[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6189-6194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to make the United States more secure by 
     implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to 
     improve homeland security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 275, in the nature of a substitute.
       Landrieu amendment No. 321 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include levees 
     in the list of critical infrastructure sectors.
       Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 336 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to prohibit the use of the peer review process in determining 
     the allocation of funds among metropolitan areas applying for 
     grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
       Coburn amendment No. 325 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure 
     the fiscal integrity of grants awarded by the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       Coburn amendment No. 294 (to amendment No. 275), to provide 
     that the provisions of the act shall cease to have any force 
     or effect on and after December 31, 2012, to ensure 
     congressional review and oversight of the act.
       Kyl modified amendment No. 357 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     amend the data-mining technology reporting requirement to 
     avoid revealing existing patents, trade secrets, and 
     confidential business processes, and to adopt a narrower 
     definition of data-mining in order to exclude routine 
     computer searches.
       Biden amendment No. 383 (to amendment No. 275), to require 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop regulations 
     regarding the transportation of high-hazard materials.
       Schumer modified amendment No. 367 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to require the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to establish and implement a program to 
     provide additional safety measures for vehicles that carry 
     high-hazardous materials.
       Stevens amendment No. 299 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the 
     Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to 
     initiate migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network 
     capable of receiving and responding to all citizen-activated 
     emergency communications.
       Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 337 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to provide for the use of funds in any grant under the 
     Homeland Security Grant Program for personnel costs.
       Bond/Rockefeller amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to provide the sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate should submit a 
     report on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with 
     respect to intelligence reform and congressional intelligence 
     oversight reform.

[[Page 6190]]




                      Amendments Nos. 294 and 325

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:45 a.m. shall be for debate on Coburn amendments Nos. 294 and 
325, and the time shall be equally divided between Senators Coburn and 
Lieberman or their designees.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of our time to 
Senator Brown of Ohio. He has a statement to make as in morning 
business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of the time on our 
side to the Senator from Delaware.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
  We heard, a few minutes earlier, from Senator Grassley of Iowa, the 
ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. He talked at some length 
about the tax gap, which some suggest may be costing our Treasury 
roughly $300 billion this year, last year, and next year as well. These 
are moneys which are believed to be owed but not being collected by the 
IRS. When we talk about reducing our Nation's budget deficit--something 
we all know we need to do--among the ways to do it is to close the tax 
gap.
  Another way to do it is to address what are called improper payments. 
Senator Coburn and I lead a subcommittee in Governmental Affairs and 
Homeland Security called the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. 
We have been exploring the issue of improper payments. We have had for 
a number of years an improper payments law that says Federal agencies 
have to not continue making improper payments.
  We found out about 2 years ago roughly $50 billion in improper 
payments were made by Federal agencies--mostly overpayments, some 
underpayments. Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the iceberg. It 
turns out improper payments made for the last year have been down to 
about $41 billion, but it does not include the Department of Defense, 
it does not include improper payments made by Homeland Security, and it 
does not include improper payments that crop up in some other parts of 
our Federal Government.
  Senator Coburn and I have been holding hearings. Last year, it was 
under his leadership as chairman. We held one under my leadership as 
chairman earlier this month on improper payments. We are going to 
focus, early this year, particularly on some of the big agencies--
Homeland Security, which still does not comply with the law; the 
Department of Defense, which still does not comply with the law--to 
provide a strong impetus for them to begin complying with the law or at 
least to get on the right track.
  Senator Coburn has an amendment he has offered, one that is opposed 
by the National Governors Association and by a number of other groups. 
What he would attempt to do--and what I think his purpose is; his goal 
is meritorious--is to compel the Department of Homeland Security to 
comply with the Improper Payments Act. He does so in a way that holds 
at risk State and local governments and their ability to receive 
homeland security grants, really three out of I think the four major 
grant programs that are handled by Homeland Security that we are 
discussing today with this bill.
  The reason why the National Governors Association and I think other 
State and local governmental entities are opposing the amendment is 
because they could be held at risk of not receiving the grants for a 
lot of fire departments and other first responders and other State and 
local agencies, through no fault of their own but because the 
Department of Homeland Security is not complying with the Improper 
Payments Act.
  Senator Coburn was prepared to offer a second-degree amendment, one I 
think he and his staff worked on with OMB that I think was a far better 
approach to getting the attention of Homeland Security to comply with 
the Improper Payments Act. He is not going to be able to offer the 
second-degree amendment. As a result, we have no choice but to debate 
and vote on his initial amendment, which we took up in committee. I 
asked him not to offer it in committee during the markup. He did not, 
and today his only choice is to offer that same amendment. 
Unfortunately, I cannot support it.
  He is onto a good idea. The idea is we need to put not just Homeland 
Security but the Department of Defense--and a bunch of other Federal 
agencies that are not complying with this law--we need to put them 
under the gun and say: You have to start complying--and to provide 
pressure, incentives, sticks, carrots to get them in compliance with 
the law.
  I think we will be holding our second hearing later this month on 
further looking at the Improper Payments Act. We are going to be 
bringing before us the Department of Homeland Security to find out what 
is their problem, why are they unable to comply with the law. Do we 
need to make changes in the law or do they just need to get on the 
ball? It may be a combination of the two.
  To that end, I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator 
Coburn. I must reluctantly oppose the amendment--not the amendment he 
wanted to offer. The amendment he wanted to offer, he is not going to 
have a chance to offer. But the amendment he is offering, I have to 
oppose.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me 
when I have 5 minutes remaining of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is a curious thing that when we have 
hearings in the Senate, we find out problems and then offer real 
solutions that have teeth--as Senator Carper just said, to put them 
under the gun. Nobody wants to put them under the gun.
  This amendment on improper payments gives the Department of Homeland 
Security 18 months to comply before any State will see any harm from 
this. The fact is, the States are not without some responsibility 
because some of the improper payments go to some grants that go in the 
State.
  The American people need to ask: Is the Congress really serious about 
controlling spending? They are not. This amendment is not going to 
pass. All we are saying is: Here is a law they were supposed to be in 
compliance with in 2004. It says: If you are not going to be in 
compliance with it--they have not, they have not, they have not--we are 
saying, to be accountable, you have to be transparent, you have to have 
results. The results are complying with the Improper Payments Act.
  We also think there ought to be competition for some of the grants. 
There is not in this bill. There ought to be a priority set. There 
ought to be responsiveness. There ought to be spending discipline.
  As this amendment goes down--and it will--the Senators are going to 
reject the very idea of having accountability, the very thing they talk 
about with earmarks. The reason they cannot give up earmarks is because 
they cannot let the administration and the agencies manage the money.
  But here is a tool to force Homeland Security to manage its money, to 
hold them accountable and say in 18 months from now, if you have not 
done the work every other agency of this Government is supposed to have 
done, then we are going to hold you accountable by cutting off the 
money. That is

[[Page 6191]]

tough love. It is putting them under the gun. That is exactly what we 
need to do.
  Do you know what will happen if my amendment is accepted and it comes 
through? Homeland Security will report its improper payments. But if we 
do not, I want you to think about what happens when you reject this 
amendment. What is the consequence for every other agency of the 
Federal Government to now not comply with the Improper Payments Act? 
There is no cost in not complying with the Improper Payments Act.
  According to the GAO, the following portions of Homeland Security do 
not meet anywhere close the Improper Payments Act. That is the Customs 
and Border Protection, that is the Office of Grants and Training. They 
have not done a thing to be in compliance with this money.
  Now, we can look the other way and we can say we are not going to 
enforce the law, but the next thing I am going to do, as a Senator--if 
we are not going to enforce the improper payments law, then let's get 
rid of it. The American people deserve to have the law enforced. It is 
a good law. It helps us hold the agencies accountable, the very thing 
that the $26 to $27 billion worth of earmarks says we cannot do.
  Now we have an opportunity to do it, and we are going to vote against 
it. Why? Because we may put something at risk. Well, quality and 
results depend on us putting this at risk, to force this agency, FEMA, 
to come into compliance with a law that is on the books with which they 
have refused to comply.
  Senator Carper mentioned the $40 billion of improper payments. That 
only represents 40 percent of the Federal Government. There is at least 
$100 billion of our money--the taxpayers' money--which is being paid 
out which should not be paid out, and probably $20 billion of it is in 
the Pentagon. We know the Department of Health and Human Services has 
not complied with the Improper Payments Act on Medicaid, and that is 
estimated somewhere between $20 billion and $30 billion. So we know of 
at least $100 billion.
  I want you to think for a minute when you vote against this amendment 
what you tell every other agency in the Federal Government: There is no 
consequence whatsoever to not meeting the Improper Payments Act of 
2002. There will be no consequence even though we are going to say you 
have not done it. Here is a way to do it, to force Homeland Security to 
be accountable and to recognize they have an obligation under the law 
to report and look at the risk factors.
  Now, what does the Improper Payments Act ask agencies to do? 
Everything we would want done with our own money:
  Perform a risk assessment. Is there a risk for improper payments? 
Homeland Security hasn't even done that.
  Develop a statistically valid estimate of improper payments. In other 
words, go look at it and do a study to see is there potential that 
money is going out the door that should not go out the door.
  Develop a corrective action plan.
  Report the results of these activities to us, the Congress, the 
people's representatives.
  By voting against this amendment, you are telling Homeland Security 
they don't have to comply, that there is no teeth; it will never be 
done. Why would the Governors Association oppose this? Because they are 
the monied interest groups that are going to get the money. In fact, 
some of the problems with the money is the responsibility of the 
Governors. If I were a Governor, I would not want you checking on my 
money. It is natural for them to oppose it. But it is normal for us to 
protect the taxpayers by saying that every agency ought to apply and 
respond to the law under improper payments. It is simple. We should ask 
that Homeland Security follow the law.
  When you vote against this amendment, what you are telling Homeland 
Security, the Defense Department, the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and all of the other departments is that they don't have to 
comply because now we are going to be toothless and say there are no 
consequences whatsoever.
  Some will say this puts these grants at risk. There are no grants at 
risk. There is $4.8 billion sitting in the queue right now that won't 
be spent for 18 months. This bill authorizes another $3.2 billion to 
follow after that.
  If they cannot comply in 18 months, we need to stop and take a 
timeout and ask: Why can't you tell us where you are spending money 
that you should not be spending? Why can't you comply with the very 
simple things this act asks? Why can't they do a risk assessment in 18 
months, develop a statistically valid estimate of where the problems 
are? They cannot do that in 18 months, develop a corrective action 
plan? They cannot do that in 18 months? They cannot report to us in 18 
months?
  To oppose this amendment says we don't care about improper payments. 
It is going to be like a lot of other laws on the books: we don't have 
standing; I, as a Senator, don't have any standing to sue the Federal 
Government to make it comply. The reason we won't have standing is 
because we don't have the courage to do what is right for the American 
taxpayers.
  The last election had a lot to do with spending. This is going to be 
a vote to say whether we really meant what we said when we said we were 
going to start taking better care of the American taxpayers' dollars; 
that we were going to make the Government more accountable, more 
transparent and efficient. We are going to see a vote against this 
amendment, and the American people are going to get shortchanged once 
again because we don't have the courage to go up against the monied 
interests that get the grants and say we ought to at least have 
transparency.
  There is another tool coming back called the Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2006, and the American taxpayers are going to 
know whether improper payments are made. We are not going to do our 
job.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend from Oklahoma that would sunset the 
provisions of this bill after 5 years.
  In general, I think this is a very good bill. But I have serious 
reservations about the method by which this bill allocates State 
homeland security grants.
  Last week, I came to the floor to offer an amendment to make this 
funding allocation more based on risk. My amendment was an attempt to 
meet the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that ``[h]omeland security 
assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and 
vulnerabilities [and] federal homeland security assistance should not 
remain a program for general revenue sharing.''
  That is why my amendment sought to send the most dollars to those 
areas at the greatest risk of an attack. As compared to the funding 
formula in the underlying bill, my amendment would have better 
protected our borders, our ports, our railroads, our subways, our 
chemical plants, our nuclear power plants, our food supply, and our 
firefighters, police officers and EMTs.
  Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated, as was a similar amendment 
offered by Senators Feinstein and Cornyn. I think this was an 
unfortunate mistake by the Senate, and I am hopeful that this mistake 
will be corrected in conference.
  If the funding formula is not fixed, however, I believe it is 
perfectly appropriate for us to reexamine this issue 5 years from now 
to ensure that the allocation of homeland security funding provides the 
necessary resources to communities most at risk.
  For this reason, I will support the amendment offered by my colleague 
from Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time we have on our 
side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5 minutes 4 seconds.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield 2 minutes of that time to the Senator from 
Maine.

[[Page 6192]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine is 
recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the frustration 
expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma. Our committee, last year, had 
extensive hearings looking at waste, fraud, and abuse in the spending 
of funds in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We documented over a billion 
dollars of waste or fraudulent spending. So the Senator has put his 
finger on a very important problem.
  I am very concerned about the practical impact of the Senator's 
amendment. The Senator, at one point, had a second-degree amendment, 
which he has decided not to offer, which addressed part of my concern. 
The Senator has said this morning that the Department would have 18 
months to comply with the provisions of the Improper Payments Act. But, 
in fact, the plain language of his amendment says the Secretary shall 
not award any grants or distribute any grant funds under any grant 
program under this act until the certification, risk assessment, and 
estimates that his amendment calls for have been completed. The result 
of that, because our legislation includes some grant money for 
interoperability under the Commerce Committee provisions in the bill, 
for this year, is that it halts those funding programs, those grant 
programs. The result is to penalize first responders, State and local 
governments, for the faults that are largely from the Department of 
Homeland Security. I don't think that is fair. That is why the National 
Governors Association and the National Emergency Managers Association 
strongly oppose this amendment.
  In addition, the Department has expressed great concern about this 
amendment. In fact, the Department's Office of General Counsel has 
written to me that they ``strongly oppose the amendment prohibiting the 
Secretary from awarding any grant, or distributing any grant funds, 
until the Secretary has submitted the certifications and other analyses 
in response to Senator Coburn's amendment.'' So it is not just the 
Governors and the emergency managers. It is also the Department of 
Homeland Security that strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly on what I 
believe is the first of two amendments offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma, amendment No. 294, the sunset of the entire text of the 
underlying bill, S. 4.
  This would sunset all of the provisions of this legislation in 5 
years. Obviously, the terrorism threat in the legislation that we have 
passed since 9/11, particularly in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
and the 9/11 legislation of 2004, will not go away in 5 years. Many 
parts of this bill amend existing underlying provisions that do not 
sunset. Thus, if we pass the Coburn amendment No. 294, we would be 
amending provisions for homeland security grants, information sharing, 
interoperability. Then in 5 years these homeland security programs 
would revert back to earlier rules and realities, which we have found 
in this bill to be inadequate. I think that would be a disruptive and, 
in many ways, a bizarre result.
  If this called for reauthorization, as other legislation does, not 
immediate sunset, I would say it would be more reasonable to consider. 
But that is why I oppose Coburn amendment No. 294.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. For the opposition?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Forty-six seconds.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, let me address Senator Lieberman for a 
minute. The very thing he says he doesn't want to do now, we did 
exactly on the PATRIOT Act. Why would I want to sunset that? The 
American people would like to see every piece of legislation that we do 
that has to do with authorization and spending sunsetted. There are 
good reasons for that. We don't know what the terrorism situation will 
be in 5 years. We don't know all of the aspects of what we are dealing 
with. What we know is that 4 years from now, if this is sunsetted, we 
will be working on a new bill that is based on the realities of the 
world at that time.
  Instead, what the opposition to this sunset amendment says is what we 
are doing now we know, without a doubt, is exactly what we need to do 
in 5 years from now in every area. I would put it to you that none of 
us knows exactly what we need to do 5 years from now. A sunset won't 
cause this to lapse. It will cause the Congress to act in year 4 to 
reauthorize the bill when it expires.
  I have 5 minutes left. Let me talk about this. We should get reports 
on what we have done. We should report and react in a very commonsense 
way to what this bill has done over the next 4 or 5 years. We should 
review that. We should then reform what we are doing now so that it has 
better application and wiser use of resources, and then we should 
reauthorize.
  To oppose sunsetting this speaks of an arrogance that is unbelievable 
of this body. We cannot know what we need to do 5 years from now in 
terms of homeland security. We don't know. It is an ever-changing 
situation. To imply that this will lapse--everybody here knows that is 
not the fact. We are not about to let it lapse. We are going to do what 
is necessary for our country.
  This amendment tells us that we ought to relook at it because we 
don't have that kind of wisdom. If we think we do, we should not be 
here because that means we are going to be making a lot of mistakes. So 
I will go back to that. Let me go back.
  Why would Homeland Security oppose the Improper Payments Act, as read 
by Senator Collins? Because they have not complied. They have no 
intention of ever complying. The one thing that the 9/11 Commission 
said that this Congress has not done is to have one committee 
responsible for oversight of Homeland Security. Senator Carper and I 
spent a lot of time last year, as did Senator Lieberman and Senator 
Collins in full committee, and we in our subcommittee, on Oversight of 
Homeland Security. We found a billion dollars wasted in Katrina. We 
found tons of improper payments in Homeland Security. We found that, in 
fact, there is no accountability. There is no accountability in the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  The American public deserves to have the two amendments I have 
offered today. They deserve to force them to do what the law says on 
improper payments, and they deserve for us to make a reevaluation 4 
years from now on what ought to be different. We ought to reassess what 
we are doing and reevaluate how we do it, and we ought to say we need 
to apply more resources to that problem. The American people deserve to 
know they are getting value for their money. Right now, they are not 
getting that in homeland security and in multiple areas because we 
cannot even find out.
  So here we are crying that we cannot have earmarks because the 
agencies are going to run what they want to run. We have an opportunity 
to not let them run, and we are going to run against it. It is 
counterintuitive to me that we would be on both sides of this issue.
  The fact is, the Federal Government is unaccountable in many ways, 
and the American people know that. On these two amendments, the 
American people are going to ask: How did they vote? And they are going 
to say, once again: What are they thinking? They are protecting the 
interests they have there now and putting at risk the interests of the 
next generation--because we don't do something simple like sunset a 
bill or make an agency comply with improper payments.
  What would happen if there was a 1-month delay in grants? Nothing. 
But what would happen if we got the improper payment data from Homeland 
Security? Plenty. Then we could act on it and hold them accountable in 
the appropriations bills. Then we can do our jobs and do something 
about it.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.

[[Page 6193]]


  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our friend is making some points I 
agree with, as does Senator Collins and most Members. Our problem is 
that in each of the two amendments, the instrument he has chosen is 
very blunt. I wish we had more time to work on these. If they don't 
survive the two votes today, I look forward to going back in committee 
to work on these generally.
  Why do I say they are blunt? The National Governors Association 
explained why they thought the improper payments would lead to the 
termination of homeland security grant funding to the States. There are 
some estimates by the administration that it would threaten Medicare 
payments. Doing something about this is good, but why have the ultimate 
punishment be on the beneficiaries?
  The same is true of the sunset provision. Incidentally, the money 
authorizations in this bill are sunsetted. It is different from the 
PATRIOT Act, where the provisions with the sunset were very 
controversial. In this bill, I don't think there is any controversy 
about the underlying proposals.
  I still respectfully oppose these two amendments, and I hope that if 
they don't succeed, my colleague and I can work in the committee to 
bring forth a version of both that we can both support.
  Mr. COBURN. I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma has 1 
minute 17 seconds.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I hope the American people will look at 
these commonsense amendments and look at how their Senators vote. The 
one way to get things done is to put somebody in a bind. The fact is, 
this is the law. It is already the law, and we are saying we are going 
to put some teeth behind the law and make you do it.
  I raise one final point. If my colleagues vote against this, what 
they are saying to every other agency is: There is no consequence to 
not reporting and doing what you are supposed to do under the Improper 
Payments Act of 2002. That is the signal we will be sending.
  The American people want the signal the other way. With $100 billion 
of their tax money paid out the door, that is improper, most of it 
overpayments, and we are saying we are letting one of the biggest 
agencies of the Federal Government off the hook.
  If my colleagues want to vote for that, that is fine, but I hope we 
are held accountable for that vote in the next election cycle when we 
claim we want the Government to be efficient, we claim we want it 
smaller, we claim we want to get good value for the American taxpayer 
value. These votes surely will not show that, if my colleagues vote 
against these two amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 294 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 294 
offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, and I ask the vote be taken by 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Allard
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Obama
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 325

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a 
2-minute debate equally divided on the Coburn amendment No. 325.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a real simple amendment. The 
improper payments law was passed in 2002. By 2004, all Government 
agencies were supposed to come under it. The Homeland Security 
Department has never filed, under the six major agencies, an improper 
payments report.
  People will say: Well, this will cut off funding. No. 1, it would not 
cut off any funding for 18 months. No. 2, if you vote against this, you 
are sending a signal to every other agency that they do not have to 
comply with the improper payments law.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I intend to move to table this Coburn 
amendment, and, obviously, I look forward to working with the Senator 
in our committee.
  Basically, the funding on this bill is subjected to the improper 
payments law. As a letter from the National Governors Association makes 
clear, the Coburn amendment would effectively, and I quote, ``stop all 
State homeland security grant expenditures.''
  That is unfair, unnecessary, and that is why I will move to table.
  Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time on both sides, and I 
move to table the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Allard
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig

[[Page 6194]]


     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Nelson (FL)
     Sessions
     Smith
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Johnson
     McCain
     Murkowski
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we had hoped at this point to offer 
another consent request to the Senate about several amendments we 
thought were cleared on both sides. Unfortunately, there is objection 
on that so we will have to wait.
  Pursuant to the consent agreement we passed last week, we are going 
to final passage on this bill today. When we come back after the party 
lunches at 2:15, we will begin to dispose of the pending germane 
amendments in whatever way we can at that time. Then this afternoon we 
will go to final passage. There definitely will be additional votes 
this afternoon on this important legislation.
  I ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

                          ____________________