[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 16998-17022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2892, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Byrd-Inouye) amendment No. 1373, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Sessions amendment No. 1371 (to amendment No. 1373), to 
     make the pilot program for employment eligibility 
     confirmation for aliens permanent and to improve verification 
     of immigration status of employees.
       DeMint amendment No. 1399 (to amendment No. 1373), to 
     require the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced 
     fencing along the southwest border by December 31, 2010.
       Feingold amendment No. 1402 (to amendment No. 1373), to 
     require grants for Emergency Operations Centers and financial 
     assistance for the predisaster mitigation program to be 
     awarded without regard to earmarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1399

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about an amendment 
that will be up second, I believe, this morning. It is about our 
southern border in this United States.
  I think we have made some propositions to the American people to 
secure our southern border. We have passed laws that are currently not 
being followed, and I think we see the result of that in Mexico as well 
as in the United States. Our southern border has become a battleground. 
It is a place not only where illegal immigrants and workers come into 
our country, but drug trafficking and weapons trafficking are real 
security issues. We are destabilizing Mexico with all that is going on 
because we refuse to carry out our promise to the American people to 
secure that border. We cannot have security in the United States unless 
we have a secure border.
  We passed a law that says we have to have 700 miles of reinforced, 
double-layer fencing along the southern border of the United States. Of 
the 700 miles, 370 miles were required to be built by December 31 of 
last year, and we have not met that requirement.
  In fact, there are only 330 miles of the single-layered fencing and 
only 34 miles of the double-layered fencing that was required by law to 
be built.
  So far they claim 661 miles of fencing are completed, but that 
includes both vehicle barriers and single-layered fencing.
  They continue to speak of virtual fencing, which is basically just 
detectors if someone is going across. All the evidence is that doesn't 
work well, if at all.
  The point of my amendment is to keep our promise to the American 
people. Let's move ahead with securing the border. I don't like a 
fence. I don't like the way a fence looks. But in this world today, 
where we are threatened in many ways, it is critically important that 
we are able to determine who comes and goes and what comes and goes on 
the borders of the United States.
  My amendment does two things. It requires that 700 miles of physical 
pedestrian fencing be completed, and it sets a deadline of December 31, 
2010. We can do this if we just make that commitment and fund it in 
this bill.
  A physical fence is effective, compared to the untested hundreds of 
millions of dollars of virtual fencing they are trying to substitute, 
even though we passed a law that says we need to secure the borders.
  I remind my colleagues we made a promise to the American people. We 
passed a law. This country is based on the rule of law, and we need to 
follow it in the Congress. We need to fund this and set a deadline so 
this promise will be fulfilled.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the DeMint amendment this 
morning. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1371

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, recently the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
reported that the unemployment rate in June of this year had jumped to 
9.5 percent; 467,000 jobs were lost in June alone. This is the highest 
unemployment rate in 25 years.
  The Congress passed, earlier this year, a stimulus bill. The purpose 
of it was to create jobs and reduce unemployment. We were told if we 
pass that bill, unemployment would top out at 8.4 percent. Well, it 
just hit 9.5 percent. A report released by the Heritage Foundation and 
the Center for Immigration studies has estimated that 15 percent of the 
construction jobs created by the Senate stimulus bill would go to 
illegal immigrants--about 300,000 jobs.
  The question is, is there anything we can do about it? The answer is 
yes. We have an E-Verify system where employers voluntarily, all over 
the country, are using a computer verification system to determine 
whether the job applicant who appears before them is here legally and 
entitled to work. The Federal Government uses that same system for 
every employee it hires, but we did not require that for employers who 
get government contracts under the stimulus package. Contractors who 
get money under the stimulus package are not required to use E-Verify.
  The system is pretty successful. It is not foolproof, but Secretary 
Napolitano of Homeland Security recently said:

       The administration strongly supports E-Verify as a 
     cornerstone of worksite enforcement and will work to 
     continually improve the program to ensure it is the best tool 
     available to deter the hiring of persons not authorized to 
     work in the United States.

  That was a good statement from Homeland Security. But the reality is 
that President Bush's Executive order that was to take place in 
January, which would have required all government contractors to use E-
Verify, has been pushed back four times. So that is why I offered this 
legislation.
  It is perfectly appropriate for Congress to pass legislation to 
require this. I have been advised today, though, of some good news. 
Secretary Napolitano apparently will issue a statement later today 
saying that after three or four extensions and putting off the E-Verify 
mandate for government contractors she will issue that order. So that 
is good news.
  What would my amendment do? No. 1, it would make that not just a 
Presidential policy subject to delay or implementation or withdrawal 
whenever they wanted; it would make it a permanent rule that people who 
have contracts with the government would have to use the E-Verify 
system. Instead of a 3-year extension of the E-Verify system, as 
provided for in this bill, it would go on and make it permanent. It

[[Page 16999]]

is a cornerstone today of a system that will work to a considerable 
degree to reduce the number of illegal workers who are getting jobs--
taking jobs from American workers at this particularly difficult time. 
I think it is a good step. I am glad the Secretary is moving forward 
finally on making that a reality.
  I hope my colleagues will step forward now and let's make this a 
permanent system. It is certainly contemplated to be permanent. But for 
odd reasons, to me, there seems to be a reluctance to make it so. The 
system is up and running. It can handle millions more than the millions 
it is already handling today. It is designed for a much larger use. It 
will make a difference, and it will identify quite a number of people 
who are here illegally seeking to work. In fact, I think the system 
should be made to apply to all businesses in America. I believe we can 
do that and should move in that direction. But the first step, it seems 
to me, would be to say if we are going to create a stimulus package, if 
this government is going to give contracts to private contractors who 
do work for the government, they ought to at least ask them to verify 
whether the person is legally in the country.
  Yes, there are some good things additionally that need to be done, 
such as a biometric identification system, which Senator Schumer 
referred to last night. I would heartily support that, but I believe 
this is the initial step that ought to be taken. The system should be 
made permanent and the requirement that contractors of the government 
should be a part of our law today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I think it would be consistent 
with the stated policies of the Obama administration and consistent 
with what the Senate has been working on for some time. I am baffled 
that Members would not support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 175

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 
Res. 175; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that an amendment to the resolution, which is at the desk, be 
agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that an amendment 
to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the preamble, as 
amended, be agreed to; finally, that a title amendment, which is at the 
desk, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of several Senators, I object 
to the distinguished Senator's request. I respect him, but there is an 
objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, I rise asking my colleagues to 
table the pending amendment filed by my distinguished colleague from 
Alabama to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  His amendment would both make E-Verify permanent and would 
immediately mandate all Federal contractors and subcontractors to use 
E-Verify.
  First, I have good news for my colleagues and good news for my 
colleague from Alabama. The Department of Homeland Security has just 
taken action--they were planning to do it before. It is coincidental 
but fortuitous that it occurs right now. It addresses a good part of 
the issue that my colleague from Alabama has raised.
  Today, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement 
indicating ``the administration's support for a regulation that will 
award Federal contracts only to employers who use E-Verify to check 
employee work authorization.''
  As we all know, E-Verify is a voluntary system, not a mandatory 
system. For Federal contractors, it will be mandatory, which is half 
and the most operative part of my colleagues' amendment.
  The administration's Federal contractor rule extends use of the E-
Verify system to covered Federal contractors and subcontractors, 
including those who receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
funds. The administration will push ahead with full implementation of 
the rule, which will apply to Federal solicitation and contract awards 
starting on September 8, 2009--within a couple months.
  Accordingly, I believe Senator Sessions' amendment is moot so far as 
it applies to Federal contractors and doesn't need to be approved by us 
in order for E-Verify to apply in this context.
  He has another part of the amendment, which is to make E-Verify 
permanent. I remind my colleagues that E-Verify is in effect for the 
next 3 years. Making it permanent will extend to the outyears, but as 
chair of the immigration subcommittee, and with the support of Chairman 
Leahy, I have been investigating this issue.
  I say to my colleagues that I don't think we want to make E-Verify 
permanent because it is not tough enough or strong enough. There is a 
gaping loophole in E-Verify. It is the best we have now. We should use 
it for Federal contractors. I support that. But there is a big 
loophole.
  Let's say an illegal immigrant wants to say they are John Jones from 
Syracuse, and they know John Jones's Social Security number. They can 
easily get a fake ID that has John Jones's address on it, and they can 
submit it into the system, and nothing in E-Verify will stop that 
illegal immigrant from getting a job. Once they are in the system, they 
are approved time after time.
  What is more, nothing about E-Verify stops a citizen from loaning 
their identity to friends and family so they can get a job. We need a 
biometric system, with a picture and a biometric identifier. That is 
the only way we will stop illegal immigration. E-Verify doesn't do it.
  I assure my colleagues on our subcommittee on immigration, under 
Chairman Leahy's leadership as chairman of the full committee, we are 
investigating a biometric system which will once and for all stop 
future illegal immigration. To make this system permanent, when there 
is a better system in the offing, is premature.
  I urge that the amendment be tabled. The first part has been adopted, 
and the second part to make it permanent, when we already have it for 3 
years, is wrong when we can do better 3 years from now.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I might have 
30 seconds before the vote to make a request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, if I may respond to Senator 
Schumer, it is my understanding that Secretary Napolitano's executive 
order will be different than the Executive order the Bush 
administration had, finally, after some delay, approved in that it 
would say that a government contractor would not have to check the 
employment history of employees working for them through the E-Verify 
system--their validity--but only new hires they bring on, which is 
quite a different thing.
  I am aware of a businessman in Alabama who has had highway-type work 
with good employees for many years--decades. He told me he is not now 
able to compete and is losing contract after contract because his 
competitor is using illegal labor. This is not an iddy-biddy matter; it 
is real. I hope I am incorrect about what I understand the Secretary's 
decision to be. If I am correct, I don't think the proposal is what it 
should be, and it will still be insufficient.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond for 1 
minute, with the permission of both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.

[[Page 17000]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senator, my friend from Alabama, and 
I, in one sense, think alike on this issue--stopping future flow of 
illegal immigration. But he is right in that the order does not require 
them to check back with previous employers. That is not how E-verify 
works. They are not capable of doing it.
  Obviously, we might want to set up 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 people and 
get them to start checking on previous employment, but that is not how 
E-verify works. It is one of the loopholes in the system. To say the 
administration is not doing it, that is true, but neither does E-verify 
require that. It probably should. But if we have a biometric, if we 
have a picture, it will be a lot better and we will not need it.
  The Senator is sort of right and sort of wrong but always good-
hearted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1198

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I 
am here because the Senator from Nebraska made a request to bring up a 
resolution of his a little while ago and an objection was made on my 
behalf. Out of courtesy to him, I want to explain.
  The reason is that Senator Bennett and I, indeed, other Senators, 
have legislation that would give the government stock in General Motors 
and Chrysler back to the taxpayers who paid for it on April 15. We 
prefer that rather than do an expression, a sentiment, which is what 
the Senator from Nebraska offered.
  We are prepared to bring our amendment up and to debate his and to 
vote on his. There are other Senators here with similar amendments. We 
simply want to make sure they are all considered at once.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 1198, the Auto Stock Every Taxpayer 
Act, which would give all the government stock in General Motors to the 
taxpayers who paid for it; that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration, the bill be read for a third time and passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, if I might have a second to 
respond, I think this is something the good Senator from Tennessee and 
I might be able to work out. But until we have the details worked out 
as to how this would be considered in both cases, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 1371

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Alabama and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Harkin
     Kennedy
  The motion was rejected.


                Amendment No. 1407 to Amendment No. 1371

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1407 as a second-
degree amendment to the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. 
Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I am not familiar with 
the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe I have the right to offer the 
second degree; do I not?
  While we are determining that, let me explain what this does. It 
would create a permanent EB-5 immigrant investor regional center 
program. This is a program that has generated billions of dollars of 
capital investment in American communities. It has created thousands of 
domestic jobs.
  There are 24 of these centers now around the country. I mention to 
the Senator from Alabama that Alabama has a strong track record with it 
statewide. The problem we have had in the past is we keep reauthorizing 
for just a few months at a time, and people in this economy don't want 
to put a large investment in it because of that. So I would offer this 
as a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have no objection to the second-degree 
amendment offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for its acceptance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1407 to amendment No. 1371.

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

 (Purpose: To permanently reauthorize the EB-5 Regional Center Program)

       On page 3, after line 7, add the following:
       Sec. 549. Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``pilot'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``for 15 years''.

  Mr. LEAHY. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1407) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1371 is pending, as amended.
  If there is no further debate on the amendment, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1371), as amended, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1399

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1399, 
with the time equally divided between the Senator from Washington, Mrs. 
Murray, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
  Who yields time? The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, current law promises the American people 
that

[[Page 17001]]

we will secure our southern borders with 700 miles of pedestrian fence. 
Obviously, we have seen violence increase and drug trafficking and 
weapons trafficking. We have destabilized the Mexican government 
because of our inability to carry out that promise. At this point there 
are only 34 miles of double-layered pedestrian fences as promised in 
our laws. We are supposed to have 700 miles. My amendment simply 
enforces current law and sets a deadline that we finish a pedestrian 
fence as required by law, finish the fence that is required by law by 
the end of next year. This is a promise we should keep to the American 
people.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my time to the Senator from Ohio, Senator 
Voinovich.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. The amendment 
would force the Department of Homeland Security to construct hundreds 
of additional miles of pedestrian fencing beyond that which is 
determined as necessary. The Department of Homeland Security has 
studied and analyzed the tactical infrastructure needs, including 
pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing along that border. It has built 
or is in the process of constructing the miles of pedestrian fencing 
that are needed or that they believe is necessary.
  The fact is, this body, when we changed the law not to be 
prospective, we did not detail the location and type of fencing. 
Instead, we left it to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. Not only is this amendment wrong because it overturns the 
U.S. Customs and Border Service determination of tactical 
infrastructure needs along the border, it would be incredibly costly. 
It would outstrip the funds provided for this purpose by requiring 
additional fencing. Some miles of fencing have an average cost of $5 
billion per mile.
  I urge we vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 9 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what we are doing is not working. This 
amendment is designed to add some force and funding to current law. I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. If there is no further 
debate on the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 1399) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1375 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up Vitter amendment No. 1375.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1375 to amendment No. 1373.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit amounts made available under this Act from being 
 used to amend the final rule requiring Federal contractors to use the 
  E-Verify system to prevent Federal contractors from hiring illegal 
 aliens and to hold employers accountable if they hire illegal aliens, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 556.  None of the amounts made available under this 
     Act may be used to--
       (1) amend, rewrite, or change the final rule requiring 
     Federal Contractors to use E-Verify (promulgated on November 
     14, 2008);
       (2) further delay the implementation of the rule described 
     in paragraph (1) beyond September 8, 2009; or
       (3) amend, rewrite, change, or delay the implementation of 
     the final rule describing the process for employers to follow 
     after receiving a ``no match'' letter in order to qualify for 
     ``safe harbor'' status (promulgated on August 15, 2007).


                    Amendment No. 1375, as Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit amounts made available under this Act from being 
used to amend the final rule to hold employers accountable if they hire 
                illegal aliens, and for other purposes)

       On page 77, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 556.  None of the amounts made available under this 
     Act may be used to implement changes to the final rule 
     describing the process for employers to follow after 
     receiving a ``no match'' letter in order to qualify for 
     ``safe harbor'' status (promulgated on August 15, 2007).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, originally my amendment dealt with two E-
Verify issues: the no-match rule under Social Security, which I am 
about to talk about, and also ensuring that the E-Verify system is used 
for employers who operate under Federal contracts.
  Just a few minutes ago, we passed the Sessions amendment which deals 
with the second of those issues, Federal contracts, so the modification 
of my amendment simply takes that part of my amendment out and leaves a 
correction of the remaining issue, the Social Security no-match rule. 
That is the only thing the modification did.
  What is the no-match rule? In August 2007, the Department of Homeland 
Security introduced this no-match regulation which clarified the 
responsibility of employers who receive notice that their employees' 
names and Social Security numbers don't match the records of the Social 
Security Administration. Under the rule, employers receiving this sort 
of notice who did not take corrective action would be deemed to have 
constructive knowledge that they are employing unauthorized or illegal 
aliens. In other

[[Page 17002]]

words, this rule provided clear guidance on the appropriate 
responsibility of the employer, the appropriate due diligence the 
employer should undertake if they receive a letter from the Social 
Security Administration informing them there is not a proper match 
under those records. DHS, GAO, and Social Security audits found that 
such discrepancies often arise when workers use false documents to 
illegally obtain employment in the United States.
  Going after these no-matches is absolutely imperative to attack the 
issue of illegal aliens in this country. Employers who receive no-match 
letters know they have a problem and a responsibility to do something 
about it. Either their record keeping needs to be improved or they have 
hired undocumented workers. This no-match rule is reasonable in telling 
the employers: You have a problem, and you have a responsibility to do 
something about it in a circumstance where there is a no-match.
  This no-match rule has been blocked by litigation filed by organized 
labor and business groups that have consistently opposed enforcement of 
many of our Federal immigration laws. But the administration has twice 
asked the court to delay ruling on the government's motion to throw out 
the lawsuit, thus voluntarily leaving the rule in legal limbo for more 
than 5 years.
  My amendment, as modified, would simply prevent any more delays on 
the no-match rule. It would allow the Social Security Administration 
and DHS to provide employers with notices of the problem in their 
workforce payroll records. This is not only thoroughly reasonable, but 
it is absolutely necessary--one of many necessary steps we must take to 
move forward with regard to the illegal immigration problem and 
productive enforcement. If there are situations where there isn't a 
match under Social Security records, we need to do something about it. 
The employer needs to look into it and do something about it or else 
our illegal immigration laws are going to continue to be made a farce 
and continue to be flagrantly violated in many cases. This is a 
reasonable approach. It puts a reasonable but not undue burden on the 
employer to do some appropriate due diligence when they get a no-match 
notice from Social Security.
  With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I 
hope we will have a vote on it, probably later today. I look forward to 
any continuing debate and urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1415 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1415.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1415 to amendment No. 1373.

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

(Purpose: To authorize employers to voluntarily verify the immigration 
                     status of existing employees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CHECKING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF EMPLOYEES.

       Section 403(a)(3)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 
     U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The person'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Upon hiring.--The person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Existing employees.--An employer that elects to 
     verify the employment eligibility of existing employees shall 
     verify the employment eligibility of all such employees not 
     later than 10 days after notifying the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security of such election.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the amendment I offer to the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill deals with the E-Verify Program. This 
morning, we voted to make the program a permanent part of our 
immigration laws. This was a vote in favor of the program because it is 
a very valuable tool for businesses across the country that want to 
abide by the law.
  My amendment makes the program an even better tool for businesses. It 
says that if an employer chooses to verify the status of all their 
workers, not just new hires, then they should be allowed to do so. 
Employers want to abide by the law and hire people who are legally in 
the country. Right now, E-Verify only allows the employer to check 
prospective employees, but we should be allowing them access to this 
free, online database system to check all of their workers.
  I hope my colleagues will agree with this approach. I believe it 
would fit in closely with initiatives by our new President to change 
the emphasis upon enforcing the laws against employment of people who 
come here illegally, because the President is emphasizing going after 
employers who are not abiding by the law. And there are lots of 
investigations that are going on in that direction.
  So we are now giving employers, through my amendment, the opportunity 
to check all their employees because that is very important. If a 
person is a businessperson, and there is a prospect that Federal people 
are going to come into the process and look at all their employment 
records, I would think an employer would want this tool to be able to 
use to see that everybody who has been hired--not just people recently 
hired--is legally able to be here.
  I urge my colleagues to agree to this amendment and allow their 
businesses back home to take steps to be in compliance with their 
immigration laws.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Thinning Elk Herds

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this morning the New York Times wrote an 
editorial I wanted to commend my colleagues' attention to and take some 
issue with. The editorial in the New York Times this morning is called 
``Elk Hunting in the Badlands'' referring, of course, to the Badlands 
of North Dakota where Theodore Roosevelt went out and lived and 
ranched. The Badlands of North Dakota encompass, in large part, the 
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, a wonderful park, and the Badlands 
are about as beautiful as anything you will find in this country.
  Theodore Roosevelt National Park has elk. In 1985, a number of elk 
were released in the Badlands in the southern section. There were, I 
think, around 50 head of elk that were released in the Badlands, and 
that has now grown to somewhere close to 900 elk, which is about 600 
more than can reasonably be handled in that area. So they need to cull 
the elk herd. They need to thin out the elk herd because we can't allow 
it to grow so large that we don't have the carrying capacity on that 
land.
  So as is the case with too many Federal agencies, once they started 
thinking about how we will cull the elk herd, how we will take care of 
this problem, they came up with an idea--actually, a number of ideas. 
Among them was an idea that they would go hire Federal

[[Page 17003]]

sharpshooters and then cull the herd with Federal sharpshooters, and 
then have helicopters transport out the carcasses once the 
sharpshooters had done their job.
  It seemed to me to be boneheaded to be thinking in those terms. Much 
better, it seemed to me, was to develop an approach that was used in 
the Grand Tetons, where they deputize hunters as volunteers, and each 
volunteer can take an elk from the park.
  Now, we don't allow ``hunting'' in national parks. I understand that, 
and I am not proposing an open hunt. But in cases where you have to 
thin a herd, rather than have the Federal Treasury decide that we are 
going to hire Federal sharpshooters and then gas up the helicopters so 
you can transport the carcasses of the dead animals, a much better 
solution that you could find in almost any cafe in North Dakota, 
talking to three people over strong coffee, is what about finding 
qualified hunters, deputizing them, allowing each to take an elk and 
take the meat home; ergo, you haven't cost the Federal Government 
money. Under park supervision, you can have deputized, qualified 
hunters whom you could easily qualify, and you have solved the problem.
  This is not rocket science or a big, significant, complicated issue. 
It is not a serious illness for which we don't know a cure. This is a 
very simple issue of culling an elk herd. So I proposed that. The Park 
Service said, well, there is a restriction here and there, so we are 
going to hold a series of meetings. They held a series of meetings in 
North Dakota. As is always the case with bureaucracy, they hold a lot 
of meetings and come up with multiple alternatives, and they study them 
to death until the alternatives are nothing but carcasses. This is an 
issue in North Dakota in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park that has 
gone on for some years. The Park Service had several different 
alternatives. We were waiting for a long while to see what they were 
going to announce. And it became clear to me that they weren't going to 
get to a common-sense decision.
  So I included a provision in the Interior Appropriations bill in 
committee last week that is simple and it does as I have said: simply 
cull the elk herd by deputizing qualified hunters, under the 
supervision of the Park Service, who would be able to take the 
animals--the carcasses--and the meat out of the Badlands. So that is in 
the Interior Appropriations bill.
  The New York Times today takes great issue with that. It says it is 
not the right proposal at all, it is a terrible idea, that it would 
legislate a management issue better left to the Secretary of the 
Interior and the National Park Service. Well, the Secretary of the 
Interior was in North Dakota with me about 5 weeks ago, and we had a 
long discussion about this issue. And I know our former colleague Ken 
Salazar, and I know he would want to come to a conclusion that 
represents a deep reservoir of common sense as well for the taxpayers.
  I understand that we don't want to open hunting seasons in national 
parks. I propose only in a circumstance where, in this national park, 
just as we have done in the Grand Teton National Park, which is 
embedded in law, when you need to thin the herd, don't spend a pile of 
taxpayers' money, don't gas up helicopters to haul carcasses around. 
Deputize local qualified hunters and allow that. It is not a hunting 
season. In this case, you are thinning the herd by using qualified 
hunters, who could be deputized and operating under the supervision of 
the Park Service, to remove the meat from the park. It is very simple.
  The New York Times is a fine paper, but I doubt that it has a lot of 
hunters on its staff. I know a bit about hunting, and I know a fair 
amount about Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the Badlands. I know 
the people I represent, who looked at this, and most North Dakotans 
said: Why don't you get real and use a deep reservoir of common sense 
and solve this problem the right way. Spare taxpayers the expense of 
spending a lot of money, and do what we have done in the Grand Teton 
National Parks.
  That is the reason that last week I included the provision in the 
Interior Appropriations bill. I wanted to describe it to my colleagues. 
On behalf of the American taxpayer, let's do what is right and use some 
common sense. This is not that complicated.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1402

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today because there is a 
reckless amendment on the floor of the Senate to strip this country of 
an important infrastructure element to protect us against terrorism. 
This amendment is intended to strip the State of New Jersey of critical 
antiterrorism programs.
  In poll after poll, the people across our country are still deeply 
concerned about what might happen in the event of a terrorist attack. 
Everyone knows we have people fighting against terror in other 
countries, but we also have a huge assignment here. Just today, we saw 
that an attempt to smuggle bomb parts into some government buildings 
was successful. My God, what do we have to do to say to people in this 
place: Our primary function is to protect our citizens, and New Jersey 
is one of the 50 States in this country; that if it is a dangerous 
event that occurs, whether it is a natural disaster or whether it is a 
terrorist attack, we have an obligation to see that these States have 
the tools to protect themselves.
  Eliminating funding for these programs will make families in New 
Jersey more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I 
point out that this area we are particularly focused on--9/11, the 
largest catastrophe that happened on American soil--is one area, which 
I will describe in just a minute, that is one of the most densely 
populated in the country, and the risks are very high.
  Eliminating funds for these programs makes families in New Jersey 
more vulnerable, and we are concerned about it. Without these 
investments, when a terrorist strikes or a hurricane hits, there is a 
good chance that emergency generators might not go on, firetrucks will 
not arrive on time, and medical crews might not know where to go.
  Let's be absolutely clear. New Jersey is no stranger to terrorism. We 
lost 700 New Jersey residents on 9/11, and dozens more still retain 
illnesses that developed as a result of their attempt to protect the 
citizens who survived.
  New Jersey is home to what has been labeled by the FBI as the most 
dangerous 2-mile stretch in America for terrorism--that 2-mile distance 
between the Port of Newark and Newark Airport. And New Jersey is the 
most densely populated State in the Nation. In the area around this 2-
mile stretch terrorists could injure or kill almost 12 million people.
  Because of the real possibility of an attack, cities and counties 
throughout New Jersey have created local emergency operations centers. 
What else could we ask for? What have the States where there are 
droughts or hurricanes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions in this 
country had the right to ask for? They have a right to ask for help. 
But why only provide the help after something has happened if we can 
prevent things from taking place?
  Because of the real possibility of an attack, we have these local 
emergency operations centers in New Jersey. These centers coordinate 
information during an attack and manage the immediate response to 
cataclysmic emergencies. Both the 9/11 Commission report and the 
Department of Homeland Security have identified these centers as 
imperative to people's safety and security when a community crisis 
occurs. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission's senior counsel, if 
there had been a functional emergency operations center after the 
terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, lives would have been saved 
that day.

[[Page 17004]]

  Here is what will happen if the amendment being offered by Senators 
McCain and Feingold is passed: The emergency operations center in Union 
County, in my State, will not have an interoperable communications 
network that connects fire, police, and medical officers. The emergency 
operations center in South Orange--one of our cities--will not have a 
working emergency generator.
  We can't afford to be without this infrastructure of emergency 
equipment as well as services. And the emergency operations center in 
Hackensack will not be able to properly train police officers and 
firefighters. Make no mistake, emergency operations centers save lives. 
That is preventive. That is its purpose.
  The amendment being offered by Senators McCain and Feingold defies 
common sense. By jeopardizing emergency operations centers in my State 
and other States across the country, this amendment would make us less 
secure, and I hope my colleagues will say: No, we can't permit that. We 
can't permit it in New Jersey and we can't permit it in other places in 
the country.
  We have to, as the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. It is the simplest 
lesson we could learn. Prevention is far better than cure.
  I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment that is 
currently before us, which would eliminate funding for the emergency 
operations center projects throughout the country, including one in 
Providence, RI.
  First, this issue hinges on several critical factors. One is, 
ultimately, public safety. We have experienced, over the last several 
years, a terrorist threat that could impair all kinds of communities 
around this country. In fact, on the Fourth of July, several aircraft 
in Istanbul were stopped and searched because there was intelligence 
developed by both the German Government and the United States 
indicating that there might be a threat to a commercial aircraft, as we 
witnessed on 9/11. The bottom line is, these emergency operations 
centers are critical.
  There is another aspect, of course, too, and that is that we are in a 
terrible situation economically. In Rhode Island, we are just a tad 
behind Michigan in terms of unemployment, with 12.1 percent of our 
workforce out of work--nearly 3 points higher than the national 
average--and this funding not only will meet a critical need for public 
safety but also help a little bit in terms of getting our economy 
moving forward.
  It will allow the city of Providence and the Providence Emergency 
Management Agency to move closer to completing needed improvements to 
its emergency operations center. This project will increase the space 
at the Providence EOC to ensure a ready 24-hour presence and 
accommodate a second complement of staff that will be required onsite, 
should an emergency incident occur. In undertaking this work, at least 
20 construction jobs will be produced. In Rhode Island, that is a good 
project.
  In 2004, the city of Providence designated a site within the city to 
serve as the headquarters for the Providence EMA and has worked since 
then to make improvements to the facility so it can serve the city 
during a disaster or attack. The Providence EMA completed the first 
phase of the work on the facility this year but must expand its 
existing building in order to make shortfalls that were identified in a 
2007 Federal Emergency Management Agency Technical Assistance Team 
review. These shortfalls, as pointed out by the Federal Government, 
included inadequate space within the existing facility for 
administrative and emergency operations and a lack of adequate force 
protection, physical security, and survivability measures. According to 
Providence EMA, up to $3 million will be needed to complete this work. 
Again, this was the result of a study by the Federal authorities as to 
the adequacy of this facility. While FEMA has committed resources to 
this project, Providence EMA does not have the funding to carry out all 
the improvements that are required.
  But beyond serving the needs of Providence, it plays a leading role 
in our overall State operations. The Greater Providence Metropolitan 
Medical Response System and the Providence Urban Area Security 
Initiative regions include Providence and eight surrounding 
communities, representing 60 percent of the State's population. Let me 
say that again. This EOC, although it is placed in Providence, plays a 
critical role in coordinating the emergency response for 60 percent of 
the people of Rhode Island. This is an important facility not just for 
one community but for a significant number of areas. So this will be a 
facility that is not only necessary but extremely efficient and 
integral to the protection of a significant number of my constituents.
  While I understand the administration believes that funding should be 
allocated through a risk management framework, I support the 
committee's decision to fund these projects. For my State, we know the 
facility is needed. We know the improvements are needed. The Federal 
authorities have pointed that out to us. It will not only protect a 
small portion of one city, but it will effectively protect a larger 
portion in terms of population to my State.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Mayor 
of Providence and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency 
regarding the project be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           City of Providence,

                                     Providence, RI, July 7, 2009.
     Subject: Providence Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Phase 
         II Funding Request.

     Hon. Jack Reed,
     U.S. Federal Courthouse,
     Providence, RI.
       Dear Senator Reed, I write to express my strong support for 
     federal funding necessary to upgrade the functionality of the 
     City of Providence's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and to 
     ask for your assistance in securing this funding.
       Following a 2007 on-site Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency (FEMA) Technical Assistance Team's review of the EOC, 
     two major shortfalls were identified: (1) inadequate space 
     within the existing facility for administrative and emergency 
     operations and (2) the lack of adequate force protection, 
     physical security, and survivability measures. Federal 
     funding for the facility expansion will allow the City to 
     attain a resilient, modern, efficient and effective regional 
     EOC, capable of coordinating regional emergency response, 
     redundant interoperable communications and rapid public 
     warning.
       The Providence Emergency Management Agency is responsible 
     for managing major emergencies in the City along with the 
     added responsibility for the Greater Providence Metropolitan 
     Medical Response System (GP-MMRS) and Providence Urban Area 
     Security Initiative (PUASI) regions. With limited EOC 
     interoperability in the eight surrounding communities 
     associated with MMRS and UASI programs, the improved 
     Providence EOC facility will be fully ready and equipped to 
     handle incidents which bisect traditional political 
     boundaries and provide needed incident support and 
     coordination to neighboring communities within the region, 
     thereby providing benefit to an estimated 60% of the State's 
     total population.
       On 8 April 2009, after competing nationally in the DHS FY09 
     Emergency Operations Centers Grant Program, Providence was 
     one of the few cities that met and exceeded the strict 
     federal criteria and was awarded the maximum amount of 
     $1,000,000. We are requesting additional funding to fully 
     complete the project.
       This funding is crucial for improving emergency 
     preparedness, response and recovery by ensuring the City has 
     the most advanced facility and capabilities able to provide 
     time critical flexibility, sustainability, security, 
     survivability and interoperability should a catastrophe occur 
     within or adjacent to our City.
       I respectfully request your assistance in securing the 
     additional funds necessary for this project. Should you have 
     any questions,

[[Page 17005]]

     please feel free to contact me at (401) 421-7740.
           Sincerely,
                                               David N. Cicilline,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                                   Military Staff,


                                  Emergency Management Agency,

                                       Cranston, RI, July 7, 2009.
     Subject: Providence Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Phase 
         II Funding Request.

     Hon. Jack Reed,
     U.S. Federal Courthouse,
     Providence, RI.
       Dear Senator Reed: I am writing in support of Mayor David 
     N. Cicilline's request for federal funding necessary to 
     upgrade the functionality of the City of Providence's 
     Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
       Two major shortfalls exist for all the Operations Centers 
     in the State of Rhode Island: (1) inadequate space for 
     administrative and emergency operations and (2) the lack of 
     adequate force protection, physical security, and 
     survivability measures. Federal funding for these shortfalls 
     in Rhode Island are essential to ensuring efficient and 
     effective capability for coordinating regional emergency 
     response, redundant interoperable communications and rapid 
     public warning by the state of Rhode Island Emergency 
     Management Agency.
       Local and Regional EOCs, like the one operated by the 
     Providence Emergency Management Agency, provide a critical 
     link to the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA) 
     and its EOC enhancing RIEMA's ability as the lead 
     coordinating agency for the State.
       The State of Rhode Island has recognized the need for 
     regional capabilities and this funding proposal meets that 
     standard. While the City of Providence has received the 
     maximum amount of $1,000,000 from the DHS FY09 Emergency 
     Operations Centers Grant Program and continues to receive 
     Port Security and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant 
     funding; the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA) 
     fully supports the Providence application.
       This funding will improve emergency preparedness, response 
     and recovery in Providence. Enhancing the EOC in Providence 
     will ensure that Rhode Island continues to have the most 
     advanced facilities and capabilities able to provide time 
     critical flexibility, sustainability, security, survivability 
     and interoperability should a catastrophe occur within the 
     city.
           Respectfully,
                                                   J. David Smith,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal 
year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and a program within it 
which is very important to my home State and also to many other States 
here in this great Nation. First, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member, and their staffs--the staffs, as we know, do so much great work 
around here--for their leadership and foresight in crafting such an 
important piece of legislation. I thank the chairman for taking my 
thoughts and considerations into mind when they drafted this 
legislation, as well as the thoughts and considerations of many of my 
colleagues. This has truly been a bipartisan effort and shows the 
Senate can get good results when we work together.
  The funding in this bill covers a wide range of activities from 
protecting our Nation from terrorist events to strengthening our local 
preparedness and response activities. Today I rise in response to 
opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment to strike funding for 
emergency operations centers. The most fundamental responsibility of 
government is protecting the lives and safety of the public. Arkansas 
finds itself as No. 10 on a list of the 59 States and territories and 
districts with the most presidentially declared major disasters. It is 
not a welcome ranking, but it is a measurement of the risks Arkansans 
face.
  Since 9/11, State and local governments have faced increased 
emergency preparedness responsibilities and costs for public safety. 
Now, in the midst of continued all-hazard risks, State and local 
governments are cutting spending on many critical programs, but 
emergencies and disasters will not wait for our economy to improve. 
Reports following Hurricane Katrina's response found multiple flaws in 
situational awareness, command and control, logistical tracking, and 
communications. Fully capable emergency operational centers at the 
State and local level are essential to a comprehensive national 
emergency management system.
  EOCs require basic resources to operate smoothly and effectively in a 
time of crisis. Some of the resources funded through EOCs include a 
hardened and safe location for emergency management staff, 
communications for reliable and accurate information gathering, and 
effective, usable technology for tracking all resources, including 
personnel and emergency supplies.
  For example, the city of North Little Rock, AR's Office of Emergency 
Services will be a recipient of these funds. This office is one of the 
emergency operations centers tasked with providing disaster assistance 
and support to a population of over 500,000 people in the central 
Arkansas area--not just North Little Rock but the entire area. Although 
the office's current personnel work very hard and are very diligent 
about providing meaningful services to the area, the age and size of 
its location limit its ability to house the needed technologies and 
staff to adequately serve central Arkansas in the event of emergency.
  Again, we have lots of emergencies there, as we will talk about. 
These funds will be used to address these limitations and provide the 
needed safety assurances.
  Recently it has become popular to attack so-called earmarks. I agree 
that congressionally directed spending needs to be transparent. I think 
the Senate has already taken care of that. Its Members should be 
accountable for the programs they support. I think the Senate has taken 
care of that as well.
  I am proud to support funding for emergency operations centers. I 
also believe the Representatives of the States and the congressional 
districts have an in-depth understanding of the needs and priorities in 
their States, rather than employees serving in Federal executive 
departments and agencies.
  There is now great accountability in the congressionally directed 
spending in appropriations bills. The public can easily review 
congressionally directed spending requests and funding on Web sites 
fully accessible to the public. In fact, the Constitution gives this 
authority to the Congress.
  The Constitution, article I, section 9, says:

       No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by law.

  That is what we are doing here today and that is what the 
appropriations process is about, this constitutionally required system 
we have, where Congress controls the purse strings.
  For all these reasons, I voice my strong support for the funding in 
the underlying bill that supports emergency operations centers. I ask 
my colleagues, very respectfully, even though it is well intended, to 
oppose the Feingold-McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, we are going to vote, I understand, 
shortly. It is an important discussion. I am glad we had a little 
exchange about it.
  I first want to respond about what the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Lautenberg, had to say about this. He expressed concern that because of 
my amendment there would be no funding for emergency operations centers 
if this amendment passes. That is absolutely incorrect. It is the 
opposite.
  To the contrary, there will be $20 million for emergency operations 
centers that will be awarded competitively to those most in need. 
Senator Lautenberg cited the 9/11 Commission endorsement for these 
centers. Yes, they did. What he failed to note is that those at the 
Commission recommended that the Homeland Security grants be awarded on 
the basis of risk, not earmarks such as the one requested by Senator 
Lautenberg.
  Of course, there may well be a need in New Jersey, and I respect 
that. I am

[[Page 17006]]

not saying that program would not qualify under a merit-based analysis. 
But it is not based on actual risk analysis and that is the problem. If 
there are worthy projects the Senator has requested, then I hope he 
would be confident that these communities in New Jersey will be able to 
compete successfully for the grants.
  I am sure it was not intentional but it is misleading to make the 
Senate believe that these centers are being taken away by my amendment. 
It is the opposite. In fact, if you look at the way this currently 
operates, if we do not change this, currently the Senate bill directs 
that half of all these emergency operations center funds will go to 
only 10 States. The House earmarks all of these funds, and a fourth of 
the predisaster mitigation funds. Last year, FEMA only funded a tiny 
fraction of the emergency operations center applications it received 
because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks.
  On this program the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from 
Arkansas were talking about, 10 States get 50 percent of it and 40 
States have to share the other 50 percent. What are the odds that that 
comports with any kind of rational analysis of real risk? Very small. I 
guarantee, because they are earmarks, that analysis was not done. It is 
not possible, because they were not put in the context of the 
comparative risk that is involved.
  To respond to some of the remarks of my good friend from Arkansas, I 
understand the Senate has not earmarked any of the predisaster 
mitigation funds. However, if my amendment is not agreed to, FEMA will 
have to deal with the earmarks in the House report. I do not question 
that some of these earmarked requests may be legitimate. But if they 
are legitimate, then they should have no trouble in a fair competition 
for the funds based on merit and risk.
  I think this is the key, even for those who support earmarks in 
another context. The problem here is that these are highly technical 
projects. We are talking about communications equipment, flood 
prevention projects that require engineering studies and the like. We 
do not have the expertise in Congress to make an objective 
determination of which projects are the most worthwhile. So who gets 
the funding? Those who are somehow able to get an earmark without any 
real analysis, without any real consideration of the merit as to who is 
at the greatest risk, where in the country we need to think about these 
disasters more than others.
  That is no way to think about potential earmarks. Earmarks are sent 
to small communities to set up operations centers that do not need them 
while State centers remain unfunded. During recent flooding in 
Wisconsin----
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that the Senate bill the Senator 
has described directs half of the emergency operations funds to only 10 
States, and there are 50 States in America. But half of these emergency 
operations center funds--it doesn't make much geographic sense, if you 
look. Funds are directed at Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, 
Montana, Washington, Rhode Island--East and West, all over the country. 
Maybe my friend from Wisconsin can describe what do they have in 
common, 9 of these 10 States have in common?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I can tell you one thing they don't 
have in common is any analysis of the need or requirement they be done 
in their communities. What they have in common is somebody stuck an 
earmark in this bill.
  It would be different, I say to my friend from Arizona, if these 10 
States had shown on the merits they have the risk in their communities 
and they need to get ahead of these disaster situations. That would be 
great. In that case I could support that only 10 States get half the 
money. But when there is absolutely no analysis and where this actually 
undercuts the very integrity of the programs they are trying to 
protect, the lives of the American people, and leaves the other States 
to fend for themselves with regard to 40 States fighting for the other 
50 percent--this is a terrible way to protect the American people from 
disaster.
  As an answer to the Senator, I would say there is only one 
explanation. You and I know what it is. Somebody got an earmark and 
that is all.
  Mr. McCAIN. There is an additional question I have to my friend from 
Wisconsin. Isn't it true that the administration has requested that 
this entire program be canceled?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The entire program?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. They want the program merit based. They want the 
program to be based on actual need for these emergency operating 
sectors.
  Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that the Office of Management and Budget 
recommended this as one of the programs to be eliminated, as the 
President announced?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. They want it eliminated, Madam President, because of 
this practice my friend and I are discussing. Because of the use of 
earmarks, which undercuts the integrity of the program, they want to 
say this is not worth continuing. By this amendment we will have the 
effect of restoring its legitimacy.
  Mr. McCAIN. In other words, the administration believes we need 
emergency operations center funds because of the requirements of 
homeland security. But this process is so badly flawed that they want 
to go back to do away with this and go back to the merit and needs-
based system, is that correct?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is absolutely right, Madam President, I say to the 
Senator from Arizona. The President of the United States has pressed to 
ensure these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of risk. 
That failing, which is what will happen if we do not agree to this 
amendment, the recommendation is to not go forward.
  I accept the premise that so many Members have identified here, that 
this is a worthwhile program, as long as it is based on merit and need. 
So the Senator from Arizona is correct in that. The President of the 
United States is clear on that. We have a chance here to fix this 
program, get away from the earmarks, and make sure it can continue; 
otherwise, there will be continuing efforts to say this is not what was 
intended.
  Obviously, it was not what was intended. Yes, it is one thing to get 
an earmark for a museum somewhere in your State and that does take away 
from the general funds--and the Senator from Arizona and I have strong 
feelings about that--but it is another thing to use this in a situation 
where a program has specifically been set up to figure out where in the 
United States is the most important that people have money to be able 
to do what they need to do to protect the lives of the people in their 
communities because of a particular vulnerability to disaster.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator respond to one more question? So the 
Senator is not saying we do not need emergency operations centers in 
America? We would not be eliminating the need for emergency operations 
centers, let me be perfectly clear. But what he is saying is we need to 
eliminate them in this form, which does not give the highest and most 
needed priority to these emergency operations centers around the 
country?
  In other words, we still have a threat to our Nation's security, but 
this is not the way to meet it. We can come up with a far better and 
more efficient way.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. We do need a program for emergency operations centers. 
What we do not need is another earmark trough for people to feed at. If 
the program becomes just that, which I fear it is becoming, then it 
does not stand on its own merit. This is truly an opportunity to 
protect it.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for his questions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I listened with interest to the questions and the 
conversations concerning Senator Feingold's amendment. I rise to 
strongly support this amendment. You know,

[[Page 17007]]

one of the fantasies around here--and I yield to the long experience of 
my two colleagues on fighting this battle on earmarks--is this fantasy 
that the money for earmarks is created out of nothing; that somehow the 
money for earmarks just lands on everyone's desk and no programs are 
hurt by the earmarking process; that no money is taken from worthy 
projects for earmarking.
  Truth be known, I can give example after example in the budget that 
over the years good competitive programs have been cut while earmarking 
has skyrocketed. The Byrne grants are a good example. Byrne grants are 
a competitive process in every State where they can compete for law 
enforcement based on need, decided at the local basis.
  What has happened to the funding for Byrne grants over the years? It 
has dwindled, while in that very same budget earmarks have steadily and 
continually grown over the last decade.
  This is a perfect example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This 
amendment will say: You must compete for these dollars based on need. 
Is that not how we should be spending the public money? Last year FEMA 
received a total of 675 individual emergency operations center project 
applications; 675 applications they received for this funding last 
year.
  They were only able to select 22 of them for funding. You know why? 
Because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks. So because of the 
earmarking, there was less money for worthy projects that, maybe on 
merit and need, were much more important to protect people than the 
earmarking process.
  This is a textbook example of taking a pot of money and deciding 
through some waving of a magic wand that it goes individually to 10 
States without any discussion as to whether those are the 10 most needy 
projects or 10 most needy States--no discussion whatsoever.
  In my State there have been years where we have been under a constant 
emergency declaration: flooding, ice storms, tornados. We have 
floodplains. In fact, the National Association of Floodplain Managers 
supports Senator Feingold's amendment. Do you know why they support 
Senator Feingold's amendment? They say it is causing floodplain 
managers around the country to quit planning to mitigate because they 
can short-circuit the process and just go for an earmark.
  Why do the work and plan and compete as 1 of 22 out of 675 if you 
know the easiest way and the best way to do it is to hope and pray your 
Member is on the right committee? Just say it like it is. Just hope and 
pray your Member is on the right committee.
  So this is a great opportunity for everyone who believes we need to 
be careful with the way we spend our money to be counted. This is a 
great opportunity because this is very clear this money is being taken 
from projects and being earmarked for projects. As a result, 40 States 
are going to have less than a 50-percent chance to participate in this 
kind of emergency funding.
  I strongly support Senator Feingold's amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Missouri not only 
for her comments about this particular issue but her dedication to 
reform, transparency, and to making sure the American taxpayers' 
dollars are wisely and appropriately spent. It has been a pleasure 
working with her on various reform issues. I would argue this may not 
be the last time the three of us are on the floor of the Senate.
  When you look at the approval ratings of Congress, not just now but 
for a long time, we are not held in the highest of esteem, and 
sometimes for good reason. Sometimes for good reason. We have ongoing 
scandals concerning the use of public funds for earmarking and 
porkbarrel projects and rewards to Members of Congress that have caused 
them to be in Federal court and, indeed, even Members of Congress 
residing in Federal prison.
  This is an important amendment because as the votes line up I think 
we will see--on both sides of the aisle--we will see members of the 
Appropriations Committee probably voting on the theory that if they 
lose one they will lose a number of other efforts to eliminate earmarks 
and porkbarrel spending.
  I hope that would not be the case because this is particularly 
egregious, particularly egregious. This legislation which Senator 
Feingold's amendment is intended to cure is about homeland security, 
and to direct half of the emergency operations center funds to only 10 
States obviously is a gross misuse of the taxpayers' dollars and 
could--and could--conceivably cause us not to fund emergency operations 
centers that are more badly needed and could then put our homeland 
security perhaps in some jeopardy, or certainly not ensuring our 
homeland security to the best and wisest expenditure of tax dollars.
  Could I just remind my colleagues, last year's appropriators provided 
$35 million for the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program but 
earmarked $12.5 million of them. The Department of Homeland Security 
received 613 applications asking for $264 million for the purposes of 
the grant program to construct emergency operations centers.
  There is clearly a need for this money in the States. It is 
unfortunate that many of the applicants were turned down by the 
Department because there was no money left because we had already spent 
half of it on earmarked projects which had no competition.
  Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this is not a matter of 
whether we need emergency operations centers. It is simply a matter of 
whether we are going to wisely and appropriately use the taxpayers' 
dollars where it is most needed. There has been no screening, no 
authorization, no hearing held on this issue, and it was put in, 
obviously, in an appropriations bill in an inappropriate fashion.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the Senator from 
Wisconsin. I congratulate him on proposing this amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today in defense of the $1 
million that was allocated in this bill for an emergency operations 
center in Mount Vernon, NY. Mount Vernon is the eleventh most densely 
populated city in the United States of America, the eighth largest city 
in the State of New York, and is located on the immediate border of the 
largest city in this country, New York City.
  Mount Vernon has three Metro-North train stations, which could 
provide a vital route for citizens exiting New York City in the event 
of an emergency. Thus, Mount Vernon is a first line of defense and a 
``safe haven'' for millions who live and work in New York City.
  In order to facilitate a proper and effective response to any 
emergency incident, Mount Vernon needs an emergency operations center. 
If, God forbid, another September 11 type incident occurs in New York 
City, which, as on September 11, compromised the communications system 
and emergency services in the city, it is imperative that we have a 
local emergency operations center nearby.
  New York City is one of the largest terrorist targets in the country, 
and it does not make sense to be cutting emergency operations where we 
could be the most vulnerable. The threat of terrorism has not 
diminished, and our preparations should not either.
  At present, the city of Mount Vernon does not have an emergency 
operations center for the managing and mitigation of a major incident. 
At best, the Mount Vernon Police Department's Field Command Center 
vehicle could

[[Page 17008]]

coordinate an incident. However, this would greatly hamper police 
operations and the ability to manage a multiagency incident.
  Utilizing an existing city facility would reduce costs associated 
with the project. This is an example of good government: repurposing an 
existing building to fulfill a new need and building important 
infrastructure to protect our citizens in an emergency.
  However, if the Federal Government does not fund this emergency 
center, the local community will have to raise property taxes in order 
to make the upgrades necessary. Westchester County has some of the 
highest taxes in the country and should not be forced to pay more in 
order to provide a resource that benefits the entire region.
  Terrorism is not a local problem, it is a national problem. So it is 
only right that the National Government makes the kinds of investments 
that can keep our communities safe.
  I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  In response to the arguments that were made on the Senate floor, in 
all due respect I think the judgment of a Senator knowing what is best 
for their State can usually overcome the judgment of any agency that 
makes that decision in a grant-making process because they know what 
are the most important investment needs for their communities, and our 
voices should be heard. That is why in this instance, it is very 
important that an earmark of this nature that is directed to protect us 
from terrorism and create a safe haven for citizens in the judgment and 
discretion of the Senator from New York is very much needed.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the problem with this is the earmarks. It 
is not that New York may not need this. It is that you have taken 50 
percent of the money for 10 States. The other 40 States will have to 
divide the remaining portion of this money for those types of emergency 
centers and the calculation of risk. It ought to be true competition 
based on real risk. There is no question New York has greater risk than 
Oklahoma; that I do not deny. But the fact is, we have taken half the 
money away from 40 other States and said: You have to compete on the 
remaining portion, and you may have requirements greater than those 
earmarked in the bill.
  I support this amendment. I wholeheartedly ask my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. In response to my colleague, with regard to this 
particular earmark, New York has only received one earmark for $1 
million. In relation to the amount of risk and the necessity for an 
emergency response center, the need is great. Our judgment, as Senators 
from New York, as to what is the best investment for all of New York in 
terms of an emergency response investment is helpful to this process. 
It should not necessarily be left only to a grant process. Much of the 
money is still available to a grant-making process which is a great 
process because it does have competition and we hopefully get the 
greatest good for the greatest need. There is a balance where the 
judgment of a Senator or a Congress Member is very important in that 
conversation. The agencies and the administration can make their own 
judgments. That is why a combination of targeted earmarks on the one 
hand and other investments through a grant process on the other hand is 
probably a better balance and approach, because we are getting the 
judgment of all parts of the three branches of government--at least two 
of them.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
Feingold-McCain amendment. I do not believe this amendment serves the 
country well as far as it applies to the reality of public safety in 
rural America and the northern border.
  It is important to start by noting that this is about people, about 
public safety, about homeland security, about firefighters and other 
first responders in our frontier communities and across rural America. 
Specifically, it is about protecting folks in and around the greater 
Flathead Valley region of northwest Montana.
  The city of Whitefish is 60 miles from the northern border, nearby to 
areas where smuggling and illegal crossings are known to occur. In 
places such as Whitefish, local law enforcement often ends up assisting 
Border Patrol in response to suspicious activity at or near the border. 
Local law enforcement also helps out with security around and awareness 
about wildfires during Montana's fire season. Many of the fires up in 
northwestern Montana occur on Federal lands. When the Feds need 
assistance, whether it is the Border Patrol or the Forest Service or 
ICE, they depend on resources of local communities such as the 
community of Whitefish. In Whitefish and similar communities, local law 
enforcement works closely not only with those Federal agencies, but 
interagency cooperation is a fact of life in northwest Montana. That 
costs local governments money which too often they do not have with an 
unfunded mandate.
  Special interest groups located right here in Washington on 
Connecticut Avenue have called the Whitefish Emergency Operations 
Center a pork project. Unfortunately, I question whether they know 
where Montana is, much less northwest Montana or the city of Whitefish 
or the conditions that evolve around this project. I do, as a Senator 
from Montana. Unfortunately, they use a figure that is off by more than 
one-third. I suggest this is further evidence that the folks in 
Washington, DC, simply do not understand the State of Montana as well 
as its congressional delegation.
  I wish to be clear about what this amendment does and does not do. 
This amendment would not save the Federal Government a single penny. It 
would simply give the money back to FEMA to spend as bureaucrats, as 
unelected officials here in Washington see fit.
  Before 2007, there is no doubt that the Senate appropriations process 
was abused. Some lawmakers buried their special pet projects deep in 
large bills where they had little or no chance to be reviewed by 
Congress or withstand public scrutiny. That is how the taxpayers ended 
up footing a bill for the infamous bridge to nowhere. The very first 
bill I voted for, back in 2007, as a Senator was legislation to clean 
up the system and restore transparency and accountability to the 
appropriations process. Now every project secured by a Member of 
Congress has his or her name attached to it--no more secret requests 
made in the dark of night.
  I am glad my name is next to the Whitefish Emergency Operations 
Center project. All Senators are now required to post requests we make 
on behalf of constituents on our Web sites. Everyone can do it. I 
invite folks to go to my Web site, tester.senate.gov/
appropriations.cfm, or they may want to see the distinguished 
Republican leader's request at mcconnell.senate.gov/approps.cfm.
  The point is not that the Republican leader has asked for specific 
projects. The Democratic leader has also. The point is that no Senator 
is above the transparency requirements instituted in the last couple of 
years. That is a good thing. It is also a good thing that we can have 
this debate here today.
  Why is this particular project needed, a project in Whitefish, MT? 
Over the last 10 years, the population of Whitefish has doubled. The 
fire department is transitioning from a volunteer department to a full-
time professional department, as the call volume has increased, as has 
the population, over the last 7 years. The police department has seen 
call volume increase by over 200 percent in that same time. The current 
building is not big enough to house the growing needs of the city's 
first responders. The current building is in a 100-year flood plain and 
an earthquake zone. Why does that matter? It matters because Montana's 
Disaster and Emergency Services office has done a number of scenarios 
of massive disasters in Montana. Most of them revolve around a 
catastrophic earthquake that disables emergency operations in multiple

[[Page 17009]]

cities. That is one of the most likely disaster scenarios in our State 
and this region of our State.
  I will fight to make people around this body understand that not 
every disaster in this country happens in a major population center. 
Folks in rural America deserve to have effective and efficient 
emergency response also.
  The new Emergency Operations Center in Whitefish will solve several 
deficiencies identified by a 2006 facility needs assessment. 
Interestingly enough, Whitefish used the Department of Homeland 
Security criteria for this study. The center will provide 
interoperability and improved efficiency for ICE, Border Patrol, FBI, 
Secret Service, DEA, Montana Highway Patrol, and several other regional 
law enforcement agencies.
  The EOC Grant Program is intended to improve emergency management and 
preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure, 
and interoperable emergency operations centers with a focus on 
addressing identified deficiencies and needs. That is exactly what this 
project does.
  I oppose this amendment for many of the same reasons as the senior 
Senator from Montana. As elected officials from our States, it is our 
obligation to know what the needs are out there much better, I believe, 
than an appointed bureaucrat.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I speak today about the importance of 
retaining funding for the Providence Emergency Operations Center in the 
fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
  The Providence Emergency Operations Center coordinates emergency 
response for 60 percent of the population of Rhode Island. I visited 
this state-of-the-art facility earlier this year and was very impressed 
by the caliber of its technology, its seamless integration of many 
different local law enforcement and emergency response agencies, and 
those who stand at the ready to protect the people of our state against 
disaster, terrorism, and other threats.
  This funding will help make necessary improvements to the facility, 
including expanding space and improving security and survivability, 
addressing shortfalls identified in a 2007 review by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. These funds are also expected to create 
approximately 20 new construction jobs, which are urgently needed in my 
State, where the unemployment rate has reached a staggering 12.1 
percent.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Feingold amendment so that we do 
not deprive Rhode Islanders of the resources needed to meet federal 
requirements for effective emergency response efforts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of 
debate prior to a vote in relation to the Feingold amendment No. 1402, 
that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in 
relation thereto, with the time equally divided and controlled between 
Senators Murray and Feingold or their designees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let's be clear. We just heard two good examples by the 
Senators from New York and Montana. These are not separate programs 
they have fought for. They are not even separate earmarks. These are 
earmarks carved out of a program for emergency operations centers that 
were supposed to be based on the merits, a comparative analysis that 
can be highly technical of where it is most needed and where it is less 
needed, so there is some kind of opportunity for all of us to compete 
openly for these dollars for our States to make sure the American 
people are protected to the maximum extent.
  We have the Senator from New York talking about Mount Vernon being 
near New York City, where, of course, the 9/11 attacks were. That is 
understandable. But if it is that strong of a case, why can't it be 
made on the merits? Then we have a completely different kind of place--
Montana. I will not say for a minute that the Senator from Montana 
doesn't have a case. He talks about the greater Flathead Valley. Yes, 
he would know more about that place than anybody else in the Senate, 
but does that mean his case for that particular location is so 
overwhelming that it should not be reviewed in comparison to those of 
us who have similar concerns?
  A majority of my State was covered with flooding waters last June. We 
did not have an adequate emergency operations center. We would like to 
be able to compete for these dollars in an open and fair manner through 
a program that has been designated for that purpose on the merits, not 
because somebody happened to sit on a particular committee or was able 
to get an earmark. Whether it is a threat to human lives in New York or 
Montana, if these Senators are confident they can make the case, they 
should make the case on the merits.
  I say to the Senator from New York, whom I am thrilled to have in 
this body, Senators should be able to exercise their judgment. The 
Senators of this body exercised their judgment to help create the 
Emergency Operations Center Program. That program, which Senators help 
create, is supposed to be based on merit. That was the judgment of the 
Senators, not that some individual Senator would say: Hey, I heard from 
somebody in my area that this is important, and that should override 
the will of the Senate and the government that this be done in this 
way.
  I remind everybody, the President has suggested that this program 
should not even continue unless we can get to merit-based consideration 
because that is the whole idea behind it. When the lives of American 
people are threatened by disasters and terrorist threats, our decisions 
should have something to do with the comparative needs and risks to the 
American people, not whether somebody is able to get an earmark.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to 
eliminate congressionally directed allocations of emergency operations 
center construction funding. The committee bill before the Senate today 
contains emergency operations center funding of about $20 million. This 
emergency operations center construction program is an authorized 
activity under the Stafford Act. The 9/11 Act which was approved by the 
Senate on a vote of 85 to 8 in July of 2007 reaffirmed this program by 
approving an amendment to the Stafford Act to adjust the Federal cost 
share for these projects from 50 percent to 75 percent.
  Emergency operations centers are critical to the effective 
coordination of emergency response, which we all know is necessary to 
save lives. The State of Texas, for example, has used these Federal 
funds to improve communications equipment and warning systems for its 
emergency operations center. The Texas EOC was used effectively in 
Presidentially declared disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 
Dean, and others; major flooding in El Paso and Wichita Falls; 
wildfires in 2006, 2008, and 2009; a tornado in Eagle Pass; and, of 
course, the recent H1N1 influenza outbreak. The EOC in each one of 
those cases was the critical node for communication between the layers 
of government.
  The OMB assertion that the EOC program duplicates other programs is 
really without merit. While EOC construction is an allowable activity 
under several grant programs, State and local governments have not 
chosen to use that discretion for this purpose.
  Since 2004, only $16.6 million out of the $11.5 billion of other DHS 
grant funds has been used by State and local governments for EOC 
construction, only one-tenth of 1 percent. The Emergency Management 
Performance Grants Program has provided a mere $755,000 to EOC 
construction. It is clear that the demands for the funds in these 
programs is great. In order to effectively administer emergency 
management programs and to equip and train first responders, there is 
not sufficient

[[Page 17010]]

funding for EOC construction. In this committee bill, over half of the 
total amount made available for emergency operations center 
construction is available for competitive award.
  I have listened to the Senator make some very persuasive arguments. I 
remind all of us that what we are providing is accountability and 
visibility for where those dollars are going. It is not being done in 
some bureaucracy where we cannot see it. It is laid out in this bill, 
and we have heard the arguments of many Senators here on why those 
funds are being appropriated to where they are. So I urge opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, how much time 
remains on each side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes 24 seconds to 
the Senator from Wisconsin and 1 minute 54 seconds to the Senator from 
Washington.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Washington. I want to be clear because it is very easy for people 
listening to this debate to think we are trying to eliminate the 
Emergency Operations Center Program. That is the opposite of the case. 
This cleans it up and makes sure every State can fairly compete for it. 
So the truth is, this earmarking is the opposite of the accountability 
the Senator from Washington refers to. It creates the absence of 
accountability. There is no real scientific or needs-based analysis. It 
is just which Senator can get an earmark. It not only harms the 
program, it is gutting the program when 10 States, without serious 
analysis, get 50 percent of the money, and 40 States have to compete 
for all the rest.
  The Feingold-McCain amendment would prevent earmarking of FEMA 
predisaster mitigation and emergency operations center grants. It does 
not eliminate them. While we may not all agree on the appropriateness 
of earmarking in general, I hope we can agree that grants that are 
supposed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks and natural 
disasters should be awarded on the basis of merits, not politics.
  Currently, the Senate bill directs half of the emergency operations 
center funds to only 10 States. The House earmarks all of these funds 
and a fourth of the predisaster mitigation funds. Last year, FEMA only 
funded a tiny fraction of the emergency operations center applications 
it received because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks. That is 
not accountability. That is ruining a perfectly legitimate program the 
people set up to help people face the possibility of disaster.
  Many past earmarks would not have even qualified for the grants under 
the established guidelines. Again, President Obama has pressed to 
ensure that these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of 
risk; and he has said, if not, the program should be canceled. We can 
make sure this does not happen by adopting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the Feingold amendment, No. 1402, which the Senate will vote on 
shortly.
  This amendment would restrict Congress's ability to direct spending 
to meritorious projects for emergency operations centers and 
predisaster mitigation projects.
  The Senate bill includes funding for the North Louisiana Regional 
Emergency Operations Center in Lincoln Parish, which is a project that 
I supported, and I would like to say a few words about it.
  This EOC will serve 29 parishes in Louisiana that represent 43 
percent of the State's land mass and 27 percent of its total 
population.
  It will provide north Louisiana with a command center for emergency 
response throughout the region and in bordering States. It will also 
serve as a staging area for emergency responders and resources and 
offer training opportunities for firefighting and public safety.
  Louisiana conducted the largest evacuation in American history last 
year as Hurricane Gustav approached our shores, and north Louisiana 
sheltered a majority of those evacuees. When Hurricane Ike struck 12 
days later, north Louisiana received thousands of additional evacuees 
from Texas who fled that storm's path.
  Mr. President, I have received letters of support from four statewide 
agencies and seven sheriffs for this project, and I ask unanimous 
consent that those letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         State of Louisiana, Governor's Office of Homeland 
           Security and Emergency Preparedness,
                                    Baton Rouge, LA, June 6, 2008.
     Re Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex

     Sheriff Mike Stone,
     Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office,
     Ruston, LA.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: On behalf of the Governor's Office of 
     Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, I would like to 
     extend to you my full endorsement and support of the proposed 
     construct of the Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex. It is 
     my understanding that this complex will be available for 
     regional training opportunities and could be used, upon 
     request, by a number of public safety agencies in support of 
     joint training throughout your region.
       The concept of regional training is acutely in line with 
     state and federal initiatives and readily supports all levels 
     of regional training objectives. The purpose and goal of this 
     project is an obvious testimony of your dedication towards 
     the betterment of critically needed public safety skills. The 
     construction of this collaborative agency project will 
     obviously lend itself to the safety and well-being of all our 
     citizens in the Northern Louisiana region.
       In summary, this letter serves as my official endorsement 
     of this project in addition to providing you with our 
     continuing pledge of support and commitment towards 
     endeavoring along side our dedicated public safety responder 
     partners. I am pleased to support this initiative and look 
     forward to working with our fellow public safety officers for 
     the benefit of the entire North Louisiana region.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Mark A. Cooper,
     Director.
                                  ____

         Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Public 
           Safety Services,
                                  Baton Rouge, LA, March 28, 2007.
       To Whom It May Concern: Our agency, Louisiana State Police, 
     wishes to endorse the proposed Lincoln Parish Public Safety 
     Complex which will house state and local agencies responsible 
     for the safety and security of Lincoln Parish.
       More than 20 acres of land has been allocated for this 
     Complex by the Lincoln Parish Police Jury. This prime 
     property is located adjacent to the Lincoln Parish Detention 
     Center on Road Camp Road near Hwy 33, about one mile north of 
     I-20.
       This letter serves as our official endorsement of this 
     project as well as notification that we would like to be 
     allocated office space and use of the facilities for our 
     organization.
       We thank you for your consideration of this worthy endeavor 
     and look forward to our working relationship with other 
     public safety entities in Lincoln Parish.
           Sincerely,
                                             Colonel L. Whitehorn,
     Superintendent, Louisiana State Police.
                                  ____

                                                     Department of


                                Public Safety and Corrections,

                                       Monroe, LA, March 23, 2007.
       To Whom It May Concern: Our agency, Department of Public 
     Safety & Corrections--Division of Probation & Parole/Adult, 
     wishes to endorse the proposed Lincoln Parish Public Safety 
     Complex which will house state and local agencies responsible 
     for the safety and security of Lincoln Parish.
       More than 20 acres of land has been allocated for this 
     Complex by the Lincoln Parish Police Jury. This prime 
     property is located adjacent to the Lincoln Parish Detention 
     Center on Road Camp Road near Hwy 33, about one mile north of 
     I-20.
       This letter serves as our official endorsement of this 
     project as well as notification that we would like to be 
     allocated office space and use of the facilities for our 
     organization.
       We thank you for your consideration of this worthy endeavor 
     and look forward to our working relationship with other 
     public safety entities in Lincoln Parish.
           Sincerely,

                                      Arlena Zeigler-McDonald,

                                           District Administrator,
                                   Division of Probation & Parole.

[[Page 17011]]

     
                                  ____
         State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 
           Office of Secretary,
                                     Baton Rouge, LA, May 2, 2007.
       To Whom It May Concern: Our agency, Louisiana Department of 
     Wildlife and Fisheries, wishes to endorse the proposed 
     Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex which will house state 
     and local agencies responsible for the safety and security of 
     Lincoln Parish.
       More than 20 acres of land has been allocated for this 
     Complex by the Lincoln Parish Police Jury. This prime 
     property is located adjacent to the Lincoln Parish Detention 
     Center on Camp Road near Hwy 33, about one mile north of I-
     20.
       This letter serves as our official endorsement of this 
     project. We thank you for your consideration of this worthy 
     endeavor and look forward to our working relationship with 
     other public safety entities in Lincoln Parish.
           Sincerely,
                                           Bryant O. Hammett, Jr.,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

                                           Louisiana Department of


                                       Agriculture & Forestry,

                                  Baton Rouge, LA, April 23, 2008.
       To Whom It May Concern: The Louisiana Department of 
     Agriculture and Forestry wishes to support the proposed 
     Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex which will house state 
     and local agencies responsible for the safety and security of 
     Lincoln Parish.
       More than 20 acres of land has been allocated for this 
     Complex by the Lincoln Parish Police Jury. This prime 
     property is located adjacent to the Lincoln Parish Detention 
     Center on Road Camp Road near Highway 33, about one mile 
     north of I-20.
       We thank you for your consideration of this worthy endeavor 
     and look forward to our working relationship with other 
     public safety entities in Lincoln Parish. With kindest 
     regards, I remain . . .
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Strain,
     Commissioner.
                                  ____



                            Bienville Parish Sheriff's Office,

                                    Arcadia, LA, February 5, 2008.
     Hon. Mike Stone,
     Sheriff, Lincoln Park
     Ruston, Louisiana.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: It has been brought to my attention 
     that Lincoln Parish is currently seeking funds for a public 
     safety complex that would be available for regional training 
     opportunities. This regional training concept would be very 
     advantageous to all surrounding public safety agencies which 
     currently have no such facility available.
       I wholeheartedly support your endeavors to see that Lincoln 
     Parish, as well as the surrounding parishes, has a ``state of 
     the art'' facility to provide much needed training on a 
     regional basis. You have my commitment to be part of any 
     training that would be beneficial to my department as well as 
     others throughout North Louisiana.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John E. Ballance,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____



                                     Claiborne Parish Sheriff,

                                      Homer, LA, February 4, 2008.
     Sheriff Mike Stone,
     Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office
     Ruston, LA.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: I, Sheriff Ken Bailey, of the Claiborne 
     Parish Sheriffs Office am in support of the proposed Lincoln 
     Parish Public Safety Complex. I understand that this complex 
     will be available for regional training opportunities and 
     could be used, upon request, by our organization for joint 
     training with other entities in our region.
       This concept of regional training opportunities is very 
     much in line with federal and state initiatives with regard 
     to cooperative endeavors and regions working together for the 
     safety and well-being of all our citizens.
       Again, this letter serves as my official endorsement of 
     this project as well as notification that we would 
     participate in regional efforts that support public safety in 
     our area. We ore pleased to support this endeavor and look 
     forward to working with our fellow public safety officers for 
     the benefit of this entire North Louisiana region.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ken Bailey,
     Claiborne Parish Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                                    Jackson Parish


                                         Sheriff's Department,

                                  Jonesboro, LA, February 4, 2008.
     Sheriff Mike Stone,
     Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office,
     Ruston, LA.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: Sheriff Andy Brown, of the Jackson 
     Parish Sheriff's Office am in support of the proposed Lincoln 
     Parish Public Safety Complex. I understand that this complex 
     will be available for regional training opportunities and 
     could be used, upon request, by our organization for joint 
     training with other entities in our region.
       This concept of regional training opportunities is very 
     much in line with federal and state initiatives with regard 
     to cooperative endeavors and regions working together for the 
     safety and well-being of all our citizens.
       Again, this letter serves as my official endorsement of 
     this project as well as notification that we would 
     participate in regional efforts that support public safety in 
     our area. We are pleased to support this endeavor and look 
     forward to working with our fellow public safety officers for 
     the benefit of this entire North Louisiana region.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Andy Brown,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                                   Ouachita Parish


                                         Sheriff's Department,

                                     Monroe, LA, February 1, 2008.
     Sheriff Mike Stone,
     Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office,
     Ruston, LA.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: Please allow this letter to serve as my 
     official endorsement of the proposed Lincoln Parish Public 
     Safety Complex. The Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office supports 
     this effort and all regional efforts to enhance public safety 
     in our area.
       It is my understanding that this facility will be available 
     for regional training opportunities and by our organization 
     for joint training with other Departments in our region. 
     Regional training fits in well with current initiatives being 
     promoted by State and Federal agencies.
       It is my pleasure to support this project. The Ouachita 
     Parish Sheriff's Office is looking forward to working with 
     and supporting other agencies of this region in the interest 
     of public safety.
           Sincerely
                                                   Richard Fewell,
     Ouachita Parish Sheriff.
                                  ____



                                        Sheriff--Union Parish,

                                Farmerville, LA, January 30, 2008.
     Sheriff Mike Stone,
     Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office,
     Ruston, LA.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: I, Sheriff Robert G. ``Bob'' Buckley of 
     the Union Parish Sheriff's Office, am in support of the 
     proposed Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex. I understand 
     that this complex will be available for regional training 
     opportunities and could be used, upon request, by our 
     organization for joint training with other entities in our 
     region.
       This concept of regional training opportunities is very 
     much in line with federal and state initiatives with regard 
     to cooperative endeavors and regions working together for the 
     safety and well-being of all our citizens.
       Again, this letter serves as my official endorsement of 
     this project as well as notification that we would 
     participate in regional efforts that support public safety in 
     our area. We are pleased to support this endeavor and look 
     forward to working with our fellow public safety officers for 
     the benefit of this entire North Louisiana region.
           Sincerely,
                                        Robert G. ``Bob'' Buckley,
     Sheriff--Union Parish.
                                  ____



                                      Sheriff--Webster Parish,

                                     Minden, LA, February 1, 2008.
     Sheriff Mike Stone,
     Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office,
     Ruston, LA.
       Dear Sheriff Stone: I, Sheriff Gary Sexton of the Webster 
     Parish Sheriff's Office am in support of the proposed Lincoln 
     Parish Public Safety Complex. I understand that this complex 
     will be available for regional training opportunities and 
     could be used, upon request, by our organization for joint 
     training with other entities in our region.
       This concept of regional training opportunities is very 
     much in line with federal and state initiatives with regard 
     to cooperative endeavors and regions working together for the 
     safety and well-being of all our citizens.
       Again, this letter serves as my official endorsement of 
     this project as well as notification that we would 
     participate in regional efforts that support public safety in 
     our area. We are pleased to support this endeavor and look 
     forward to working with our fellow public safety officers for 
     the benefit of this entire North Louisiana region.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Gary Sexton,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____



                                   Lincoln Parish Police Jury,

                                       Ruston, LA, March 26, 2007.
     Re Support for Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex.

       To Whom It May Concern: The Lincoln Parish Office of 
     Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness fully supports 
     the proposed Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex. The 
     Complex will be available to house state and local agencies 
     responsible for the security and safety of the citizens of 
     Lincoln Parish. The Lincoln Parish Police Jury has agreed to 
     provide twenty acres of land across from the Lincoln Parish 
     Detention Center for this project. This property is located 
     on the Road Camp Road near LA 33 approximately one mile north 
     of Interstate 20. The Police Jury is willing to work to 
     secure alternative sites if required.
       The Lincoln Parish Office of Homeland Security and 
     Emergency Preparedness would also be interested in receiving 
     an allocation or use of space in the proposed facility. I

[[Page 17012]]

     look forward to working with the other Public Safety entities 
     in Lincoln Parish to move this worthwhile project forward.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important project. 
     If you have any questions that I can answer please do not 
     hesitate to call.
           Sincerely,
                                               Dennis E. Woodward,
           Lincoln Parish Director, Office of Homeland Security & 
                                           Emergency Preparedness.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Supporters include the Louisiana Office of Homeland 
Security and Emergency Preparedness, Louisiana State Police, Louisiana 
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Louisiana Department of 
Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and 
Forestry, and sheriffs from the parishes of Bienville, Claiborne, 
Jackson, Lincoln, Ouachita, Union, and Webster.
  The State of Louisiana has already dedicated $144,000 to this 
project, and Lincoln Parish has donated land worth $400,000 to 
accommodate the proposed facility.
  This funding represents a shared commitment on the part of State and 
local government that will ensure cost-efficiency and mission success.
  The Constitution provides Members of Congress with the authority and 
responsibility to provide funding for national programs and priorities.
  I support full transparency into the appropriations process, and 
stand by this funding request on behalf of the people of my State.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have had a vigorous debate on the 
amendment, and I appreciate the passion of the Senator from Wisconsin 
on this issue. But I again remind my colleagues, what we have had is a 
very passioned debate, and we have had a thoughtful debate about where 
these funds are going to go, which, to me, means the Senate is thinking 
about where their Federal dollars they have out there are going to go 
and it brings visibility and light. We all have an opportunity now to 
have a vote on that.
  I again urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. President, I believe the time of the Senator from Wisconsin is 
used up at this point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin has 19 
seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield it back, and if it is 
appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Wisconsin yields his 
time back, I will yield my time back.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Risch
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 1402) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe there is an amendment pending. If I 
am correct in that, I ask unanimous consent to lay that aside for the 
purpose of getting an amendment pending.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1432 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment with an 
original cosponsor, Senator McCain.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1432.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike the earmark for the City of Whitefish Emergency 
                           Operations Center)

       On page 33, line 10, strike ``no less'' and all that 
     follows through ``Montana;'' on line 12.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since this amendment deals with an earmark in 
the State of Montana, I will make my comments with respect to it at a 
time when Senator Tester can be here. I know he wants to oppose the 
amendment. We can debate that at a time that is mutually convenient for 
the two of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 1428 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1428.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. 
     Menendez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Gillibrand, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1428.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill that will extend, for 3 years, 
the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program and 
the Conrad 30 Program. In addition, my amendment addresses the 
immigration-related hardships caused by the death of a sponsoring 
relative.
  Let me say a few words about the Special Immigrant Non-Minister 
Religious Worker Visa Program. The program provides for up to 5,000 
special immigrant visas per year which religious denominations or 
organizations in the United States can use to sponsor foreign nationals 
to perform religious service in our country. To date, the Special 
Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program has been extended 
six times. However, Congress has started a very poor practice of 
extending this program in 6-month spurts--making it extremely difficult 
for agency officials to administer the program and for religious groups 
to make long-term plans for their critical staffing needs.

[[Page 17013]]

  Lest some people think this is not an important program worthy of our 
attention, let me tell you about the services nonminister religious 
workers perform. These selfless workers provide human services to the 
most needy, including shelter and nutrition; caring for and ministering 
to the sick, aged, and dying; working with adolescents and young 
adults; assisting religious leaders as they lead their congregations 
and communities in worship; counseling those who have suffered severe 
trauma and/or hardship; supporting families, particularly when they are 
in crisis; offering religious instruction, especially to new members of 
the religious denomination; and helping refugees and immigrants in the 
United States adjust to a new way of life.
  I am aware of the concerns that some of my colleagues have about 
fraud within this program, and I am equally concerned. Yet I want to 
make it clear. The figures used to taint this program are outdated and 
not reflective of where things stand currently. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, USCIS, is in the process of completing the 
implementation of rules and procedures promulgated in November 2008 to 
eliminate fraud. This includes regular site visits. Additionally, an 
inspector general report, just issued a few weeks ago, confirms that 
USCIS has developed a credible process to deter and detect nonminister 
petition fraud.
  To ensure that we continue to keep on top of this issue, I have 
insisted that language in the proposed amendment require a report from 
USCIS, within 90 days of enactment, to identify the risks of fraud and 
noncompliance by program participants. Additionally, USCIS will be 
required to provide a detailed plan that describes the actions taken by 
the agency against noncompliant program participants and future 
noncompliant program participants. Three months after providing this 
report to Congress, USCIS will be required to provide a report on the 
progress made in reducing the number of noncompliant participants of 
this program.
  I want to assure my colleagues that fraud in any government program 
is totally unacceptable to me. And I believe the extra steps included 
in the legislation will further the progress USCIS has made in 
eliminating and preventing fraud in this important program.
  Mr. President, please note that there are several religious 
organizations that support passage of the Special Immigrant Non-
Minister Religious Worker Visa Program, including The Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Jewish Committee, the Agudath 
Israel of America, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., the 
Church Communities International, the Conference of Major Superiors of 
Men, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and 
Refugee Service, the Mennonite Central Committee, the United States 
National Association of Evangelicals, the National Spiritual Assembly 
of the Bahai of the United States, The Church of Scientology 
International, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA, the 
United Methodist Church, the General Board of Church and Society, the 
World Relief, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  No doubt our country's religious organizations face sometimes 
insurmountable obstacles in using traditional employment immigration 
categories to fit their unique situations.
  Fortunately, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program allows 
our country's religious denominations to continue uninterrupted in 
their call to serve and provide support to those who are in the 
greatest need. I commend their service and hope they know how much I 
respect their work.
  Let me take a moment to say a few words about the Conrad 30 Program, 
which was created in 1994. The Conrad 30 Program allows foreign 
doctors, who are already in the United States, and who have been 
trained in the United States, to extend their stay in the country if 
they agree to practice in medically underserved communities in the U.S. 
for 3 years. The program, which is run at the State level, has brought 
over 8,500 doctors to underserved areas across the country, and to all 
50 States. However, it expires in September. My amendment also will 
extend the Conrad 30 Program for 3 years.
  The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, imposes what has become 
known as the ``widow penalty,'' requiring the deportation of 
individuals whose pending applications for green cards are rejected 
because their citizen spouse died within the first 2 of marriage. This 
amendment remedies this unintended and unjustified administrative 
procedure.
  Under current law, when a U.S. citizen marries a noncitizen, the 
noncitizen is eligible to become a legal permanent resident and receive 
a green card. During the first 2 years of marriage, the only way this 
can be accomplished is through a petition that the citizen files on the 
noncitizen spouse's behalf. The noncitizen cannot self-petition for 
legal permanent resident status until the marriage has lasted for 2 
years.
  If, however, the citizen spouse dies while the petition, through no 
fault of the couple, remains pending. This is often unfair; delays are 
often caused by agency workload or issues which are not the fault of 
the petitioners. The petition automatically is denied. The noncitizen 
is immediately deemed ineligible for legal permanent residence and 
therefore becomes deportable. This is the case even if ample evidence 
of a bona fide marriage, such as cohabitation, shared finances, exists. 
It is often the case even if a couple had a U.S. born child.
  Because of the widow penalty, well-intentioned widows who have played 
by the rules face immediate deportation. During the 110th Congress, 
efforts to persuade the USCIS to address the issue administratively 
were unsuccessful. In the current administration, Secretary Napolitano 
has directed that the Department of Homeland Security to review a 
number of immigration issues, including the ``widow penalty,'' and has 
decided to defer action on deporting widows for up to 2 years to allow 
time for Congress to fix the problem.
  There have been more than 200 ``widow penalty'' victims, including a 
woman whose husband died while serving overseas as a contractor in 
Iraq; a woman whose husband died trying to rescue people who were 
drowning in the San Francisco Bay; and a woman who was apprehended by 
Federal agents when she went to meet with immigration authorities to 
plead her case she was placed in shackles, and sent to a detention 
facility.
  This amendment will end the harsh and unfair ``widow penalty'' by 
allowing the petition to be adjudicated even though the spouse has 
died. The proposed legislation affects only a small class of 
individuals who still would be required to demonstrate that they had a 
bona fide marriage before receiving a green card. Thus, USCIS would 
retain the discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny 
them automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse.
  The amendment also includes provisions to clarify that the government 
should continue to process the immigration applications of immigrants 
who are already waiting to receive an immigrant or other visa under 
certain conditions.
  Specifically, the bill would protect orphans, parents and spouses of 
United States citizens by allowing them to continue their applications 
through the family immigration system in cases where the citizen's or 
resident's relative died if the individual self-petitions within 2 
years; allow the spouse and minor children of family-sponsored 
immigrants and derivative beneficiaries of employment-based visas to 
benefit from a filed visa petition after the death of a relative or 
adjust status on the basis of a petition filed before the death of the 
sponsoring relative if the application is filed within 2 years; allow 
the spouse and minor children of refugees and asylees to immigrate to 
the U.S. despite the death of the principal applicant and allow them to 
adjust their status to permanent residence; provide processes to reopen 
previously denied cases and allow individuals to be paroled into the 
U.S. in cases

[[Page 17014]]

where the sponsoring relative died after submitting an immigration 
application, and promote efficient naturalization of widows and 
widowers by allowing the surviving spouse to continue with a 
naturalization application as long as the deceased spouse was a citizen 
of the United States during the 3 years prior to filing.
  The bill ensures that all widows and orphans would have to comply 
with affidavit of support requirements to ensure they do not become a 
public charge. The bill includes provisions to make sure that all 
widows and orphans who benefit under this act are subject to current 
numerical limitations on visa issuance. The bill also provides a limit 
on issuance of visas for widows where the spouse died over 10 years 
ago: only 100 visas would be available for individuals whose spouses 
died before 1999.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1406 to Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I see it 
as 1404, which is to strike the Loran-C Program. It is at the desk. It 
could be 1406.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object, can we get the correct 
number?
  Mr. McCAIN. Pending me finding the right number, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thanks to my crack staff, that amendment number is 1406. 
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1406 to amendment No. 1373.

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

 (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the Loran-C signal, as 
                   recommended by the Administration)

       On page 75, line 15, strike all through page 77, line 16.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would imagine that my colleagues 
remember that several months ago the President announced there would be 
a number of significant cuts in spending in order to try to bring 
unnecessary and wasteful programs under control. The President 
announced there would be some $41 billion saved over the next decade, 
and the administration, as part of its budget submission, recommended 
terminating or reducing 121 Federal programs that were estimated to 
save the taxpayers $41 billion over the next decade.
  That announcement by the President was greeted with certainly 
applause and appreciation by most Americans since we are amassing 
multitrillion-dollar deficits. Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear 
these budget cuts the administration recommended terminating are not 
being terminated.
  We have had votes already on at least two of them, and now we are 
about to talk about another one that would achieve a savings of some 
$36 million in 2010, and $190 million over 5 years, not a small amount 
of money, at least in the old days before we got into trillion-dollar 
and multitrillion-dollar deficits.
  So what this amendment does is seek to strike the Loran-C Program. In 
the interest of full disclosure, Loran was around when I was in the 
Navy, so obviously it is a pretty old program. The President and the 
administration called it ``obsolete technology.'' I certainly agree.
  The administration stated in its budget submission--and I have that 
somewhere--and I quote from it:

       The Loran-C is a federally provided radio navigation system 
     for civil marine use in U.S. coastal areas. The Nation no 
     longer needs this system because the nationally supported 
     civilian Global Positioning System [known to us as GPS] has 
     replaced it with superior capabilities. As a result, Loran-C, 
     including recently technological enhancements, serves only 
     the remaining small group of longtime users. It no longer 
     serves any governmental function, and it is not capable as a 
     backup for GPS.

  I want to point out again to my colleagues, that is not my view, and 
I will enumerate a number of governmental agencies that agree with 
that. But several Federal agencies, including the Departments of 
Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security, already have backup 
systems for their critical GPS applications, and the termination of 
Loran-C does not foreclose future development of a national backup 
system. It nearly stops the outflow of taxpayers' dollars to sustain a 
system that does not now and will not in its current state serve as a 
backup to GPS. That is pretty strong and pretty direct and pretty clear 
language.
  Obviously, the administration is proposing to terminate the 
terrestrial-based, long-range radio navigation system, Loran-C, 
operated by the Coast Guard because it is obsolete technology.
  Accounting for inflation, this will achieve a savings of $36 million 
in 2010 and $190 million over 5 years. Again, I point out this is one 
of 121 terminations or cuts the President of the United States 
announced the administration wanted done and, of course, many Americans 
believed they would be achieved. So far we haven't done one. I am sure 
we may, but we have not done one.
  In 2005 numerous Federal agencies called for the termination of this 
program, as I mentioned earlier, including the Coast Guard; the 
Secretary of Defense; Secretary of Transportation, representing the 
Federal Aviation Administration; and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, representing the Coast Guard.
  All signed, in October 2005, a report that stated the Department of 
Defense has determined that Loran is no longer needed as a positioning, 
navigational, or timing aid for military users, and ``with respect to 
aviation, the FAA has determined that sufficient alternative navigation 
aids exist in the event of a loss of GPS-based services, and, 
therefore, Loran is not needed as a back-up navigation aid for aviation 
users.'' And, ``with respect to maritime safety, the United States 
Coast Guard has determined that sufficient back-ups are in place to 
support safe maritime navigation in the event of a loss of GPS-based 
services, and, therefore, Loran is not needed as a back-up navigational 
aid for maritime safety.''
  It is not a new debate. Once programs come into being, they are 
almost impossible to kill, and we may not be able to kill this one. The 
votes so far have indicated there certainly is not a harboring of 
success. This is a GAO report, the U.S. Government General Accounting 
Office, dated September 18, 1981. The report States:

       DOT, [Department of Transportation] should terminate 
     further Loran-C development and modernization exploit the 
     potential of the Navstar global position system, [i.e. GPS.]

  Remarkable. 1981. So the report goes on--and I will not waste too 
much time going into it--but the GAO obviously found that the Coast 
Guard--

       We have completed a follow-up review on our March 21, 1978 
     report. The report concluded that the Department of Defense's 
     DOD satellite-based Navstar GPS could be a national asset, 
     could replace many existing navigation systems at substantial 
     savings.

  The report considered these systems, including the Department of 
Transportation's Loran-C system, to be

[[Page 17015]]

unneeded by the early 1990s and cautioned against further investment in 
Loran-C. It also recommended that the Secretary of Transportation 
become more involved in the GPS program to ensure the timely 
availability of low-cost civil receivers. Obviously, we have low-cost 
civil receivers.
  So beginning in 1981 and here we are 28 years later trying to 
terminate a program that literally every agency of government is trying 
to kill. But will we succeed? Again, the votes so far do not indicate 
that.
  Yesterday there was an article by Mr. Walter Alarkon, which says.

       Democrats ignore Obama's cuts. Congressional Democrats are 
     largely ignoring President Obama's $19.8 billion in budget 
     cuts. The President proposed axing dozens of programs that he 
     said were inefficient or ineffective, but Members of the 
     House Appropriations Committee are including the money for 
     them.

  Over here on this side of the Capitol we are doing the same thing. 
The Associated Press:

       Congress largely is ignoring Obama budget cuts. Lawmakers 
     have yet to deal with most controversial proposed cuts. Obama 
     proposed the cuts last month after what he promised would be 
     a line-by-line scrub of the Federal budget to counter 
     Republican charges that he is spending the country into too 
     much debt. The House has already rejected his effort to kill 
     a $400 million program that helps States with the costs of 
     incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants, and a homeland 
     security spending bill up for a House vote this week keeps in 
     place the World War II era Loran-C maritime navigation system 
     that Obama wanted to ax even though it has been rendered 
     obsolete by the modern global positioning system.
       The homeland security measures also preserve $12 million 
     for bus systems--

  That is the one that died, the amendment we tried to kill yesterday 
that died 51 to 47--

     and $40 million in grants to local governments for emergency 
     operations centers.

  That one was not approved today by a vote of 60 to 38.

       All told, lawmakers in both parties--California Republicans 
     were the driving force in preserving the State Criminal Alien 
     Assistance Program--have combined to preserve more than $750 
     million worth of cuts suggested by Obama.
  From Politico:

       Democrats make show of budget cuts.

  That was on June 23.

       With growing public concern about the deficit and billions 
     still backed up in President Obama's economic recovery 
     program, just how do Democrats sell another 8 percent 
     increase in discretionary spending this summer? Some of the 
     terminations are less than advertised.

  It goes on and on.
  I applaud the President's commitment cutting some of these programs. 
I spoke out at the time when he said they would go line by line, when 
he said they would have budget cuts that were significant, that there 
would be billions of dollars saved in unwanted, unnecessary programs 
and spending. Why don't we in Congress get that message?
  If we continue on this path--and we probably will; I have been around 
this body long enough to see where the votes are; the appropriators 
have the control here--I will strongly suggest that the President start 
vetoing some of these bills, something the previous administration 
should have done and the previous President should have done. I came to 
the floor and fought against these earmark pork-barrel projects in the 
last administration, just as I am with this one.
  Yesterday I offered an amendment to strip funding for a program the 
administration had declared unnecessary and sought to terminate. The 
amendment was defeated, and only 12 Members of the President's party 
supported the amendment seeking to implement the administration's 
recommendation. When are we going to get serious about making tough 
choices around here?
  I know there are other amendments in line. Let me sum up. This system 
is an aid to navigation for ships at sea and in rivers and lakes that 
long ago was replaced by something called GPS, the global positioning 
system. We have them in our cars. They are easily available to be 
bought at very low price at most any of our stores and outlets. I am 
sure one could draw a scenario where somehow all satellites fall from 
the sky and we are deprived of Loran-C, but that is sheer foolishness. 
If we don't kill this program, which was recommended to be terminated 
by GAO in September of 1981, it is pretty obvious we are not going to 
be able to reduce or terminate funding for any program, once it gets 
into production and once it gets its sponsors in the Congress.
  I strongly recommend that my colleagues understand that we can't keep 
spending this kind of money. We just can't do it. We are laying a 
terrible burden on our children and grandchildren. This is some $36 
million for next year, $190 million for the next 5 years. For anybody 
who has a rudimentary understanding of what GPS provides and how 
obsolete Loran-C is, it is willful ignorance.
  I urge colleagues, let's, for a change, stand up for the American 
taxpayer. Let's stand up for the taxpayer and our children and 
grandchildren. In this era of $10 trillion debts and trillion-dollar-
plus deficits, does $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over 5 years 
matter? I think it matters in that we ought to at least sometimes stop 
business as usual. People are not able to stay in their homes, not 
keeping jobs. Unemployment is at an all-time high. And we are going to 
waste another $36 million?
  How many people could stay in their homes, how many people could we 
employ in small businesses, how many people could educate their kids 
with this $36 million for next year? There is something wrong here that 
we continue to spend like this, when America is going through the 
toughest recession in our history. Time after time we come to the floor 
and try to terminate obsolete programs. We try to stop the wasteful and 
unnecessary pork-barrel spending and earmarks. What do we get? We get 
majority votes against it.
  Don't be surprised when the TEA parties get bigger around the 
country. Don't be surprised when more and more Americans register as 
Independents because they think both sides of the aisle are guilty. 
Don't be surprised when Americans in every way that they can express 
their extreme dissatisfaction with our spending habits and the 
corruption that exists as a result.
  It is time we started standing up for the American people and not the 
special interests that are the sponsors of Loran-C and so many wasteful 
and unnecessary programs we continue to see increase in spending, when 
every other American family is having to tighten their belts and 
decrease spending, if they are able to spend at all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
offering this amendment. Indeed, Loran-C was established after World 
War II as a navigational tool for our mariners and aviators. The 
President has proposed to terminate Loran-C stations on October 1, 
2009, with the justification that the federally supported civilian 
global positioning system is now the primary navigational tool and the 
Loran-C is no longer needed by the Armed Forces or by the 
transportation sector or by the Nation's security interests. The Office 
of Management and Budget has also told us that many agencies, including 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, 
and the Department of Defense, do, as the Senator stated, already have 
backup systems for GPS.
  I want to set the record straight about what this committee mark does 
have in it that is before us. It does provide for the orderly 
termination of Loran-C beginning January 4, 2010. So the underlying 
bill does terminate the Loran-C program, and it does so in a way that 
allows the Coast Guard the time to inform the public and provide for 
the orderly termination of that program. The committee bill continues 
operations of Loran-C until January 4, 2010. Then the program is 
terminated.
  Contrary to the sponsor's statement yesterday, there is not $35 
million in this bill for Loran-C. This bill does have $18 million. The 
President in his request did include no funding to pay for the cost to 
terminate these stations. According to the Coast Guard, which has 
provided us information, they do need this funding to remove

[[Page 17016]]

the high-value equipment and electronics hazardous material. They need 
it to remediate the environmental concerns and to fund a variety of 
measures to secure the sites until they are fully decommissioned. This 
money is not to continue the operation of Loran-C. It is to terminate 
it in a way that is proper and makes sure that while we remove these 
stations, we are doing it in a responsible way.
  What we do in the committee mark is to make sure that the Coast Guard 
doesn't have to take away money from critical missions--search and 
rescue or drug interdiction or marine safety or environmental 
compliance--to terminate this program. We did include funding so that 
the Loran-C stations could be shut down responsibly.
  The administration has sent us a statement of administration policy. 
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.R. 2892--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

       (Senator Inouye, D-Hawaii, July 7, 2009)
       The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 
     2892, with the committee-reported text of S. 1298, making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010.
       As we face difficult economic and fiscal decisions, it is 
     important to make efficient and effective investments. The 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, as 
     considered by the Senate Committee, makes important 
     investments in transportation systems, cyber security, 
     innovation and job creation, security for our borders, and 
     emergency response. This legislation serves as an important 
     piece of the Nation's economic recovery.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.


                    Federal Protection Service (FPS)

       The Administration is pleased that the Committee supports 
     the transfer of FPS to the National Protection and Programs 
     Directorate (NPPD). This transfer will properly align the 
     activities of FPS and NPPD, while allowing Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement to focus on its key immigration 
     enforcement mission. The Administration plans to provide 
     additional details to the Congress in support of the FPS 
     transition and realignment of these responsibilities in the 
     next few weeks.


                           E-Verify Extension

       The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for 
     E-Verify by fully funding the request and including a three-
     year reauthorization to continue operations. This critical 
     program supports immigration enforcement and promotes 
     compliance with immigration laws.


  Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Disaster Relief Fund

       The Committee significantly underfunds the Disaster Relief 
     Fund (DRF). In an effort to implement a more transparent 
     funding process for DRF, the Administration's $2 billion 
     request is based on a methodology that incorporates 
     historical costs associated with FEMA's response for non-
     catastrophic incidents.


                          Loran-C Termination

       The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for 
     termination of the Loran-C radio navigation system. The 
     Administration supports the Committee's aim to achieve an 
     orderly termination through a phased decommissioning 
     beginning in January 2010, and the requirement that 
     certifications be provided to document that the Loran-C 
     termination will not impair maritime safety or the 
     development of possible GPS backup capabilities or needs.


                          Immigration Services

       The Congress is urged to provide the requested funding to 
     reform immigration fees. Eliminating the practice of passing 
     on costs for refugees and asylees to other applicants for 
     immigration benefits is an important first step to improve 
     the accuracy, transparency, and fairness of immigration fees.
       The Administration strongly urges the Congress to provide 
     additional resources to support and expand successful 
     immigrant integration programs across the country.

  Mrs. MURRAY. It says:

       The Administration appreciates the committee's support for 
     termination of the Loran-C radio navigation system. The 
     administration supports the committee's aim to achieve an 
     orderly termination through a phased decommissioning, 
     beginning in January 2010, and the requirement that 
     certifications be provided to document that the Loran-C 
     termination will not impair maritime safety or the 
     development of possible GPS back-up capabilities or needs.

  So the administration has said that the committee is complying with 
what they have asked us to do which is to terminate the Loran-C 
program.
  The aim of the amendment is unclear to me. What it actually does is 
strip the Coast Guard of the authority we have provided in the 
underlying bill to terminate a program that will indeed save taxpayers 
$36 million a year.
  The way the amendment is written, I oppose it because it will take 
away what the committee has written in here to terminate the Loran-C 
program, as the President has requested, in a responsible way, to do it 
in a way that we deal with the mitigation that needs to be done when we 
remove equipment such as this. The amendment that has been offered will 
actually strip the Coast Guard of the authority to do just that.
  The committee bill does what the Senator is asking us to do. It does 
it in a timely and responsible way and does terminate the Loran-C 
program.
  I urge colleagues to support the committee amendment that does it in 
a responsible way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman left out a 
couple of items. One, it will still cost an additional $18 million, if 
the program is terminated by January 4, 2010.
  The interesting thing, when we read the bill on pages 75, 76, and 77, 
there is a list of caveats that have to be achieved in order for that 
to happen. How many times have I seen around here a determination made 
that they will terminate a program if the following criteria are met? 
The limitations in the bill are that termination will not adversely 
impact the safety of maritime navigation, the system is not needed as a 
backup to the GPS or any other Federal navigation, if the Commandant 
makes a certification. The Commandant doesn't have to make a 
certification. The Coast Guard has already said they don't want it. It 
needs no certification.
  From the language of the bill:

       Not later than 30 days after such certification pursuant to 
     subsection (b), the Commandant shall submit to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives 
     a report setting forth a proposed schedule for the phased 
     decommissioning of the Loran-C system infrastructure in the 
     event of the decommissioning of such infrastructure in 
     accordance with subsection (c).
       If the Commandant makes the certification described in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
     through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, sell any real or 
     personal property under the administrative control of the 
     Coast Guard and used for the Loran system, by directing the 
     Administrator of General Services to sell such real and 
     personal property . . .

  So after the completion of such activities, the unexpended balance 
shall be available for any other environmental compliance and 
restoration. Why not stop it now? Why not stop it now? Why spend an 
additional $18 million? Why open this? Since 1981, we have been trying 
to kill it. Why open it for an additional period of time when clearly 
this system needs to stop?
  With all due respect to the Senator from Washington, let's stop it 
now. We can stop it now. We know it can be stopped now. We don't have 
to spend an additional $18 million on the program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator and I are on the same page. 
We want to terminate this program. But we have a responsibility, as 
oversight, to make sure that we do it in a way that mitigates any 
problems that are out there.
  We have high-value equipment. We have electronic hazardous materials 
that are out there. The Coast Guard--whoever is responsible--has to 
remediate the environmental concerns. They need to secure these sites 
where the Loran-Cs are. That is what this funding is for, to make sure 
it is done responsibly.
  If we do not provide the funds in this amendment, the Coast Guard 
will be required to take the money to do that out of other very 
important missions that many of us care about, whether it

[[Page 17017]]

is search and rescue or drug interdiction or marine safety or threats 
of terrorism. We do not want the Coast Guard to have to take away that 
money to do that.
  I want to specifically say again, the amendment before us, the way it 
is written, strikes the language that the President requested to 
provide for the orderly termination by providing authority to sell the 
Loran-C assets. If this amendment is adopted, they will not be able to 
sell the Loran-C assets and thereby save taxpayer dollars.
  I understand where the Senator is coming from. I know his past 
concerns about this program. We are going to shut it down. That is what 
this amendment does. The commandant, who is, in our language, being 
asked to certify, goes at the behest of the President. As the Senator 
from Arizona well knows, the President has said he wants the program 
shut down, and that is what this committee is trying to do, in a 
responsible way, to save taxpayer dollars in the long run and 
specifically to be able to sell the Loran-C assets so the taxpayers can 
regain their money at the end of the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in 2007 I offered this direct amendment. 
We spent 3 hours on it on the Senate floor. Everybody agreed we needed 
to get rid of this program then. We had some concerns. The thing I do 
not understand is why we are waiting the extra 5 months to shut down a 
program. There is nobody who needs this program. That 5 months--just 
that 5 months of continuing the program--costs the American taxpayers 
$18 million.
  So if, in fact, we are going to shut down the program, I would like 
to understand the logic of turning it down in January instead of 
October 1.
  First of all, nobody is using this system now. Nobody is using it. 
Why can't they notify in 3 months all the people--which is zero--who 
are using this today? The other question is, why does it take $35 
million? Where is the backup detail that shows what the costs will be? 
Maybe it is $18 million.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is $18 million.
  Mr. COBURN. So why does it take $18 million? There are only seven 
stations left, and we are talking about facilities that are smaller 
than these four desks. Tell me how it takes $2.5 million per buoy to 
shut them down. Only from Washington would it take that much money. 
Where is the basis for the knowledge that it takes $18 million?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator understands from the 
budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010 that the Office of 
Management and Budget submitted to the Congress, it says the 
administration is proposing to terminate and achieve a savings of $36 
million in 2010, and now the Senator from Washington is obviously 
contradicting what we were told by the administration, which is what we 
wanted.
  How it could cost $18 million, as you say, to shut down seven sites, 
and not be allowed to sell off valuable assets, of course, is 
foolishness. Of course the government sells off assets that are 
extraneous assets all the time without the permission or the need to 
have legislation.
  Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would tell the Senator from Washington, 
first of all, I do appreciate that the Senator is attempting to shut 
this down, and I thank the Senator for that. It has been long overdue. 
But I do question the amount of money it takes to shut this down. We 
know the bureaucracies always want more money than what is necessary. 
You have allowed in this bill that whatever is not used they can plow 
back into anything they want to use it for.
  Why would we not terminate it at the end of the fiscal year? Every 
month we are running it, it costs $3 to $4 million--$3 to $4 million. I 
know it does not seem like a lot when we are going to have a $1.8 
trillion budget deficit this year, but I do not understand why we would 
not do it.
  I say to the Senator, I appreciate the fact that he is doing it. I 
think it can be done for a lot cheaper, and I think it could be done 
sooner, and I would hope the committee would consider that.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this moment there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. COBURN. There is not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. MERKLEY. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Consumer Financial Protection Agency

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today, colleagues, I rise to give voice 
to my strong support for President Obama's proposal to create a 
consumer financial protection agency separate from our prudential 
banking regulators. I believe establishing this new independent agency 
is critical to protecting the economic security of the American middle 
class and ensuring the stability of our financial system and the banks 
within it.
  Let me share with you a story about Ira Cheatham. Ira is a 73-year-
old retired veteran of the Korean war. I think his story helps explain 
why we need to do more to protect middle-class economic security. Ira 
and his wife lived in Portland, OR, for 21 years. By 2002, this couple 
had nearly paid off their mortgage. But a few years ago, in the midst 
of the subprime boom, the family received what looked like a check from 
their bank, their mortgage company, a check for $1,000. Ira cashed in 
the check. Ira did not realize that the check actually represented a 
high-interest loan.
  Within a week or two after cashing the check, the family received a 
call from their mortgage company urging the couple to consolidate this 
$1,000 loan with their credit card debt into a single mortgage. This 
family had excellent credit, and the mortgage company promised the 
couple they would receive an interest rate between 5 and 6 percent, 
which would have reduced monthly payments.
  Based on this promise, the couple agreed. But what they soon 
discovered was they had been assigned an interest rate of 11.8 percent. 
Moreover, the loan contained discount points financed into the loan, 
inflating the loan amount and stripping away equity in the house. Under 
this new subprime loan, the mortgage payments swelled to $1,655--nearly 
60 percent of the family's monthly income.
  Having discovered this, it would have been great if this family could 
have simply refinanced. But in the loan was a $7,500 prepayment 
penalty; in other words, stripping them of another $7,500. Once they 
discovered what they had been trapped into--what they had been tricked 
into--they were then locked into this prepayment penalty that would 
further decimate their equity.
  They did not have many good options--an unsustainable interest rate, 
an outrageous prepayment penalty--but, finally, they took and did what 
they had to do, which was to pay that prepayment penalty in order to 
refinance their mortgage with another lender.
  Our financial marketplace has become infested with these kinds of 
predatory lending products and practices that exploited this elderly 
couple and millions of other families across this

[[Page 17018]]

Nation. Now these practices are commonplace because they are not 
regulated. They are commonplace because they are highly profitable. 
They are embedded in documents inches thick in a home loan. They are 
written in light gray ink on the back of a check. When deposited, you 
have actually signed a financial document.
  Well, these types of tricks and traps are unacceptable. Mr. 
President, $2.7 trillion in losses to subprime writedowns only 
scratches the surface of the total cost of this economic catastrophe--a 
catastrophe that would have been avoided if banks had sold stable prime 
loans instead of tricking and trapping families into volatile subprime 
loans.
  In short, we need to reestablish strong consumer protection in our 
financial markets. The solution is simple and should have been adopted 
a long time ago: centralizing financial consumer protection regulation 
in a single agency, an agency that is not compromised by having another 
mission, another mission of regulating monetary policy or another 
mission of overseeing the stock market or another mission here or 
there; no, a mission responsible to the consumers of this Nation of 
financial products that says our transactions are going to be 
transparent, the terms are going to be clear, we are going to get rid 
of the tricks and traps.
  Many of you know we recently passed a bill in this Chamber on credit 
cards to get rid of the tricks and traps we know of in the credit card 
industry. That is a tremendous step forward. But who would doubt--who 
in this Chamber would doubt; who in America would doubt--that within 12 
months we will have a new set of tricks and traps?
  You cannot simply legislate every time one of these is created. You 
need a consumer financial products agency to oversee this process, to 
make sure we protect the consumer from new, clever ways of stripping 
Americans' wealth. Establishing a strong consumer financial protection 
agency would be a major step forward in protecting the economic 
security of working Americans. There are folks who say: You know what, 
we are making a lot of money. We don't want this type of regulation.
  Let's draw a parallel here to consumer products in other areas. How 
about toys for our children. There are folks who would say: No, we 
shouldn't regulate the quality of toys, we shouldn't regulate whether 
there are small parts that will choke our child, we shouldn't regulate 
whether there are exploding parts that might take out an eye, we 
shouldn't regulate the lead in the paint, because this reduces choice. 
But we have recognized that when it comes to consumer products 
appearing in our homes, we need to have ongoing oversight to make sure 
products are fair and safe, and we need to do the same thing in the 
financial world.
  The failure to regulate has had an enormous toll: $700 billion in 
taxpayer money spent to bail out our banks, $12.2 trillion in household 
wealth lost in America since 2007, and the tragedy of millions of 
Americans losing their homes and their jobs. Those are the real costs 
of failing to regulate financial consumer protection.
  Let's look at a few things such an agency would do.
  First, it would mean less bureaucracy and less cost. Each of our 
banking regulators already has a consumer protection obligation, a 
consumer protection division. Three of four Federal banking agencies 
have separate consumer protection functions from the rest of the 
agency. Now, that mission is often set aside, that mission is often 
ignored, in light of the other missions of the agency, but it is far 
more effective, cost-effective, to have these missions combined into a 
single entity with the responsibility directly to consumers.
  A second concern has been that it would be a mistake to have folks 
who offer financial products provide a simple, plain-vanilla product as 
a comparison to give them a framework for the contract being put before 
them. But these types of straightforward, plain-vanilla comparisons are 
very useful to consumers to allow them to make an informed choice. In 
the long term, a smarter consumer produces better competition between 
those who provide these products because now they are forced to compete 
not on tricks and traps but on transparency, on consumer service--
customer service--and that is a positive thing. It means real 
competition in terms of price. I think our community financial 
institutions in particular would have a stronger claim in such new 
business because who provides better consumer service than our local 
community bankers?
  Third, a consumer protection agency would clear the field of 
unregulated bad actors whose competition lowers standards across 
financial products. Well, I wish to draw a bit of an analogy here to a 
football game. Imagine a football game where only one side gets called 
for penalties. That is what happens when you have one responsible 
financial player and another that isn't abiding by any sort of fairness 
or transparency. That does not produce good competition. If only your 
opponent can jump the line or face mask or get away with just about 
anything without penalty flags being thrown, how is your team going to 
compete? That is the challenge the responsible players have in the 
marketplace today. Well, let's not put them in such a difficult 
position. Let's make sure all of the players are acting responsibly, 
and that is the role such an agency would carry on.
  We need a consumer financial protection agency to protect the hard-
earned wealth of hard-working Americans--Americans like the elderly 
couple I told the story about earlier, Americans like Maggie from 
Salem, OR. Maggie paid her credit card bill on time, and then what 
happened? She was charged a late fee.
  So she called up and said: Why is that?
  The credit card company said: Well, you know what, we get to sit on 
your payment for 10 days before we post it, so technically you are late 
even though you paid us early.
  Maggie said: Where is the fairness in that?
  Folks like Maggie across this country are asking that simple 
question: Where is the fairness in that?
  Our consumers deserve fairness. Let's not try to have short-term 
profits that undermine the success of our families by stripping wealth 
through tricks and traps. Let's have our consumers say: Isn't it great 
that here in America we make sure there is fairness in our financial 
products, that we don't try to depend on tricks and traps that strip 
wealth from elderly couples, strip wealth from young families trying to 
raise children, that take away the opportunities of those families to 
provide for their children. Let's put a referee into the game again. We 
need this agency.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1406

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from 
Maine would like 10 minutes to speak on the McCain amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Maine, 
the Senate vote in relation to the McCain amendment, with no other 
amendments in order prior to the vote on the McCain amendment, in 
relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  Let me start with some background on the Loran system since it may 
not be familiar to many of our colleagues. This is a radio navigation 
system with 24 land-based transmitters which are operated by the Coast 
Guard that can be used to determine the location and speed of the 
receiver. Some mariners and aviators use the current system, which is 
known as Loran-C, for navigation, while others have switched to the GPS 
system. An upgraded Loran system, which is known as eLoran, would use 
Loran-C transmitting stations as

[[Page 17019]]

its foundation and it would serve as a backup to GPS as well as a 
primary navigational tool.
  This infrastructure would provide the foundation that is necessary to 
have a backup for the GPS. If we abandon the Loran-C system, as Senator 
McCain has advocated, we would lose the considerable investment of $160 
million we have already made to deploy the eLoran system, and this 
system is one that a joint Department of Homeland Security and 
Department of Transportation assessment team has recommended as the 
backup for GPS.
  Why do we need a backup for GPS? The fact is GPS is vulnerable to 
atmospheric interference and jamming. A loss of the GPS signal for even 
a short duration and in an isolated region would adversely affect cell 
phone coverage, the national power grid, and air traffic.
  Our Nation needs a reliable backup. This isn't just my opinion. This 
is the considered opinion of an independent assessment team that just 
filed its final report in January of this year. One of the previous 
speakers referred to a GAO report that is over 25 years old. I am 
talking about an assessment that was just completed in January of this 
year. DHS and the Department of Transportation jointly commissioned an 
assessment team that included a diverse group of senior decisionmakers 
and experts from government, academia, and industry. This team reviewed 
40 previous reports, interviewed the key stakeholders, industry 
representatives, and other experts, and received 980 comments on what 
should be done, and 93 percent of those comments were in favor of 
maintaining the Loran system--93 percent.
  Listen to who some of the commentators were. Sprint Nextel, which is 
the supplier of critical communications capabilities, and the 
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration both 
stated that they currently use the Loran system and that they support 
upgrading to eLoran as a backup and complement to the GPS system. The 
Department of Energy moves controlled nuclear material around the 
country and uses Loran-C as ``an active and robust supplement to GPS.'' 
This is the Department of Energy's Nuclear Security Administration 
telling us it needs and relies on the Loran-C system. They describe it 
as an active and robust supplement to GPS. The Department of Energy 
uses Loran-C to provide location information on nuclear material in the 
event of blocked visibility, solar storms, and intentional jamming of 
the GPS system.
  In January of this year, when the team released its report, it 
unanimously concluded that the eLoran should serve as the national 
backup system for GPS and that the Loran-C infrastructure should be 
maintained until we have full deployment of the eLoran.
  Think what we are doing if this amendment passes. What we are 
proposing is to discontinue a system that is being relied upon by the 
Department of Energy and countless other users. That is why this 
independent assessment team--this isn't my opinion, this is the 
independent assessment team's conclusion--says we must maintain the 
current system until we have fully transitioned to the eLoran system, 
which will be the backup for GPS. What is being proposed by this 
amendment is to discontinue the Loran-C system prior to having a backup 
in place. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  Again, I would emphasize that this was a unanimous conclusion of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation's 
independent assessment team as of January of this year. It is the 
newest assessment we have. It is the most complete review that has ever 
been done.
  The fact is, the weaknesses in the GPS system are well known. A GAO 
report published in May raised serious concerns regarding the near- and 
long-term health and reliability of the GPS network, noting that there 
is a high risk--that is GAO's assessment--that the Air Force will not 
be able to meet its schedule for the deployment of GPS satellites. The 
Department of Defense predicts that over the next several years, many 
of the older satellites will reach the end of their operational life 
faster than they will be able to be replaced.
  A Wall Street Journal article in June concluded that the GPS 
satellite system--the article cited new interference problems with the 
signals being transmitted by recently launched GPS satellites, raising 
additional serious concerns about the timeline for the deployment of 
the next generation of GPS satellites.
  The assessment team reported on a GPS interference incident in San 
Diego that lasted 3 hours. The GPS system is not failproof. It can be 
intentionally interfered with or it can stop operating due to 
atmospheric conditions.
  The eLoran would fulfill the requirement established in National 
Security Presidential Directive 39 for a backup to GPS. This is a 
modest investment of funds to make sure we do not experience a 
dangerous gap.
  Another myth we keep hearing is that there hasn't been sufficient 
study into the issue of whether a backup is needed for the GPS system. 
In fact, as I have indicated, eLoran has been exhaustively studied. The 
result of these successive scientific and budgetary analyses is that 
eLoran represents the most cost-effective backup to GPS.
  Again, that is not just my opinion. That is the unanimous conclusion 
of the independent assessment team that was established by the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1406, offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 1406) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have made great progress over the last 
day on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This is a very 
important bill that provides for the security of this country.

[[Page 17020]]

  We have made good progress with a number of amendments that we have 
worked our way through today. We intend to finish this bill tomorrow. 
We ask Senators from either side of the aisle to notify either myself 
or the Senator from Ohio, who is managing for the Republicans on this 
bill, to let us know this evening if they have any amendments they want 
to be considered; otherwise they may find themselves not able to offer 
their amendment.
  So we ask all Members to please let us know, the managers of this 
bill, this evening if there are any amendments you will require a vote 
on tomorrow. We do intend to finish this bill tomorrow.
  I also notify Members that the majority leader intends to file 
cloture on this bill tonight. If we cannot work our way through it 
tomorrow, we will be here Friday voting on cloture. So I again ask 
Members to work with us to finish this bill in a very timely manner.
  We have got a lot of work done. We expect that we can finish it 
tomorrow in a timely fashion if we get the cooperation of all Members. 
I urge Members to get their amendments in to either myself or the 
Republican manager of this bill by this evening so we can move forward 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 1432

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, taking the chairman up on her offer, let me 
speak on an amendment I got pending earlier today. It is amendment No. 
1432. This is an amendment to strike an earmark in the bill. It is a 
$900,000 earmark for the city of Whitefish emergency operations center 
in Montana. That is all the amendment does. The amendment does the same 
thing the administration did in that it terminates a program that the 
Obama administration terminated in its budget. It is one of several 
projects that was terminated in the budget submission.
  I do not strike the program because I agree or disagree with it. I 
think you could make an argument that it is a reasonable thing to do. I 
suspect my colleague from Montana will make that argument. That is not 
the point. As the administration pointed out, the point is there is a 
way to do these projects and then there is a way not to do them. The 
way not to do them is through earmarks.
  The Whitefish emergency operations center has not been subject to a 
congressional hearing, nor has it been authorized by Congress. 
Moreover, not only did the administration not request funding for the 
project, they specifically zeroed out the funding.
  On the floor the day before yesterday--or maybe it was yesterday; I 
have forgotten now--my colleague Senator McCain described several 
projects, including this project, and noted why it and other earmarks 
in the bill should not proceed.
  He said: The earmarks are in the bill for one reason and one reason 
only, because of the selective prerogatives of a few Members of the 
Senate. Sadly, these Members chose to serve their own interests over 
those of the American taxpayers.
  His point also was not that the project is either good or bad, but as 
the administration noted, there is a way to do it and a way not to do 
it that is fair to all of the States and to all of the Members, and 
that way is to have those subject to authorization and then 
appropriated.
  Senator Feingold also on the floor yesterday noted:

       While we all may not agree on the appropriateness of 
     earmarking in general, I certainly hope we can agree that 
     certain things should not be earmarked, including FEMA grant 
     programs such as those that protect Americans from terrorist 
     attack.

  I think he is absolutely right, which is why I voted for his 
amendment earlier this afternoon. These are important projects. These 
are FEMA projects to protect the American people. Why should they be 
subject to the earmarking process rather than regular order? Again, 
that is exactly what the administration had earlier concluded.
  I think it is wrong when we are funding projects with very scarce 
Federal dollars in the name of homeland security and the decision on 
what to fund is based on the influence of a Senator or a House Member 
rather than the security risk to Americans.
  Especially at a time when unemployment has reached nearly 10 percent 
and many Americans are obviously hurting a great deal, is it 
appropriate for Congress to make funding decisions in this manner? Is 
this the message we want to be sending to our constituents: If you have 
political power, you can get money earmarked. If you do not, then your 
community is going to suffer. We are already spending $44.3 billion on 
this bill. That is $96 million above the President's request and 7 
percent above last year's level. Those amounts are significant. And 
that increase does not include nearly $2.8 billion in stimulus funding.
  Current budget projections indicate that we will add, on average, 
nearly $1 trillion a year to the public debt level from the $7 trillion 
to date, to $17 trillion in 2019. We have all heard the statistic 
before that the President's budget doubles the debt in 5 years, triples 
it in 10 years.
  The President's administration said there are some things we should 
not fund in the way they are funded in this bill. All I am doing is 
agreeing with the administration not to add more debt on top of what 
has already been accumulated.
  The path forward is not sustainable. I think the head of the OMB has 
made that point. So I think we need to start making tough decisions 
around here and we need to respect the congressional budget process. It 
seems to me the easiest way to make a tough budget decision is when, on 
a matter of process, we can all agree it is not the right way to 
proceed.
  That is why I think this particular project, though the amount of 
money is relatively small, is still a good candidate to show we can 
make those tough decisions as a way of demonstrating to the American 
public that at least we are willing to start somewhere.
  Finally, I will reiterate, I am not here to argue the merits of this 
project. I am sure my colleague from Montana will describe its merits 
in glowing terms. To me, that is not the point. The point is that the 
administration has said this emergency operations grant program should 
be terminated, it should not exist, we should not spend money on it 
because this is the wrong way to spend money.
  In the document entitled ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings,'' in 
that volume of the President's fiscal year 2010 budget, the 
administration states:

       The Administration is proposing to eliminate the Emergency 
     Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program in the 2010 Budget 
     because the program's award allocations are not based on a 
     risk assessment. Also, other Department of Homeland Security 
     grant programs can provide funding for the same purpose more 
     effectively.

  I think that rationale demonstrates why we need to support my 
amendment to eliminate this part. This is only one part of that grant 
program. But it is a part that I think would at least illustrate to the 
American people that we want to begin the process and spend this money 
in the right way.
  I ask unanimous consent that the part of the budget designated 
``Termination: Emergency Operations Center Grant Program,'' which 
describes what the administration has said, be printed at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. I understand that a little bit later we will be able to 
reach an agreement on voting on several of the amendments. This 
amendment presumably will be voted on sometime tomorrow. I would hope 
the proponents and opponents would have a minute each prior to the vote 
to reiterate their arguments and would hope my colleagues would support 
amendment No. 1432.

                               Exhibit 1

         Termination: Emergency Operations Center Grant Program


                    Department of Homeland Security

       The Administration is proposing to eliminate the Emergency 
     Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program in the 2010 Budget 
     because the program's award allocations are not

[[Page 17021]]

     based on risk assessment. Also, other Department of Homeland 
     Security grant programs can provide funding for the same 
     purpose more effectively.

                             FUNDING SUMMARY
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2010
                                            2009       2010      Change
                                          Enacted    Request   from 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority.......................         35          0        -35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Justification

       The 2008 EOC Grant Program was established to improve 
     emergency management and preparedness capabilities for State 
     and local communities by supporting flexible, sustainable, 
     secure, and interoperable EOCs with a focus on addressing 
     identified deficiencies and needs. However, this focus was 
     compromised, and by 2009, 60 percent of the EOC grant funds 
     were congressional earmarks not allocated by merit-based 
     criteria.
       The EOC Grant Program uses award criteria that are not 
     risk-based, and the Administration supports a risk-based 
     approach to homeland security grant awards. This is the best 
     way to allocate resources in order to maximize security gains 
     for the Nation.
       In addition, in 2009, EOC construction and renovation was 
     approved as an allowable expense under the Emergency 
     Management Performance Grant Program, thus providing a more 
     effective funding mechanism through which potential grantees 
     prioritize expenditures on EOCs against other emergency 
     management initiatives.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that we do intend to 
vote on this amendment tomorrow morning. There will be time prior to 
the vote. We will work out an agreement with the Senator on how much 
time.
  The Senator from Montana is on his way to the floor right now to 
debate this amendment. I think the Senate has a right to listen to him.
  I will say this, having been in the Senate for a long time, we 
respect other Senators and the knowledge they have about their States. 
And when they come and talk to one of our committees about a specific 
need, we listen to them and respect what they know.
  I certainly know the Senator from Montana knows this area very well. 
He has visited it numerous times. He understands the deep concerns that 
face this region and knows exactly why they need an emergency 
operations center there. He made a very good argument to the 
subcommittee, and the subcommittee included it in our mark that is 
before the Senate today.
  The Senator was out on the floor earlier today talking about the 
importance of having an emergency center located at Whitefish. I will 
tell all of my colleagues that it is easy to pick out one earmark 
because it is in someone else's State or region. I am not from Montana, 
but I certainly respect the Senator from Montana when he tells me that 
Montana has suffered numerous natural disasters in recent years, 
including, I remember, a devastating fire at Glacier National Park.
  I do not know all of the geography of this region, but do know that 
this emergency center in Whitefish, as the Senator from Montana talked 
to us about it, supports Glacier National Park. That is a national park 
that all of us have a responsibility for. It is next to an Indian 
reservation, and Federal land with Federal responsibility. When we talk 
about an emergency center that assures that we protect the assets of 
this Nation, I think the Senator from Montana is right in telling our 
subcommittee that an emergency center is needed there.
  The EOCs respond to a lot more than terrorist threats. I remind all 
of my colleagues of fires, floods, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, 
and countless other disasters.
  I notice that the Senator from Montana is on the floor and he can 
describe to all of us the importance of this EOC in his region.
  Disasters happen anywhere in this country at any time, and our local 
communities have got to have the tools they need to be able to respond 
effectively, especially when they are next to national assets such as 
Glacier National Park and an Indian reservation that the Senator will 
describe to us. But I want to remind all of our colleagues that these 
so-called earmarks, congressional mandates that we put into these 
bills, are here because the Senator has come to the subcommittee, 
described it to us in detail, put them up on their Web sites, and 
everyone has an opportunity to look at them.
  This subcommittee marked up in subcommittee and full committee and 
had an opportunity to listen to the Senator from Montana describe the 
need. We respected the wishes of an individual Senator and his 
understanding of why this emergency operations center was so badly 
needed in his State. In having the respect of other Senators, this 
Senate can do the will of the people.
  The interesting thing I think all of us should recognize, in writing 
out where these are going to be, we actually have them in the light of 
day. They are held accountable. We do have votes on them. People are 
able to see them. If we just pass funds over to an agency, these 
decisions are made without any input from people who live in those 
States, who know the regions and who know the needs of their 
communities.
  I respect the Senator from Montana when he comes to this 
subcommittee--and I know Senator Byrd, who chairs this subcommittee--
when he goes to Senator Byrd and makes a case for what he has. Senator 
Byrd listens to everybody's requests and puts them into these bills. It 
is done so out of respect for that Senator and the knowledge of his 
State. I certainly believe the Senator from Montana has made the case. 
I urge our colleagues to reject this single-minded amendment that 
simply picks out one Senator's State and says we will not fund an EOC 
in their State.
  I will oppose this amendment tomorrow when we vote on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her remarks. They were spot on. I had the opportunity to see part of 
Senator Kyl's comments on TV, and I have a few responses. Then I wish 
to talk about the project.
  First, Senator Kyl said the EOC program was a target of the 
administration. His amendment is not taking away the program and 
zeroing it out. If that is his concern, that is what he should have 
done. It takes away this specific project.
  The second point was about security. The fact is, the EOC program is 
to respond not only to terrorist activities, which I will get into in a 
minute, but to all hazards as they apply, natural and manmade.
  Finally, fiscal responsibility was the third point. He said we can't 
afford this earmark. This amendment doesn't save one red cent. It moves 
it back to FEMA.
  I spoke earlier today on the floor about this emergency operations 
center in Whitefish. I will reiterate some of those points. It is in 
the northwest part of the State, about 60 miles south of the Canadian 
border. People who deal with this Nation's security tell us the main 
threat on the northern border is terrorism. Immigration is the main 
threat on the southern border. This EOC facility will be located 60 
miles south of the border, just west of Glacier National Park, which 
sits beside the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. To the north, to the 
west, and to the south of Whitefish are literally millions of acres of 
forested ground. Whether it is the potential--and I mean potential--
that something may happen on the Canadian border that is bad, this 
center is there. Whether it is the potential of forest fires on Forest 
Service ground or in the park, this emergency operations center is 
there. It also houses police, fire, provides for interoperability for 
radios. It is very much needed.
  Their current facility is in the basement. It is about a third the 
size they need. It is built on a fault line and a flood plain. The fact 
is, if we want to talk about the need for an emergency operations 
center in this country, there is no doubt the need is here.
  I wish to talk about one other thing. The EOC program is just not for 
manmade disasters. It is for all disasters. We all know what beetle 
kill and disease and global warming has done to the forests, and the 
northwest of Montana is no exception.

[[Page 17022]]

  This amendment picks on one specific area in one specific State. This 
picks on an area I happen to know very well. I have been up there 
several times. I was there last weekend, one of the many weekends I go 
home, which is every weekend. I was in Whitefish. This area is a good 
place for an emergency operations center. I am an elected official from 
the State. I have seen it with my own two eyes. I know what is 
necessary. We are going to take this away and give this money back to 
FEMA, to an appointed bureaucrat who probably maybe has been in the 
State of Montana, maybe not. Chances they have been in Whitefish are 
doubtful.
  This is a good project. I am all for fighting waste. I am all for 
fighting pork. The fact that we are having this debate speaks to the 
fact that we have moved a long way in this body, as far as earmarks in 
the middle of the night plugged in and not having the opportunity to 
debate them. I will tell my colleagues this: This is a good project. It 
is a project that spends our taxpayer dollars wisely, and it will 
benefit the entire country when it is done. It is a project that is 
very much needed. There is no pork in this. This is about our country's 
security.
  It is unfortunate I didn't have the opportunity to visit with the 
good Senator from Arizona while he was on the floor because, quite 
frankly, it may have changed his opinion. Maybe not. I don't know why 
he singled this project out for his amendment. He brought up the point 
that the administration took the EOC program, and it was a target of 
the administration. Then put up an amendment to zero it out. That is 
not what his amendment does. He talked about fiscal responsibility. 
This doesn't save a penny. The fact is, if we are talking about 
security, it is just not manmade terrorism, it is emergency hazards 
caused by Mother Nature. This facility will help address all those 
issues.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. This is an 
unfortunate amendment, but we will vote on it and see what happens.
  I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership and support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We will be voting on this amendment tomorrow morning. 
There will be time for debate on this amendment as well.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record, the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of S. 1298, the Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.
  The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
provides $42.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2010, which will result in new outlays of $25.5 billion. When 
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $46.7 billion.
  The bill includes $242 million in budget authority designated as 
being for overseas deployment and other activities for the Coast Guard. 
Pursuant to section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010, budget 
resolution, an adjustment to the 2010 discretionary spending limits and 
the Appropriations Committee's 302(a) allocation has been made for this 
amount in budget authority and for the outlays flowing therefrom.
  The Senate-reported bill matches its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and is $1 million below its allocation for outlays. No 
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    S. 1298, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
  [Spending Comparisons--Senate-reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  General
                                     Defense      purpose       Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
  Budget Authority...............        1,582       41,345       42,927
  Outlays........................        1,404       45,298       46,702
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
  Budget Authority...............        - - -        - - -       42,927
  Outlays........................        - - -        - - -       46,703
House-Passed Bill:
  Budget Authority...............        1,553       41,064       42,617
  Outlays........................        1,390       44,931       46,321
President's Request:
  Budget Authority...............        1,365       41,473       42,838
  Outlays........................        1,219       45,079       46,298
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget Authority...............        - - -        - - -            0
  Outlays........................        - - -        - - -           -1
House-Passed Bill:
  Budget Authority...............           29          281          310
  Outlays........................           14          367          381
President's Request:
  Budget Authority...............          217         -128           89
  Outlays........................          185          219         404
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Both House and Senate bills include $242 million in budget
  authority designated as being for overseas deployment and other
  activities for the Coast Guard.

  

                          ____________________