Counsel.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill provides $30,076,000 for the General Counsel, the same
as the budget request. The agency should direct $500,000
within this account for new hires to support additional
attorney assistance for energy efficiency-related matters.
No funds are provided for the Competitive Sourcing
Initiative (A-76), a reduction of $1,770,000 below the
request. Funding under this heading in the amended bill
provides $3,360,000 for the Public Affairs office, a
reduction of $500,000 below the budget request, as adequate
prior year balances are available for this account.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
The amended bill provides $46,480,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General, instead of $47,732,000 as proposed by the
House and the Senate.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a
semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy,
manages the Nation's nuclear weapons programs, nuclear
nonproliferation programs, and naval reactors activities.
The amended bill provides $8,894,695,000 for National
Nuclear Security Administration activities instead of
$8,786,881,000 as proposed by the House and $9,564,545,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The amended bill makes funds
available until expended.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st Century.--The
Congress agrees to the direction contained in the House and
Senate reports requiring the Administration, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the NNSA,
the Department of Defense, including the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and Strategic Command, and the Intelligence Community,
and other appropriate independent, non-government science and
security advisory organizations, to develop and submit to the
Congress a comprehensive nuclear weapons strategy for the
21st century.
Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The amended bill provides no
funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), as proposed
by the House. As stated in both the House and Senate reports,
Congress believes a new strategic nuclear deterrent mission
assessment for the 21st century is required to define the
associated stockpile requirements and determine the scope of
the weapons complex modernization plans. The NNSA is directed
to develop a long-term scientific capability roadmap for the
national laboratories to be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations.
Advanced Certification.--The Department is directed to
implement a new Science Campaign called Advanced
Certification. Congress believes the recent findings of the
JASON Defense Advisory Group revealed significant systemic
gaps in NNSA's stockpile certification process and weapons
campaign work products. Therefore, the NNSA is directed to
develop a work scope to address: improvement of the weapons
certification process through expanded, independent peer
review mechanisms and refinement of computational tools and
methods; advancement of the physical understanding of surety
mechanisms; further exploration of failure modes;
manufacturing process assessments; and the study of strategic
system-level requirements. Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 for
Advanced Certification activities. The Administrator of the
NNSA is directed to submit an expenditure plan for these
funds no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act and
to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations no
later than six months after enactment of this Act on the
progress made in implementing the JASON's recommendations and
improving the stockpile certification process.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
Reprogramming authority.--The Department is provided
limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities
account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved
in advance by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. The reprogramming control levels are as
follows: subprograms within Directed Stockpile Work; Life
Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems, Warhead Dismantlement,
and Stockpile Services. Additional reprogramming control
levels are as follows: Science Campaigns, Engineering
Campaigns, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High
Yield, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit
[[Page 34823]]
Manufacturing and Certification, Readiness Campaigns, and
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). The
Department is not provided reprogramming authority between
site allocations for Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities Operations of Facilities. In addition, funding of
not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of
these categories and each construction project, with the
exception of the RTBF site allocations, subject to the
following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or
from any program or project; the transfer must be necessary
to address a risk to health, safety or the environment; and
funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has
specifically denied funds or for a new program or project
that has not been authorized by Congress.
The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the
use of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the
fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in
excess of $5,000,000 or which would exceed the limitations
outlined in the previous paragraph require prior notification
of and approval by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill provides $6,355,633,000 for Weapons
Activities instead of $5,879,137,000 as proposed by the House
and $6,489,024,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Directed Stockpile Work
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$1,413,879,000 for Directed Stockpile Work instead of
$1,336,594,000 as proposed by the House and $1,409,521,000 as
proposed by the Senate.
Life Extension Program.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $236,231,000 for Life Extension Program
activities.
Stockpile Systems.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $343,152,000 for Stockpile Systems
activities.
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).--No funding is provided
for the Reliable Replacement Warhead as proposed by the
House.
Warhead Dismantlement.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $135,888,000 for Warhead Dismantlement.
Within the funding provided, $14,846,000 is included for
upgrading the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada
Test Site for additional missions. The amended bill transfers
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF)
construction project from the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation to the NNSA Office of Defense Programs.
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$69,330,000 for the PDCF project.
Stockpile Services.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $698,608,000 for Stockpile Services.
Campaigns
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$1,890,717,000 for Campaigns. Within the funds provided, the
budget request level of funding is available for the
university research program in robotics (URPR).
Science Campaigns.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $290,216,000 for Science Campaigns. The
Committees on Appropriations include an additional $4,949,000
for Test Readiness activities at the Nevada Test Site to
maintain the capabilities restored under the enhanced test
readiness program.
Advanced Certification.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $15,000,000 for a new campaign focused
very narrowly on addressing the long-term scientific issues
related to continued certification of the nuclear stockpile
without underground nuclear testing and the scientific
uncertainties identified by the JASON review of the RRW
feasibility study activities. Within the funding provided for
Advanced Certification, $5,000,000 is derived from the
remaining uncosted balances from the Microsystems and
Engineering Science Applications project and the Exterior
Communication Infrastructure Modernization contingency funds.
The NNSA Administrator must submit a written report to the
defense committees by May 1, 2008, outlining a program plan
that addresses the specific certification issues, including
the issues identified in the JASON RRW review, which will be
addressed in the Advanced Certification campaign.
Engineering Campaigns.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $171,075,000 for Engineering Campaigns.
Within the funds provided, $10,000,000 is available for
enhanced surety work to increase the safety and security of
nuclear weapons in the existing stockpile and develop new
technologies for incorporation into potential future systems.
The amended bill authorizes the use of $10,000,000 in
remaining uncosted balances from the Microsystems and
Engineering Science Applications project and the Exterior
Communication Infrastructure Modernization contingency funds
to initiate a construction start for the Ion Beam Laboratory
Project.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield.--
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$474,442,000 for Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and
High Yield. This funding includes an additional $15,113,000
to accelerate target development and fabrication, and
restores $29,691,000 of funding for the Inertial Fusion
Technology program. Within the funds provided for Inertial
Fusion Technology, $14,691,000 is for continuing development
of high average power lasers and $15,000,000 is for the Naval
Research Laboratory. A total of $62,044,000 is provided for
the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) operations, an
increase of $9,000,000 over the budget request, to provide
additional shots to support the goal of an ignition
demonstration at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in
2010. An additional $13,000,000 is provided to fully fund
single shift operations of the Z machine at Sandia National
Laboratory. Z machine operations funding includes $28,887,000
provided within the Readiness and Technical Base and
Facilities (RTBF) subheading account in Weapons Activities.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $579,714,000 for
Advanced Simulation and Computing. The Department of Energy
is directed to establish the Institute for Advanced
Architectures and Algorithms between the NNSA and the
Department of Energy Office of Science with Centers of
Excellence at Sandia National Laboratories and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. These Centers will execute a national
program involving industry, universities and national
laboratories that is focused on technologies to sustain the
U.S. leadership in high performance computing. The NNSA ASC
and Office of Science ASCR programs will jointly fund the
program and provide direction needed to support the goal of
developing exascale computing for the Nation.
Pit Manufacturing and Certification.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $215,758,000 for Pit
Manufacturing and Certification. The Administrator is
directed to manage the pit activities as a single, coherent
project and adopt strict adherence to DOE Order 413.3A. No
funds are provided for the consolidated plutonium center.
Until a modern nuclear weapons strategy, including required
pit production capacity defined by nuclear stockpile
requirements, is developed, the NNSA is directed to constrain
the out-year planning for plutonium operations to a pit
production capacity no greater than 80 pits per year. The
NNSA Administrator is directed to provide quarterly reports
to the Committees on Appropriations on pit production, with
the first report due on April 1, 2008.
Readiness Campaigns.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $159,512,000 for Readiness Campaigns.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Funding under this heading in the amended bill provides
$1,652,132,000 for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
instead of $1,479,632,000 as proposed by the House and
$1,659,248,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Operations of Facilities.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill includes $1,164,856,000 for RTBF Operations
of Facilities. Within the funds provided, an additional
$37,649,000 is for the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee and
$18,817,000 for the Pantex Plant in Texas and $9,064,000 for
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and
$17,011,000 for implementation of a Classified Vaults project
at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The House
direction is adopted providing the RTBF Operations and
Facilities site funding in site-specific allocations in the
detail table at the end of title III. All proposed shifts in
funding between site-specific allocations require the
submittal of a reprogramming request to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Program Readiness.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $70,731,000 for Program Readiness.
Material Recycling and Recovery.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $72,212,000 for Material
Recycling and Recovery, an increase of $2,250,000 over the
budget request.
Containers.--Funding under this heading in the amended bill
includes $21,956,000 for Containers, an increase of
$2,772,000 over the budget request.
Storage.--Funding under this heading in the amended bill
includes $34,772,000 for Storage.
Construction.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill includes $287,605,000 for RTBF Construction. This
funding includes $15,143,000 for Project 08-D-802, High
Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex, Texas; $41,926,000 for
Project 06-D-140, Project Engineering and Design (PED),
various locations, including $38,957,000 for Project 06-D-
140-05 Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), Y-12 Plant, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. Within the funds provided for Project 06-D-
140, $990,000 is provided for Project 06-D-140-01, TA-55
Radiography Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New
Mexico. Funding under this heading also includes $1,979,000
for Project 05-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, various
locations; $74,809,000 for Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and
Metallurgy Facility Replacement Project, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico; $29,152,000 for Project 04-D-128, TA-
18 Mission Relocation Project, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico; and $76,208,000 for Project 01-D-
[[Page 34824]]
124, HEU Materials Facility, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$181,613,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization.
Secure Transportation Asset
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$213,428,000 for Secure Transportation Asset.
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$160,084,000 for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.
Environmental Projects and Operations
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$8,669,000 for Environmental Projects and Operations.
Safeguards and Security
Safeguards and Security.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes $907,625,000 for Safeguards and
Security. Within these funds are provided $7,000,000 to each
of the following facilities: the Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico, the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee, and
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, for
additional physical and cyber security upgrades to meet
Design Basis Threat requirements and address cyber security
vulnerabilities.
Construction.--Funding for safeguards and Security includes
$71,751,000 for construction activities. An additional
$14,846,000 is provided for the refurbishment of Building 651
and completion of Building 691 at the Idaho National
Laboratory to handle special nuclear material consolidation,
storage and other missions. The amended bill transfers
$4,900,000 provided in fiscal year 2006 in the Other Defense
Activities account to begin planning activities for the Idaho
project.
Funding Adjustments
Funding Adjustments.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes the use of $86,514,000 of prior year
balances made available from completed or cancelled
construction projects. The recommendation includes an
adjustment of $34,000,000 for the safeguards and security
charge for reimbursable work.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $48,000,000 in
congressionally directed projects.
[[Page 34825]]
TH17DE07.071
[[Page 34826]]
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(Including Rescissions of Funds)
The amended bill provides a total program level of
$1,673,275,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation instead
of $2,070,646,000 as proposed by the House and $1,929,646,000
as proposed by the Senate. The amended bill includes
$1,351,275,000 of new budget authority and the use of
$322,000,000 of prior year balances in fiscal year 2008.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$390,752,000 for Nonproliferation and Verification Research
and Development, an increase of $125,500,000 over the budget
request. The amended bill provides an additional $60,000,000
in proliferation detection to expand research in critical
research and development for high-risk, high return nuclear
detection capabilities and an additional $20,000,000 for the
implementation of a sustained research and development
capacity in nuclear detection and nuclear materials security.
The NNSA has the lead responsibility for the federal
government in nuclear detection, counter-proliferation and
counter-terrorism, and this capability must be sustained to
meet the evolving threats. An additional $20,500,000 is
provided for nuclear explosion monitoring.
This account includes $25,000,000 for Project 06-D-180,
National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, an increase of $25,000,000 over the
request. Funds not needed for project engineering and design
(PED) on Project 06-D-180 may be used without prior committee
approval for Project 06-D-180 construction activities.
The Department is directed to conduct a competitive
solicitation open to all federal and non-federal entities
toward an integrated suite of research, technology
development and demonstration areas including infrasound,
hydroacoustic for ground-based systems treaty monitoring
activities. The competitive process should award not less
than $5,000,000 of the additional funding for nuclear
explosion monitoring for research and development activities
for ground-based treaty monitoring.
Nonproliferation and International Security
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$151,370,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security,
an increase of $26,500,000 over the budget request. An
additional $8,000,000 is provided for Dismantlement and
Transparency; an additional $10,000,000 for Global Security
Engagement and Cooperation for Global Initiatives for
Proliferation and Prevention; and an additional $8,500,000
for International Regimes and Agreements to expand
international cooperation on multilateral nuclear
nonproliferation goals and objectives.
Nuclear Disablement Activities in North Korea.--The
Committees on Appropriations are concerned about the NNSA
resources required to support disablement of North Korea's
nuclear weapons arsenal and production capability. The
Committees on Appropriations strongly support NNSA's
contributions to this diplomatic mission, but remain
concerned about relying upon a mid-year reprogramming of
resources from other critical nonproliferation programs to
support what is currently a fluid and uncertain effort. From
within the funds provided for Nonproliferation and
International Security, the NNSA has funding discretion to
provide up to $10,000,000 toward NNSA activities to continue
disablement activities to shut down nuclear weapons
activities in North Korea. The Department is directed to
submit a supplemental budget request if additional resources
are required to continue activities during fiscal year 2008.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$630,217,000 for International Nuclear Materials Protection
and Cooperation. Within the funds provided, $269,331,000 is
available for Second Line of Defense activities, including an
additional $50,000,000 for the Megaports initiative to
accelerate deployment of radiation detection equipment at
international seaports.
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$181,593,000 for the Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
Production program, the same as the budget request.
Fissile Materials Disposition
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$66,843,000 for Fissile Materials Disposition, as proposed by
the House. Program activities and functions for the Mixed
Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility construction project
are transferred to the Office of Nuclear Energy and the
program activities and functions for the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility (PDCF) activity are transferred to the
NNSA Office of Defense Programs. The use of $322,000,000 in
prior year balances is specified under Funding Transfers from
the Russian Plutonium Disposition activities and the Mixed
Oxide Fuel Fabrication project for other purposes within
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. A total of $115,000,000 of
unobligated, uncosted prior year balances are transferred to
the Nuclear Energy account.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$195,000,000 for Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an
increase of $75,374,000 over the budget request.
International Nuclear Fuel Bank
The amended bill provides $50,000,000 for an International
Nuclear Fuel Bank initiative. The $50,000,000 for the
International Nuclear Fuel Bank is the United States
Government's contribution to an international effort to
establish a nuclear fuel supply for peaceful means under the
auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The International Nuclear Fuel Bank will provide a nuclear
fuel stockpile to be available as a fuel supply reserve for
nations that have made the sovereign choice to develop their
civilian nuclear energy industry based on foreign sources of
nuclear fuel and therefore have no requirement to develop an
indigenous nuclear fuel enrichment capability. Not later than
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the progress of
the United States to support the establishment of a nuclear
fuel supply for peaceful means under the auspices of the
IAEA.
Reliable Fuel Supply
The Secretary of Energy established a stockpile of low
enriched nuclear fuel from the down blend of 17.4 metric tons
of Highly Enriched Uranium, excess to U.S. needs. This
stockpile was to be designated for the sale to foreign
countries that support U.S. nonproliferation goals in the
event of an unforeseen supply disruption in the global
nuclear fuel market. In light of the establishment of the
International Nuclear Fuel Bank, the Secretary is directed to
allow U.S. interests to purchase uranium fuel from the
Reliable Fuel Supply in the event of a supply disruption.
Funding Adjustments
The funding adjustments in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
include the use of $322,000,000 of prior year balances. The
sources of the prior year balances are $57,000,000 from the
Russian Surplus Materials Disposition program, $115,000,000
from unobligated, uncosted balances within the Mixed Oxide
fuel fabrication facility construction activities, and the
remaining $151,000,000 of unexpended balances from the
Russian material disposition funding provided in the fiscal
year 1999 emergency supplemental (P.L. 105-277).
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding provided in the
amended bill under this heading includes $7,500,000 in
congressionally directed projects within the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation account.
[[Page 34827]]
TH17DE07.072
[[Page 34828]]
Naval Reactors
The amended bill provides $781,800,000 for Naval Reactors,
the same funding level as fiscal year 2007.
Office of the Administrator
The amended bill provides $405,987,000 for the Office of
the Administrator. The Administrator is directed to support
the increase in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities
with sufficient resources to support federal travel
requirements to support the expanded nuclear nonproliferation
activities.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill includes $22,500,000 in
congressionally directed projects in support of the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) programs
within the Office of the Administrator account.
[[Page 34829]]
TH17DE07.073
[[Page 34830]]
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Cleanup
(Including Transfer of Funds)
The amended bill provides $5,398,573,000 for the Defense
Environmental Cleanup program, instead of $5,766,561,000 as
proposed by the House, and $5,690,380,000 as proposed by the
Senate. The agency should direct the Department to fund
hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000 within
available funds.
Economic development.--The Appropriations Committees direct
that none of the Defense Environmental Cleanup funds are
available for economic development activities unless
specifically authorized by law.
Internal Reprogramming authority.--In fiscal year 2008, the
Department may transfer up to $5,000,000 within accounts and
between accounts, as noted in the table below, to reduce
health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no
program or project is increased or decreased by more than
$5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This
reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new
programs or to change funding for programs specifically
denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or
explanatory statement. The Committees on Appropriations in
the House and Senate must be notified within thirty days of
the use of this reprogramming authority.
Account Control Points:
Closure Sites
Savannah River site, nuclear material stabilization and
disposition
Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations
Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations
Savannah River Tank Farm
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Idaho National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation
Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions
Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions
Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment &
Immobilization Plant (WTP)
ORP WTP Pretreatment facility
ORP WTP High-level waste facility
ORP WTP Low activity waste facility
ORP WTP Analytical laboratory
ORP WTP Balance of facilities
Program Direction
Program Support
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund contribution
Technology Development
Closure Sites.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill includes $42,437,000, the same as the budget request.
Savannah River Site.--Funding under this heading provides
$1,141,590,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, a
decrease of $64,500,000 below the budget request. The
Department accommodated funding shortfalls at the Savannah
River Site during fiscal year 2007, therefore the
Appropriations Committees adjust the fiscal year 2008 funding
to reflect the additional funds provided in fiscal year 2007.
Funding under this heading provides $1,000,000 for the
plutonium vitrification facility, a reduction of $14,000,000
below the budget request. The Appropriations Committees will
reconsider funding this project again when plutonium
vitrification has been confirmed by the Department as a
plausible disposition pathway for the small amount of
plutonium not appropriate for MOX fuel.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $236,739,000 for the
WIPP, an increase of $17,000,000 over the budget request for
the activities listed in the Senate report, including the
Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials.
Idaho National Laboratory.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $513,026,000 for the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), an increase of $9,000,000 for cleanup
activities. The funding levels provided under this heading
for INL reflect a redistribution of the budget request to
better reflect the current needs at the INL.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $192,284,000 for the Oak Ridge
Reservation, an increase of $13,000,000 over the budget
request, to include $30,000,000 for the disposition of
material in building 3019, an increase of $10,000,000 over
the budget request. Funding under this heading provides
$9,379,000 for soil and water remediation at offsite
locations, an increase of $3,000,000 to accelerate the
completion of the David Witherspoon sites.
Hanford Site.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill provides $894,640,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase
of $17,560,000 over the budget request. Of this increase, the
$10,000,000 is for increased groundwater remediation, and
$7,560,000 is for additional transuranic waste retrieval and
characterization, and mixed low-level and low-level waste
disposal to meet Tri-Party Agreement milestones. Within
available funds, the agency is directed to fund the
Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency
Response (HAMMER) training and education center, and B-Plant
preservation at no less than fiscal year 2006 levels.
Office of River Protection.--Funding under this heading in
the amended bill provides $978,443,000 for the Office of
River Protection, an increase of $15,000,000 over the budget
request. The increase is to support the demonstration of the
bulk vitrification system, and to support tank farm
retrievals. Funding under this heading provides $690,000,000
for the Waste Treatment Plant.
Program direction.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $309,760,000 for program direction.
Program support.--Funding under this heading in the amended
bill provides $33,146,000 for program support.
Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill includes the budget request of $463,000,000 for
the Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in
Public Law 102-486.
Technology development and deployment.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $21,389,000 for the
technology development and deployment program.
NNSA Sites.--Funding under this heading in the amended bill
provides $292,930,000 for NNSA sites, an increase of
$21,800,000 over the budget request. Of the increase,
$7,800,000 is provided for Pantex for required groundwater
remediation and monitoring wells, and $14,000,000 supports
additional cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Safeguards and security.--Funding under this heading in the
amended bill provides $261,714,000 for safeguards and
security, a reduction of $11,667,000 due to sufficient
uncosted carryover balances in fiscal year 2007.
Legacy Management.--The Appropriations Committees do not
support the consolidation of Legacy Management activities
within the Defense Environmental Management account as
proposed by the House.
Material Consolidation Office.--The Appropriations
Committees remain skeptical regarding the quality of the
analytical underpinnings of the Department's decision to
utilize H-canyon as the primary disposition pathway for
material consolidation efforts. The Appropriations Committees
await the findings of the GAO review in early 2008, and will
make future recommendations accordingly. The Appropriations
Committees provide funding for H-canyon operations and
plutonium vitrification at the Savannah River Site, and do
not support the House proposal to restrict the funds to the
Headquarters office at this time.
Congressional Directed Projects.--Funding under this
heading in the amended bill provides $17,475,000 for
congressionally directed projects.
[[Page 34831]]
TH17DE07.074
[[Page 34832]]
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The amended bill provides $761,290,000 for Other Defense
Activities instead of $604,313,000 as proposed by the House
and $765,464,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Office of Health, Safety, and Security
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$429,348,000 for the Office of Health, Safety, and Security
as proposed by the Senate. The reorganization requested by
the Department--combining the Office of Environment, Safety,
and Health and the Office of Security and Performance
Assurance--is adopted. Within the funds provided, $16,500,000
is available for the Worker Health Screening program, an
increase of $4,000,000 over the budget request. The Office of
Health, Safety, and Security is directed to initiate an early
lung cancer screening program as proposed by the Senate.
Legacy Management
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$156,379,000 for the Office of Legacy Management, a reduction
of $2,684,000 from the budget request. From within available
funds, $500,000 is provided for the Rocky Flats Cold War
Museum in Colorado.
Funding For Defense Activities In Idaho
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$75,949,000 to fund defense-related activities at the Idaho
National Laboratory.
Defense-Related Administrative Support
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$99,000,000 to provide administrative support for programs
funded in the atomic energy defense activities account.
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes
$4,607,000 for the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Funding Adjustments
Funding adjustments include an offset of $3,003,000 for the
safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work and the
use of $990,000 of prior year balances.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
The amended bill provides $201,000,000 for Defense Nuclear
Waste Disposal instead of $292,046,000 as proposed by the
House and $242,046,000 as proposed by the Senate.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
The amended bill provides no new borrowing authority for
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) during fiscal year
2008.
The Appropriations Committees have opposed the
Administration's past proposal regarding BPA net secondary
revenues and hope the Administration will not pursue the
proposal in fiscal year 2008 or 2009.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
The amended bill provides $6,463,000 for the Southeastern
Power Administration as proposed by both the House and
Senate, including $62,215,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and includes $48,413,000 of offsetting collections.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
The amended bill provides $30,442,000 for the Southwestern
Power Administration as proposed by both the House and
Senate, including $45,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and includes $35,000,000 of offsetting collections.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
The amended bill includes $231,030,000 as proposed by the
Senate instead of $201,030,000 as proposed by the House. The
amended bill provides for a total program level of
$755,911,000 for Western, which includes $62,915,000 for
construction and rehabilitation, $53,271,000 for system power
operation and maintenance, $475,254,000 for purchase power
and wheeling, $157,304,000 for program direction and
$7,167,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.
Offsetting collections total $312,639,000, including the
$3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River
Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381).
The Appropriations Committees reject the budget's proposed
funding reduction for Construction, Rehabilitation,
Operations, and Maintenance. The budget's proposal to rely
more heavily on alternative financing for these activities is
unrealistic.
Congressional Directed Projects.--The agency should, within
available funds, provide $3,000,000 for the Colorado River
Transmission Line.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
The amended bill includes $2,500,000 for the Falcon and
Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund as proposed by both
the House and Senate.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Salaries and Expenses
The amended bill includes $260,425,000 for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) instead of $255,425,000
as proposed by both the House and Senate. Revenues for FERC
are set at an amount equal to the budget authority, resulting
in a net appropriation of $0.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language is included under section 301 regarding
competition of major Department of Energy contracts.
Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the
use of funds in this Act to initiate a request for proposal
of expression of interest for new programs which have not yet
been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission
and which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress.
Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the
use of funds for workforce restructuring or enhanced
severance payments under the worker and community transition
program under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language is included under section 304 to prohibit the
augmentation of severance payments under section 3161 of
Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is
submitted to Congress.
Language is included in section 305 which permits the
transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in
this bill.
Language is included in Section 306 that prohibits the use
of funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
Language is included in Section 307 that establishes
certain notice and competition requirements for Department of
Energy user facilities.
Language is included in Section 308 specifically
authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the
fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Language is included in section 309 regarding laboratory
directed research and development activities.
Language is included in section 310 prohibiting the
Department of Energy from modifying a ratemaking policy by
changing the interest rate on future obligations for the
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power
Administrations.
Language is included in section 311 relating to the Use
Permit at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The
Government Accountability Office is directed to conduct an
evaluation of the effectiveness of technology transfer across
all DOE laboratories and to report to the Committees on
Appropriations on the effectiveness of technology transfer
and the role the Use Permit at PNNL plays in this issue.
Language is included in section 312 reducing the
congressionally directed projects in title III by 1.6 percent
and all other discretionary accounts in this title by 0.91
percent.
[[Page 34833]]
[[Page 34834]]
TH17DE07.076
[[Page 34835]]
TH17DE07.077
[[Page 34836]]
TH17DE07.078
[[Page 34837]]
TH17DE07.079
[[Page 34838]]
TH17DE07.080
[[Page 34839]]
TH17DE07.081
[[Page 34840]]
TH17DE07.082
[[Page 34841]]
TH17DE07.083
[[Page 34842]]
TH17DE07.084
[[Page 34843]]
TH17DE07.085
[[Page 34844]]
TH17DE07.086
[[Page 34845]]