[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6311-6317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1105, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Coburn amendment No. 596, to require the use of competitive 
     procedures to award contracts, grants, and cooperative 
     agreements funded under this act.
       Coburn amendment No. 608, to provide for the Emmett Till 
     Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act from funds already provided 
     for the Weed and Seed Program.
       Coburn modified amendment No. 623, to prohibit taxpayer 
     dollars from being earmarked to 14 clients of a lobbying firm 
     under Federal investigation for making campaign donations in 
     exchange for political favors for the group's clients.
       Coburn amendment No. 610, to prohibit funding for 
     congressional earmarks for wasteful and parochial pork 
     projects.
       Wicker amendment No. 607, to require that amounts 
     appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not 
     used by organizations which support coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization.
       Thune amendment No. 635, to provide funding for the 
     Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health, with an offset.
       Murkowski amendment No. 599, to modify a provision relating 
     to the repromulgation of final rules by the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I do not see eye to 
eye on this issue, and I wish to state for the record why this section 
was included in the appropriations bill.
  First, it is hard for me to follow his argument that because the 
Finance Committee created a permissive arrangement where the Internal 
Revenue Service could enter into contracts with private companies to 
collect IRS debts, it somehow takes away the authority of the 
Appropriations Committee to even address this issue. It is a permissive 
statute. It does not require the IRS to sign up a private company. When 
the IRS does exercise the right under that statute, it involves Federal 
expenditures, appropriations.
  My provision in this bill is not tax language. My provision in this 
bill says: None of the funds in this bill may be used to enter into, 
renew, extend, administer, implement, enforce or provide oversight of 
such a contract. We go directly to the spending aspects. There is no 
committee violation here. This is our jurisdiction.
  Senator Grassley's committee, the Finance Committee, does not pay for 
these agencies. The appropriations process does. So we are exercising 
our authority--no violation of committee jurisdiction, which, of 
course, means little to those following this debate but means a lot to 
those of us who serve in this Chamber.
  Let me tell you what this is about. This is about collecting debts 
owed to the Federal Government, specifically the Internal Revenue 
Service, and the Finance Committee said: Let's see, if we let private 
collection agencies do it, whether they can save us money and do it 
more effectively. That is a legitimate inquiry. It is one I would be 
open to. I think it is reasonable to see if that might happen.
  Well, let me tell you what has happened. After the Federal Government 
spent $71 million in start-up costs to allow two companies, one in Iowa 
and one in New York, to move forward on this first phase of outsourcing 
programs, they started operations in September 2006. Presently, the IRS 
has contracts with two companies--one in Senator Grassley's State of 
Iowa and one in the State of New York--for the collection of unpaid 
Federal income tax liabilities. The IRS is currently in the process of 
determining whether to exercise the option to extend these contracts 
for a 1-year period. That is why our language came in and said: Stop, 
don't do it. And I will explain why. There are a host of reasons.
  The collection of Federal taxes, of course, is a core Government 
function, but I am not going to argue with the premise that we should 
see if we can do it with more cost efficiency by using private 
collectors. It is true that the information we are talking about here 
is sensitive information. So the IRS, of course, has access to more 
information about the debtors than the private collection agencies, and 
we want to always make certain we protect the confidentiality of 
certain information all American citizens share with their Government 
and don't believe it is going to be broadcast to any private company. 
So there is a natural tension here between the efforts of a private 
business making money collecting back taxes and the Internal Revenue 
Service, which has more information at their disposal in making 
evaluations but also a higher responsibility and duty in protecting the 
privacy of taxpayers with the information they provide our Government.
  Let's get down to the bottom line. Using private companies to collect 
taxes is far more costly than having qualified, trained IRS employees 
do the work. I couldn't say that without evidence to back it up. Since 
the inception of this private collection program, the Internal Revenue 
Service has spent approximately $80 million to set it up and administer 
it and we have received back as taxpayers $60 million in net revenue, 
after paying these private companies in Iowa and New York $13 million 
in commissions--$13 million to receive back $60 million. According to 
the IRS, private collection agencies were originally projected to bring 
in $65 million in fiscal year 2007 and up to $127 million in fiscal 
year 2008. So what happened? Instead, they raised $32 million in 2007--
less than half of what we expected--and only $37 million in gross 
revenue in fiscal year 2008, about a fourth of what we expected. So 
their performance was dramatically less than promised, dramatically 
less than the IRS anticipated when they entered into these contracts.
  The IRS has not identified any best practices from these private tax 
collectors, which was one of the stated intentions of the program. 
These private companies were supposed to show us the way to collect 
money more effectively. So far, they haven't, and they

[[Page 6312]]

have fallen down in their own goals in terms of collection of back 
taxes. The private companies have collected approximately one-half or 
less of what they were supposed to bring in, but they continue to be 
paid 21 to 24 percent in commissions on the easiest cases of all, 
totaling $13 million we have paid to these private companies.
  Now, Senator Grassley made a reference to student loan collection. Of 
course, he should acknowledge, if he makes that reference, that we cap 
the commission for student loan collection at 16 percent. Instead, 
these companies in Iowa and in New York are being paid 21 to 24 percent 
of back taxes collected, so they are getting a premium and they are 
collecting far less than they said they would.
  The story gets more interesting.
  The IRS already has a significant collection infrastructure: 
thousands of trained employees. I heard Senator Grassley make negative 
references to unions. That is his point of view. I don't share it, but 
I do believe union employees should be given an opportunity to be 
compared in their collection practices with those in private business. 
Let's be fair about this. This was an experiment, and the premise was 
that if you just turn it over to a profit-making, private company, it 
is going to do a better job and it will be cheaper for the Government--
cheaper than relying on IRS employees who may or may not be members of 
the union to which Senator Grassley referred. The automated collection 
system in the Internal Revenue Service is a critical collection 
operation. It collects nearly $1.5 million per employee, per year. It 
works. So the employees at the IRS are collecting the back taxes as 
they promised they would.
  Now, listen to this: The Internal Revenue Service National Taxpayer 
Advocate, Nina Olsen, has estimated that IRS employees collect $32 for 
every $1 spent, compared to collections by the private agencies of $4 
for every dollar given to them in commissions--8 to 1. If this is about 
comparing the dollar cost of collecting back taxes, the IRS employees 
win this 8 to 1. How in the world can anyone justify continuing 
subsidizing private collection agencies that can't do the job as well 
as the employees of the Internal Revenue Service?
  According to the ``Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report to Congress'' in 
December 2008, the IRS automated system of collection--using IRS 
employees--collected more than three times as much as the private 
collectors did. They went on to say that this automated collection 
system in the IRS collected 13 percent of the balance due, while 
private collectors collected 4 percent of the balance due. By every 
tangible measure, the employees of the IRS are doing a dramatically 
better job than those in the private collection agencies.
  These agencies have failed to meet the goals they set in terms of the 
amount of money they collect and how much they would charge the 
Government for all the years they have been doing this--in the 2 
straight years. Is it any wonder we have questioned whether we should 
continue this? This is a subsidy--a subsidy to private companies that 
have not met the burden they said they would meet to prove to the 
taxpayers theirs was a more cost-efficient way to collect back taxes.
  The last argument made by Senator Grassley is an interesting one. He 
argued--even though he opposed President Obama's stimulus package--that 
we needed to keep subsidizing these private collection agencies because 
we need to create more jobs in America. In other words, this would be 
Senator Grassley's private stimulus package for this company in Iowa. 
Well, I would say to the Senator that, sadly, with the state of this 
economy, collection agencies shouldn't have any problems finding work 
to do. I just don't think the American taxpayers ought to be 
subsidizing them. I think basic Midwestern values suggest to us that we 
have experimented and the experiment results are in. This has turned 
out not to be a good investment of taxpayers' money. As the chairman of 
the subcommittee that has to pay for this, I can't justify it. I can't 
justify it for New York or for Iowa or for any State. We tried this 
experiment in good faith, and the private collection agencies failed to 
come through as promised.
  Let's put the money, as I suggest in this appropriations bill, into 
the trained employees, with the automated collection system, who are 
bringing back, by a margin of 8 to 1, more back taxes than these 
private companies in Iowa and New York. I believe that is reasonable, 
and I find it hard to understand how many of my Republican colleagues 
who criticize this Omnibus appropriations bill for wasting money would 
vote for the Grassley amendment which would continue the subsidy--
wasting taxpayers' dollars--with private collection agencies that have 
not been as effective as the Internal Revenue Service.
  Until these private companies can prove they can do the job better, 
do it more efficiently, do it at a lower cost, there is no reason we 
should continue this subsidy. A personal stimulus bill for a company in 
Iowa and a company in New York is something we can ill afford to do at 
this moment when we are trying to deal with the costs of this 
Government and bringing them under control.
  The Omnibus appropriations bill increases funding for the IRS with a 
boost of over $337 million in enforcement activity. With these enhanced 
funds, the IRS will be hiring new employees who can do this work 
efficiently, as they have proven time and time again. They have the 
tools, they have the options the taxpayers have a right to expect, and 
they will protect the privacy of the taxpayers in the process. Section 
106, which Senator Grassley addresses, will ensure that appropriated 
funds for tax collection work will be put to optimum use within the 
agency rather than being diverted to outsourced Government work, which 
has shown that it cannot meet its promises of reducing the cost of 
Government and increasing collections. We know it works. Let's stick 
with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am not going to take long to respond because I think 
the main point I make is this. My remarks were not addressed by the 
Senator from Illinois. The issue we are talking about is an IRS policy 
that they will not go after any amount of money under $25,000, even 
though those are amounts that individuals agreed they owe.
  So any comparisons of what the IRS can do versus what private debt 
collection agencies can do is not legitimate because you can hire more 
IRS employees. But I told you the policy of the IRS if they hire more 
employees, they will not go after amounts of $25,000 or less and I 
think it is fair to taxpayers that are honest, that every dollar owed 
is collected. Not one dollar more. And that we shouldn't have a 
government policy that is not going to go after it, and this program 
does go after it.
  He mentioned start-up costs and this is very important because you 
cannot judge the cost effectiveness of a program based on how much was 
spent on start-up costs. There are start-up costs in any Federal 
agency, for any new agency or program that starts out. You can't weigh 
the costs incurred for what was supposed to be a permanent program 
against the benefits of a program that hasn't been fully operational 
for most of the 2 years of its existence.
  And the reason it hasn't been fully operational, is that the union, 
the taxpayer advocate, and even the chief counsel, continued to throw 
up roadblocks by weighing in on what type of cases the contractors 
could work. This means that even though the program was supposed to 
start in September 2006, it was months later before the contractors 
received the full allocation of cases they were supposed to get.
  The Senator from Illinois asked what happened in regards to why the 
actual amounts collected to date by contractors was lower than 
expected. Well, that is what happened. And to his point about paying 
$13 million for $60 million of revenues. Let's be honest--the 
contractors are paid on a commission basis so the IRS isn't paying 
anything out of its pockets. The contractors are getting a percentage 
of the taxes they collect and they don't get paid for all the

[[Page 6313]]

work they do that generates no collection. Because of the IRS policy to 
not collect taxes due under $25,000, the $60 million IRS did get is 
revenue that IRS would never have received.
  He also mentioned this, there is a difference between what is paid to 
education debt collection contractors and what is paid to tax debt 
collection contractors. He is right. But there is a factor with 
collecting taxes that is not true in the case of the Education 
Department and that is the privacy issues that have been brought up. 
The contractors with the IRS incur higher expenses than education 
contractors because they don't have access to all the information IRS 
has because the law does protect the privacy of taxpayers. And because 
they have to provide all of the safeguards and protections that IRS 
provides, the contractors have to incur more security expenses than 
education contractors.
  The Senator from Illinois mentioned the success of IRS's use of 
automated collection systems. You have to remember that there is 
nothing automated about the IRS's so-called automatic collection 
system. The contractors use automated systems to determine which 
taxpayer to call next. The IRS doesn't even make outbound phone calls--
the only phone calls are returning phone calls when taxpayers call the 
IRS with questions about a letter they received.
  Finally, the Senator from Illinois described my efforts to continue 
to fund the IRS program as my own personal stimulus plan because it 
will save jobs in Iowa. I want to make clear that it was expected that 
the IRS would contract with 10 or 15 contractors--not just 2. But 
because of all the roadblocks put up by the union and others, the IRS 
apparently claims that there aren't enough cases to provide to even 
these two contractors. This doesn't make sense to me since there is 
apparently $25 billion of potentially collectible debt that the IRS is 
not pursuing. The program, if run properly, would have and should have 
been expanded to include other contractors. And I would also like to 
point out that these two contractors are national organizations and 
between them are likely to have offices and employees in almost all of 
the 50 States.
  So the bottom line of our approach in this program is to make sure 
that the honest taxpayer is protected. And that we do not support an 
IRS policy that we aren't going to collect the money from everyone--a 
policy which is not clear to me that IRS is going to change. And we're 
showing that we do not accept this policy through this program. We are 
going after that money that no IRS employee is going to go after. And 
if you're going to be fair to the taxpayer that pays every dollar that 
they owe, it seems to me we should make every effort we can to go after 
all taxpayers who do not pay their taxes. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from 
Maryland is going to seek recognition next. I ask unanimous consent to 
be recognized following the presentation by the Senator from Maryland.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senate is on a tight 
timeframe because there will be a joint session of Congress to welcome 
the Prime Minister of England, our greatest ally.
  I rise today as the chairperson of the Appropriations Commerce, 
Justice, Science Subcommittee and to lay out for our colleagues what is 
in this appropriation and why it is needed and what compelling human 
needs it meets.
  No. 1, why do we have to do this since we passed the stimulus? 
Actually, we should have done this before the stimulus. We should have 
done it in October. Why didn't we? We didn't do it in October because 
we were facing a hostile White House and an OMB Director who was 
hostile to the very agencies this funds. We didn't want to send this 
appropriations to the Bush White House because all we would have faced 
was one more back-and-forth parliamentary quagmire.
  This appropriation keeps the U.S. Government going. What my 
subcommittee does is fund those agencies that are critical and crucial 
to the economic growth of the United States of America, that will 
protect the communities of the United States, and will also work to 
protect our planet. In terms of economic growth, this is the 
subcommittee that funds all science agencies with the extension of the 
National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. It comes up 
with the new ideas. It follows the recommendations of the National 
Academy of Sciences about how we can rise above the gathering storm to 
be competitive today and be able to be competitive tomorrow. In 
English, and in the diners around Maryland, that would mean jobs today 
and tomorrow. It is in basic research that we come up with the new 
ideas that lead to the new products, that lead to the new jobs.
  That is what this CJS funds. At the same time, it funds the Patent 
Office. Our colleagues on the Judiciary committee will be giving us a 
new framework for the protection of patents. That is a geek word that 
means if you invent it, we are going to protect you, and you will be 
able to harvest the benefits of your new idea. We are going to protect 
intellectual property because it is right now, in the knowledge-driven 
economy, the property of choice to be protected.
  This subcommittee funds research, innovation, the development of 
technology. It also funds the Department of Justice--gosh, a Department 
of Justice that even remembers what the name means. I am so excited 
about working with our new Attorney General.
  In addition to the work of the Justice Department, it funds local law 
enforcement through cops on the beat and Byrne grants, and our national 
Federal law enforcement agencies--the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol and 
Firearms, and the Marshal Service.
  So if you want to know, why should we support the CJS? If you want 
jobs today and tomorrow, you want to vote for this appropriation. If 
you want to keep neighborhoods safe, you want to vote for this 
appropriation. If you want the marshals going after sexual predators so 
there are no more Adam Walshes, vote for this bill. If you want to 
protect violence against women, victims of domestic violence, and have 
the shelters and community interventions, you want to vote for this 
bill. If you are so proud of the great genius of the United States of 
America and its entrepreneurship that comes up with these new ideas, 
these new products, you want to vote for this bill because you want a 
Patent Office where you don't want to stand in line for years to be 
able to protect your ideas so they are not stolen or hijacked or 
pirated around the world. You want to vote for this bill. If you want 
to protect our planet--global warming is a real threat, from the 
standpoint of our Director of National Intelligence, who says global 
warming could destabilize populations, and it is a national security 
issue. It is not only about protecting the polar bears; it is also 
about protecting the Port of Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay, our coastline, 
and those around the world. If you want to protect the planet and our 
homeland, you want to vote for this bill.
  In summary, these are the top 10 reasons to support CJS in the 2009 
omnibus bill:
  I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       1. Funds the FBI, our chief domestic national security 
     agency, to take down terror cells and dirty bombs on U.S. 
     soil ($7 billion).
       2. Adds 85 FBI agents and forensic accounting professionals 
     to combat mortgage and financial fraud ($10 million).
       3. Funds DEA to fight international drug cartels that 
     finance terrorism and infiltrate our neighborhoods with 
     heroin and meth ($2 billion).
       4. Funds ATF to partner with the military to dismantle IEDs 
     that maim and kill our troops on the battlefield ($1 
     billion).
       5. Supports cops on the beat--provides $3.2 billion for 
     state and local law enforcement, $2.1 billion above the 
     previous Administration's request--to help state and local 
     police fight gangs, drugs, crime and child predators.

[[Page 6314]]


       6. Highest funding level ever for the Violence Against 
     Women Act programs to combat sexual assault and domestic 
     violence and help victims get their lives back together ($415 
     million).
       7. Protects our kids from predators by preventing, 
     investigating and prosecuting crimes against children ($234 
     million).
       8. Advances climate research and restores satellite climate 
     sensors cut by the previous Administration ($270 million).
       9. Enhances U.S. competitiveness and innovation by 
     increasing science and technology research at NSF and NIST, a 
     7 percent increase over last year ($913 million).
       10. Restores fiscal responsibility and accountability to 
     ensure stewardship of taxpayer dollars--prohibits funds for 
     lavish banquets, controls cost overruns, and requires IGs to 
     do random audits of grantees.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am tired of the naysayers who come up with these 
quirky little congressionally designated projects and make them a 
subject of ridicule. Our country, our ship of state, right now is 
leaking. We can right that ship and President Obama is righting that 
ship. This CJS bill is the right tool to be able to do that.
  What are the consequences of not passing this bill? I will tell you 
right now. Let's go to law enforcement. If we do not pass this bill and 
we put it on something called a continuing resolution, that is 
essentially keeping it barely afloat. The FBI will get a half billion 
dollars less to run their agency for this year. If Director Mueller 
were here, he would say this means 650 fewer FBI special agents. It 
means less analysts and other people fighting crime on U.S. soil. It 
means we cannot hire 100 new FBI specialists in forensic accounting to 
go after the mortgage fraud people. Remember them--the scammers, the 
bums? We would not be able to do that.
  Let's talk about drug enforcement. There will be $52 million less for 
DEA. What are some of the biggest threats facing us right now? Let's 
talk about Mexico. Mexico is on the verge of a state of siege because 
of the drug cartels that are running rampant. If you watch the news and 
listen to the Ambassador of Mexico and to their compelling issues down 
there--look at what was on ``60 Minutes,'' where the drug cartels are 
roaming streets with assault rifles, shooting police chiefs, shooting 
elected officials, kidnapping--that is on our border. We need the DEA. 
Then there are the narcotraffickers in Colombia--in that long, 
steadfast fight where we are making progress. Then there is 
Afghanistan, which provides 85 percent of the world's poppy. We are 
going to send thousands of more troops into Afghanistan.
  I am not too excited about that part, but that is a debate for 
another time. But what is going on in Afghanistan? They are growing 
poppy like Iowa grows corn. It is an enormous drug crop. What does the 
money from that do? First, it corrupts Government and elected 
officials. It corrupts the judiciary. It has a corrupting influence. So 
we are going to send American troops to fight and die for something 
that could be bordering on a narcostate?
  I say, before we send in more marines, let's send in more DEA agents 
to work with the Karzai government to do something about the growth of 
poppy and the funding of the Taliban. Let's send in DEA agents. Under 
this, we are going to have a hiring freeze. Agents would have to take 
furloughs. But that is OK, that is just in law enforcement.
  Let's talk about the national space agency, NASA, and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. If we don't do this appropriation, NASA 
will be funded close to a half billion dollars below what is in the 
omnibus. This would be a major setback to developing a reliable 
transportation system to continue our human space flights. We are 
already going to go dark in space, where we are going to rely on the 
Russians to get us up to our very own space station. But what this 
could mean is the loss of several thousand jobs in Florida, Texas, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, and Louisiana. If we don't pass this by the 
end of March, layoff notices will begin. Aren't we for jobs today and 
jobs tomorrow? Aren't we for building rocket ships and spaceships? We 
have to pass this bill.
  Then when we look at NOAA. We all love the weather reports. We rely 
upon them for early warnings of tornadoes and hurricanes and, at the 
same time, to be able to give us traffic. Weather reports don't come 
from the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel gets its information from 
the weather services provided by our Government at NOAA. We ought to 
rename it the ``National Oceans Atmospheric and Weather 
Administration.'' Right now, they are weathering their own storm. If 
this continuing resolution hits them, it means more layoffs. We won't 
be able to develop the right technology to predict and give the early 
warnings that are so important to our people.
  Then I wish to talk about education. Through the National Science 
Foundation, and other science agencies in here, we work to promote 
education, to get our young people excited and participating in science 
and technology, so that they want to come into these exciting new 
possible careers, where they are going to come up with new ideas and 
inventions. This makes a major downpayment so we can coordinate with 
our new Secretary of Education and our President, who is such a strong 
advocate of this.
  If you wish to have a country that is meeting the day-to-day needs of 
our own people, yet looking ahead to the long-range needs of our 
country, you want to vote for this appropriation. You want to vote for 
the subcommittee portion of this appropriation. The other reason, for 
those who are concerned about the issue of bipartisanship, is we 
developed this jointly and collegially and civilly with my colleague 
from Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby. This bill has his endorsement and 
it will have his vote. Senator Shelby and I have worked together for 
many years, and we believe that good people can find common ground, 
find an accessible center in the rough and tumble of politics that 
enables us to come before the Senate with a bipartisan approach to the 
Commerce, Justice, Science bill.
  I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their cooperation 
and collegiality in crafting the CJS portion of the bill we are 
considering.
  The CJS Subcommittee's top priority is keeping Americans safe from 
terrorism and violent crime. To that end, our bill provides $26.1 
billion for the Justice Department, which is $3 billion above the 
previous President's budget request. We fund the FBI our domestic 
counterterrorism agency with mission of dismantling terror cells and 
weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil at $7.3 billion, which is $155 
million above the previous President's budget request.
  The CJS bill is the major Federal funding source for our State and 
local police departments. The previous President's budget request 
proposed dramatic cuts totaling $2 billion to State and local grant 
funding. We reject those cuts and instead provide a total of $3.2 
billion to support our thin blue line.
  Among those funds, the CJS bill provides $550 million for COPS 
grants, which pay for gear and technology--such as bulletproof vests 
and crime scene analysis--to keep our cops safe, and to help them catch 
criminals. We also have $546 million for Byrne-justice assistance 
grants, a formula-based program that is the main Federal funding tool 
for State and local police operations, which was zeroed out by the 
previous administration. For juvenile justice and delinquency 
prevention mentoring and antigang programs we provide $374 million, 
which is $189 million more than that the previous President request. 
Lastly, we provide $415 million to prevent violence against women, 
which is the highest level ever allocated for Violence Against Women 
Act programs.
  In addition to helping our State and locals keep our communities 
safe, the CJS bill funds our major Federal law enforcement agencies. We 
provide $1.9 billion for the DEA to fight international narcoterrorists 
and drug kingpins. There is also $1.1 billion for the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, to combat violent gun 
crime and gangs and investigate arson.
  The CJS bill contains $954 million for the Marshals Service to 
apprehend fugitive sex offenders and other violent criminals. We 
included $1.8 billion for

[[Page 6315]]

our U.S. Attorneys to prosecute gang leaders, gun traffickers and drug 
dealers. Lastly, we provide $6.2 billion for management and 
construction of Federal prisons to ensure our Federal prisons are safe 
and secure.
  These agencies are the backbone of our criminal justice system. They 
enforce our laws, catch criminals and keep our communities safe.
  Most importantly, this bill protects the most vulnerable among us: 
our children. We provide over $234 million to keep our kids safe from 
predators and violence.
  The CJS includes $5 million to hire 20 new U.S. marshals to track 
down and arrest fugitive sex offenders, $47 million for the FBI 
Innocent Images program to catch deviants who use the Internet to prey 
on children, $5 million to hire 25 new assistant U.S. Attorneys to 
prosecute sex offenders, $70 million
  I am proud to report that the CJS bill follows the framework of the 
America COMPETES Act and makes investments to improve America's 
competitiveness.
  The bill provides $819 million for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, which includes $65 million for the new 
Technology Innovation Program and $110 million for the manufacturing 
extension partnership, MEP. This is important funding to develop new 
technologies and new products and make American manufacturers more 
competitive.
  We also provide $6.5 billion for the NSF, including $845 million 
dedicated for education. These funds focus on science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics, and will develop our next generation of 
scientists and engineers.
  For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, we 
provide $4.4 billion, including: $945 million for our weather service 
to predict and warn us about severe weather, and $758 million for our 
fisheries service to protect our marine resources.
  The bill also provides $17.8 billion for NASA, which is $200 million 
more than the previous President's budget request. We meet our 
obligations to fully fund the space shuttle at $3 billion, the space 
station at $2 billion, and the next generation space vehicle at $3.1 
billion this year.
  Finally, the CJS bill supports an innovation friendly government by 
providing full funding at $2 billion for the Patent and Trademark 
Office, PTO, to reduce backlogs of patent applications and protect our 
intellectual property; and $430 million for the International Trade 
Administration to enforce our trade laws.
  The CJS bill also makes important investments in America's future. We 
provide $240 million for economic development grants--$140 million more 
than requested by the previous administration--to help communities 
create jobs and opportunity. We also provide $20 million for public 
television infrastructure grants.
  The CJS bill funds the science we use to monitor and predict changes 
in our weather and climate, and make policy decisions on actions we 
should take to save our planet. In fact, the CJS bill funds 85 percent 
of all Federal climate change science.
  Specifically, we provide $1.4 billion for NASA Earth science for 
satellite missions that tell us how much pollution is in our 
atmosphere, our rainforests and ice sheets are shifting, and the height 
and chemistry of our oceans are changing. Funding for Earth science 
includes $150 million for new NASA earth science missions, which is $50 
million above the previous President's request. This funding is 
recommended by the National Academy of Science to measure our ice 
sheets, climate, and atmosphere so we can better predict changes to our 
planet.
  We provide $606 million for NASA science into how the sun affects the 
Earth. This helps predict and warn about events like solar flares that 
can knock out our communications and power grids.
  The CJS has $966 million for NOAA weather satellites, which are 
important early warning tools. If we can better predict and warn when 
tornadoes and hurricanes are coming, we can save lives and save money. 
We provide $74 million to restore critical climate sensors that had 
been deleted from our next generation polar satellites because of cost 
overruns. We also include $420 million for NOAA research to help us 
better understand our oceans and atmosphere and how they interact and 
change.
  Finally, the CJS bill continues to emphasize congressional oversight, 
accountability and fiscal stewardship.
  We meet our constitutional obligations for a timely and accurate 
Census by providing $3.1 million for the 2010 Census. This will keep 
the Census on track, despite the previous administration's 
mismanagement of an information technology contract.
  The CJS Subcommittee continues its oversight role by cracking down on 
cost overruns or mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The bill insists on 
discipline and vigorous oversight by requiring each agency to notify 
the committee when costs of projects grow by more than 10 percent, 
thereby creating an early warning system.
  We also require that inspectors general conduct random audits of 
grant funding to ensure compliance.
  Finally, the bill complies fully with legislative transparency and 
accountability rules.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff--Art Cameron, 
Goodloe Sutton, Allen Cutler and Augusta Wilson--for their cooperation 
and collegiality.
  The CJS bill meets the day to day needs of our constituents by 
keeping them safe from terrorism and violent crime. It looks out for 
the long-term needs of our Nation by making investments in America's 
physical and intellectual infrastructure to create and sustain jobs for 
today and jobs for tomorrow.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support it.


                           Amendment No. 608

  Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment No. 608 offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma. Simply put, this amendment is a solution in 
search of a problem. The CJS portion of the omnibus does provide funds 
for the Department of Justice to solve civil right cold cases. This 
amendment is a distraction.
  Before I speak about why I oppose this amendment, however, we must 
first talk about Emmett Till.
  Emmett Till was a 14-year-old African-American boy from Chicago who 
was murdered in Money, MS, on August 28, 1955. He was dragged from his 
uncle's home and shot in the head. His body was dumped in the 
Tallahatchie River, tied to a 70-pound cotton gin with barb wire, and 
found 3 days later by fishermen. Emmett's mother demanded an open 
casket to show the world the brutality of his murder.
  The murder of Emmett Till was a key event igniting the civil rights 
movement. Emmett's two killers never served a day in jail for their 
heinous crime. An all-White jury acquitted them in 67 minutes. The 
killers later admitted to murdering Emmett Till, but could not be 
prosecuted for the crime because they had already been found innocent 
by a jury.
  In May 2004, 49 years after the murder, the Department of Justice 
reopened the case to finally determine if anyone else was involved in 
the killing. The FBI exhumed Emmett Till's body and performed an 
autopsy. Two years later, the FBI determined no one else was involved 
and officially closed the case.
  On October 7, 2008, President Bush signed a law named after Emmett 
Till. The purpose of the legislation is to make sure Justice Department 
has the necessary resources to investigate civil rights cold cases.
  Cold cases are extremely difficult to solve. Investigators run into 
many dead ends, as witnesses are hard to find and evidence can be 
easily misplaced, mishandled or destroyed. Additionally, investigations 
use up a lot of time and money resources.
  However, solving these cases is important. This is about more than 
just bringing killers to justice. Solving these cases is about letting 
victims' families get on with their lives, about moving beyond racial 
hatred, and reconciliation.
  I want to be clear I support funding for investigating cold cases. 
That is why I fought hard to make sure there is money in the Federal 
checkbook for

[[Page 6316]]

fiscal year 2009 to support the Emmett Till law. The CJS portion of the 
omnibus provides the Department of Justice with the resources it needs 
to investigate civil rights cold cases.
  To boost resources for civil rights cold case investigations, the CJS 
bill provide $123 million for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights 
Division, which is $7 million more than 2008, and charged with heading 
up the investigation and enforcement responsibilities set forth in the 
Emmett Till bill. We include $151 million for funding to reduce 
enormous backlog of untested DNA evidence. There is a backlog of 
500,000 unsolved cases with untested DNA evidence sitting in evidence 
lockers today.
  So that State and local law enforcement have the means to carry out 
their roles in investigating civil rights cold cases, we provide $30 
million for competitive funds for State and local government to 
investigate and prosecute civil rights violations. There is also $25 
million for competitive grants to State and locals to reduce forensic 
evidence backlogs.
  The CJS bill provides $9.8 million for the Justice Department's 
Community Relations Service to train local law enforcement how to 
mediate racial tensions in communities. We also have $75.6 million for 
the inspector general at Department of Justice, which is $5 million 
more than 2008. Under the Emmett Till law, the Inspector General has 
the authority to investigate missing children cold cases.
  In addition to cold case investigations, the CJS bill provides robust 
funding to enforce our Nation's civil rights laws. It includes $1.84 
billion, which is $88 million more than 2008, for the U.S. attorneys 
office at Department of Justice. These are the attorneys who 
investigate and prosecute civil rights violations. The bill also has $9 
million for the Commission on Civil Rights, which is responsible for 
making agencies are complying with Federal civil rights laws and 
raising public awareness on civil rights. Lastly, we include $343 
million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose mission 
is to end workplace discrimination. This is $14.8 million above 2008 
and will help reduce the current backlog of EEOC cases.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose amendment No. 608 and support the 
omnibus. The omnibus gives Department of Justice the resources it needs 
to investigate civil rights cold cases and enforce our country's civil 
rights laws.
  I have a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder stating his support 
for the goals of the Emmett Till Act. Attorney General Holder is 
committed to the goals of the Emmett Till Act, and this letter gives 
his personal commitment to continuing to use funding to pursue these 
serious crimes.
  If the Senate does not pass the omnibus, the Department of Justice 
will be forced to operate at 2008 levels. This means we will have to 
lay off investigators and prosecutors, and civil rights enforcement and 
investigations will be compromised.
  For all these reasons, I urge a ``NO'' vote on this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         The Attorney General,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2009.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and 
         Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: The Department of Justice 
     wholeheartedly supports the goals of the Emmett Till Unsolved 
     Civil Rights Crime Act. The racially-motivated murders from 
     the civil rights era constitute some of the greatest 
     blemishes upon our history.
       The Department is working in partnership with the National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the 
     Southern Poverty Law Center. and the National Urban League to 
     investigate the unsolved racially-motivated violent crimes 
     committed more than 40 years ago. The FBI has prioritized the 
     top dozen of these cases, though there are more than 100 
     unsolved murder cases from the civil rights era under review 
     by the FBI.
       You have my personal commitment that the Department will 
     continue to pursue these serious crimes in those matters in 
     which the law and the facts would permit effective law 
     enforcement action. We will continue to use our resources and 
     expertise to identify and locate those responsible for these 
     crimes and prosecute them whenever possible, consistent with 
     the Principles of Federal Prosecution.
           Sincerely,
                                               Eric H. Holder, Jr.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. It is time to move the appropriations. We have to make 
sure our Government can function so our economy can function.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, prior to the statement by the Senator from 
Maryland, I was listening to the discussion between Senator Grassley 
and Senator Durbin on an issue that I know Senator Grassley feels 
strongly about. I don't believe there is an amendment yet offered. I 
hope it is not offered, frankly. I have great respect for the Senator 
from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He and I have worked together on a range of 
issues, and he is a good legislator. He and the Senator from Illinois, 
Mr. Durbin, were having a disagreement about this.
  I come down on the side of the Senator from Illinois. This discussion 
is about the issue of using private collection agencies to collect 
certain Internal Revenue Service delinquent taxes. First, let me say 
that I think people who are delinquent on their taxes ought to be 
squeezed a bit to pay them. Unless there is some extraneous 
circumstance, I think most Americans voluntarily pay their taxes. They 
do not necessarily like to but they do because that is part of the cost 
of citizenship in this country. We have to do things together. We build 
roads together, and we have a law enforcement function in our 
communities together. We build schools, we have defense--we do all 
these things together. It costs money, so we pay taxes. That's part of 
the cost of citizenship.
  There is great disagreement at what level those taxes should be and 
who actually pays it. I understand all that. But because we have a 
responsibility to pay some taxes and because there are some who do not, 
we have taxes that are delinquent in the Internal Revenue Service that 
need to be collected.
  The Internal Revenue Service has on two occasions begun experiments 
with hiring private collection agencies to collect those taxes. The 
experience with those experiments has not been good. Because there has 
been a great move toward privatizing everything, we have hired private 
collection agencies to collect lower level delinquent taxes and, in 
fact, we have actually lost money in doing so.
  It is almost unthinkable that someone who is going to collect taxes 
is going to lose money doing it. That is like being in business to sell 
tomatoes and someone is going to give me the tomatoes and you lose 
money.
  Here is what the taxpayer advocate says. The tax advocate is someone 
who works independently inside the Internal Revenue Service on behalf 
of taxpayers. Taxpayer Advocate Olson says that since its inception--
this latest iteration of using private collection agencies--the IRS has 
spent roughly $80 million to set up and administer this program to 
collect delinquent taxes. They have spent $80 million but collected net 
revenues of only $60 million.
  Think of that. You hire some private companies to collect delinquent 
taxes. It costs $80 million to get it going and administer it, and you 
collect $60 million. I took rudimentary math in a high school senior 
class of nine students in a town of 300 people. I can understand that 
equation. You spend $80 million and collect $60 million. It means you 
lost $20 million. It makes no sense to me.
  By the way, the firms that did this also made $13 million in 
commissions. That is part of the shortfall here.
  It is also estimated by the taxpayer advocate in the Internal Revenue 
Service that had they not hired a private collection agency and instead 
hired collectors at the IRS, they would have collected 13 times more 
money. This is about, in my judgment, common sense

[[Page 6317]]

and waste. Common sense suggests you select the best alternative for 
collecting these taxes. The alternative that would give the taxpayers 
the most for their investment and waste is about deciding you are going 
to hire private collection agencies and spend $80 million and collect 
$60 million.
  Let me make a couple of observations about what the tax advocate has 
said about these issues. The tax advocate has said--and again, this is 
an employee inside the Internal Revenue Service:

       Private debt collection initiatives are failing in most 
     respects. . . . Not meeting revenue projections, its return 
     on investment is dismal. Private collectors are no better at 
     locating or collecting tax liabilities than the IRS itself.

  If the taxpayer advocate that we fund inside the Internal Revenue 
Service to look after the taxpayers says this is a failure, let's 
decide it is a failure.
  The underlying legislation brought to the floor in this omnibus 
package effectively says let's get rid of this program. Let's have the 
collections done as they should have been done and were done for a long 
time at the Internal Revenue Service. They will not lose money. We will 
collect 13 times more revenue, in my judgment, based on the estimates.
  Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson in congressional testimony said:

       I have freely acknowledged it is more costly to use private 
     collection agencies than it would be were the IRS to do it.

  That is from an IRS Commissioner.
  Former Acting Commissioner Kevin Brown told the House Ways and Means 
Committee:

       We can do it more efficiently. We have the tools under the 
     law that obviously are going to lead us to being more 
     efficient.

  My only point is, I hope there is not an amendment on this issue. I 
have great respect for my colleague from Iowa. But I think this is a 
program that should not have been started. Now that it is started and 
losing money, it ought to be abandoned. If we are looking after waste, 
fraud, and abuse issues and trying to protect the American taxpayer and 
shut down the waste of taxpayers' money, there is no better candidate, 
in my judgment, than the candidate that is in this omnibus package and 
this particular subcommittee by which we shut down the use of private 
collection agencies that have actually lost money for the American 
taxpayers. My hope is we do not have an amendment on this point. In any 
event, it is long past the time for us to have shut down a program that 
is costing the American taxpayers money--$20 million to hire private 
tax collectors who are collecting less money than it is costing us to 
hire those collectors.
  One might, by the way, look at this and say: Man, how can that be 
controversial? It seems to me that is a slam dunk, that is common 
sense. If that is the case, if that is what you think, you do not 
understand how the system works because even things that are 
demonstrable failures are often hard to shut down. This is an example 
of that. We are close to getting that done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________