[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15251-15258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    EMERGENCY BORDER SECURITY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am going to ask unanimous consent for 
a proposal on the border. First, I will speak for a minute and then ask 
consent. I know my colleague from Arizona will then speak and offer 
some amendments to it.
  Today, I join my cosponsors--Senators Reid, Inouye, Murray, 
Feinstein, Bingaman, McCaskill, Casey, Udall of Colorado, Begich, and 
Burris--to try to make our borders as secure as possible. We are asking 
unanimous consent to pass a smart and tough $600 million emergency 
border security appropriations package that will provide immediate 
relief to the border.
  Here is what our border security package will do: It will provide 
over $250 million to hire 1,500 new agents to permanently patrol our 
southern border and ports of entry.
  It will also create a strike force that will be deployed in different 
areas of the southwest border, depending on where the need is greatest 
at any particular moment.
  It will provide funds to deploy unmanned drones to fly along our 
southern border and provide our patrol officers on the ground with real 
time information on unlawful border crossings. I believe there are 
seven working now. They have been very successful, and they should be 
expanded quickly and immediately.
  It will provide funds to improve communications capabilities between 
Federal border enforcement and State and local officers along the 
border.
  It will provide funds to construct forward operating bases for the 
Border Patrol to use that are actually located on the border instead of 
being hundreds of miles away.
  It will provide funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 
conduct investigations of drug runners, money launderers, and human 
traffickers along our border.
  It will provide over $200 million to increase the number of ATF, DEA, 
and FBI agents on our border because the focus on drug dealing and 
crime on our border is very important and has to be coordinated with 
immigration enforcement and bolster the number of prosecutors and court 
resources along our border so wrongdoers can be immediately brought to 
justice.
  The best part of this border package is it is fully paid for and will 
not increase the deficit by a single penny. The emergency border funds 
will be paid for by assessing fees on foreign companies known as chop 
shops that outsource good, high-paying American technology jobs to 
lower wage, temporary immigrant workers from other countries. These are 
companies such as Infosys. But it will not affect the high-tech 
companies such as Intel or Microsoft that play by the rules and recruit 
workers in America.
  This border package will, therefore, accomplish two important goals. 
It will

[[Page 15252]]

make our border far more secure extremely quickly, and it will level 
the playing field for American companies and American workers to 
compete against these foreign companies known in the industry as using 
``outsourcing visas.''
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of H.R. 5875, which is at the desk; that 
the Schumer substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 3721, a bill 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, be agreed to, the bill, as 
amended, be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask 
unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with my colleague from 
New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, my understanding, I say to my colleague 
from New York, is this provides for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents; is 
that correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes; 1,000 Border Patrol and 500 ICE and DEA.
  Mr. McCAIN. One-hundred ICE, $39 million for Customs and Border 
Protection, 250 new Customs and Border Patrol agents you mentioned, 
communications equipment, money to deploy forward operating bases. I 
wish to go over it again with my colleague.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So far, exactly right.
  Mr. McCAIN. A Federal law enforcement training center, additional 
funding for the Department of Justice.
  Anyway, the reason I mention this is because I think these are 
significant. It comes to a total of about $600 million; is that 
correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I think this is significant 
legislation. I ask the Senator if he would amend his request to include 
the adoption of three amendments. Those amendments are Nos. 4590, 4591, 
and 4592. They are: $200 million for Operation Streamline, which is a 
program that charges those individuals who have crossed the border 
illegally with a petty crime or misdemeanor with jail time. This has 
proved to be a great deterrent for repeat crossers; $68 million 
additional for the Customs inspectors and the other third would be $20 
million for the Law Enforcement Support Center which helps the Federal 
Government, States, and localities identify those individuals who are 
here illegally and also determines their status regarding eligibility.
  If I may mention to my colleague, I am not complaining about these 
provisions. I would like to point out that Operation Streamline on the 
border has been a very effective tool as disincentives to repeat 
crossers. I hope that either in this legislation the Senator from New 
York would consider it and, of course, we need more Customs inspectors.
  The Law Enforcement Support Center is to identify individuals because 
right now they are overtaxed, as we know, with the number of illegals, 
how to identify them and to determine their status.
  These three amendments I would obviously pay for out of the stimulus 
package.
  My question to my colleague from New York, I understand he is paying 
for them--maybe he can elaborate--for these provisions by increasing 
fees or taxes on companies that issue or need H-1B visas and those 
companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American 
citizens; is that correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is basically correct, yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator describe that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B program, and I 
think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, 
in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator 
Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in 
a variety of ways.
  There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that 
are not American companies or even companies that are making something. 
Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, 
and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go 
back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. Again, I ask if the Senator from 
New York would amend his request to include the adoption of those three 
Kyl-McCain amendments.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I appreciate the spirit in which 
the Senator from Arizona has talked about the proposal. Let me try to 
be in the same spirit. I always said I believe in comprehensive 
immigration reform. I know my colleague from Arizona has focused on 
this issue for at least as long as I have. I was involved in the 
original legislation back in the late eighties with a great deal of 
care, a great deal of concern, and a great deal of focus.
  I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we 
could come together on something that we could bring back in September 
because I do believe we have to secure the border. Even in the 
comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the 
border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the 
border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we 
have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not 
hire illegal immigrants--which they now do, even though they do not 
know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily 
forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. 
To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to 
work on the border and work on it quickly and soon.
  My problems with the amendments are as follows: First and foremost, 
taking funds from the stimulus is something I could not support. The 
reason is very simple. In my view--and it may be different than my 
colleague's--the stimulus creates jobs. I do not want to tell my 
constituents in Buffalo that they may be laid off or not have the 
opportunity for a job to work on a road, to be employed as a sheriff or 
firefighter or teacher because there are less stimulus dollars. I do 
not believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as 
I say--they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on 
H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to 
the other countries. That is a better funding source.
  On the third amendment, I do believe we have that one, the $21 
million for the center. I believe that is in our bill, the Law 
Enforcement Support Center. I believe that is in our proposal.
  As for the second amendment, which is probably the one where we have 
a substantive disagreement, Operation Streamline is, first, expensive. 
If you are going to immediately incarcerate everyone who is apprehended 
at the border, you pay for their medicine, you pay for their health 
care, you pay for their food. It is over $100 a day. DHS has been using 
a different program. When they find someone crossing the border 
illegally, they bring them to the Mexican interior. Secretary 
Napolitano has shown some good documentation that works, and it is a 
lot cheaper.
  Until proven otherwise, I think we ought to continue that program and 
maybe expand that program based on the agreement we have that there 
should be more people on the border so there are more apprehensions.
  What we learned in a different area--asylum--is that building 
detention centers for all those who are caught creates problems.
  In New York, we have a large number of asylees--and I support asylum 
in many justified cases--and it has proven to be very expensive. It has 
proven to be cumbersome, and oftentimes you don't have the supply of 
space to keep up with the demand.
  So I would respectfully oppose the three amendments and urge that the 
original proposal be supported.

[[Page 15253]]

  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think my colleague may have been referring, when we are 
talking about the law enforcement support center provision that says 
U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses, maybe that 
is the area that he is referring to that falls under----
  Mr. SCHUMER. I believe so, yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. The stimulus money. I would remind my colleague that just 
this morning he voted to use $1.5 billion in stimulus funds for the DOE 
Loan Guarantee Program. But that is a subject of a different 
discussion.
  Let me just say again about Operation Streamline that I would invite 
my colleague from New York to come and see one of these facilities and 
talk to our people down at the border. One of the problems, as you 
know, is we have had this catch and release, or even catch and take to 
another part of the United States and put them across the border. So we 
seem to have these repeat crossers. The experience that we have had, 
and the people down there will tell you about, is keeping these people 
incarcerated for a period of time--and it isn't just everybody who 
comes across, it is somebody who has committed a petty crime, a 
misdemeanor, et cetera--we have found those individuals do not return 
or are much less likely to do so.
  So I say to the Senator from New York, there is no fence money in 
here, and we would have liked to have seen that. We need to complete 
and reinforce the fence. We want 3,000 officers down on the border, but 
the bill has 1,200, which is certainly a major step forward. And there 
is 1,000 Border Patrol. We think we need as many as 3,000, as I 
mentioned.
  But I think this $600 million is important. I think it is going to a 
lot of the right purposes. We will fight some more on these three 
additional amendments I am talking about. While I appreciate the 
addition of UAVs, we need more surveillance capability on the border 
and, obviously, in my view, we need to finish the fences. But this is a 
step forward, so I would ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself and 
Senator Kyl to be added as cosponsors. This will move forward our 10-
point plan we have put forward to get our border secured.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator, and I am glad we were able to--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Goodwin). Is there objection to the 
request made by the Senator from New York?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I think we are a little 
out of sync.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the Senator for a few thoughts.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from New York wishes, he can proceed to 
the UC, which I will support, and then I would like to have a few 
moments to make some comments. That would be fine.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have been told they need to do some conferring in our 
cloakroom, so the Senator may speak and I will hold off for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Schumer's 
legislation, and I also would support it. It is clearly a step in the 
right direction, and it is one of the things we need to do.
  I guess as we leave this Congress to go home and get ready to 
campaign, many of my colleagues may be able to say they did something 
that was helpful in eliminating illegal immigration--something other 
than suing the State of Arizona, where the Department of Justice is 
trying to block Arizona from participating effectively in reducing the 
amount of illegal immigration.
  On June 11, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, 
acting on behalf of approximately 7,000 ICE officers and employees--
Immigration and Custom Enforcement--cast a unanimous vote of ``no 
confidence'' in Mr. John Morton, the Director, saying that he is more 
interested in politics than in in enforcing our immigration laws. So I 
am concerned about that.
  Also, Senator McCain was correct to say that we voted for 700 miles 
of double-layer fencing, and even appropriated money for its 
construction. Only 400 miles have been completed and of that, only 
about 40 miles are double layer. I am not aware that any other 
construction is ongoing. Why aren't we completing that? It multiplies 
dramatically the capability of an agent to be effective on a long 
border if there are barriers there. So I am not happy about our not 
completing that. It is very much a failure. This Congress committed to 
the American people more than one time to build that fence and we still 
have not done it.
  This is typical of why the American people are not happy with us; why 
our approval rating is getting close to single digits. You can't get 
much lower than it is. After much debate, we agreed to build a 700-mile 
fence, yet we end up getting 400 and saying that is great.
  Then we have this administration, immediately after taking office 
causing a big stir by investigating its own ICE agents. ICE agents 
raided a business in Washington State which was employing a whole bunch 
of illegal workers and do you know what Ms. Napolitano, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security says? She says: We are going to get to the bottom 
of it.
  Did she mean we are going to get to the bottom of the people who were 
illegally working and the company who was illegally hiring them? No. 
She wanted to get to the bottom of what it was this agent was doing 
trying to enforce the law.
  She sent a signal throughout the entire Federal law enforcement 
community. What was that signal? Don't raid businesses. That is exactly 
what that did.
  Operation Streamline does work. It absolutely works. CNN had a guy 
on; he was caught within hours, Senator McCain. They took him down to 
the border and walked him to the middle of the bridge and let him go 
back, and he just came back the next day. So this Operation Streamline 
is really a dramatic improvement where it is in effect.
  The 287(g) program ought to be expanded, which calls on and provides 
a mechanism for great partnership with local people. Instead, Secretary 
Napolitano narrowed the program and when the State of Arizona tries to 
help DHS, the Obama Administration say: No, that is not a good idea. We 
are going to sue you.
  So, in my view, this bill is a good step. I salute my colleague from 
New York. I think we have some potential to work in the right 
direction. But there is a lot more to be done, and what is lacking is a 
firm commitment from this administration and this Congress to end the 
massive illegality at our border. It is within our grasp to do so. A 
lot of people think it is not possible--it is possible. We have done it 
on certain sectors of the border. We could complete that, and then we 
could begin to focus on what to do about the people who have been here 
for many years and how to handle that. But until we focus on ending the 
illegality, we can't get anywhere.
  So I will be thankful for what we have. Senator McCain would like to 
add 3,000 more agents, but 1,200 is a step in the right direction. But 
a number of other things, if done effectively, with the will to reduce 
the illegality, will work. It is not impossible.
  The thing about Operation Streamline, and the reason it saves money 
instead of costing money, is that when it is utilized, the number of 
people entering illegally goes down because they know they are not just 
going to be taken back to the border the next day and released to then 
reenter. They actually get a misdemeanor conviction and maybe some sort 
of probation, and then they are released and are much, much, much less 
likely to come back because it would be a more serious offense the 
second time.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are waiting to see if there are other 
Members on our side who would like to

[[Page 15254]]

come and speak, so I would like to either yield time to the Senator 
from Rhode Island, who has been waiting on another subject, and then 
come back to this, or suggest the absence of a quorum, whichever would 
be OK with my colleague.
  Mr. President, I temporarily yield the floor to my colleague from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I intend to speak for a few minutes on 
climate change and the need for a new energy strategy for this country.
  I will just note that if any of my colleagues intend to seek the 
floor to conclude the business Senator Schumer and Senator McCain were 
engaged in, they can just signal me and I will yield the floor to allow 
them to finish that business.
  Mr. President, we are now at the end of this work period, and we will 
shortly be going back to our home States for our home work during the 
August recess from Washington. We are doing so without having done 
anything about our dependence on fossil fuels, the carbon pollution 
that we subsidize going into our atmosphere, the undisputed science of 
what is happening in our atmosphere as a result of that, and the 
consequences that are beginning to pile up on our planet as a result of 
our negligence in addressing this pressing issue.
  It is easy when you are in Washington to think that this is the 
center of the universe and that the little fights and quarrels that 
happen here and the politics of this town are what is most important. 
In this Chamber, which is very often a hotbed of those politics, I 
think that problem is particularly severe. There are political 
situations where, if we don't get it resolved, then it just keeps going 
along and there is no real harm done. But nature doesn't give a darn 
about our politics. Nature doesn't give a hoot about our campaign 
contributions. Nature doesn't care about what motivates delay. Nature 
doesn't care whether you are lying or telling the truth. Nature just 
goes on about her business, driven by chemistry, biology, physics--the 
basic elemental forces of nature.
  We are getting ourselves into a situation where by ignoring those 
forces we are beginning to imperil ourselves and future generations.
  It is astonishingly irresponsible to be in the predicament we are in 
right now, with what is fair to describe as a looming global emergency 
that we can't get anything done on.
  The big oil companies, the big coal companies, the big energy 
companies are able to drop into this particular Chamber their delay, 
their desire to have nothing happen on this subject, and that trumps 
the interests of all the people of the United States, all the people of 
the planet, their children and grandchildren, off into our future.
  I want to read into the Record a few things that have come out in the 
press in the last few weeks. Here is USA Today, in the middle of last 
month:

       The world is hotter than ever. March, April, May and June 
     set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since 
     recordkeeping began in 1880. . . .

  That is not some fringe group reporting this. That is the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Government of the United 
States of America.
  In my home State, back in Rhode Island, ``July was more than 4 
degrees above normal,'' quoting from the Providence Journal on August 
2, ``and the second hottest month on record for Providence; 4.2 degrees 
higher than normal.''
  Here is a newsclip about what effect these temperatures are having on 
our oceans:

       The rising temperatures have been particularly hard on 
     oceans, which have absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat 
     trapped by greenhouse gases over the past 50 years.

  This was another NOAA report.

       Oceans are taking in increasingly more carbon. The report's 
     analysis of global ocean uptake of carbon dioxide estimates 
     that the seas stored 33 percent more anthropogenic [man made] 
     carbon in 2008 than they did 14 years earlier. Oceans' 
     absorbsion of CO2 has caused rising acidity that 
     is damaging the ability of shellfish, crustaceans, corals and 
     plankton to build shells and skeletons.

  You might ask, who cares about shellfish, crustaceans, corals, and 
plankton? Shellfish keep a lot of American fishermen busy and occupied 
and productive, and feed an awful lot of families. Ditto crustaceans--
the Rhode Island lobster in particular. Corals are the nurseries of our 
tropic seas. When they die, it has a pronounced effect throughout the 
oceanic food chain. And phytoplankton--all plankton--are the base of 
the oceanic food chain. When you have a collapse in the phytoplankton, 
you have a potential collapse of the entire oceanic food chain.
  There have been massive die-offs in the historic record of the ocean 
and we are trending toward having another one, with an ocean that is 
more acidic now than it has been in 8,000 centuries. We are getting to 
the point where the small animals that form the base of the ocean food 
chain are becoming soluble in the water that is their environment.
  Lobsters in particular--again from the Providence Journal of July 29:

       Meanwhile, the water off our coast has been unusually warm. 
     Lobsters like cold water and in the colder waters east of 
     Cape Cod, the heartland of the fishery, the crustaceans seem 
     unaffected. No moratorium has been recommended there. The 
     lobstermen explain a decline in the local stocks by saying 
     there has been a general migration toward cooler waters.

  So the warming of our waters is having a pronounced effect on Rhode 
Island businesses, on Rhode Island lobstermen. I was out the other day 
with Rhode Island lobstermen, hauling in pots, seeing what was down 
there, and the fishery has not been wiped out, but it is suffering, it 
is under pressure, and it relates to our warming planet and to climate 
change.
  It is a global situation. According to the Wall Street Journal, there 
are 400 oxygen-depleted dead zones identified by scientists in our 
oceans--oxygen-depleted dead zones in our oceans, 400 of them, covering 
an area of nearly 100,000 square miles of dead ocean because there is 
not enough oxygen in it to support life, as though it is on some alien 
planet.
  Now a very recent study, July 29, reported:

       Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global 
     population of phytoplankton--

  Again, the basis of the oceanic food chain--

     has fallen about 40 percent since 1950. That translates to an 
     annual drop of about 1 percent of the average plankton 
     population between 1899 and 2008. The scientists believe that 
     rising sea surface temperatures are to blame.

  There is another side to this story and, frankly, most of it is phony 
baloney science. It is bought-and-paid-for mercenary science. It is not 
the real deal. It masquerades as the real deal, it is designed to fool 
the public, and it is designed to prevent us from taking action. 
Regrettably, for a while it is working.
  Here is what Paul Krugman wrote the other day, looking at the variety 
of evidence that supports the need for us to do something about that 
for the sake of our planet, our children, and our grandchildren.

       Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You 
     probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate 
     researchers--allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly 
     damning e-mail messages of ``Climategate,'' and so on. What 
     you may not have heard, because it has received much less 
     publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was 
     eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of 
     climate action, then bought into by many in the news media.

  This should be a win-win. This is an issue that is important to us as 
humans trying to live on this planet as dramatic changes begin to take 
place in our atmosphere and ecosystems. This should be a win for us 
economically as green jobs grow, as we compete with China and India, as 
we stop losing the race to China and India for this next economy, as we 
stop sending money overseas to people who do not care for us much, who 
fund our enemies, and who drain hundreds of millions of dollars a year 
out of our economy.
  It should be a win on national security, protecting us from those 
circumstances. It should be a win across

[[Page 15255]]

the board. But the special interests will not let go, will not step 
into the future. They know they control enough votes in this place to 
make this not happen.
  I promise my colleagues this is a day that the future will look back 
at and look at this Senate, and this will be our day of infamy. This 
will be the day when all of the evidence was before us, we had every 
chance in the world to do what was right, we in fact knew what was 
right, and we allowed lies and phony science, concocted evidence and 
the big money from big oil, from big coal, from the big polluters, to 
steer us away from our duty.
  I hope when we come back in September we will take this back up, that 
we will take it up seriously. It is my strong belief that if we go at 
this with real diligence as a Senate--if we have the White House with 
us and behind us and fighting for us, if we have the environmental 
groups out there in the field doing their work, pushing this issue, and 
if we have the hundreds of thousands of Americans who work in green 
energy industries and who are green energy investors and who are going 
to grow into this green energy economy out there explaining the true 
economic value, and if we have our national security apparatus making 
the point as to how important this is, as all the national intelligence 
estimates have already said--we can push this over the top. Not the 
first time, because the lies and the money will trump the first time. 
But if we do it a second and a third and fourth time and force this 
issue, I think we can bring it home. I hope we will at least try. Some 
battles are worth the fight even if you are not sure you can win.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the Senator is recognized.


                            Child Nutrition

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me a few minutes to go in front of him even though he was here 
before me.
  I want to say a couple of words in support of the child nutrition 
bill. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania also wants to speak about 
that, the child nutrition bill that was passed by unanimous consent 
here in the Senate this afternoon.
  I thank Chairman Lincoln, chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, for her tireless efforts to bring this bill to fruition. She 
has been a great advocate, a great champion of child nutrition and 
making the changes necessary to get better food for our kids in 
schools.
  I also thank Senator Chambliss, with whom I served on the Agriculture 
Committee for a number of years, either as ranking member or as 
chairman, working on agriculture bills.
  I also particularly want to thank Senator Murkowski of Alaska. She 
and I have worked together as partners in this effort for several of 
the past years on trying to get this bill put together and get the 
provisions we have in the bill done. She has been a great champion of 
better food in our school lunch program, school breakfast program, 
afterschool meals.
  I also thank our leader, Senator Reid, and Minority Leader Senator 
McConnell, for working together on both sides to get this bill to the 
point where we could actually get to a unanimous consent today.
  There are many important components of this bill, many of which I had 
pushed for many years when I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee. 
I am particularly supportive of the provisions to increase 
reimbursement for school meals, expanded use of direct certification in 
the National School Lunch Program, the expansion of afterschool meals, 
a new and great focus on promoting breastfeeding, and the very real 
advances that that makes to health promotion in the early stages of 
childhood.
  I want, however, to mention one provision I worked on for about 15 
years, a provision that would require the adoption of school nutrition 
standards for all foods in all schools. Since the 1970s, the rates of 
childhood obesity have tripled among children and adolescents in the 
United States. Type 2 diabetes has increased dramatically. Current 
estimates suggest that among children born today, the lifetime risk of 
developing diabetes is 30 percent for boys, 40 percent for girls, and 
for African Americans and Latinos it is even higher.
  Again these are complicated problems that will require multifaceted 
solutions. To improve the health of our children, all sectors of 
society must be involved--parents, the media, community organizations, 
corporate America, and of course our schools.
  Again, I am well aware that schools are not the only places where our 
kids have access to sugary beverages and fried foods, candy, and high 
sodium foods. But schools can and should do more to provide healthy 
foods to our kids. What kids learn to eat at an early age they tend to 
develop habits and tastes for and eat those foods later on in life.
  If you start feeding kids sugary soda and French fries for lunch, 
they tend to keep eating that as they grow older, with all of the 
health problems that brings on.
  To that end, it is critically important that we establish strong 
nutrition standards for all the foods sold in school through vending 
machines, snack bars, a la carte lines in the schools. There are 
several reasons we need to set such standards. Existing USDA nutrition 
standards for the foods sold outside of school meals are outdated. They 
allow for the sale of foods that are low in nutrition and high in fat, 
sugar, and salt. In addition, in recent years science has greatly 
increased our knowledge of how kids' diets affect their health. Yet we 
have done very little to adjust our nutrition standards to this new 
knowledge.
  We have had a big loophole here and this is the way it is. The 
Secretary of Agriculture can set nutritional guidelines for all of the 
foods sold in the school lunch, in the school lunchroom--school 
breakfasts, school lunches, and can adopt those standards to follow the 
dietary guidelines. However, the Secretary has no authority to regulate 
the foods sold outside the lunchroom. So you have a big loophole here. 
Kids can eat lunch, they can have good food prepared according to 
dietary guidelines, but down the hall there are vending machines with 
candy bars and potato chips and sugary sodas and all kinds of things 
such as that, which undermines what we are trying to do to get better 
food for our kids in schools.
  It undermines parental supervision. Parents think that if they send 
their kids to school, they are going to get good meals. Yet they can go 
down the hallway from the school lunchroom and buy all of those bad 
foods. So that is what this bill does. It provides that the Secretary 
of Agriculture now, for the first time, has the authority to regulate 
all of the foods in schools, even in the vending machines, snack bars, 
and a-la carte lines.
  Again, I am proud this provision has had broad support on both sides 
of the aisle, among public groups and food and beverage companies. I 
particularly would like to thank the following groups for their help 
through all these years to bring this bill to this point: the Center 
for Science in the Public Interest, the American Heart Association, the 
American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association, the 
American Public Health Association, the American Association of School 
Administrators, and the National PTA. They have all been wonderful in 
working together to get this bill put together and through the floor of 
the Senate. On the food and beverage side, I particularly wish to thank 
the American Beverage Association, Mars, Incorporated, the dairy 
industry, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and many others who brought us to this 
point.
  We cannot ignore the rising toll of diabetes, heart disease, and 
childhood obesity. By including the commonsense provisions to protect 
the nutrition environment in our schools, this bill makes a major step 
forward in efforts to protect our children and promote their health.
  I sincerely thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for 
allowing me to take this time even though he was next in line.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

[[Page 15256]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object--I will not object--I wish 
to thank the Senator from New York and those on the other side for 
taking a significant step forward. I believe we have a lot more to do, 
but this will contribute to our effort to get our border secured. And 
we will be continuing to fight for all of the provisions Senator Kyl 
and I have put forward, but I thank my colleague for his cooperation in 
sending some $60 million to help our border get secured, and at this 
time, it is not. But I think this is movement in the right direction. I 
thank my colleague.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague. As you 
know, our goal--most of us on this side--is comprehensive reform. We 
believe securing the border is part of that, and this bipartisan effort 
can help move us in that direction. I hope we can move forward in a 
bipartisan way on many other parts of immigration reform beyond the 
border in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4593) was agreed to as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following: That the following sums are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $253,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, 
     of which $39,000,000 shall be for costs to maintain U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection Officer staffing on the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, $29,000,000 shall be 
     for hiring additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     Officers for deployment at ports of entry on the Southwest 
     Border of the United States, $175,900,000 shall be for hiring 
     additional Border Patrol agents for deployment to the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, and $10,000,000 shall 
     be to support integrity and background investigation 
     programs.

        border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology

       For an additional amount for ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology,'' $14,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011, for costs of designing, 
     building, and deploying tactical communications for support 
     of enforcement activities on the Southwest Border of the 
     United States.

 air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement

       For an additional amount for ``Air and Marine Interdiction, 
     Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement'', $32,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2012, for costs of 
     acquisition and deployment of unmanned aircraft systems.

                 construction and facilities management

       For an additional amount for ``Construction and Facilities 
     Management'', $6,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2011, for costs to construct up to 2 forward operating 
     bases for use by the Border Patrol to carry out enforcement 
     activities on the Southwest Border of the United States.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $80,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2011, of 
     which $30,000,000 shall be for law enforcement activities 
     targeted at reducing the threat of violence along the 
     Southwest Border of the United States, and $50,000,000 shall 
     be for hiring of additional agents, investigators, 
     intelligence analysts, and support personnel.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, for 
     costs to provide basic training for new U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection Officers, Border Patrol agents, and U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                              (rescission)

       Sec. 101.  From unobligated balances made available to U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'', $100,000,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided, That section 401 shall not apply to the amount in 
     this section.

                                TITLE II

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

       Sec. 201.  For an additional amount for the Department of 
     Justice for necessary expenses for increased law enforcement 
     activities related to Southwest Border enforcement, 
     $196,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: 
     Provided, That funds shall be distributed to the following 
     accounts and in the following specified amounts:
       (1) ``Administrative Review and Appeals'', $2,118,000.
       (2) ``Detention Trustee'', $7,000,000.
       (3) ``Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General 
     Legal Activities'', $3,862,000.
       (4) ``Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, United 
     States Attorneys'', $9,198,000.
       (5) ``United States Marshals Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $29,651,000.
       (6) ``United States Marshals Service, Construction'', 
     $8,000,000.
       (7) ``Interagency Law Enforcement, Interagency Crime and 
     Drug Enforcement'', $21,000,000.
       (8) ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $24,000,000.
       (9) ``Drug Enforcement Administration, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $33,671,000.
       (10) ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 
     Salaries and Expenses'', $37,500,000.
       (11) ``Federal Prison System, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $20,000,000.

                               TITLE III

                             THE JUDICIARY

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 302 of division C of 
     Public Law 111-117, funding shall be available for transfer 
     between Judiciary accounts to meet increased workload 
     requirements resulting from immigration and other law 
     enforcement initiatives.

                                TITLE IV

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401.  Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act is designated as an emergency 
     requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to 
     sections 403(a) and 423(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2010.
       Sec. 402. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act or any other provision of law, during the period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 
     on September 30, 2014, the filing fee and fraud prevention 
     and detection fee required to be submitted with an 
     application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 
     101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)) shall be increased by $2,250 for 
     applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United 
     States if more than 50 percent of the applicant's employees 
     are nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act or section 101(a)(15)(L) of 
     such Act.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any 
     other provision of law, during the period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 
     2014, the filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee 
     required to be submitted with an application for admission as 
     a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) shall be increased by $2,000 for 
     applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United 
     States if more than 50 percent of the applicant's employees 
     are such nonimmigrants or nonimmigrants described in section 
     101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.
       (c) During the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2014, all 
     amounts collected pursuant to the fee increases authorized 
     under this section shall be deposited in the General Fund of 
     the Treasury.

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill (H.R. 5875) was read the third time and passed.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about the bill 
we passed today, what is known as the child nutrition bill, but the 
actual title is the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. We passed it 
by unanimous consent, which means we have done something that happens 
all too rarely around here. We passed a major piece of legislation in a 
bipartisan way, we got consent from the whole Chamber, and we did not 
have to have a vote on it. That is a good development, to pass a big 
piece of legislation which will have a tremendously positive impact on 
our children, and passing it in that manner is encouraging.

[[Page 15257]]

  I am grateful, as so many of us are, to our chairman, Senator 
Lincoln, for her continued leadership to craft a child nutrition bill 
that protects and assists the most vulnerable of our society--pregnant 
women and children who are food insecure, especially in a time of 
economic difficulties for so many families and high unemployment in so 
many communities across the country.
  In the Scriptures, they tell us that a faithful friend is a sturdy 
shelter, and he or she who has found a faithful friend has indeed found 
a treasure. I am paraphrasing a little bit, but I think that line from 
the Scriptures about a faithful friend being a sturdy shelter has 
application to this discussion we have had about the Child Nutrition 
Act and helping our children because so many elected officials around 
the country say they are a friend of children. That is a good 
sentiment. We like to hear that. But often we do not have the 
opportunity to demonstrate our friendship, our concern for children, 
and sometimes we don't take the opportunity even when it is presented 
to us. So in our efforts to show and demonstrate--sometimes in small 
ways, sometimes in more substantial ways here in the Senate or in other 
instances as well--we have a chance to demonstrate, to prove or to 
provide some proof that we are trying to be a friend to children.
  The bill itself reauthorizes our Nation's major Federal child 
nutrition programs which are administered by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. As many people who watch these proceedings know, 
reauthorization means we want to do it again, we want to continue a 
policy and keep the policy moving in the right direction and fund it.
  Under this program, the following are included: the National School 
Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program; the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known 
by the end of that program's name, WIC--women, infants, and children; 
the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which is not something we hear a 
lot about but is critically important; and the Summer Food Service 
Program.
  The act itself--the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010--provides 
$4.5 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years, nearly 10 
times the amount of money provided for the previous child nutrition 
bill and the largest new investment in child nutrition programs since 
the inception of these particular programs.
  This historic new investment provided by the act could not come at a 
more important time, particularly given the incidence of hunger and the 
corresponding need for Federal nutrition assistance, which has 
increased in recent years. We know the economic realities. The numbers 
do not begin to tell the story, but the numbers are part of the story.
  Throughout the country, more than 15 million people are out of work. 
In Pennsylvania, for example, a 9.2-percent unemployment rate equates 
to 591,000 Pennsylvanians out of work. I know some States are at 10 
percent unemployment and 11 percent and 12 percent and some even over 
13 percent. But in our State, having more than 591,000 people out of 
work is close to if not a record number of people.
  I have always believed that when it comes to programs and policies 
that impact our children, whether it is a nutrition program or an 
education program, whether it is helping to protect our kids, I have 
always believed that what motivates us and what motivates people across 
this country to take steps to help children is a basic and fundamental 
belief that every child in America is born with a light inside them.
  Some children, because of their circumstances, because of the family 
they are born into or because of other reasons, do not need a lot of 
help, and their light shines so brightly, it is blinding, it is 
boundless, it is assimilating--you can fill in lots of other words. 
Some children are born with a light inside them, but it does not burn 
as brightly because of limitations or because of adverse circumstances 
they are born into or because the family they are born into does not 
have some of the advantages many of us have had. They do not have a 
steady job. They do not have income. They do not have the ability to 
provide for their family.
  I have always believed that it is the obligation of every public 
official, whether you are in the Senate or whether you are a State 
official or local official, but especially if you are elected, to do 
everything you can, to take every opportunity you can to help our 
children at a minimum with at least four things: nutrition and the 
prevention of hunger, early education, health care, and certainly basic 
safety and protection. This legislation takes a substantial step 
forward in at least one of those areas--the area I mentioned as it 
relates to preventing hunger and making sure kids are being given 
nutritious meals.
  We know providing care at the beginning of a child's life is so 
important. That starts with that child's mother. Through the WIC 
Program, pregnant women and new mothers have access to nutritious foods 
and learn more about healthy eating--something we could all learn a 
thing or two about. The program encourages breastfeeding and supplies 
formula, food packages, and farmers market vouchers. The WIC Program is 
a strong investment in our future and serves more than half--more than 
half--of all infants in the United States. As babies grow into 
toddlers, they benefit from the nutritious meals and snacks provided by 
childcare homes and centers and Head Start Programs participating in 
that program.
  I mentioned before that we don't hear a lot about the Child and Adult 
Care Food Program. That program allows children to develop, it prepares 
children to enter school ready to learn, and it helps working families 
to work.
  In the vast majority of States, the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program--the afterschool program that it is--only provides 
reimbursement for a snack. The bill we passed today gives communities 
in all 50 States the ability to be reimbursed for a meal.
  When toddlers grow into young children and arrive for their first day 
of school, many are able to enter the cafeteria and eat a healthy meal 
for breakfast and for lunch. These meals fuel them with the energy they 
need to grow into healthy adults. We know the numbers on these for 
children are so substantial. More than 10 million children receive a 
free or reduced-priced breakfast, and nearly 20 million children in the 
United States receive a lunch. In Pennsylvania, that translates into 1 
million kids having the benefit of school lunch and just about a 
quarter of a million children getting the benefit of the School 
Breakfast Program.
  Congress has taken a step now--at least the Senate has today--to 
ensure more eligible children receive meals, increasing the number of 
eligible children and increasing the nutritional value of meals. Hungry 
and malnourished children cannot fully participate in school. If a 
child can't, during school, have the benefit of a school lunch or a 
school breakfast or sometimes both, they can't learn. It is as simple 
as that. None of us could learn. None of us can function if we don't 
have enough to eat. I have always thought that if we invest in 
children, making sure they can learn at a very young age, they can 
learn more now and earn more later. We have to remain committed to 
these programs.
  I have had a very strong interest in and have advocated for a long 
time for the so-called universal feeding concept because I believe the 
experience in a major urban school district--in this case, the city of 
Philadelphia--in that school district, that universal feeding concept 
as a model in one school district has reduced the stigma of poverty and 
increased participation in the School Lunch Program. Philadelphia 
schools are reimbursed for only the number of students who qualify for 
free or reduced-price meals but agree to offer free meals to all 
children. It covers everyone; it doesn't single children out for 
different treatment. Universal feeding enhances efficiency by 
dramatically reducing the administrative burdens of the program, and it 
maintains the integrity and congressional intent of the National School 
Lunch Program.
  There is a lot more I could talk about with regard to the bill, but I 
wish to

[[Page 15258]]

move very quickly and then conclude by highlighting some photographs.
  This first photograph was made available to us by a Dr. Mariane 
Chilton. Dr. Chilton is at Drexel University. I have met a lot of 
people who have been champions for our children, who have stood up for 
children in all circumstances, but if there is one person who I can 
think of in any university of the United States who has done so much 
for our children and has stood up for them, who has been even more than 
just a faithful friend--Dr. Chilton has been the person who, time and 
again, has reminded us about the moral gravity of making sure children 
are first on our list.
  She developed a program called Witnesses to Hunger. This particular 
project began after consent was given by mothers across the city of 
Philadelphia who agreed to participate. More than 40 of them were given 
a camera. They took pictures of their lives, the lives of their 
children, their own life, what happens in their homes. They made these 
pictures available. They gave us a window into their own lives by their 
own consent. By providing that insight, they allowed us to see the real 
misery of hunger for children. They allowed us to see the horrific 
nightmare so many children and so many families were living through, 
even before this recession.
  The first picture I have is a photograph of a young boy sitting at a 
table. Here is what his mother Melissa said about him:

       My son, he's already on the small side and he needs every 
     bit of food that he can get to make him healthy, keep him 
     healthy. He has failure to thrive. He has a bone deficiency 
     that doesn't allow him to grow. He's only 30 pounds. He has 
     acid reflux. He had RSV, failure to thrive, chronic asthma.

  This is one example of a child who doesn't have enough to eat, which 
leads to the obvious health problems that entails.
  This next picture is a photograph of three children sitting at a 
table. They have beautiful smiles. They are wonderful children. The 
title of this picture is ``Oodles of noodles.'' These children are 
eating lots and lots of noodles. Their mother says:

       And the kids know my food stamps got cut off. Because when 
     they came home from school today, they didn't have their 
     snacks. So they know that I didn't go to the market. I really 
     didn't tell them why or anything like that, because I don't 
     think they understand. But it affected them.

  When people make decisions about cutting programs or voting against 
programs, we know they have real consequences.
  The last picture is a young boy holding bananas and giving the 
photographer a great smile. In this photo, Gale, his mother, captures 
her son's happiness as he holds up a bunch of bananas.
  Some people tell us people choose to eat unhealthy foods. They use 
that as a rationale, a pathetic and insulting rationale. But sometimes 
they make that argument. We know families want more access to fresh 
fruits and vegetables. But, frankly, in a lot of inner cities, they are 
not available, not at all. We have to recognize that, rather than 
denigrate or judge people who live in those communities. There are 
plenty of folks in Washington who are good at judging. They are not 
real good at responding to the needs of people.
  There is so much in this bill. I will not go through more of it 
because we don't have time. I believe this bill does meet that basic 
obligation to do everything we can, at least in this program, at least 
with this opportunity, to make sure that light inside every child burns 
as brightly as the full measure of that child's potential, as brightly 
as we can possibly allow it to burn with our help. I believe this bill 
does one thing as well, going back to that reference to Scripture about 
a faithful friend being a sturdy shelter. This bill will not solve all 
the problems of the families who will be positively impacted. It will 
not eliminate hunger. It will not rescue a child from so many 
challenges in the life of a child who lives in a poor family. But this 
bill is one example of one way we can demonstrate what that scriptural 
reference tells us. It gives us a chance to demonstrate in a 
significant way that we are trying to do all we can to be that faithful 
friend to our children and to provide some measure of shelter when the 
storms of this recession hit that family and hit that child. We can 
take a step in proving that we are trying to be that faithful friend to 
children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________