DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
(Senate - July 26, 2007)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S10058-S10115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2638, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2638 ) making appropriations for the 
     Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd/Cochran amendment No. 2383, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Landrieu amendment No. 2468 (to amendment No. 2383), to 
     state the policy of the U.S. Government on the foremost 
     objective of the United States in the global war on terror 
     and in protecting the U.S. homeland and to appropriate 
     additional sums for that purpose.
       Grassley/Inhofe amendment No. 2444 (to amendment No. 2383), 
     to provide that none of the funds made available under this 
     act may be expended until the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     certifies to Congress that all new hires by the Department of 
     Homeland Security are verified through the basic pilot 
     program authorized under section 401 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     or may be available to enter into a contract with a person, 
     employer, or other entity that does not participate in such 
     basic pilot program.
       Cochran (for Alexander/Collins) amendment No. 2405 (to 
     amendment No. 2383), to make $300 million available for 
     grants to States to carry out the REAL ID Act of 2005.
       Schumer amendment No. 2416 (to amendment No. 2383), to 
     evaluate identification card technologies to determine the 
     most appropriate technology for ensuring the optimal 
     security, efficiency, privacy, and cost of passport cards.
       Schumer amendment No. 2461 (to amendment No. 2383), to 
     increase the amount provided for aviation security direction 
     and enforcement.
       Schumer amendment No. 2447 (to amendment No. 2383), to 
     reserve $40 million of the amounts appropriated for the 
     Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to support the 
     implementation of the Securing the Cities Initiative at the 
     level requested in the President's budget.
       Schumer/Hutchison amendment No. 2448 (to amendment No. 
     2383), to increase the domestic supply of nurses and physical 
     therapists.
       Dole amendment No. 2462 (to amendment No. 2383), to require 
     that not less than $5,400,000 of the amount appropriated to 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement be used to 
     facilitate agreements described in section 287(g) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       Dole amendment No. 2449 (to amendment No. 2383), to set 
     aside $75 million of the funds appropriated for training, 
     exercise, technical assistance, and other programs under the 
     heading State and local programs for training consistent with 
     section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       Cochran (for Grassley) amendment No. 2476 (to amendment No. 
     2383), to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     establish reasonable regulations relating to stored 
     quantities of propane.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:35 
a.m. shall be for debate on the Graham-Pryor amendment, with 30 minutes 
under the control of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, and the 
remainder of the time equally divided and controlled by the Senator 
from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. 
Pryor.

  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2480 to Amendment No. 2483

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, consistent with the unanimous consent 
agreement, we will be talking about an amendment that was discussed 
last night. Senator Cornyn had some language changes to the amendment 
that have now been adopted. I believe it makes it a much stronger, 
better amendment.
  What we are trying to do here is add $3 billion to go toward securing 
the border, and I believe that is a homeland security event. So it is 
certainly an amount of money that is large in nature but goes to 
something that is large in nature in terms of our national security 
needs.
  In terms of Senator Voinovich and his concerns about spending--I 
admire him greatly. He has been a constant, serious, thoughtful voice 
about controlling spending. This is an emergency designation, which 
means it is an off-budget item. I think Senator Voinovich has every 
right in the world to be concerned about how the Congress is spending 
money in a way for the next

[[Page S10059]]

generation to pick up the bill, but I would argue there is a time for 
emergencies in business life and personal life and legislative life, 
and this is one of those times.
  This is an emergency kind of manufactured by Washington. It is 
something that should have been done 20 years ago. Now we have taken up 
immigration in a serious way. We had an extensive debate not long ago, 
and we were not able to get comprehensive immigration reform, but I 
think most Americans believe losing operational control of the U.S.-
Mexican border is a national security issue of a serious nature, and 
they applaud our efforts to put money into securing the border between 
the United States and Mexico. That is exactly what this amendment does.
  If there were ever a legitimate emergency in this country, I think 
this would be one of those times because we have lost control of our 
border. In the age of terrorism, what does it mean for a nation like 
the United States, which is being pursued by a vicious enemy that knows 
no boundaries, to lose control of its border?
  It means that you are opening yourself up to attack. Now, most of the 
people who come across the border come here to work. This amendment 
does not deal with that. Hopefully, it will slow down how you get into 
the country. Hopefully, it will control who comes into the country--
people coming to work illegally or people coming across the border to 
do us harm, it would make it more difficult.
  But the idea of employment and the magnet of employment is not 
addressed by this amendment. We need a temporary worker program. We 
need employer verification systems so people cannot come here and 
fraudulently get jobs. That is not dealt with in this amendment. But 
this amendment is a great first step to controlling people coming 
across our border and overstaying their visas. I think it is a step 
that will get a large bipartisan vote.
  What does it do? The $3 billion in emergency spending will allow us 
to hire 23,000 Border Patrol agents to go report for duty; more boots 
on the ground, more people patrolling our border making it harder for 
somebody to come across illegally. We should have done this a long time 
ago.
  This amendment allows the hiring of a substantially larger number of 
Border Patrol agents, four unmanned aerial vehicles that will allow us 
to patrol isolated areas of the border by having new technology in 
place--the unmanned aerial vehicle has been a very effective tool in 
controlling illegal border crossings--one hundred and five ground-based 
radar and camera towers. We need walls along the border in urban areas 
where you can walk across the street, but technology in the desert and 
other areas of the border has proven to be a good investment. This 
amendment seriously increases the amount of technology to detect 
illegal border crossings; 300 miles of vehicle barriers, where people 
can drive up and down the border with vehicle lanes, where the Border 
Patrol can patrol that area in question and make it a more effective 
policing regime; 700 miles of border fence. We have approved the 
fencing. This would actually completely fund 700 miles of fencing. The 
border is, I believe, over 2,000 miles. Why 700 miles? Seven hundred 
miles would allow us to control crossings where you can literally walk 
across the street. The technology we are putting into place through 
this amendment will control other areas. The additional boots on the 
ground will help in all phases.
  On the catch-and-release program, where you catch someone, turn them 
loose, and they come right back, well, we are trying to deal with that 
problem by increasing detention beds to 45,000, so when we catch 
someone, we can detain them and deport them--without them never showing 
up to their hearing.
  The Cornyn addition will allow this $3 billion to be used in interior 
enforcement in a way to go after people who have absconded, who have 
been deported, who have been issued orders but have left and they are 
on the run. We can track them down and bring them to justice.
  Overall, this amendment is money well spent. I am sorry it has to be 
spent in an emergency fashion, but it is an emergency. The reason this 
is an emergency, we have let it get out of hand. The goal of this 
amendment is operational control of the U.S.-Mexican border.
  Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2480 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself, 
     Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gregg, Mr. McCain, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
     Sununu, and Mr. Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 2480 
     to amendment No. 2383.

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

       At the end, add the following:

                      DIVISION B--BORDER SECURITY

                 TITLE X--BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Border Security First 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 1002. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Requirements.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall ensure that 
     the following are carried out:
       (1) Operational control of the international border with 
     mexico.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish 
     and demonstrate operational control of 100 percent of the 
     international land border between the United States and 
     Mexico, including the ability to monitor such border through 
     available methods and technology.
       (2) Staff enhancements for border patrol.--The United 
     States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol shall 
     hire, train, and report for duty 23,000 full-time agents.
       (3) Strong border barriers.--The United States Customs and 
     Border Protection Border Patrol shall--
       (A) install along the international land border between the 
     United States and Mexico at least--
       (i) 300 miles of vehicle barriers;
       (ii) 700 linear miles of fencing as required by the Secure 
     Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367), as amended by this 
     Act; and
       (iii) 105 ground-based radar and camera towers; and
       (B) deploy for use along the international land border 
     between the United States and Mexico 4 unmanned aerial 
     vehicles, and the supporting systems for such vehicles.
       (4) Catch and return.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall detain all removable aliens apprehended crossing the 
     international land border between the United States and 
     Mexico in violation of Federal or State law, except as 
     specifically mandated by Federal or State law or humanitarian 
     circumstances, and United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement shall have the resources to maintain this 
     practice, including the resources necessary to detain up to 
     45,000 aliens per day on an annual basis.
       (b) Presidential Progress Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until the 
     requirements under subsection (a) are met, the President 
     shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made 
     in funding, meeting, or otherwise satisfying each of the 
     requirements described under paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     subsection (a), including detailing any contractual 
     agreements reached to carry out such measures.
       (2) Progress not sufficient.--If the President determines 
     that sufficient progress is not being made, the President 
     shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) 
     specific funding recommendations, authorization needed, or 
     other actions that are or should be undertaken by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 1003. APPROPRIATIONS FOR BORDER SECURITY.

       There is hereby appropriated $3,000,000,000 to satisfy the 
     requirements set out in section 1002(a) and, if any amount 
     remains after satisfying such requirements, to achieve and 
     maintain operational control over the international land and 
     maritime borders of the United States, for employment 
     eligibility verification improvements for increased removal 
     and detention of visa overstays, criminal aliens, aliens who 
     have illegally reentered the United States and for 
     reimbursment of State and local section 287(g) expenses. 
     These amounts are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Hutchison as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to Senator Cornyn to speak on this topic for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to Senator

[[Page S10060]]

Graham for his strong leadership on this issue. I know Senator Pryor, 
on the other side of the aisle, is the principal Democratic cosponsor.
  I concur with what Senator Graham said. The necessity for this 
particular amendment is occasioned by the neglect of the Federal 
Government over the last 20 years at meeting its commitment to do 
whatever is necessary to keep the American people safe.
  This has become, of course, a national focus in a post-9/11 world, 
when we have to know who is coming across our borders and what their 
intentions are. We cannot any longer assume people are coming across 
for benign reasons or are simply economic migrants because we know the 
same broken borders that allow a person to come across who wants to 
work in the United States can be exploited by human smugglers or drug 
traffickers and potentially even those who want to come here and commit 
acts of terrorism in the United States.
  Yesterday, I made a part of the Congressional Record, by unanimous 
consent, the first of a four-part article written in the San Antonio 
Express News, documenting the movement of what are called special 
interest aliens; that is, individuals who are coming to America, from 
countries where terrorism is flourishing, through our broken southern 
border.
  The particular story that is documented talks about a young Iraqi who 
traveled from Damascus, Syria, to Moscow, to Havana and then to 
Guatemala and then up through the southern border, our southern border 
with Mexico, into the United States. Thank goodness this individual did 
not appear to be committed to a life of terrorism, but it demonstrates 
the kind of vulnerability we have in this country, and it is important 
we do everything possible to protect it.
  I am pleased with the majority leader's agreement to now allow us to 
include the use of these funds for interior enforcement because we know 
45 percent of the illegal immigration in this country occurs not from 
people who violate the border but people who enter legally, then 
overstay and then go underground. So I am grateful to the majority 
leader and am pleased to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak 
about amendment No. 2480, the Graham-Pryor amendment. Let me first say 
the legislation Senator Graham and Senator Pryor have brought to the 
floor this morning, in terms of an amendment, is essentially the same 
language and has the same legislative provisions we had in the 
comprehensive immigration reform package. They are good aspects of that 
legislation that allow us to move forward with securing and fixing our 
borders.
  As we went through the immigration reform debate, we said we had to 
do three things: First, we needed to enforce and fix our borders; 
secondly, we needed to enforce our laws within our country; and, 
thirdly, we needed to figure out a realistic solution to the reality 
that we have 12 million undocumented workers who are here in this 
country today.
  This amendment takes a part of those principal components and 
addresses it in a very effective way. Indeed, when you look through the 
language, what it does is it says we will hire 23,000 additional Border 
Patrol agents; we will have 4 unmanned aerial vehicles and 105 ground-
based radar and camera towers; we will have 300 miles of vehicle 
barriers and 700 miles of fence; we will have a permanent end to the 
catch-and-release policy and additional funding to enhance employment 
verification; we will have increased removal and detention of visa 
overstays and reimbursement to State and local governments for 
immigration expenses.
  So that all is good. It addresses one of the fundamental components 
of immigration reform. So I am supportive of what we are trying to do 
here. I do wish to let my good friend and colleague, Senator Graham, 
and my good friend, Senator Pryor, know that the concern I have with 
the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I will support it, is that 
it is all focused on the southern border.
  While it may be, and it is true our borders are broken, it is not 
just the border between Mexico and the United States that is broken. We 
have the same kinds of problems in our ports, we have the same kinds of 
problems along our northern border. This is, frankly, unfair in terms 
of focusing only on the Mexican border. We have to fix all our borders, 
not just the Mexican border.
  So while I will be supporting this amendment, I also intend to offer 
another amendment that will address the other broken borders we have in 
our country because I think that is a way to be fair about it. It is 
the only way in which we will ultimately achieve the objective we have, 
which is dealing with the national security of the United States of 
America. You cannot have national security when you have broken 
borders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am very pleased that Senator Graham and 
others have come together to increase and enhance our border security 
in this country. We all know in this Chamber we have tried very hard to 
reform our immigration system that we have on the books.
  In fact, I have been very vocal saying I am for immigration reform. I 
think we need to do that. But so far we have not been able to get that 
done in the Senate. I believe, honestly, we need more involvement with 
the White House in trying to get that done.
  But regardless of that, today one of the things that came through to 
me loudly and clearly from the people in Arkansas is we need to secure 
our border. People do not want to wait 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 
whatever it may be, to have border security; they want us to start 
working on that now.
  That is what we are trying to accomplish with this amendment today. 
Again, I am very pleased that Senator Graham, a true South Carolina 
conservative Member of this body, someone whom we all respect, someone 
who, even though he has impeccable conservative and Republican 
credentials, is willing to reach across the aisle to work with others 
to try to get good things done for his State and for our country. He 
and Senator Cornyn of Texas and many others have worked on this issue. 
I am very pleased to be part of a bipartisan solution on border 
security.
  One of the things I like about this legislation is it adds $3 billion 
for border security. That means we will get 23,000 additional full-time 
border agents, we will get new border-monitoring technology, we will 
get 300 miles of vehicle barriers, we will get 700 miles of fence. That 
is funded by this amendment. We will get 105 radar and camera towers, 
and we will get resources to detain an additional 45,000 illegal 
immigrations who are in this country right now.
  It also includes money to help with some internal matters in this 
country, to help do some processing and look at employee issues and 
employer issues, et cetera.
  This is a good amendment. I think one of the things I heard loudly 
and clearly from the immigration debates we had on the Senate floor was 
people in Arkansas want us to secure the border first, let's enforce 
the laws we have on the books. They have been on the books for a long 
time, and we have not done a very good job of enforcing those laws.
  When I say ``we,'' I mean the administration. The will to try to 
enforce the laws we have on the books has not been there. I am not 
trying to point fingers. It is not only this administration; we can go 
back for a couple of decades.
  Regardless of that, I am not trying to point fingers. Right now I 
want to look forward. I want to add to this amendment an additional $3 
billion for border enforcement to enhance this Nation's security.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at this, give it very strong 
consideration, and support this amendment. It is bipartisan. We have a 
number of Senators who were on it originally, a number more have been 
added as we go today. So I would, in closing, recommend to my 
colleagues that they give this very strong consideration. It will allow 
us to enforce the laws we have on the books, it allows us to enhance 
our border security in very real and very meaningful ways. I think it 
is what the American public wants.

[[Page S10061]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that 
the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the border security 
amendment No. 2480. As the immigration bill came to a close, there was 
one thing that was very clear--there was unanimity and support for the 
issue of border security. The issue of protecting our border is one we 
all understand. The American people understand. It needs to be done. 
That was one of the many things that was in that bill that was undone 
that needed doing.
  I believe today we do a great thing by moving this issue forward. We 
have a great threat of terrorism, the continued flow of illegal 
immigrants. We need to do all we can to secure our border.
  This amendment will provide an increase in resources to improve our 
security by building our physical presence and surveillance on the 
border itself. It requires within 2 years of enactment that we secure 
operational control over the southern border between the United States 
and Mexico, and it allows the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs to hire 
and train and report for duty 23,000 full-time agents. I believe this 
is a step in the right direction. The United States, in addition to 
that, will deploy four unmanned aerial vehicles. These are essential 
for electronic surveillance in order to fully protect our southern 
border. In addition, the U.S. shall engage in the catch and return of 
illegal aliens. We know that a great many of those who are here 
illegally have simply overstayed their visas. This also permits 
interior enforcement in order to be able to be successful in 
implementing strong border and interior enforcement. Ninety days from 
enactment of this bill and every 90 days thereafter, the administration 
shall report to Congress on the progress. If the progress isn't on 
track, the report will include specific recommendations for fixing the 
problem. That is essential because for too long we have known we had a 
problem. We have thrown money at the problem, and the solutions have 
not always been what we wanted. Regardless of our position on the issue 
of immigration, all of us can coalesce around the idea that border 
security is essential to the rights of a sovereign nation. The 
deployment of additional border agents, the end of catch and release, 
the provision of additional space in beds, interior enforcement to 
ensure we can begin to move forward to ensure those who have overstayed 
their visas, we understand how that happens and we keep track of that, 
and not allow them to occur. It is all part of what we need to do in 
order to ensure we have a safe and secure country.
  Giving the American people the security and understanding that the 
Government is serious about border enforcement and about interior 
security, we then will be able to move forward with phases of the 
immigration reform act that did not come to pass. There was a lack of 
credibility that our Government has with the people with respect to our 
seriousness of purpose in border enforcement. This amendment is a step 
forward. We are putting the dollars that it needs, in addition to the 
specific direction it ought to have, as well to ensure that we will 
have the kind of border security all Americans expect and want so that 
we can then move forward with the other phases of immigration reform 
that are so desperately needed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The President pro tempore is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senate yesterday attempted to add $3 billion in 
emergency spending to secure our borders. I supported that effort. 
Unfortunately, rather than voting on the substance of the amendment, it 
was necessary for the Senate to vote on a procedural matter. In order 
to provide for the orderly processing of appropriations bills in the 
Senate, it was essential to vote to sustain the ruling of the Chair 
under rule XVI. However, I still believe it is important that we not 
miss this opportunity to provide robust funding to secure our borders 
and to enforce our immigration law. Therefore, I support the amendment 
providing $3 billion--that is $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ 
was born--get that, hear me, $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ was 
born--in emergency spending to hire, train, and equip Border Patrol 
agents and immigration enforcement officials, procure additional 
detention beds, expand our immigration enforcement efforts on the 
interior, construct border fencing infrastructure, and technology, and 
other steps to secure our borders.
  This $3 billion will not be encumbered by controversial legislative 
and policy issues. Instead, it will be used in support of already 
authorized activities such as hiring Border Patrol agents, building 
fencing and other border technology, and enforcing the immigration laws 
already on the books.
  Specifically, this amendment will hire, train, and equip at least 
5,000 new Border Patrol agents, in addition to the 3,000 new agents 
funded in the underlying bill. It will procure more than 4,000 
additional detention beds, in addition to the 4,000 new beds funded in 
the underlying bill. It will hire more than 1,000 new immigration 
investigators and detention and removal personnel to perform interior 
enforcement activities such as expanding the work site enforcement 
investigation. It will increase the number of Criminal Alien Program 
and Fugitive Operations teams to locate and remove the over 630,000 
fugitive alien absconders whom a judge has already ordered to be 
removed. It provides an additional $1 billion for border fencing, 
infrastructure, and technology.
  Finally, it provides funds to procure additional helicopters, fixed-
wing aircraft, marine vessels, and other border surveillance equipment, 
as well as funds to construct additional border stations in which our 
Border Patrol agents work. This amendment is balanced, and it is 
focused on meeting the immediate border security needs while enforcing 
our current immigration law.
  I urge my colleagues on my left and my colleagues on my right to 
support the amendment.
  I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand Senator Sessions wishes to 
speak. He is on the way. As soon as he gets here, we will gladly yield 
back any time that is remaining. I wish to make a couple comments about 
the amendment.
  No. 1, in terms of spending, it is one of those situations where the 
country finds itself in an emergency that maybe shouldn't have been an 
emergency to begin with because we have neglected our border security 
obligations.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Specter, Coleman, and Lincoln 
as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We are where we are as a nation. We have a porous border. 
Every time a supplemental bill comes through on Iraq, it gets the votes 
from this body that it needs to become law, because all of us 
understand, whether we disagree with the policies in Iraq, that once 
the soldiers and warfighters are there, our troops are there, there are 
certain things that have to flow from their presence, and we designate 
a lot of money for the Iraqi operation as emergency spending; I believe 
rightfully so.
  Well, I would argue to anybody, Republican or Democrat, that one of 
the big chinks in our national security armor is a porous border 
between the United States and Mexico, and this $3 billion will really 
help in a serious way. It is serious money to deal with a serious 
problem that is truly an emergency. It will add more boots on the

[[Page S10062]]

ground. It will add agents for there to be a total of 23,000 border 
security agents on the border, which is a tremendous increase over what 
we have now. I think it is like 13,000 or 14,000.
  But the technology in this bill will be a force multiplier. The 
technology we spend money to secure will allow the force in place to be 
multiplied by a factor of many because the technology literally 
leverages the boots on the ground in a tremendous way.
  The 45,000 additional bedspaces will stop a program that is really 
the wrong message to send--catch and release: We catch you. We release 
you back. You come again. Now we have bedspace to detain people to make 
sure they do not flee, and they are deported for coming across the 
borders illegally.
  It is an effort to basically deal with a problem that has been a long 
time in the making. There is money that will have a beneficial 
consequence to securing our borders. The term ``operational control'' 
is a military term. I look at this effort to secure our borders in many 
ways as a military operation.
  I hope this amendment gets a strong bipartisan vote. I understand 
Senator Voinovich's concern about the emergency designation in spending 
money offline, but this is one of those times I think it is justified.
  To the administration, I understand your concerns about spending, but 
you have sent hundreds of millions of dollars in requests over--
billions of dollars--to the Congress to make sure we have the money 
necessary to secure Iraq for our troops' point of view. Now it is time 
to spend $3 billion to secure our borders here at home.
  I hope the body will understand this is a step forward. It does not 
solve the problem. We still have a magnet of employment that has to be 
dealt with. We need a temporary worker program. We need a lot of things 
this amendment does not cover. But this is a great start in providing 
operational security to a porous border that in the age of terrorism is 
really not only an emergency but a national disgrace.
  I hope the taxpayers at large will see this as a serious effort to do 
something about a problem which has huge consequences over time if left 
unaddressed. So I appreciate Senator Reid working with us and Senator 
Cornyn making it better and my good friend from Arkansas, Senator 
Pryor, for helping us move the ball down the road.
  If this bill ever gets to conference, which I hope it will, I hope 
this provision is left standing as is because if there is a retreat 
from this, from the money, and from the designations in this amendment, 
I think it would be considered a retreat in terms of regaining 
operational control of our borders.
  So with that, I believe Senator Pryor wishes to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Byrd 
as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added 
as a cosponsor to the Graham-Pryor amendment, which is currently the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham 
amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This is an 
issue which has been with us for years now, an issue of border security 
which we simply, as a group of policymakers, have not addressed in the 
right way. That became pretty obvious during our debate on the 
immigration bill several weeks ago. All of us heard from our 
constituents back home that while overall immigration reform may be 
needed in due course, what we need to do immediately is to take action 
to make sure our borders are, in fact, actually secure. That is the 
first step in real immigration reform.
  Senator Isakson and I sent a letter to the administration imploring 
them to take action on this issue. We have asked the administration to 
send an emergency supplemental to the Senate and the House requesting 
that certain measures to secure our borders be enacted and adequately 
funded.
  What Senator Graham has done with this amendment is a step in the 
right direction toward ensuring that our borders--particularly our 
border to the south--are made secure.
  I am a little bit disappointed we cannot go any further because what 
Senator Isakson and I have asked the administration to do in its 
supplemental request to this body would be to include the creation of a 
biometric identification card so all of those folks who cross the 
border in a legal way would have that identification card and any 
employer who sought to hire any of those individuals would know that 
they are here legally. If you hired them otherwise, it would be at your 
own peril.
  There are some technical reasons why Senator Graham could not add 
that provision in here. It is going to require more money, No. 1, plus 
some other issues regarding the rules of this body. So I am hopeful 
that there are some additional measures we will take up after we, 
hopefully, adopt this amendment overwhelmingly, get this bill into 
conference, out of conference, and on the desk of the President.
  So I applaud my colleague from South Carolina, as well as Senator 
Pryor, who I know has worked very hard on this particular measure. This 
amendment does many of the things Senator Isakson and I have asked for, 
and we are very hopeful this will get to the desk of the President 
immediately. This will answer one of those questions a lot of us heard 
during the immigration debate from our constituents; that is, why don't 
you enforce the laws that are on the books today? Well, here is the 
answer: We do not have the money to do it. This will give us the money 
to do some of those things.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to look very favorably on this 
amendment. Let's take the first right step to secure the borders. Then 
we can come back and deal with the overall remaining immigration issues 
that are outstanding.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Lincoln, Baucus, and Webb be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Hampshire and 
the Senator from Alabama would like to speak. We have until 11:35.
  I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, would you like 5 minutes?
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you.
  Mr. GRAHAM. To be followed by the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama and the Senator from 
New Hampshire have a total of 7 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be evenly 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from South 
Carolina for reaching this understanding on how to proceed relative to 
making sure our borders are secure.
  The language in this amendment, which adds a significant amount of 
money to support the expansion of the boots on the ground and the 
technology on the border, is critical to the

[[Page S10063]]

first step--which has been related here by a number of individuals--of 
securing the border as part of our effort to get comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  I think we all understand the American people are asking the 
question, Why isn't the border secure? This has been an effort that has 
been ongoing for a number of years now, to make the border secure. But 
this amendment we are taking up now would be the final downpayment on 
what is necessary to accomplish that goal.
  We know what we need in order to secure the border. It is more border 
agents, it is more physical fencing but a lot more virtual fencing, it 
is more detention beds, and it is more ICE agents. It is also necessary 
to have in place the law these individuals need in order to enforce the 
border and pursue people who come into this country illegally and who 
may be inappropriately here and who are committing crimes here. 
Unfortunately, that language was not included in this amendment. That 
language was stripped out yesterday. But still, getting the resources 
in place in order to support the border is the first critical step, and 
this bill does that.
  I have been working on this issue for a long time, both as past 
chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and as 
past chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee, as have Senator Cochran 
and Senator Byrd. There has been a strong commitment on the part of the 
Appropriations Committee to accomplish these goals. But there has 
always been additional resources needed in order to fully fund border 
security. Now, with this amendment, we will actually put in place those 
additional resources.
  I congratulate the Senator from South Carolina for bringing this 
process to closure. I congratulate the majority leader for reaching a 
consensus here that could be bipartisan. As Senator McConnell said last 
night, this is a positive, bipartisan effort to try to step forward on 
one of the most critical issues we have as a nation, which is making 
sure the people who come into this country come into the country 
legally.
  So it is the end of a long road, quite honestly, relative to the 
responsibility of Congress. We will now have put in place the necessary 
resources to secure the border. The question now becomes whether those 
resources will be effectively used. Certainly, we will have to use all 
our oversight capability to ensure that occurs, but at least we have 
addressed our responsibility of making sure the funds are there to 
support the necessary additional boots on the ground, the additional 
expansion of security along the border in the form of virtual fencing 
and in the form of physical fencing, and the additional detention beds 
necessary to make sure that when someone is apprehended for coming into 
the country illegally, they are not simply set off on their own 
recognizance to appear in court someday but are actually restrained in 
a place so they can be returned back to the nation they came from in an 
orderly manner, which is critical.
  So this is a good bill and good language. I am glad we are making 
this progress on it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the requirements of fencing, additional 
Border Patrol agents, bedspaces for those who have been detained who 
come here illegally are not there as an end in themselves. Our goal--
our real goal--must be to create a change in the mindset of what is 
happening at the border, to reach that tipping point in which the world 
knows our borders are not wide open, that it is exceedingly difficult 
to penetrate them illegally and they are unlikely to be successful. As 
a result, we can move from the current situation--in which over a 
million people last year were arrested coming into our country 
illegally--and see those numbers drop off, to reach that tipping point, 
where the world knows that border is not open.
  We have talked about it for all the 10 years since I have been in the 
Senate. Presidents have talked about it. They have campaigned on it. 
Members have talked about it. But we have not done anything about it. 
That is why the American people are not happy with us.
  So I think this legislation will do some things of significance. It 
will fund 700 miles at the border and complete that process. Why it has 
taken as long as it has I am not sure, but work is being done right 
now, although not a lot has been accomplished so far. I am told that 
pretty soon we will see the fencing come up that we have authorized and 
that the work is continuing on. So it will be 700 miles. That is really 
progress, I have to say, but it is not the final installment. We are 
going to have to do more in the years to come. It is actual fencing, 
plus virtual fencing also.

  So I am pleased we have made a concrete step forward with this 
funding. It will allow us, if the executive branch uses it wisely, to 
transform in a significant way the open border system we now have to a 
lawful system. That would be good for America in terms of creating a 
lawful system of immigration, and it will be good for the people who 
send us their money and expect us to do what we promise to do and that 
we actually get serious about it and start taking steps in that 
direction.
  With regard to fencing, other countries use fencing significantly. 
Spain is constructing quite a lot of fencing on their African border. 
Other countries are doing so in the EU. Hong Kong has a border 
situation that they have dealt with through fencing. It is not anything 
unusual. It is the normal course when you have a wide open border 
because what happens is, a fence will multiply many times the 
effectiveness of a Border Patrol officer.
  I ask my colleagues how you would be able to control hundreds of 
miles of border if you are just standing out there by yourself. If the 
person trying to come in knows they have to cross a fence, they will 
have a much harder time and be much easier to apprehend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to pick up on some of the 
comments my colleagues on the Republican side have made on this 
amendment. One of the things Senator Sessions just mentioned is that 
this is a concrete proposal. I know he didn't intend the play on words, 
but this is concrete. We are talking about adding real border 
enforcement. It is real. It is bricks and mortar. It is physical 
barriers. It will definitely slow the influx of people coming into this 
country who are not playing by the rules.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans. 
We have been adding cosponsors this morning to this legislation. I want 
to thank all of my colleagues who participated. I need to give a 
special thanks to Senator Harry Reid who helped pull this amendment 
together. To put $3 billion on border enforcement on the Homeland 
Security appropriations makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense in 
terms of good government, and it makes perfect sense to the people all 
across this Nation.
  One of the messages I heard loudly and clearly during the immigration 
debate which we finished a few weeks ago is, people want more border 
enforcement. They want the U.S. Government to secure our border. There 
is no doubt about that; this is something the Federal Government has 
failed to do or has been pretty lax in trying to do over the last 
several years. Again, this didn't start with the Bush administration. I 
think it has probably gotten worse during this time, but it goes back 
several administrations. I am not here to point fingers today.
  By voting for this amendment today, Senators would add 23,000 
additional full-time border agents. We would add new border monitoring 
technology. We would add 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 700 miles of 
fence, 105 radar and camera towers. We would add resources to detain 
45,000 illegal immigrants.
  So this is, as Senator Sessions said, a concrete step in the right 
direction. This is good public policy. I know we have broad bipartisan 
support for this legislation. I want to thank my colleagues for giving 
this strong consideration, and I ask that they look at this legislation 
before we vote in just a few minutes.
  Before I sit down, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu and

[[Page S10064]]

Senator McCaskill be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors Senators Alexander, Dole, Domenici, and Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator add me as a cosponsor?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and 
Senator Coburn from Oklahoma also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to thank my good friend from 
Arkansas. It has been a pleasure working with him and all of my 
colleagues. Senator Gregg has been working on this issue for many 
years. Senator Cornyn's addition to the amendment last night has made 
it far better. If no one else would like to speak----
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Feinstein as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Graham amendment No. 2480.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--1

       
       Voinovich
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brownback
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
     Stevens
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2480) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.


                            Subpoenas Issued

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is 
issuing subpoenas to political operatives at the White House for 
documents and testimony related to the committee's ongoing 
investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and the 
politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice. 
This is not a step I take lightly. For over 4 months I have exhausted 
every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. 
Scott Jennings but to no avail. They and the White House have 
stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to 
withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former 
officials--not current officials but former officials--to refuse to 
answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.
  We have now reached a point where accumulated evidence shows that 
political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at 
least nine U.S. attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that 
the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks 
in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. And today I 
will subpoena Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. The evidence shows that senior 
officials were apparently focused on the political impact of Federal 
prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring 
partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is obvious that the 
reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a coverup and 
that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that 
same effort. Just this week, during his sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales 
contrasted these firings with the replacement of other U.S. attorneys 
for ``legitimate cause.''
  The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, 
despite testimony under oath and on the record that the President was 
not involved. The White House refuses to provide a factual basis for 
its blanket claims. The White House has instructed former White House 
officials not to testify about what they know and instructed Harriet 
Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary 
Committee subpoena. The White House has withheld relevant documents and 
instructed other witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the 
Congress but only to the White House.
  Last week, the White House did much to substantiate the evidence that 
it is intent on reducing U.S. attorneys and Federal law enforcement to 
merely another partisan political aspect of its efforts when it 
dispatched an anonymous senior official to take the position that the 
U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia would not be permitted to 
follow the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of 
executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress. In essence, 
this White House asserts its claim of privilege is the final word, that 
Congress may not review it, that no court can review it and that this 
White House, unlike any White House in history, is above the law.
  Two days ago, during an oversight hearing with Mr. Gonzales, the 
senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, rightly asked:

       Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional 
     government in the United States can survive if the President 
     has unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on 
     grounds of executive privilege and the President then acts to 
     bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to 
     whether that executive privilege is properly invoked?

  There can be no more conclusive demonstration of this 
administration's partisan intervention in Federal law enforcement than 
if this administration were to instruct the Justice Department not to 
pursue congressional contempt citations and intervene to prevent a U.S. 
attorney from fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty. In other words, 
telling the U.S. attorney: Violate your oath of office; don't carry out 
your sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and 
proceed pursuant to section 194 of title 2 of the United States Code. 
The President recently abused the pardon power to forestall Scooter 
Libby from ever serving a

[[Page S10065]]

single day of his 30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on 
multiple counts of perjury, lying to a grand jury, and obstruction of 
justice. Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further 
demonstration that this administration refuses to abide by the rule of 
law.
  This stonewalling is a dramatic break from the practices of every 
administration since World War II in responding to congressional 
oversight. In that time, Presidential advisers have testified before 
congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by 
subpoenas. During the Clinton administration, White House and 
administration advisers were routinely subpoenaed for documents or to 
appear before Congress. For example, in 1996 alone, the House 
Government Reform Committee issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House 
advisers. The veil of secrecy this administration has pulled over the 
White House is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open 
government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the 
Republic.
  The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of U.S. 
attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an 
ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an 
administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our 
constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty 
over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.
  What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive 
evidence of who made the decisions to fire these Federal prosecutors. 
We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who 
has testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior 
officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were 
added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among 
the Federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have 
been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives 
at the White House.
  A former political director at the White House made a revealing 
admission in her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
when she refused to answer questions citing the oath she took to the 
President. In this constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public 
officials is to the Constitution, not any particular President of any 
particular party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office 
of the President. Every President since George Washington has shown to 
``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' 
The oath for other Federal official is prescribed by Congress through 
statute and provides that every Federal officer's duty is not to 
support and defend any particular President or administration but ``to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to 
bear true faith and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order so that the Senator can be 
heard?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order? Take conversations outside 
the Chamber, please.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will say that again.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will. The witness testified that she had taken an oath 
to the President. I reminded her the oath is to the Constitution, not 
to any particular President.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the 
constitutional authority in this body, knows that every President since 
George Washington has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. `` . . . to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States'' and ``to bear truth fair and allegiance'' to our 
founding principles and law, not to a particular political party or to 
a President.
  I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the oath I have been privileged to 
take as a U.S. Senator is likewise to the Constitution. I proudly 
represent the people of Vermont. I know it is a privilege to serve as a 
temporary steward of the Constitution and the values and protections 
for the rights and liberties of the American people that it embodies. 
My oath is not to a political party and not even to the great 
institution of the U.S. Senate but to the Constitution and the rule of 
law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that independent law 
enforcement is an essential component of our democratic government, and 
that no one is above the law.
  Despite the constitutional duty of all members of the executive 
branch to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' the 
message from this White House is that the President, Vice President, 
and their loyal aides are above the law. No check. No balance. No 
accountability.
  The law says otherwise. The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec.  
194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt 
citation, the U.S. attorney to whom it is sent has a ``duty'' and 
``shall'' ``bring it before the grand jury for its action.'' For this 
White House to threaten to intervene in an effort to preempt further 
investigation, cover up the truth and avoid accountability is an insult 
to the rule of law. This law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress 
and signed by a duly elected President of the United States. It is 
derived from law that has been on the books since 1857, for 150 years.
  The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our 
constitutional system of checks and balances. Not since the darkest 
days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt 
federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to 
avoid accountability.
  Given the stonewalling by this White House, the American people are 
left to wonder: What is it that the White House is so desperate to 
hide? As more and more stories leak out about the involvement of Karl 
Rove and his political team in political briefings of what should be 
nonpartisan government offices, I think we have a better sense of what 
they are trying to hide. We have learned of political briefings at over 
20 government agencies, including briefings attended by Justice 
Department officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed 
diplomats on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections. 
Why, Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were 
members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political 
contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political 
operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services 
Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies? In 
her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former 
political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that 
her briefings included specific political races and particular 
candidates being targeted.
  In this context, is anyone surprised that the evidence in our 
investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys for political purposes 
points to Mr. Rove and his political operations in the White House? 
Despite the initial White House denials, Mr. Rove's involvement in 
these firings is indicated by the Department of Justice documents we 
have obtained and from the testimony of high-ranking Department 
officials. This evidence shows that he was involved from the beginning 
in plans to remove U.S. attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated 
inquiries at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed 
regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. attorneys. The evidence 
also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New 
Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David 
Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks 
after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of 
purported ``voter fraud'' enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.
  We have learned that Mr. Rove raised similar concerns with the 
Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter 
fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term 
election he sent the Attorney General's chief of staff a packet of 
information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin 
in 2004. This evidence points to his role and the role of those in his 
office in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered 
sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such manipulation 
shows corruption of Federal law enforcement for partisan political 
purposes.

[[Page S10066]]

  Documents and testimony also show that Mr. Rove had a role in the 
shaping the administration's response to congressional inquiries into 
these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to 
Congress and statements to the public. This response included an 
attempt to cover up the role that he and other White House officials 
played in the firings.
  Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd 
Graves, U.S. attorney in the Western District of Missouri, was fired 
after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have 
stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When 
the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the 
person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown 
out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also 
brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite 
the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a 
responsible prosecutor is replaced by a ``loyal Bushie'' for partisan, 
political purposes.

  Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica 
Goodling likewise admitted ``crossing the line'' when she used a 
political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. 
Rather than keep Federal law enforcement above politics, this 
administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.
  The Senator from Washington has been very good to let me have this 
time. With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House 
takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive 
privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not 
involved in the dismissals of these U.S. attorneys. I hope that the 
White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own 
making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward 
interference with federal law enforcement. That interference has 
threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American people's 
confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. 
Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to continue 
manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. 
Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary 
constitutional confrontation than do what every other administration 
has done and find an accommodation with the Congress. If there are any 
cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to reconsider the 
course they have chosen.
  There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope 
they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can 
move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of 
Justice and the American people's trust and confidence in Federal law 
enforcement.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on a matter of personal privilege.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for one moment, I say to the leader.


                       Explanation for Not Voting

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to indicate that on the last vote, 
Senator Wyden and I were in the Budget Committee on the confirmation 
hearing of Mr. Nussle. We called over to ask that the vote be held so 
that we could come to the floor and cast our votes. If I had been here, 
my vote would have been ``yea'' on the Graham amendment. I want the 
Record to reflect that fact. Senator Wyden should also be recognized 
for a similar purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on a matter of personal privilege, I 
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Conrad. I will be very 
brief.
  We were in the middle of critical issues. I was asking about a 
program that is a lifeline to the rural West, the county payments 
program where the administration is trying to change 100 years of 
history, and on a bipartisan basis the Senate indicated it wants to 
oppose that program.
  Had I been here, I would have, as Senator Conrad, voted for that 
measure, strongly supporting efforts to strengthen border security.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able 
to proceed for a few moments as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia objects?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield just 
for a second? The Senator said ``for a few moments.'' How long is that?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Probably about 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. That is fine. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


             Condolences to Senator Norm Coleman and Family

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me notify all Members of the Senate 
that Senator Norm Coleman's father passed away this morning. Therefore, 
he missed the vote that we just had and will be missing votes for the 
remainder of this week. I know I speak for all Members of the Senate in 
sending our condolences to Senator Coleman and his family at this very 
sad time. We look forward to having him back in the Senate in due time.


                  Nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to make a few observations about 
the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Over the past few days, members of the Democratic leadership 
have commented about Judge Southwick's nomination. These comments have, 
in my view, mischaracterized his record and his service to the people 
of his State. Worse still, some of our Democratic colleagues have made 
insinuations about the commitment of this fine man to the principle of 
equal justice for all. These gross insinuations are, of course, at odds 
with the views of his peers and his home State Senators, both of whom 
actually know him.
  So over the next several days, we will continue to set the record 
straight, as the ranking member did so ably yesterday, to ensure that 
the Senate does not treat dishonorably an honorable man, a fine judge, 
and a courageous war veteran. Judge Southwick deserves more from this 
country than insinuation and innuendo. This leads me to a much broader 
point.
  My friend, the majority leader, and I have an understanding--at least 
I believe we had an understanding--as to how this Senate would treat 
judicial nominees in general. A fundamental component of that 
understanding is that individual nominees will be treated fairly. That 
commitment to fair treatment may be in serious jeopardy with the 
Southwick nomination.
  I remind my colleagues that the Judiciary Committee unanimously 
approved Judge Southwick for a lifetime appointment to the district 
court just last fall, but it is now threatening to kill his nomination 
on a party-line vote in committee. The only material change in Judge 
Southwick's qualifications between last fall and now is the rating of 
the American Bar Association, the Democrats' gold standard for judicial 
nominees. The ABA has actually increased its rating of Judge Southwick. 
In other words, they have given him a higher rating for the circuit 
court than for the district court. Judge Southwick was rated ``well 
qualified'' for the district court. He is now rated ``unanimously well 
qualified,'' which means every single member of the committee who took 
a look at his credentials for the circuit court found Judge Southwick 
well qualified. That is the highest possible rating one can achieve for 
a judicial nomination from the American Bar Association.
  It goes without saying that for committee Democrats to oppose Judge 
Southwick for the circuit court after having supported him for the 
district without any change in the man's record would certainly fall 
far short of treating the man fairly.
  I encourage my Democratic colleagues to think hard about the 
implications of unfair treatment for Judge Southwick for this Congress 
and, for that matter, for future Congresses.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S10067]]

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2488 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so that my amendment at the desk may be called up, 
amendment No. 2488.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2488 to amendment No. 2383.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit U.S. Customs and Border Protection or any agency 
or office within the Department of Homeland Security from preventing an 
 individual not in the business of importing a prescription drug from 
        importing an FDA-approved prescription drug from Canada)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection or any agency or office 
     within the Department of Homeland Security may be used to 
     prevent an individual from importing a prescription drug from 
     Canada if--
       (1) such individual--
       (A) is not in the business of importing a prescription drug 
     (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(g))); and
       (B) only imports a personal-use quantity of such drug that 
     does not exceed a 90-day supply; and
       (2) such drug--
       (A) complies with sections 501, 502, and 505 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, and 355); 
     and
       (B) is not--
       (i) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (ii) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).


                Amendment No. 2496 to Amendment No. 2488

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
it be reported on behalf of myself and Mr. Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and 
     Mr. Byrd, proposes an amendment numbered 2496 to amendment 
     No. 2488.

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

       In lieu of the matter propoed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       None of the funds made available in this Act for United 
     States Customs and Border Protection may be used to prevent 
     an individual not in the business of importing a prescription 
     drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) from importing a prescription 
     drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act: Provided, That this section shall apply 
     only to individuals transporting on their person a personal-
     use quantity of the prescription drug, not to exceed a 90-day 
     supply: Provided further, That the prescription drug may not 
     be--
       (1) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (2) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, simply so I can understand the posture we 
are in and the nature of this amendment, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu joined me in including 
important language in the Senate report that accompanies the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This language 
addresses a serious trade problem that is affecting the United States 
and many of its most critical industries. Our report language directs 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to undertake a more vigorous 
approach to collecting unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties 
which are owed the United States under the U.S. trade laws.
  In our report language, the Appropriations Committee directs CBP to 
work with the Departments of Commerce and Treasury and the Office of 
the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the collection of duties owed 
on unfairly traded U.S. imports. CBP--Customs and Border Protection--is 
directed to provide an annual report to the committee within 30 days of 
each year's distributions under the Continued Dumping and Subsidies 
Offset Act. The CBP report must summarize the Agency's efforts to 
collect past-due amounts and to increase current collections, 
particularly with respect to cases involving unfairly traded U.S. 
imports from China.
  The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act--also known as the Byrd 
amendment--was enacted on October 28 in the year of our Lord 2000. It 
provides that assessed duties received pursuant to either an 
antidumping or a countervailing duty order must be distributed by 
Customs to affected domestic producers for certain expenditures that 
the producers incurred after the order was put in place.
  On June 4, 2007, CBP transmitted to Congress a fiscal year 2006 
report on annual antidumping and countervailing duties collected on a 
case-by-case basis. The report stated that while CBP distributed nearly 
$400 million to more than 1,700 affected domestic producers in fiscal 
year 2006, a whopping--hear me--a whopping $146,391,239.89 was due but 
never--never--collected. Astoundingly, the amount of uncollected 
antidumping and countervailing duties not collected since 2000 is 
approaching $700 million.
  Let me read that again. Hear me now. Astoundingly, the amount of 
uncollected antidumping and countervailing duties not collected since 
the year 2000 is approaching $700 million, with the largest uncollected 
amount, over $400 million, owed in a single case: dumped crawfish tail 
meat from China.
  On June 20, 2007, CBP advised that, since October 1, 2001, CBP has 
simply ``written off'' $30.3 million in uncollected antidumping and 
countervailing duties. The greatest amount written off, again, was in 
the case of crawfish meat from China, where CBP wrote off nearly $7.5 
million. That is a lot of money. This is money that otherwise would 
have been distributed directly to eligible U.S. crawfish producers. 
This means these funds will never be distributed to the hundreds of 
deserving American families to whom they are owed. What a shame.

  Have Senators heard of Moon Landrieu? That was this Senator's father, 
Senator Landrieu. I would like to ask my esteemed colleague from 
Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, if she is similarly concerned about our 
Government's failure to collect these funds, recompense which is now 
lost--to whom? To Louisiana's honest and hard-working crawfish farmers 
and processors.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank Senator Byrd, because I am extremely concerned 
about this situation and hope we could find a remedy. I commend the 
Senator for his work over many years, to try to make sure our trade 
laws are fairly enforced and that agreements we have entered into, with 
countries such as China and others, are followed. But in this instance, 
as the Senator has so eloquently stated in this discussion this morning 
on the floor, this situation is not being handled correctly. Our 
industries, particularly in Louisiana, that he has mentioned, our 
crawfish producers have lost more money from the failure of U.S. 
importers to pay duties owed by China than any industry in our Nation. 
In Louisiana alone--I know it might be hard for people to believe this, 
but as spring rolls around, it will become quite evident--we have 3,300 
crawfish farmers in our State and over 40 processors who employ a 
tremendous number of people and contribute hundreds of millions of 
dollars to our economy. The Senator from West Virginia understands our 
Government has failed to collect almost $70 million for this industry 
alone. This is antidumping duties on crawfish tail meat from China owed 
to the processors in my State and to our crawfish

[[Page S10068]]

farmers. There are additional funds that are owed.
  It is my understanding--and the Senator from West Virginia is very 
aware--that our Customs officials are required to collect these duties, 
but they are not being collected. Many of these importers simply close 
up shop, they change their names, they move offshore, they reorganize, 
and evidently we are not able to collect the money that is owed to us. 
It is a great detriment to this particular industry and to others.
  I have expressed concern over the years. We are going to continue to 
press this issue. We will continue in Congress to work to solve this 
problem. I feel very strongly that our U.S. Secretary of Commerce, 
Secretary Gutierrez, and the U.S. Trade Ambassador, Susan Schwab, 
should take this up directly with the China Ministry of Foreign Trade 
and Economic Cooperation. China sought to become a WTO member. It is my 
firm belief, if China wants to receive the benefits that accrue to them 
through WTO, they should enforce them and help us, and we should do a 
better job of making sure the importers abide by the rules we have 
agreed to.
  I was very pleased to see in response to concerns raised by the 
Senate, GAO recently announced it has begun an indepth investigation as 
to why our Government cannot seem to collect duties owed to U.S. 
industries on goods imported from China.
  Since 2003, the total amount of uncollected duties on all antidumping 
countervailing duty orders for all countries totaled $630 million. Of 
this amount, $485 million, or 77 percent of the total, relates to 34 
specific antidumping and countervailing duty orders that have been 
imposed by the United States on agriculture and aquacultural imports 
from all countries. Of that $485 million, 73 percent relate to six 
antidumping orders that have been imposed on U.S. agricultural and 
aquacultural imports from China alone.
  While the biggest duty noncollection problem in my State relates to 
the crawfish industry, as the Senator from West Virginia most certainly 
knows, Louisiana also is experiencing a problem with our catfish 
farmers. I see the senior Senator from Mississippi. This affects 
Mississippi, it affects Arkansas, it affects Alabama. We were unable to 
collect almost one-third of the fees that are owed to our catfish 
farmers.
  These are hard-working businesspeople who work long hours, who are 
trying to run these industries and abide by all environmental 
regulations, pay their taxes, abide by all the wage and hour laws in 
this country. When we enter into trade agreements, the least our 
Government can do is enforce them. That is what I come to the floor to 
express my concern about, through this colloquy with the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.
  I commend the Senator for his tireless work. We are going to press on 
this issue of noncollection. I hope, even if this Subsidy Offset Act 
expires, our Government will continue to collect the money that is owed 
to us during the time this act was in effect. It means a great deal to 
the small businesses in my State, to crawfishers and catfish producers 
equally. I am hoping we can make some progress and do not continue to 
have our trade laws undermined in this way.
  I thank the Senator for this time on the floor and I thank him for 
his continued work on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                Amendment No. 2505 to Amendment No. 2468

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  Mr. VITTER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2468 is pending. The clerk will 
report.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I make a point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 2505 to amendment 
     No. 2468.

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

(Purpose: Relating to bringing Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al 
                           Qaeda to justice)

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       Sec. 536. (a) Enhanced Reward for Capture of Osama Bin 
     Laden.--Section 36(e)(1) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708(e)(1)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The Secretary 
     shall authorize a reward of $50,000,000 for the capture or 
     killing, or information leading to the capture or death, of 
     Osama bin Laden.''.
       (b) Status of Efforts To Bring Osama Bin Laden and Other 
     Leaders of Al Qaeda to Justice.--
       (1) Reports required.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, in coordination with the Director of National 
     Intelligence, jointly submit to Congress a report on the 
     progress made in bringing Osama bin Laden and other leaders 
     of al Qaeda to justice.
       (2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, current as of the date of such report, the 
     following:
       (A) An assessment of the likely current location of 
     terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-
     Zawahiri, and other key leaders of al Qaeda.
       (B) A description of ongoing efforts to bring to justice 
     such terrorist leaders, particularly those who have been 
     directly implicated in attacks in the United States and its 
     embassies.
       (C) An assessment of whether the government of each country 
     assessed as a likely location of top leaders of al Qaeda has 
     fully cooperated in efforts to bring those leaders to 
     justice.
       (D) A description of diplomatic efforts currently being 
     made to improve the cooperation of the governments described 
     in subparagraph (C).
       (E) A description of the current status of the top 
     leadership of al Qaeda and the strategy for locating them and 
     bringing them to justice.
       (F) An assessment of whether al Qaeda remains the terrorist 
     organization that poses the greatest threat to United States 
     interests, including the greatest threat to the territorial 
     United States.
       (3) Form of report.--Each report submitted to Congress 
     under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in a classified form, 
     and shall be accompanied by a report in unclassified form 
     that redacts the classified information in the report.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, point of order. What is the pending 
business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Landrieu amendment, No. 2468, with the 
Dorgan second degree.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have sent a second-degree amendment to 
the desk to the Landrieu amendment. My second degree will not strike 
her amendment. As a matter of fact, it will add at the end of her 
amendment the provisions of an amendment I had offered on Defense 
authorization. I am to chair the Democratic Policy Committee luncheon 
in a few minutes so I am not able to speak at length about this 
amendment. I intend to do that at some later point.
  I wish to mention what Senator Landrieu has described in her first-
degree amendment, the interest in having as our major policy goal here 
with respect to the fight against terrorism, the destruction of and 
elimination of the leadership of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden. My 
amendment is one I had offered, as I said, to the Defense authorization 
bill, previously. It is an amendment that requires a quarterly 
classified report to be offered to the Congress that would tell us what 
is being done to bring to justice the leadership of al-Qaida.
  The reason for offering that is quite simple. A week ago, we had a 
new National Intelligence Estimate, an NIE, given to the Congress in 
classified and unclassified form; an NIE that was reported to the 
American people. The reports were not particularly surprising but in 
some ways stunning. The report says the greatest terrorist threat to 
our homeland, in this country--the greatest terrorist threat to our 
homeland is al-Qaida and its leadership. It also says al-Qaida and its 
leadership is in a secure hideaway or safe harbor.
  I ask the question for which there is no answer: Why, nearly 6 years 
after 
9/11/2001, in which Osama bin Laden boasted about engineering the 
murder of thousands of innocent Americans--why, after 6 years, is there 
a safe harbor or secure hideaway anywhere on this planet for the 
leadership of al-Qaida and for Osama bin Laden? That, in my judgment, 
is a failure.
  We have a lot of briefings in this Congress; some of them classified, 
top secret briefings. There are no briefings

[[Page S10069]]

that I am aware of on what is being done or what has not been done to 
bring to justice, to apprehend, and eliminate the leadership of al-
Qaida. Those briefings do not exist. One of the reasons that perhaps we 
have not seen progress in bringing to justice and eliminating the 
leadership of al-Qaida is the President himself said: I don't think 
much about that. I don't think much, don't care much about Osama bin 
Laden.
  If you believe the intelligence estimates, they are today planning 
additional attacks against this country. Yesterday, we woke up to the 
news that there are apparently dry runs, they think--our intelligence 
people think there are dry runs being made in our airports with various 
things packed in luggage by terrorists who want to do potential attacks 
later. We hear all these reports and the question remains: Why is it 
the leadership of the organization that poses the greatest terrorist 
threat to this country has a secure hideaway somewhere or a safe haven 
somewhere? There ought not be a square inch of ground on this planet 
that is safe for those who murdered Americans on 9/11, for those who 
pose the greatest threat to this country. That is intolerable.
  The Defense authorization bill will come back to the floor of the 
Senate, I guess. This amendment I have offered is in that piece of 
legislation. But to make certain this amendment becomes law and gets to 
the desk of the President for signature, I have offered it to this 
appropriations bill. I understand it fits better on Defense 
authorization. My hope is that is where it will wind up on the 
President's desk.
  It seems to me we went through agonizing debates and passionate 
debates on the floor of the Senate about the war in Iraq. I respect 
everybody's opinion on those issues. But while we have soldiers who got 
up this morning and strapped on body armor and got in humvees and then 
went and knocked door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, 
where Shias are killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Shias and Shias 
and Sunnis are both killing Americans--while that happened this morning 
in the middle of a civil war, we have the greatest terrorist threat to 
this country apparently in a safe harbor or secure hideaway. That ought 
not exist. First things first. Let's fight the terrorists first and 
defeat the terrorists first. That ought to be the first and most 
important priority and responsibility. If they are the greatest threat 
to this country, let's eliminate that threat. That ought to be the goal 
of this country. That is why I offer this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Senator, tell the Senate about his amendment again. Let me 
hear about the amendment again.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment has two parts to it. No. 1, 
it increases the reward for the elimination of the al-Qaida leadership 
and Osama bin Laden, and, No. 2, it required a quarterly classified 
report to be made to the Congress, every quarter, from this 
administration and from any administration, to say what they are doing, 
to tell us what they have been doing to try to apprehend and bring to 
justice and eliminate the leadership of the greatest terrorist threat 
to this country.
  Is it too much to ask that we ought to be informed?
  Mr. BYRD. No.
  Mr. DORGAN. We ought to understand what is being done or what is not 
being done. I think the American people have a reason to ask the 
question: Why, nearly 6 years later, do we now read--and I have read it 
on a number of occasions in unclassified versions of classified reports 
that say--there is a secure hideaway for Osama bin Laden and the 
leadership of al-Qaida?
  There is a secure hideaway. There is safe haven. Now, why should any 
place on this Earth be secure or safe for those who would attack this 
country?
  Mr. BYRD. Where? Where? Where is that, Senator?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, the intelligence reports indicate that somewhere 
between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the tribal-controlled mountainous 
regions, there is some sort of safe hideaway or secure hideaway or safe 
haven, as they call it. I have flown over this region. I have looked 
down, and I know there is no border. You cannot tell what country you 
are in. I have flown over the region that they call tribal-controlled 
between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no evidence of a country 
boundary. It is a tough country, tough region, I understand that.
  But if we now have al-Qaida reconstituting and rebuilding training 
camps, which they are doing--they are recruiting new recruits, they are 
building training camps, they are planning attacks against the West, 
planning attacks against the United States of America, and doing so in 
a secure hideaway or safe haven--then I say that is wrong. It ought to 
be job No. 1 for this country to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida 
that represents the greatest threat to our country.
  That is the purpose of this amendment, to say we want that to be the 
overriding and overarching goal, and we want reports, classified 
reports every single quarter of what has been done or what has not been 
done because I do not believe, frankly, this has been a significant 
priority.
  It certainly should have been. If it has not been in the past, at 
least let's make it so in the future.
  Mr. BYRD. I compliment the Senator on his statement. Am I a cosponsor 
of this amendment?
  Mr. DORGAN. I want to say that Senator Conrad joins me in this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a 
cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. As I said, I have to chair the Democratic policy 
committee luncheon in just a moment. I wanted to make a comment on the 
amendments that have been offered, and perhaps after the policy 
committee luncheon, if these issues are still pending, I will be able 
to comment.
  Senator Vitter has offered an amendment dealing with prescription 
drugs. Senator Cochran has second-degreed that amendment, as I 
understand it. I believe we ought to have access to lower priced 
prescription drugs, FDA-approved prescription drugs.
  Lower priced prescription drugs exist in virtually every other 
country of the world. Why should the American consumer not have the 
capability to acquire them under our current rules? I would say that we 
already have a circumstance where we are allowed about a 90-day supply 
of drugs, if someone walks across the border or drives across and comes 
back with a personal use, 90-day supply. Very few Americans live close 
enough to the border to be able to do that. But we have an amendment 
that is a broad bipartisan amendment; 30-some Members of the Senate 
have worked on it, cosponsored it. This will not be the legislation in 
which we consider that amendment, I do not expect.
  The amendment that Senator Vitter has offered, as second-degreed by 
Senator Cochran, would simply restate current rules; that is, currently 
what is allowed. It would simply restate current rules, which I assume 
offends no one but accomplishes nothing as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 11 
amendments pending on this bill. There are points of order that lie 
against several of them. And the managers will make those whenever they 
see fit. I hope that those people who have other amendments pending 
would agree to short time agreements on them and accept a time for 
voting. Maybe the managers can even accept some of them.
  This is a bill we want to finish today. It is an important piece of 
legislation. It has been improved in many different ways, not the least 
of which is this border security legislation that was passed earlier 
today. So I hope that Democrats and Republicans who offered these 
amendments will contact the managers and agree on a reasonable period 
of time so we can vote. It is 1 o'clock in the afternoon. It is 
important we do this.
  I do not want to sound like a stuck record, but we have to finish 
this legislation before we go home in August. We have to finish the 
SCHIP bill before we go home in August. We have a 9/11 conference 
report we have to finish before we go home in August. We have the 
ethics and lobbying reform we have to finish before we go home in 
August. We are going to do that.
  Everybody should understand--and, of course, I mentioned on the floor 
about the bill that Senators Boxer and

[[Page S10070]]

Inhofe have worked on dealing with WRDA, which is so important to the 
whole country, but certainly important to the western part of the 
United States.
  Mr. DORGAN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me say that on the amendment I just offered, I would 
be glad to a 10-minute time agreement when we get ready. I expect we 
will not need a recorded vote on that. But I know, as the Senator from 
Nevada is pointing out, we had an objection to even the motion to 
proceed on this bill, which was strange to me. Why would anybody have 
objected to proceeding?
  Now we get a bill on the floor, and Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, 
the chairman and ranking member, I know they want to get this done. I 
believe we ought to get these appropriations bills through and out of 
here. This is a good bill.
  I hope this afternoon Senators can come and offer the amendments. I 
hope we can get this bill done today. It is not just this bill, we have 
got a lot of appropriations bills we have to do. So the Senator from 
Nevada, the majority leader, has an important message: We need to get 
this appropriations bill done. It deals with homeland security after 
all.
  Mr. REID. That is a really good example to set for the other people 
offering amendments. I would also say, as I said on the Senate floor 
this morning, there is an extremely important congressional delegation 
that is scheduled to be in Greenland this weekend. I would really 
like--first of all, I would like to have gone on the trip. But there 
are 10 or 11 Senators scheduled to go on that trip. I hope that trip 
can take place. But we are going to have to get this legislation done.
  If we get some idea that there is a real stall going on here, we will 
have to file cloture on the conference report dealing with homeland 
security, the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and that vote would not 
take place until Saturday. So we are doing our best to work through all 
of this. But I want everyone to know, as I have said here so many 
times, we have a very few things to do, but we are going to do them. 
And it is no bluff. We have a whole month to complete everything in 
August. I hope people will help us work through that so that is not 
necessary.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like for our majority leader to say 
that again.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to do that for my distinguished friend, 
the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia, of the West 
Virginia hills.
  We have four things to do for sure: the bill we are on now, this 
appropriations bill, children's health, the conference report on the 9/
11 Commission recommendations, and the message that we are going to get 
from the House on ethics and lobbying reform. Those four things are 
essential.
  The luxury we would have is also to complete WRDA. The conference 
report is important. We should be able to do that quickly. We got a 
huge vote when it came out of here.
  These are the things that we must do before we leave. This is not 
anything new that I just sprung on anybody. That is something that I 
have been saying for a long time. We have made great progress. I am 
very happy with it. We were able to get Wounded Warriors done. We were 
able to get the pay raise for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines. We were also able to pass for the first time in 3 years the 
higher education bill--that is important--reconciliation, getting the 
biggest change in how students are able to go to our schools in our 
country since the GI bill. We have a few things we need to do, and we 
really need to do it.
  I repeat, it is almost 1 o'clock on Thursday. I will be happy to work 
into the night to complete this bill. I say that the managers of the 
bill says it all, Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran. They are the best 
we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, taking the distinguished majority leader's 
words to heart, I would like to ask the Senate to return to the Vitter 
amendment to try to dispose of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator repeat his request?
  Mr. VITTER. The request is to return to the Vitter amendment to 
dispose of that and proceed with the business of the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. What is the number of the amendment?
  Mr. VITTER. Amendment No. 2488, which is pending.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would object at this time and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. I renew my unanimous consent request to go back to 
amendment No. 2488.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, at this point I send a modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, just to be transparent and clear to 
everyone, this modification of my amendment takes out a specific 
provision limiting the amendment to a 90-day supply.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the modification.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection or any agency or office 
     within the Department of Homeland Security may be used to 
     prevent an individual from importing a prescription drug from 
     Canada if--
       (1) such individual--
       (A) is not in the business of importing a prescription drug 
     (within the meaning of section 801(g) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(g))); and
       (2) such drug--
       (A) complies with sections 501, 502, and 505 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, and 355); 
     and
       (B) is not--
       (i) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (ii) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will be happy to explain exactly what 
the modification is. The modification simply takes one phrase out of 
the previous version of my amendment. And that single phrase in the old 
version of my amendment limited the amendment to a 90-day supply of 
prescription drugs.
  That limitation is now taken out of my amendment. That is the only 
thing the modification does. Now, the purpose of the modification is to 
now make it a pure funding limitation amendment so that it is not 
subject to the point of order of authorizing on an appropriations bill.
  That is the full explanation of the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect 
to the Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Landrieu amendment is pending.
  Mr. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to walk 
everyone through where we are right now.
  About 15 or 20 minutes ago, the majority leader came over to the 
Senate to talk to us about moving quickly through the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill that is now on the floor because, as he described, 
we have many

[[Page S10071]]

items of business that need to be accomplished before the Senate goes 
into recess for the August break. He asked the managers of this 
legislation, Senators Byrd and Cochran, to work with Senators who have 
pending amendments to move them through in an orderly fashion so we 
could possibly finish this bill by tonight and go on to the rest of the 
business that needs to be completed.
  In complying with that, Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran and myself 
worked out an agreement to begin to deal with some of those amendments. 
That is how we work in the Senate. We would never finish everything if 
we didn't take some time to have conversations to figure out how we can 
work through amendments in an orderly fashion.
  There are 11 amendments currently pending that we are trying to work 
our way through. One of those amendments is an amendment offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, which he had a right to come and 
offer. It was not the pending matter. The pending matter was the 
Landrieu amendment, second degreed by the Dorgan amendment.
  In order to get to the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, we had to 
agree by unanimous consent to set that aside. We talked to the Senator 
and agreed on a process to dispose of his amendment. Senator Byrd, 
Senator Cochran, Senator Vitter, and I were here to come to an 
agreement that Senator Vitter would offer his amendment. He understood 
that a point of order lay against that regarding whether it was a rule 
XVI. He understood that Senator Cochran's second-degree amendment also 
was in the same procedural difficulty.
  The agreement was that we would agree to lay the amendment aside, 
Senator Vitter would set aside the amendment, go to his amendment, and 
a point of order would lie against it, as well as a point of order 
against the second degree offered by Senator Cochran. It sounds 
complex, but the upshot was, it would dispose of the amendment, a point 
of order would lie against it, and we would move on to the other 
numerous amendments that now lay before the Senate.
  In this body, it is extremely important that we all have the 
opportunity to work out these agreements so we can work through bills 
in an orderly fashion. I assumed that would be the case, that we had 
all agreed upon that and that would be the order this would go to.
  Unfortunately, when the Senator rose to ask to set aside the 
amendment, according to the agreement we agreed to, I did not object. 
The Senator went to his amendment, and instead of going through the 
process we had all agreed upon, he sent a modification to the desk that 
changed his underlying amendment and meant that it no longer had a 
point of order lying against it.
  That is a difficult position it puts us all in because we have 11 
amendments, possibly more, to get through. If we can't come to an 
agreement and trust each other on how the process is going to move 
forward and go outside that, we are not going to be able to get through 
these amendments, because this Senate really is based on trust.
  So, Madam President, we are now in the parliamentary position where 
we have gone back to the regular order. Another amendment is pending. 
If we move through these in proper fashion, the amendment offered by 
Senator Vitter will now be at the end of 12 amendments that are now in 
order. At some point we will get to it, but we now are in a difficult 
position of: How do we move through all these other amendments that are 
being offered? How do we deal with all the other Senators who are going 
to come to the floor and ask us to work through these amendments, if we 
cannot have an agreement that this Senate--when Senators stand on the 
floor and agree to it--knows that is what will occur? So we find 
ourselves in a very difficult position.
  I see the majority leader is on the Senate floor and will yield to 
him if he would like to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I gave a talk a week ago tomorrow to a 
group of people. It was a church meeting. There were adults and young 
adults there. I told them about my experience serving in the Congress. 
I have served in the House, and I have served in the Senate. It is not 
like when I practiced law.
  When I practiced law, you put everything in writing. We do not do 
that in the Congress. We do not do that in the Senate. Your word is 
your bond. If a Republican Senator or a Democratic Senator--it does not 
matter--if you tell them you are going to do something, that is the way 
it is.
  To show how powerful and important that is, Alan Bible was a Senator 
from Nevada who served 20 years and became ill. He retired. When he 
passed away--there was a plane that was always available to take 
Senators to funerals. The plane was scheduled to go to Nevada so 
Senators could attend Alan Bible's funeral.
  There was a Republican on that airplane, Ted Stevens. The reason he 
was on that airplane was there was a vote very important to Ted Stevens 
dealing with Alaskan oil. Alan Bible had given his word he was going to 
vote with Ted Stevens. There was tremendous pressure on Alan Bible. 
Alan Bible's vote was the essential vote, and he withstood all the 
pressure and voted with Ted Stevens. That is the reason Ted Stevens 
went to Reno, NV: to honor the life of Alan Bible because he kept his 
word.
  That is what we do in this Senate. We keep our word. It does not 
matter with whom you make an arrangement; if you tell him you are going 
to do something, if you tell her you are going to do something, that is 
the way it is.
  So my disappointment in what has happened in the last few minutes 
is--it appears Senator Murray said it in a more discreet fashion than I 
am going to say it. Somebody did not keep their word. And that, I 
suggest, should be worked out. I think if someone in this body is known 
to have broken their word--and I was part of the little conversation 
right here--you do not take advantage of people. There are a lot of 
rules that allow you to take advantage of people, but you cannot do 
that.
  So this is not appropriate. This is wrong. And I would hope that the 
Senator from Louisiana would kind of retrace his steps and back off and 
put us back where we should be. If that is not the case, and he chooses 
not to do that, I think it is going to be a difficult time, I would 
suggest, for him making other arrangements with Senators in the future 
because that is how we do business here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President--while the majority leader is here, and 
the managers of the bill--the parliamentary position in which we now 
find ourselves is that the amendment that is now before the Senate 
under the regular order is the Dorgan amendment to the Landrieu 
amendment.
  Senator Dorgan was on the floor a few minutes ago and said he would 
be willing to agree to a 10-minute debate time and a vote. I know the 
majority leader has several issues that are going on. I would like to 
ask the managers of the amendment how they would like to proceed at 
this point.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I have no 
objection to proceeding to a vote at whatever time the majority leader 
suggests.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Republican floor staff would check 
to find out if we could do the vote at 1:50, 2 o'clock. Two o'clock is 
fine? Two o'clock.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote at 2 o'clock on or in relationship to the Dorgan amendment to the 
Landrieu amendment that is currently pending, with the time equally 
divided between now and 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are not in a quorum call.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 15 
minutes prior to the vote be equally divided between those in favor of 
the amendment and those opposed to it. Senator Dorgan is in favor of 
it, so he would get 7\1/2\ minutes. Is that appropriate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and

[[Page S10072]]

ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 2448 Withdrawn

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, on behalf of the Senator from New York, 
Mr. Schumer, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2448.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I rise to express my disappointment with 
where we find ourselves on the pending bill. We are debating the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. The bill includes over $14 
billion--spelled with a ``b''--for border security. By a vote of 89 to 
1, we just approved $3 billion in emergency funding for border 
security. I note that the bill also includes $1.7 billion for FEMA 
disaster relief to help fund the response to Hurricane Katrina.
  The Senator from Louisiana--where is he? Do you want to hear me? Come 
on out. I want to say it in front of you.
  The Senator from Louisiana is now holding up this bill over a 
legislative matter that is not germane to the measure. As the manager 
of the bill, I thought we had reached an accommodation on how to 
dispose of the matter.
  Instead, the Senator from Louisiana--where is he? He was here a 
moment ago.
  I thought we reached an accommodation on how to dispose of the 
matter. Instead, the Senator from Louisiana offered a new amendment--a 
new amendment.
  Is he here? All right. I want to say it in his presence.
  Instead, the Senator from Louisiana offered a new amendment. I am 
disappointed that the Senator from Louisiana has decided to delay 
consideration of a bill that includes critical funds for aiding the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina.
  Did you hear me? Where is that Senator?
  I am disappointed----
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you for the courtesy.
  First of all, let me say to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, I have the utmost respect for him. I just want to clarify 
that it certainly is not my intent to delay anything. I am happy to 
proceed with votes on this bill--all votes that are lined up, and other 
votes.
  I would also like to make this offer, if it would clarify or help 
heal the past situation. I apologize if anything was miscommunicated 
regarding the last hour or so. But if it would help heal that, I would 
be happy to withdraw my pending amendment as long as I was given the 
opportunity and assured of an opportunity to file a new amendment, 
which is germane, and that could be made pending. And, of course, in 
that context, I would have no objection to anyone, including Senator 
Cochran, being able to offer a second-degree amendment on that 
amendment.
  So I would be happy to withdraw my pending amendment as long as I 
could be given the opportunity to submit an amendment that could be 
made pending rather than have the clock run out or have proceedings and 
votes on the bill happen before that amendment would be made pending.
  But, again, my main point is, it is certainly not my intent to delay 
this bill, or any votes on amendments or the bill, and I am eager to 
proceed with all of those.
  I thank the Senator for the courtesy of yielding.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have not seen any amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to provide a copy of what that new 
amendment would be. I would be happy to do that right now.
  Mr. BYRD. Spell it out on the floor in front of everybody. What is 
the amendment?

  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum so that we may be 
able to see the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Again, I would remind my colleagues that we are 
currently debating the Dorgan amendment to the Landrieu amendment. 
Senator Kerry is on the floor and wishes to speak. I yield him the time 
until 1:45 when it will be equally divided at that time. So the Senator 
has 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, last November was one of those truly rare 
moments in the short history of our country and our democracy. Any 
political science student taking a freshman lecture, of course, will 
hear how incredibly hard it is to remove entrenched congressional 
majorities. They know the statistics about how hard it is to defeat 
incumbents around here. It doesn't happen that often. But sometimes, 
the American people rise up in one moment, as they did last November, 
and they make history. Just six times in our 230-year history has one 
party lost both Houses of Congress, and 2006 was the first time the 
Republican Party failed to win a single House, Senate, or gubernatorial 
office previously held by the Democrats.
  We Democrats have been in that predicament. In 1994, Democrats woke 
up to a landslide defeat some people thought would never come. It 
wasn't always easy, it wasn't always collegial, but we listened and we 
learned. Together, we reached across the aisle to balance the budget 
and reform welfare. We wrestled with why we had lost, and we wrestled 
with what we had to do in order to come together--not just as a party 
but as a country.
  Evidently, some people still haven't wrestled with what happened last 
November 7.
  Last November, Americans were appropriately angry. They saw our young 
men and women in uniform paying the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq for a 
failed policy that was stuck on autopilot. They saw the number of 
Americans without health insurance skyrocket to 45 million, with more 
hard-working Americans joining them every day. They saw record-high oil 
prices and global climate change--a reality denied and deferred and no 
serious national effort to address these issues. They saw staggering 
corruption and no accountability for the way the people's House had 
been turned into a refuge for the special interests. Americans saw a 
politics and a party that was broken, and they rejected the 
stubbornness, cynicism, corruption, and failed policies that made 
``Washington'' a dirty word. They voted for a change.
  President Bush seemed to get the message the day after the 2006 
election when he said to America:

       The message yesterday was clear. The American people want 
     their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan 
     differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work 
     together to address the challenges facing our Nation.

  The President said he got the message, but the question has to be 
asked: What have Republicans done since then? Where are they 6 months 
after their worst electoral defeat in 50 years? What happened to the 
President's postelection statements when measured against the 
President's actions and those of the Republican minority in the Senate? 
Those actions tell a very different story. Before the dust had settled, 
before defeated Republicans had even cleaned out their offices, this 
President and his remaining allies in Congress have made a calculation, 
on issue after issue, that they would just set out to stop everything 
from happening and then they would turn

[[Page S10073]]

around and they would ask: Why is nothing happening under the 
Democrats? This is a pure political calculation. It is wrong for the 
country, and I respectfully would suggest, ultimately, it will be wrong 
for the party. They would rather spend their time attacking Harry Reid 
than attacking the Nation's problems. Delay is no longer just a former 
Republican leader; it has become a Republican way of life.
  We have been busy debating progress in Iraq around here and measuring 
benchmarks. I can't help but think as we talk about measuring 
benchmarks that pretty soon the Iraqi Government is going to wonder 
whether the Republican caucus is going to meet any of its benchmarks or 
any of the country's benchmarks.
  For 6 months now, the Democratic majority has worked in good faith to 
deliver on our promises to the American people. Because of the 
Democratic majority, the minimum wage earner in America now makes 70 
cents an hour more than they did under a Republican Congress--and soon 
they will be making $2 more. The longest streak without a raise in the 
minimum wage in the history of the minimum wage has ended but not 
before 4 months of Republican obstruction cost each minimum wage earner 
in America around $500 in earnings.
  We passed legislation to make college more affordable and cut 
interest rates in half for millions of Americans with student loans. We 
stood up to powerful special interests and raised the fuel efficiency 
of our automobiles by 10 miles per gallon. Twenty years had passed 
since Washington raised the fuel standards, but Democrats took on the 
special interests and got it passed. We passed funding for stem cell 
research. We passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We passed 
ethics and lobbying reforms.
  Just yesterday, we passed legislation that will fix many of the 
shortfalls in our care for injured troops and veterans, and, over yet 
another White House veto threat, we also passed a 3.5-percent raise for 
members of the military. Most importantly, we passed legislation 
demanding that the President face reality and begin redeploying troops 
from Iraq.
  Regrettably, there is, on almost every one of these issues, today as 
I stand here a gap between how many of those policies that are aimed to 
help everyday Americans, which enjoy the majority support of the 
Senate, and how many have actually been signed into law. Why? One 
simple reason: The President and his allies in Congress have decided to 
use every means at their disposal just to slow it down and block it, to 
stand for a policy of obstruction and obstruction and obstruction, not 
accomplishment for the American people. They have vetoed and 
filibustered and killed bills in conference. They have wasted days and 
days with procedural motions and delays that have nothing more to do in 
their purpose than to waste time and squander the trust and patience of 
the American people and, ultimately, to hope to be able to blame it on 
the Democrats.
  Just look at what they have blocked. They vetoed a Senate bill 
demanding a new strategy in Iraq. They vetoed a stem cell research 
bill, science that could prove crucial to cures for 100 million 
Americans with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or diabetes or other 
diseases. Now, another veto is threatened on children's health care--of 
all things, children's health care--a veto threat on a bill the 
President hasn't even read, because he was worried about the price tag. 
Well, we are talking about our children's health, and the bill offered 
just $7 billion each year for uninsured children, while we spend 1\1/2\ 
times that amount every month in Iraq. Those are just the bills which 
made it to the President's desk.
  Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a bill to allow the Federal 
Government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for 43 million 
Americans on Medicare. Republicans are blocking the passage of a bill 
that would provide crucial funding for the intelligence community. They 
are blocking ethics bills that would mark the most sweeping ethics 
reform since Watergate. They don't have the votes to stop it, so they 
are pulling a procedural maneuver and refusing to appoint conferees in 
order to hammer out the final details of the bill.

  The Republicans are now setting records for filibusters and 
obstruction. The Senate record for filibusters is being set already, 
and it is only halfway through this term. To paraphrase Winston 
Churchill: Never, in the field of Senate legislation, was so much 
progress blocked for so many by so few.
  Actually, they have made history, I suppose, because thanks to the 
Senate Republicans, L.A. is no longer the center of gridlock in 
America--it is right here. On issue after issue, the Republicans have 
chosen to filibuster--and to do so just 2 short years after they 
declared the filibuster, as their then-leader, Bill Frist, said in late 
2004, ``nothing less than the tyranny of the minority.'' After 
expressing outrage at the mere hint of a Democratic filibuster last 
session, the Republicans have suddenly become the principled champions 
of so-called minority rights in the Senate, but minority rights apply 
to legitimate filibusters for legitimate issues, not a policy of 
obstruction to stop everything that comes along.
  After threatening the so-called ``nuclear option'' when Democrats 
stood up to defend the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they have 
introduced a filibuster to stop everyday business in the Senate. Almost 
everything the majority leader tries to do here now requires us having 
a cloture vote in order to prevent a filibuster. In fact, the 
rubberstamp Republicans of the previous 7 years have now become the 
roadblock Republicans. The party of Abraham Lincoln has become the 
party of redtape--vetoes, filibusters--any means necessary to deny the 
will of the majority of the Senate and the vast majority of the 
American people.
  If you don't believe me, listen to what the minority whip, Senator 
Trent Lott, told a reporter just this April. He said:

       The strategy of being obstructionists can work or fail, and 
     so far, it is working for us--

  The ``us'' being the Republican Party and the minority in the Senate.
  Well, I think the Senator is looking at it the wrong way. The 
question isn't, Is it working for Republicans, is it working for 
Democrats? The question is, Is it working for the American people? Is 
it working for the millions of low-income children whose health care 
funding the President has threatened to veto? Is it making us safer 
when you block the funding for the intelligence agencies? Is this 
obstructionist strategy working for the 12 million Americans forced to 
live in the shadows of American life while our borders stay broken? Is 
it working for the 554 soldiers who have died in Iraq since Republicans 
first blocked a measure to redeploy troops last February?
  Instead of the Senate's highest shared principles of consensus and 
bipartisan accomplishment, the Republicans have chosen the lowest 
common denominator--a zero sum game in which they are willing to gamble 
the American people's loss for Republican gain. The Republican strategy 
seems to be to slash the tires of the Senate and then wonder why we are 
still stuck on the side of the road and blame somebody else for that 
problem.
  Let me be clear what I am criticizing here. I support the right of 
the minority to filibuster. In fact, I have done so myself. Every 
Senator in this body has that right. I support that right. But when 
filibustering not for the principle of the issue at hand but for the 
generic, broad strategy of stopping what happens here so you can blame 
the party in charge for not being able to finish the work, that is 
unacceptable.
  The rights of the minority in the Senate ought to be protected, but 
they also ought to be used responsibly too. Do I have a problem with 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SAlazar). Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent for a few more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obstruction for obstruction's sake is not 
in the best traditions of this great institution. It is the worst kind 
of cynical political calculation. I think all of us on our side would 
join in voting to protect the right of the minority to be able to 
filibuster. We all understand that what goes around comes around, and 
the time may come when we again may be in the minority. We Democrats 
don't want to use the nuclear option. We are

[[Page S10074]]

not even talking about it. We want to pass bills. We want to pass bills 
that are supported by a majority of people in the Senate, including 
Republicans, and certainly supported by the majority of Americans.
  I say to my Republican colleagues that there is a better way to do 
business. We can work together and actually do something positive for 
the American people. All of us know this is a uniquely challenging 
moment for this country. We face new threats and hurdles no generation 
has faced before. We ought to be working together to solve those 
problems. The only chance this Senate has to make a real contribution 
to history is to make a bipartisan contribution. That is the only way 
the Senate meets its own expectations.
  Some of the great legislative accomplishments in recent memory came 
under mixed Government, when both sides of the aisle came together.
  In 1981, Ronald Reagan saw that Social Security was in danger of 
going bankrupt and placed a call to the Democratic speaker of the 
House, Tip O'Neill. They realized that at the end of the day, nobody 
would solve it if they didn't. So they got together and took the 
politics out of a tough and unpopular vote. The deal they struck kept 
Social Security afloat. Neither man could have done it without the 
other. Neither party could have done it without the other.
  We all know the limits of a politics of division, of partisan 
sectarianism. A politics of division can rush our country into war, but 
it cannot sustain our trust or the war itself. A politics of division 
has no answer for 12 million undocumented workers in our houses, 
fields, and factories. It has no answer for 45 million Americans with 
no health insurance, no answer for icecaps that are melting or a failed 
policy in Iraq. The politics of division is bad for America--from the 
Parkinson's patient to the undocumented immigrant to the soldier in 
Iraq. Nobody is benefiting from Republican obstructionism.
  It is also bad for the Senate. This Senate has been known as the 
greatest deliberative body in the world. But there is nothing 
deliberative about partisan sabotage. There is nothing deliberative 
about blind obstructionism.
  The ongoing debate we have here is about much more than Senate 
procedure. At its core is a debate, really, about where we are headed 
in our relationship with each other, Republicans and Democrats. All of 
us go home and hear from our constituents about how they have lost 
faith in Washington. All of us want to do right by the people who 
elected us and try to make life better for the American people.
  Any Senator who has been here for a period of time has watched the 
decline of the quality of the exchange on both sides of the aisle in 
this institution. I have seen colleagues stand up against it. I 
remember when Senator Gordon Smith, in the middle a painful debate on 
Iraq, said:

       My soul cries out for something more dignified.

  I think a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle are concerned 
for the Senate. Voters want a debate over ideas, not a war of words; a 
choice of direction, not a clash of cloture votes. The stalemate we 
have now is not what the Senate is renowned for. This is called, as I 
said, the greatest deliberative body in the world, a place where people 
on both sides can find common ground and get good things done for other 
people.
  Ultimately, we are accountable to the American people--accountable 
for false promises, accountable for failure to address issues we 
promised to address, whether it is energy independence or military 
families who lose their benefits. We are accountable.
  Mr. President, a filibuster to stop all progress, then claim 
Democrats aren't doing anything, is a failed strategy. It is a failure 
because it doesn't put the American people first. I believe the 
American people will hold a party of obstruction accountable. I hope 
that will change.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2505

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that by unanimous 
consent, we have a vote scheduled at 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I know of no opposition to the amendment I have offered. 
Are there those on the minority side seeking to use time against the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes under the unanimous 
consent order.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Conrad be recognized for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has been 2,144 days since 9/11. We all 
remember the day our Nation was attacked. That attack was led by Osama 
bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida. At the time, the President said:

       This act will not stand. We will find those who did it. We 
     will smoke them out of their holes. We will bring them to 
     justice.

  Mr. President, 2,144 days have passed, and still we have not brought 
Osama bin Laden or al-Zawahiri or the rest of the top leadership of al-
Qaida to justice. These are the people who led the attack on our 
country. It wasn't Saddam Hussein and Iraq; it was Osama bin Laden and 
al-Qaida. Yet this Nation lost focus under the leadership of this 
administration.
  I think the most striking story of all is this from the USA Today in 
late March 2004:

       In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who 
     specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for 
     Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next 
     assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with 
     expertise in Spanish cultures.

  Mr. President, there are not a lot of Spanish speakers in Afghanistan 
or in Pakistan. That is where Osama bin Laden is still lurking, still 
hiding, still waiting to strike our country.
  This amendment says: Let's remember who attacked America, and let's 
finish business with him and his al-Qaida network.
  Mr. President, we have now learned this week, according to the New 
York Times, that a 2005 raid on al-Qaida chiefs was called off at the 
last minute by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

       The mission was called off after Rumsfeld rejected an 11th 
     hour appeal from Porter Goss, Director of the CIA. Members of 
     the Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-
     130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was 
     canceled.

  This amendment says: Let's put the focus back on Osama bin Laden and 
al-Qaida. Let's finish business with the people who attacked America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to use the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that we have a 2 
o'clock vote on this amendment. This amendment is one Senator Conrad 
and I had offered on the Defense authorization bill. That bill, as you 
know, is no longer on the floor of the Senate. So we offer it now to 
this legislation. Just as my colleague from Louisiana has previously 
offered an amendment with respect to the objective and the priority of 
eliminating the leadership of al-Qaida, this amendment we offered about 
2 weeks ago would do two things: increase the reward for Osama bin 
Laden and the leaders of al-Qaida; No. 2, and most important, it would 
require quarterly top-secret classified briefings to this Congress 
every quarter about what is or is not being done to bring to justice, 
to capture, or kill the leadership of al-Qaida.
  Why do we want to do this? It has been nearly 6 years since thousands 
of Americans were murdered--innocent Americans murdered by Osama bin 
Laden and al-Qaida. They boasted about engineering the murder of 
innocent Americans.
  Here is what last week's National Intelligence Estimate says:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland.

  That doesn't need much interpretation. The most serious threat to our 
homeland is al-Qaida.

       We assess the group has protected or regenerated key 
     elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe 
     haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas, 
     operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

  Does anybody in this country believe there ought to be a safe haven 
on this

[[Page S10075]]

planet for those who boasted about murdering thousands of innocent 
Americans? Does anybody believe there ought to be secure hideaways or a 
safe haven for the leadership of al-Qaida that, today, in the mountains 
somewhere, are planning attacks against this country?

  Why, after 6 years, are we not successful in bringing to justice and 
limiting the leadership of al-Qaida? It is not as if we don't know all 
of this.
  This is in June:

       Al-Qaida regroups in new sanctuary on the Pakistan border.
       While the U.S. presses on in its war against insurgents 
     linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, bin Laden's group is recruiting, 
     regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary. . . .

  This is from the New York Times in February:

       Terror officials see al-Qaida chiefs regaining power.
       Senior leaders from al-Qaida are operating from Pakistan 
     near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence 
     and counterterrorism officials.

  How much more do we need to understand? We have soldiers in Iraq 
going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, where Sunni 
and Shia are killing each other and Sunni and Shia are both killing 
American soldiers. In the middle of a civil war, we have soldiers going 
door to door in Baghdad and, in the meantime, we have al-Qaida building 
training camps in a secure hideaway between Pakistan and Afghanistan. 
And today, this afternoon, they are planning additional attacks against 
our country. That is unbelievable to me.
  Mr. President, in August 2001, the Presidential daily briefing given 
to this President said the following:

       Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.

  That was the title. Nearly 6 years later, we now have intelligence 
assessments with this title:

       Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West.

  That is what I call failure.
  We must succeed. That is why we ask with this amendment for quarterly 
classified top-secret briefings to this Congress to tell us what they 
are doing or what they are not doing to bring to justice and to 
eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. It is unbelievable to me that 
Osama bin Laden, who boasted of attacking this country, now apparently 
is in a secure hideaway or a safe haven. Nowhere on this small planet 
should there be somewhere safe for the leader of the organization or 
the leadership of the organization that launched the attack on this 
country in 2001. It is unbelievable to me that we are in this 
situation.
  Now, the President said this when asked about it:

       I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really 
     don't care. It is not that important and it is not our 
     priority.

  Those are the words of President Bush.
  Let me read the words of the National Intelligence Estimate of last 
week that came out from this administration:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland.

  Maybe we ought to modify that statement of the President because it 
ought to be our priority. That is what this amendment is about. It 
should have been our priority 4 years ago, 5 years ago. It ought to be 
our priority today. I know of no more important priority for this 
country than dealing with the leadership of al-Qaida and eliminating 
the greatest political threat and the most serious terrorist threat to 
our homeland. That is what our amendment does.
  I hope the Senate will once again agree to this amendment and 
establish this as a preeminent priority for this country.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding no time remains and 
we will go to a vote immediately; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
as under the previous order.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more 
minutes on this subject, and then we can go to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator modify 
her request to allow me 2 minutes before we go to the vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify her request?
  Mr. DORGAN. What is the Senator's request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has asked for 2 
minutes. The Senator from South Carolina has asked to modify that 
request for 2 minutes.
  Does the Senator from Louisiana so modify her request?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in fairness, as I have seen Republican 
amendments taken down with rule XVI, I raise a point of order that the 
pending amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and 
violates rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we consider 
the amendment I have offered, notwithstanding rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The point of order is well 
taken and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. DeMINT. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe I have the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are in the twilight zone. We are on an 
appropriations bill. An amendment was offered subject to a point of 
order. The point of order was raised and sustained by the Chair. And 
now the person who won wants to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the leader. We were rushed, and I didn't have a 
chance to explain what I was trying to do. As I was listening to the 
debate of the last couple of days, I have seen rule XVI used against 
Lindsey Graham's bill. I have seen other Republican bills, such as 
David Vitter's, taken down because it violated rule XVI, legislating on 
an appropriations bill. Yet when I heard Senator Dorgan's amendment, I 
realized there was a double standard. We were being inconsistent. It 
was OK to legislate on a Democratic bill but not a Republican bill. My 
intent was to make a point, to raise a point of order that Senator 
Dorgan's amendment does violate rule XVI. But when the Chair ruled, I 
appealed the ruling of the Chair, which the Parliamentarian said she 
did not hear. But what I wanted to vote on was the ruling of the Chair 
to establish are we going to use rule XVI against Republicans but not 
Democrats; are we going or are we not going to have a fair debate?
  Obviously, our preference would be not to be legislating on 
appropriations bills, but if we are going to do it for some, we should 
do it for all.
  In this case, I say to the leader, my hope had been to vote on an 
appeal of the ruling of the Chair, which I had asked for, but was not 
recognized apparently, before we went into a quorum call.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, you won. The rule XVI you raised and 
you won. The amendment falls. And it is a Democratic amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. I had asked for the yeas and nays on appealing the ruling 
of the Chair because that was my intent, to question whether we should 
be legislating on appropriations bills. That was more of a vote on rule 
XVI than it was the Dorgan amendment. That is what I was here for, to 
ask for a vote on appealing the ruling of the Chair,

[[Page S10076]]

which was my language: ``I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for 
the yeas and nays.''
  Mr. REID. Just a second; I have the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada and others were in 
the well a moment ago when Senator DeMint indicated what he wanted was 
a vote on my amendment. I said that is fine, withdraw your objection 
and we will have a vote on my amendment. Apparently, that is not what 
he wanted because the Senator offered an objection relative to rule 
XVI. The Chair sustained the Senator's objection, and because the 
Senator won, he was not satisfied and wanted to do something further.
  I don't have the foggiest idea what might be the motivations here. If 
the Senator from South Carolina wants a vote on my amendment, all he 
has to do is withdraw his objection, and we can have a vote in 30 
seconds. If there is some other nefarious purpose here, then maybe the 
Senator might explain it to us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, that is why I said I think we are kind of in 
a twilight zone here. The Chair is not partisan. The Parliamentarians 
who serve at our pleasure, Democrats and Republicans, are not partisan. 
They go by the rules and the precedents set in this body.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield 
for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend. I will say to my 
friend, he and I were on this floor and we danced this tune once 
before. It took us 4 years to unwind from it. That is why the vote 
yesterday was so important.
  Mr. LOTT. That is what I wish to comment on, Mr. President, if the 
distinguished Senator will yield briefly. Without getting into the 
substance or without questioning anybody's motives, it is important 
that we understand--and I can put this in the form of a question to the 
majority leader--if, in fact, this appeal of the ruling of the Chair 
should succeed, that would do away with rule XVI, as I understand it, 
and then we would all have a grand old time legislating on 
appropriations bills.
  Before the leader responds, let me say there are pent-up feelings on 
this side, probably on your side: Well, we can't get the authorizations 
and some of the language we want and the appropriations bills may be 
about the only thing moving through here, in some respects, and we want 
to have an opportunity to legislate on appropriations bills. But here 
is part of my concern, honestly. I don't think we can win that battle 
against the other side. I suspect you all would wind up legislating 
more than we would on appropriations bills.
  Mr. President, I think we need to calm down around here. There is a 
rule on the books for a reason. For good reason we took an action that 
knocked it out a few years ago. I learned painfully what a mistake that 
was. We should not be legislating on appropriations bills. You can make 
a good-faith effort around here if you want to do that. I think this 
action would cause some consequences we would not want, if we look at 
it in the future.
  Am I stating this correctly, I ask the majority leader?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, our roles were reversed too many years ago 
when I had his job and he had my job, and it was a very difficult time. 
Even everything being in order, to move these appropriations bills is 
hard, and then anybody can offer anything on them. The key to these 
appropriations bills is you deal with matters of appropriation, not 
some of the subjects people have thrown into them all the time.
  As my friend said, there is a lot of frustration. The House can move 
a lot of authorizing legislation. We cannot over here. So there is a 
tremendous temptation to stick in these appropriations bills all kinds 
of authorizing legislation that shouldn't be on appropriations bills.
  I plead to my friend from South Carolina: It doesn't prove anything 
to have us vote on something--you have already won. I will also say 
this. The only partisan nature of raising points of order is we try--it 
usually works out that way--if there is a Republican who violates a 
point of order, a Democrat who is the manager of the bill will raise a 
point of order; if it is a Democrat, then a Republican will raise a 
point of order. That is the only partisan nature of raising points of 
order.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield 
briefly?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I feel a necessity at this point--and I will 
follow it with a question--to also say that I understand the right of 
the Senator from South Carolina to do this procedure. I am not 
questioning that at all. I think the result would be one that would not 
be good for the institution, and I think we would be abusing it on both 
sides.
  But also I want to emphasize the right of a Senator to modify his own 
amendment. I wasn't here when the discussions took place with regard to 
Senator Vitter's modifying of his own amendment, and I know that has 
caused some consternation.
  Mr. President, if I could say to the majority leader, wouldn't it be 
better for this institution if we would not get in the position of 
questioning each other's motives? I realize we have to be honest with 
each other, and I understand what everybody is doing. I understand the 
amendment on Osama bin Laden. Yes, we want to catch him, and I know 
there is a lot being done--and I won't get into the intelligence--and I 
understand what Senator DeMint is doing, but I would hope this would 
give us an opportunity, in a bipartisan way, for the sake of this 
institution, to step back, to calm down, and to stop trying to do these 
things to each other on both sides of the aisle.
  I am grandstanding, and I apologize, but my purpose is to try to say 
to the institution, to our people, I hope we will find a way to avoid 
this. I think it would be a mistake, and I assume the majority leader 
agrees with that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, calling on his 
years of experience, to try to settle things down.
  I would say that, perhaps with Senator Vitter, giving him the benefit 
of the doubt, maybe there was a misunderstanding in the conversation. 
That is totally possible. Maybe he didn't understand the rules. Maybe 
he didn't do one thing and say something else, and I accept that, if in 
fact that is the case.
  So I think what we should do is, I am going to ask a quorum call be 
started, and then we will huddle over here and see if we can work all 
this out.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, due to the good work of my friend from 
Mississippi and others, on both sides, here is what we are going to do. 
There has been a point of order raised against the Dorgan amendment, 
and that has been sustained. So that amendment will fall. And in the 
order of amendments filed, Senator Vitter's is at No. 11 or 12; OK?
  Senator Vitter, when he had his conversation with Senator Cochran, 
Senator Murray, and me, was under the impression he could still modify 
his amendment. We thought differently. It was just a misunderstanding. 
Maybe we have been around here too long--I shouldn't say ``we.'' Maybe 
I have been around here a long time and just accept things for the way 
they appear to be and not sometimes the way they are. Senator Vitter 
has said there was nothing nefarious in what he did. He just assumed he 
could automatically modify that. And under the rules, he could.
  So we will go back right where we were. No one is accusing Senator 
Vitter of anything that is illegal or unethical. It was simply a 
misunderstanding among the four of us. So anything I have said earlier 
today, based on my misunderstanding of him and what his thoughts were, 
just forget about them because based on the conversation I have had 
with him in the last few minutes, that wasn't the case. So I shouldn't 
have been as upset, and

[[Page S10077]]

Senator Murray shouldn't have been as upset as she was. Senator Cochran 
was his usual stoic self trying to lead us in the right direction, 
which we didn't go.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader.
  First of all, I appreciate those words very much, and I certainly 
want to reiterate that I never thought I was waiving what I considered 
my ability as a Senator to modify my own amendment and try to get a 
vote on my own amendment in the form I would like. So I appreciate the 
comments of the leader in that regard.
  I also want to point out that I was actually modifying the amendment 
in order to get rid of this point of order and the fact that it, in a 
previous form, would have legislated on an appropriations bill, which 
we are trying to avoid. So I was trying to avoid that with regard to my 
amendment.
  But I appreciate the comments, and I look forward to moving forward.
  Mr. REID. Finally, Mr. President, let me say, I haven't mentioned his 
name but, of course, the distinguished Republican leader, being 
involved in this little huddle that took place, had a tremendous 
influence on our ability to work this out. I would say--and I hope I 
don't jinx anything we are working on now--what I would really like us 
to do is to see if in the foreseeable future we can work out a time on 
this bill for final passage. No one has had any amendments being 
prohibited. If people don't want to have final passage in the next 24 
hours or so, that's fine.
  As I have said before, I don't want to file cloture. We can just keep 
grinding through the weekend, but I would rather not do that.
  Sometime today we are going to see if we can move to the conference 
report that Senator Lieberman has so masterfully brought back to us 
dealing with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. He, of course, worked 
with Senator Inouye and others to get this done, and so we will do that 
at a later time. But I wish everyone would work--certainly the two 
managers of the bill--to see when would be an appropriate time to see 
about a time for final passage.
  Remember, we have this bill to complete. We have to work on 
children's health. We have two conference reports--there may be three 
conference reports--and that is all we have to do. But we have to go 
through all the procedural hurdles, and that may take longer than any 
of us wants to get through in the next few days.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority 
whip, Mr. Lott, for pointing out for the Senate a few moments ago the 
importance of rule XVI. I also want to thank the junior Senator from 
South Carolina for understanding, as well, that is a rule that has 
occasionally been reversed and restored in the Senate, and I think it 
is important to most of us that it continue to be in effect.
  I also thank the majority leader and Senator Vitter for the colloquy 
we just heard. I think it is entirely possible for us to conduct our 
business in a civil fashion. I think we have just experienced a good 
example of the Senate working together on a bipartisan basis to get 
back together and to begin to move forward and finish this bill as soon 
as possible. Certainly, I share the views of the majority leader that 
we need to wrap up this bill in the very near future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues for working 
with us to a point where I hope now we can start working through the 
amendments.
  I call for regular order at this point, and I would remind all of us 
that I have about 12 or 13 amendments that have been offered. I know 
several other Senators have asked to be recognized to offer amendments. 
We want to work our way through all of these in a timely manner in 
regular order. We will be doing that this afternoon. So I ask Senators 
to stay close by the floor so we can move them through as quickly as 
possible. Hopefully, we can get time agreements on them in short order 
and dispose of them in whatever way is appropriate.
  At this time, I call for regular order.


                           Amendment No. 2468

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Landrieu amendment is the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the 
Landrieu amendment, that it is legislation on an appropriations bill, 
in violation of rule XVI.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have to speak on the 
amendment? Is there any time allocated on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not debatable.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this point we would like to move to 
regular order. The next amendment pending is the Grassley-Inhofe 
amendment.
  I understand the Senator from Louisiana would like 2 minutes just to 
discuss the amendment that just fell, so I ask unanimous consent that 
she have 2 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
ask the distinguished minority manager of the bill for just 10 minutes 
to speak on my amendment, and then he can speak on the point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has been raised.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in the interest of comity, I will agree, 
but may I bring up two amendments that have already been filed while I 
am here?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object at this time. I have a number of Senators who 
are asking us to call up amendments. We would like to work with all of 
you to do that in a regular fashion. Maybe we can do that after the 
Senator from Louisiana is speaking, but at this point we are going to 
allow the Senator from Louisiana to speak and then move back to regular 
order, which will then be the Grassley-Inhofe amendment, No. 2444.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request propounded by the Senator from Louisiana?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair, and I can appreciate the situation 
we are in with the point of order being raised against the amendment, 
but as you know, Mr. President, I offered this amendment in good faith 
last night and spoke at some length on the amendment. I was under the 
impression that before we voted I would have the opportunity to speak 
on the amendment. Since that didn't happen, I appreciate the goodwill 
of my colleagues to at least allow me 5 minutes to speak, although the 
amendment has a point of order called against it.
  My amendment actually proposes $25 million on this appropriations 
bill. I don't know where else to appropriate money except on an 
appropriations bill, and that is basically what my amendment does. It 
is a two-page bill, and it appropriates $25 million to the CIA to give 
them some extra resources to try to track down the No. 1 terrorist and 
his network that is threatening our country.
  This amendment was prompted not out of politics or spite, it was 
prompted out of last week's National Intelligence Estimate that has 
been referred to now several times on both sides of the aisle. This did 
not come from a Democratic think tank or a Republican think tank, it 
came from the National Intelligence Estimate that says the al-Qaida 
network is as strong as it was before 9/11 and that Osama bin Laden is 
still the No. 1 target.

  I offered an amendment in good faith and reached out to my colleagues 
to say we are on homeland security, could we find $25 million to 
appropriate some additional funding to the CIA? I know there are other 
resources, some of them are classified and some of them are not--and to 
clearly restate the policy that Osama bin Laden remains the foremost 
objective of the United States in the global war on terror and 
protecting the U.S. homeland, the foremost is to capture and kill Osama 
bin Laden.
  I understand the point of order. I understand technically the 
Parliamentarian would probably rule against me.

[[Page S10078]]

But for the purposes of the constituents I am representing I wish to 
say I am trying but am blocked to appropriate $25 million more on a 
Homeland Security bill to give it to the CIA to help protect us from 
the No. 1 terrorist, according to our intelligence reports. That is all 
I wished to say.
  I thank my colleagues for allowing me that moment of the record. I 
know the Senator wants to go back to regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and the 
amendment falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment No. 
2444 be temporarily set aside; that we proceed to the Alexander-Collins 
amendment No. 2405.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                    Amendment No. 2405, as Modified

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment described by Senator Murray be modified. The modification is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 40, after line 24, insert the following:


                        REAL ID GRANTS TO STATES

       Sec. __.  (a) For grants to States pursuant to section 
     204(a) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (division B of Public Law 
     109-13; 119 Stat. 302), $300,000,000.
       (b) All discretionary amounts made available under this 
     Act, other than the amount appropriated under subsection (a), 
     shall be reduced a total of $300,000,000, on a pro rata 
     basis.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 hour of 
debate, equally controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote, and upon use or yielding back of 
the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her courtesy. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his help with 
this amendment, facilitating its coming to the floor last night at a 
late hour. I am grateful to him for that.
  This is an amendment which I described on the Senate floor yesterday. 
It is an amendment involving REAL ID. I am offering the amendment with 
several cosponsors, including Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Warner, 
and Senator Voinovich. It is my intention to use about 10 minutes of 
our 30 minutes on this side and to reserve the rest of that time for 
Senators Collins, Warner, and Voinovich, if they choose to come to the 
floor in support of this.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl of Arizona be 
added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment would provide $300 
million in funding to the States to implement the program known as REAL 
ID. It is offset with a .8-percent across-the-board cut in the rest of 
the bill. The total pricetag of the rest of the bill, the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, is about $37.6 billion.
  I will have a word to say about the offset in a moment. I know the 
Senator from Washington will have a few more words to say about the 
offsets when her time comes. I would prefer another offset, but I will 
talk about that a little later.
  First, let me describe again what the amendment does. I would ask the 
Chair if I can be informed when 10 minutes has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, after 9/11, the 9/11 Commission 
recommended that in light of the terrorism our country faces, we begin 
to study how we can have more secure identification cards. A number of 
the terrorists had stolen cards or had fraudulent cards or had ID cards 
that were not real.
  As a result of that, the Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act at the end of 2004 which established a process 
by which we could look at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It 
established a negotiated rule-making process.
  Because most of the ideas about ID cards involved State and local 
governments, all of them involved issues of privacy, all of them 
involved the possibility of great inconvenience to most Americans, this 
negotiated rule-making process would basically create a seat at the 
table for representatives of all the affected groups and try to work 
out the most sensible thing to do.
  I have historically been opposed to the idea of an ID card. When I 
was Governor of Tennessee, I twice vetoed the photo driver's license 
bill because I thought it was an infringement on liberty. But the 
legislature overrode me, I accepted it, and today, after 9/11, I agree 
it would be wise for our country, with a combination of terrorism and 
the difficulties within immigration, to have more secure identification 
cards.
  The question is, which one? Then suddenly, in 2005, along came an 
appropriations bill for our troops, and in the middle of it, the House 
of Representatives stuck something called the REAL ID Act, which set 
minimum standards for State driver's licenses as an effort to deter 
terrorists from easily obtaining that form of identification.
  Well, that could be a good idea. But there are 245 million Americans 
with driver's licenses or ID cards. Many of us send those in by mail or 
online to renew them. Last year in the State of Tennessee, for example, 
there were 1.7 million driver's licenses issued. There are 53 driver's 
license identification stations. I believe the only group of people who 
could have passed REAL ID in the dead of the night, without any 
hearings, were Congressmen who had never been to a driver's license 
examining station in Tennessee or maybe in their own State, because 
these are not State employees who are trained in catching terrorists. 
They are not equipped to deal with the large number of new 
responsibilities, in a State which is going to have REAL ID, that 
include having to come in person to that driver's license office and 
show a number of documents, including the Social Security card and a 
valid U.S. passport.
  We would have to prove, I would have to prove, that I am lawfully a 
citizen of the United States. Our family has been here for 12 
generations. Senator Salazar has been here for 13 generations. The 
Presiding Officer has written a book about the number of generations 
his family has been here. We would have to go down to one of these 
driver's license stations and prove we belonged here. Nobody else ever 
had to do that before in my family that I know about. But in an age of 
terrorism, we might have to do that.
  At the very least, I would think we would want to do one of two 
things: One would be that in the Senate, in the Homeland Security 
Committee or other appropriate committees, we might want to think about 
whether there might be other ways to come up with a better secure 
identification card, rather than add that to the burden of the driver's 
license.
  For example, most of the problems that surround the immigration bill 
have to do with work, people coming into this country illegally to get 
a job. That is what most of it is about. Senator Schumer and Senator 
Graham have a piece of legislation that would create a secure Social 
Security card.
  Now, I wonder if, over a period of years, having workers with a 
Social Security card that is secure, includes biometrics, and a good 
employer verification system, might not be a more sensible way for us 
to improve the question of whether we have secure identification cards.
  There is the idea of more passports. Already we have a backlog 
because of the number of American who are getting a passport. But 
passports are a more secure identification. Maybe there should be a 
secure travel card we could use when we travel on airplanes. For 
example, there are a couple million

[[Page S10079]]

of us at a time who are up in the air. If we all had one of those 
cards, you begin to add all those up--you may have some driver's 
licenses that are more secure, a secure work card, a passport and a 
travel card, a variety of secure cards would begin to avoid the terrors 
we imagine from a ``Big Brother'' national ID card.

  We remember what happened with that sort of thing in Nazi Germany and 
in South Africa, where you had to carry around a wallet and a portfolio 
describing how mixed your blood might be so they can determine your 
race. We do not want that in the United States.
  So that would be the kind of discussion we should have had in 
hearings before any of this was adopted. We were going to have that 
with the negotiated rule-making process, before suddenly this so-called 
REAL ID card comes through here at night and we have to vote for it, up 
or down, or not send any money to support the troops fighting in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  We can get an idea of what the REAL ID surge might cost by looking at 
what is happening right now with the passport backlog in the United 
States. There were 12 million passports issued in 2006. This year there 
are going to be 17 million because of new travel requirements. The 
Passport Office employees are working hard, but they grossly 
underestimated, or we did, what the new demand would be.
  As a result, there was a backlog of 3 million passports in March. 
Today it is 2.3 million. The turnaround time used to be 6 weeks, now it 
is 12 to 14 weeks on regular service and 4 to 6 on expedited service. 
We have destroyed summer vacations, we have ruined weddings and 
honeymoon plans, we have disrupted business meetings and educational 
trips. People lost days of work waiting in line. If we think the 
passport backlog has created consternation, imagine what it is going to 
be like when 245 million Americans, many who have been used to renewing 
their driver's licenses by mail, many who have thought of themselves 
and their parents and grandparents as good, legal Americans, have to go 
to their driver's license station with a pack of documents and prove 
they are legally here.
  Then they might get right up to the door and somebody says: You 
forgot one thing, and they have to go all the way back home, get it, 
and stand back in line again. I bet we get more calls on that than we 
did on immigration.
  There is another problem I would like to describe. It is one I am 
trying to address with this amendment. I am trying to provide three 
hundred million dollars next year to help States who wish to comply 
with REAL ID pay for it. Now, not all States will take advantage of 
this because 17 States have already
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) The Senator has used 
10 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will continue with my time because I do not see 
Senator Collins or Senator Warner or Senator Voinovich. I will take 
another 4 or 5 minutes. If they don't come, then I will give back my 
time, except a minute or two to the Senator from Washington and let the 
Senator from Washington be recognized.
  But let me talk about the money a minute. Seventeen State 
legislatures, including Tennessee, have passed legislation against REAL 
ID. We do not want it. We want something else. But for those who do 
have it, they have to get cracking because it says here: States have to 
be ready to comply with these new measures by May of next year.
  The Department of Homeland Security has not even issued final 
regulations about what the compliance must be. But the Department, 
thanks to the good work of Senator Collins and others with an amendment 
we had earlier this year, has agreed to grant waivers to States for 
delayed implementation. So States have a little bit of time to work on 
this, if they choose to.
  But 17 States do not want to. However, we have a principle here 
called federalism. Much of it is incorporated in the 10th amendment to 
the Constitution. I see our constitutional expert, the Senator from 
West Virginia, on the floor. When I was Governor, I said on the floor 
many times, nothing made me madder than when some Congressman or 
Senator would stand up with a big idea, pass it, hold a press 
conference taking credit for it, and send the bill to me. I would have 
to either raise tuition or cut this or change that, and then that same 
Congressman would be home making a big speech about local control the 
next weekend.
  I did not like that. It was called unfunded Federal mandates. I have 
also stated many times on this floor that the Republican Congress got 
elected in 1994 running against these mandates. They stood on the steps 
of the Capitol in 1994 with Newt Gingrich. They said: No more unfunded 
mandates. If we break our promise, throw us out. Maybe that is one of 
the reasons they did throw us out, because we forgot that promise.
  We forget it with REAL ID because, according to the National 
Governors Association, implementing it would cost $11 billion over 5 
years. The Department of Homeland Security itself expects the cost to 
reach $20 billion over 10 years.
  Today, the Federal Government has appropriated only $40 million for 
the States to comply with those mandates, even though it could cost $20 
billion over 10 years.
  We are not supposed to be doing that. If we want to require it, we 
should pay for it. My view of unfunded mandates is we ought to either 
fund REAL ID or we ought to repeal it. We should not require it unless 
we are going to pay for it. I see the Chair, the distinguished former 
Governor himself, the Senator from Nebraska. When I described how I 
felt about unfunded mandates as Governor of Tennessee, I imagine he 
felt exactly the same way. I have sought, working with Senators 
Collins, Warner, Voinovich, and Kyl, to identify a way to begin to deal 
with this issue of the unfunded Federal mandate. That is where this 
$300 million amendment comes from.
  The National Governors Association met last weekend. They issued the 
following statement regarding REAL ID:

       If Congress is truly committed to transforming REAL ID into 
     a reasonable and workable law that actually increases the 
     security of our citizens, it must commit the Federal funds 
     necessary to implement this Federal mandate. As the Senate 
     considers the Homeland Security appropriations bill for 
     fiscal year 2008, the Nation's Governors urge Senators to 
     support Senator Alexander's efforts to begin funding the 
     mandates imposed by REAL ID. States estimate the cost of REAL 
     ID will exceed $11 billion over 5 years, including $1 billion 
     in up-front costs merely to create systems and processes 
     necessary to implement the law and prepare to re-enroll all 
     245 million driver's license and identification cardholders. 
     To date Congress has appropriated only $40 million to assist 
     States.

  I only have one more point to make. Then I will yield the floor and 
reserve the remainder of the time.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member 
allowed me to discuss this and bring up this amendment during committee 
deliberations. I thank them for that. I offered offsets from other 
funds that States were receiving. A majority of the members of the 
committee didn't like the offsets. That is not so unusual in the world 
in which we live. My amendment was defeated in the Appropriations 
Committee. I am coming to the floor with a different offset. It is 0.8 
percent across the board cut in the rest of the bill. I know very well 
that the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee 
and other Senators don't like that offset, but I suggest to my 
colleagues that there are others of us who don't like underfunded 
Federal mandates. If the Congress is going to impose on the States a 
$20 billion cost over 10 years, then we should pay for it. We have only 
appropriated $40 million.
  As the Governors said, it is time for us to move ahead and 
appropriate $300 million this year, only a downpayment on what we 
should pay, and if the offset we adopt today is not the one the 
chairman and others would prefer, then perhaps there is an opportunity 
during conference on an this appropriations bill of $37.6 billion to 
make that adjustment.
  I thank the managers of the bill for giving me a chance to bring the 
amendment to the floor. I will yield the floor and wait to see if 
Senator Collins or others decide to come. If they do not come, I will 
yield back the rest of my time except for 2 minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from Tennessee

[[Page S10080]]

for his amendment. It highlights another shortcoming in the President's 
budget. When it comes to homeland security, the President--and I speak 
most respectfully of the President; I always do--likes to rob Peter to 
pay Paul. Regrettably, in an effort to help States deal with the cost 
of REAL ID, the able Senator proposes to do the same thing. The able 
Senator proposes to do the same thing by using an across-the-board cut. 
I don't like across-the-board cuts. That cuts into programs that hit a 
lot of people, all good people.
  I rise to oppose the amendment. The President's budget fails to 
address the mandate imposed on States by the REAL ID Act. According to 
the National Governors Association, it will cost States $11 billion to 
implement the REAL ID Act.
  Yet the budget did not include one thin dime to help the States with 
this Federal mandate. Meanwhile, the Department has let $35 million 
which Congress appropriated in 2006 for REAL ID implementation sit in 
the Federal Treasury unspent for almost 2 years.
  Let me say that again: The Department has let $35 million--that isn't 
just chickenfeed--which Congress appropriated in 2006 for REAL ID 
implementation to sit in the Federal Treasury unspent for almost 2 
years. I share the concern of the Senator that this law, which was 
jammed down Congress's throat in an unamendable war supplemental, will 
impose serious costs on our States. However, given that there is $35 
million still sitting at the Department and that we have no request 
from the White House, this bill is not the place to fix this problem.
  This amendment would hamper the Department's ability to secure the 
Nation. For example, this cut would result in the reduction of 416 
transportation security officers at the same time air travel has been 
increasing approximately 3 percent each year and the TSO workforce has 
decreased or stayed flat each year. It would also occur at a time when 
the aviation sector is at a heightened alert status. Let me say that 
again: It would also occur at a time when the aviation sector is at a 
heightened alert status. The Federal air marshals would reduce coverage 
of critical flights. The Coast Guard would be unable to respond to 
projected search-and-rescue cases, thus endangering the lives of 
citizens and property, interdict a projected increase in migrants, 
marijuana, and cocaine, and remediate anticipated oil and chemical 
spills, further degrading our natural resources. This cut would delay 
the recapitalization of the Coast Guard's fleet, further exacerbating 
maritime and aviation operational gaps.
  The President's budget requested--and the committee supports--funding 
for 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. Furthermore, this reduction would 
cut that increase in agents to 24. Additionally, the National Guard 
forces currently supporting Operation Jump Start on the southwest 
border assisting the Border Patrol will begin leaving the border this 
summer. Once again, the Border Patrol will be forced to move agents 
back from the border to perform administrative duties.
  Additionally, the committee's bill includes funding to support a 
total of 4,000 new detention beds, bringing total detention beds to 
31,500. Moreover, this reduction would cut that increase by 32 beds. 
Are you listening? Given that the average length of stay in a given 
detention bed is approximately 40 days, losing 32 beds means we have 
lost the space to detain approximately 300 illegal aliens annually. Are 
you still listening? We have spent the past 2 months debating 
immigration reform and the need for detention beds. A cut like this 
turns that debate on its head.
  The President's budget requested and the committee bill supports 
funding of $1 billion--that is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ 
was born--for fencing infrastructure and technology along our still 
porous border.
  If we have learned nothing during the debate on the immigration bill, 
it is that the American people and a majority of the Senate want to 
secure our borders. Let me say that again: If we have learned nothing 
during the debate on the immigration bill, it is that the American 
people and a majority of the Senate want to secure our borders. A cut 
like this moves us in the exact opposite direction. First responders' 
State formula grants would be cut below the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level; ironically, the level approved under a Republican-controlled 
Congress.
  The practical implication of this will be: First responders will go 
without up-to-date personal protective equipment; fewer critical 
infrastructure facilities, including chemical and nuclear, will have a 
security buffer zone; public transportation, a known target by 
terrorists overseas, will be less secure.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thought the distinguished Senator from 
Tennessee made a very compelling argument about this amendment, which 
he has offered. We have heard him discuss his ideas on federalism, and 
there is no better proponent of clear thinking on that issue than the 
Senator from Tennessee.
  But what occurred to me when I was sitting here is that I have heard 
some of these arguments before. I started thinking back to the hearings 
that were held and the markup sessions that were held in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee of legislative 
jurisdiction, when the Department of Homeland Security was being 
created by Congress to more effectively--with a better Federal 
organization of talent and wherewithal--cope with the challenges from 
threats to the security of our homeland. Many of these issues were 
discussed in great detail.
  I remember the Senator from Connecticut, in particular, Mr. 
Lieberman, being in a position of leadership on the committee at that 
time. We had other talented Senators working on that authorizing 
legislation.
  What is happening to us, I am afraid, is as we get about the business 
of implementing the changes in our laws that were made by the creation 
of this new Department, and the creation of new agencies to implement 
and carry out these responsibilities in a coherent way--the 
policymakers have their guidance from that legislation, but we now here 
are considering an appropriations bill. We are not at a point where we 
are going back and reviewing in an oversight hearing or in a 
consideration of changes that ought to be made in the law. We are 
appropriating the funds to give to the Department and the agencies that 
were created and given these responsibilities.
  So to come in now with an amendment--and I hate to argue against this 
amendment because the eloquent argument on its behalf was very 
impressive, but this is the wrong vehicle and this is not the right way 
to deal with the problem. If we have made an error in requiring too 
expensive, too stringent, too illogical, unworkable requirements or 
laws, let's change them. Let's change them. But let's not try in an 
Appropriations Committee to halfway fund our needs. We do not have the 
money to pay for this program. That was pointed out very clearly.
  The REAL ID program is hugely expensive, and at some time there will 
be a day of reckoning. Maybe we are fast getting there. We have heard 
the warnings. I think we should heed the warnings and urge the 
legislative committee to think about modifying the authorities and the 
directives that are contained in the law--make it affordable, for one 
thing; decide, are State and local governments going to share the 
responsibility for these costs or is the Federal Government going to 
build up a huge Federal deficit trying to pay for the costs on an 
annual basis through the annual appropriations bills.
  Well, anyway, as my law school dean used to say, it is not a horse 
that is soon curried. This is something that is going to take some time 
and effort, and we need to rise to the challenge the Senator from 
Tennessee presents to us and come up with a more thoughtful and 
workable and affordable way to deal with this issue.
  So I am going to oppose the amendment because I think it should be 
done legislatively, and the problem cannot be solved with adding money 
and adding new language which is legislative in nature. I hope the 
Senate will carefully review the options we have and try to do the 
responsible thing.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the REAL ID Act was legislation forced 
through Congress as an add-on to the emergency supplemental bill passed 
in May 2005, without any Senate hearings

[[Page S10081]]

or debate, but the implications of the Act are enormous. In addition to 
numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID is an unfunded 
mandate that could cost the States in excess of $23 billion.
  As hearings in the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being 
ready for primetime. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has 
not even released final regulations directing the States on REAL ID 
implementation. With 260 million drivers in this country, I do not see 
how we could have the massive national databases required by REAL ID up 
and running in the next 5 years--much less in fiscal year 2008.
  On top of that, even though they are not even in production yet, REAL 
ID cards are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card since they 
will be needed to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and 
now workplaces all across the country. In my opinion, REAL ID raises 
multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final 
implementation for years, and we should not support the Alexander-
Collins amendment.
  In May, the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and 
Integrity Advisory Committee expressed concern over several items in 
the REAL ID proposed regulations and said that they pose serious risks 
to individual privacy by: failing to establish a standard for 
protecting the storage of personally identifiable information; failing 
to provide methods for Americans to inquire or complain about the 
collection, storage, and use of personal information and remedy errors; 
failing to require notifying consumers of information collection and 
use by the State; failing to require that individuals have a choice 
over secondary use of that information; and failing to assure that the 
information collected for a specific purpose is used only for that 
purpose.
  Congress should not fund the REAL ID program until the Department of 
Homeland Security makes fundamental reforms to the program and stops 
forcing such onerous provisions on the States. In addition, with this 
amendment offset by an across-the-board cut from all DHS programs, I 
don't think we should be robbing from other critical Homeland Security 
accounts--where we have seen real gains in securing our country--to pay 
for just 1 percent of the floundering REAL ID program.
  REAL ID is not popular in our States, and opposition spans the 
political spectrum, from the right to the left. A large number of 
States have expressed concerns with the mandates of the REAL ID Act by 
enacting bills and resolutions in opposition.
  Seventeen States have enacted statutes or resolutions against REAL 
ID, including Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, 
Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, 
Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina.
  Washington, Georgia, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina, New 
Hampshire, and Maine have gone so far as to indicate that they intend 
to refuse to comply with REAL ID.
  Ten States have had statutes or resolutions pass one chamber of their 
legislature, including Oregon, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, 
Minnesota, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
  Another 10 States have had statutes or resolutions introduced in 
their legislatures, including Alaska, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, 
Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland.
  The reaction to the numerous privacy concerns and unfunded mandates 
of the REAL ID Act is a good example of what happens when the Federal 
Government imposes itself rather than working with the States to build 
cooperation and partnership. Since so many States have risen up in 
opposition to REAL ID, we should not fund this failed program, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I know Senator Collins, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Warner, and Senator Kyl--all cosponsors of the 
bill--had hoped to speak, but I am not sure any of them are able to 
come now, so I wish to reserve 2 minutes prior to the vote, but other 
than that, I say to the managers and to the distinguished chairman of 
the committee that on this side we are ready to go forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we do have one other Senator who wants to 
come and speak on this amendment. I think he will be here shortly.
  If there are no other Senators who want to speak at the moment, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time 
be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, so everyone knows what is happening, 
Senator Tester is going to be here in a minute to speak for several 
minutes. Senator Alexander has a few minutes remaining. At the end of 
that time, we will be moving to a vote on the underlying amendment, so 
I hope all Senators are close by the floor.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana is in the Chamber and I 
ask him how much time he is going to use.
  I believe the Senator from Montana will be using 5 minutes. Senator 
Alexander will be using a few. So a vote will be imminent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Alexander amendment. It is a bad idea. The amendment would take away 
$300 million from port security, rail security, and all the grant 
programs that fund the first responders in each of our home States. It 
would rob the Border Patrol, Customs Enforcement, and the Coast Guard 
of the resources they need to keep our Nation safe. It would be robbing 
Peter to pay Paul.
  The amendment would take $300 million and give it to departments of 
motor vehicles. Let me say that again. This amendment takes funds off 
the border, and gives funds to departments of motor vehicles. That is 
because the REAL ID Act will require every citizen to obtain a new 
driver's license from your State. To do that, you will need a birth 
certificate, your Social Security card, and some way of verifying your 
current address. It applies to everyone.
  It will require States to reissue more than 245 million driver's 
licenses--let me say that again. It will require States to reissue more 
than 245 million driver's licenses--only after certifying that the 
person requesting the document is an American citizen or in the country 
legally. States are also being asked to build a whole new set of 
databases and other information technology to link up with the Federal 
database and with other States.
  All in all, the national ID system will cost $23 billion--with a 
``B''--$23 billion for the States to implement, and we are going to 
take away $300 million from port security and rail security and first 
responders in our home States and think that is going to make a 
difference.
  This amendment would only provide 1.3 percent of that $23 billion 
cost. That does nothing to help the States. In fact, it is an afront to 
them to say ``we hear your complaints,'' and then provide them with a 
1-percent solution.
  Beyond the funding issues this amendment creates, endorsing REAL ID 
would be a real mistake. The REAL ID Act puts massive new Federal 
regulations on the States. From new databases and fraud monitoring, to 
new network and data storage capacity, the States will be tasked with 
an enormous range of new regulations and new requirements.
  Once REAL ID becomes effective, every State's department of motor 
vehicles will have to play immigration official. DMV workers will be 
tasked with reconciling discrepancies in Social Security numbers with 
the Social Security Administration. Departments of motor vehicles will 
have to require proof of ``legal presence'' in the United States from 
immigrants.
  REAL ID also creates enormous privacy concerns. REAL ID is a national

[[Page S10082]]

ID card. Make no mistake about that. Every citizen who wants to get on 
a plane, who wants to enter a Federal building, and, possibly, who even 
wants to get a job will have to be a part of it. We should not be 
funding something such as that without a real debate in Congress about 
the wisdom of such a program.
  One month ago, 52 Senators voted to prohibit the expansion of REAL ID 
in the immigration bill. I hope we do not retreat from that progress by 
suddenly agreeing to this amendment to fund--at a 1-percent level--REAL 
ID. The way to improve our country's homeland security is not by 
outsourcing it to the States' Department of Motor Vehicles. Our 
security is improved by hiring more border agents, strengthening 
Customs and the Coast Guard, and ensuring local law enforcement has the 
tools they need to prepare for and respond to terrorist threats.

  This amendment sets the wrong priorities for homeland security, and I 
urge its defeat.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I might ask the managers of the 
bill, if I am not mistaken, after my 2 minutes, we can proceed to a 
vote?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator repeat his request?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If I am not mistaken, after the 2 minutes I have, we 
may proceed to a vote?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. He can speak for 2 minutes, and I will 
then make a motion at the end of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I agreed with the last half of the 
Senator from Montana's statement, but the first half was an eloquent 
argument for a $20 billion unfunded mandate for the States of Montana 
and Nebraska and Tennessee and everybody else. If we are going pass it, 
we ought to fund it. And if we are not going to fund it, we ought to 
repeal it. That is my position.
  We passed the law in 1995, the Federal Unfunded Mandate Act, but the 
REAL ID program imposes on the States, according to the Department of 
Homeland Security, an up to $20 billion unfunded mandate. It will 
require up to 245 million of us to go in and prove we are lawfully here 
and stand in line at our driver's license offices. Seventeen States 
have said they don't like it, including mine.
  The National Governors Association meeting in Traverse City, MI, last 
week generated a letter to all of us saying: If you are going to 
require it, fund it. That is what we are beginning to do.
  If you think the passport backlog is a big problem, wait until the 
driver's license backlog comes if we don't properly fund REAL ID or 
repeal it. There will be weddings. There will be vacations. There will 
be honeymoons. There will be trips. But there will be work days messed 
up. There will be a lot of mad Americans, and rightly so.
  So this amendment would make a small installment payment of $300 
million for the REAL ID program we imposed on the States. Surely the 
conference can find, in a $37.6 billion bill, $300 million to do what 
we are supposed to do. If we require it, we should fund it. The 
Republican Congressmen were right in 1994 when they said it, and if we 
can't remember that, they should throw us out.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator 
Warner, Senator Kyl, and Senator Voinovich, the cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brownback
     Coleman
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Change of Votes

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, on rollcall 279, I voted ``nay.'' It was 
my intention to vote ``yea.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote. It will not affect the outcome of the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came in at the end of the vote 
intending to vote against Senator Alexander's amendment and did not 
look close enough. It was actually a tabling motion. So I would not 
want to vote to table Senator Alexander's amendment.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 279, I voted ``nay.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to change my vote since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above orders.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Rule XVI

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me make one additional point I did 
not make earlier in the discussion in the Senate, and I think it is an 
important point to make.
  There was a suggestion on the floor of the Senate by a Senator 
earlier that rule XVI has been applied in this Senate in a manner that 
was unfair. That is simply not the case. Every Senator has the right to 
raise the issue of rule XVI if someone is trying to legislate on an 
appropriations bill. It was done, as another Senator suggested, with 
respect to Senator Graham; it was done with respect to something they 
offered on the floor. Everyone has that right.
  But let me make this point: It is not unusual to legislate on an 
appropriations bill in circumstances where what is being done is 
something that is done almost by unanimous consent, a provision that 
everyone agrees with, a provision that is noncontroversial. That is

[[Page S10083]]

not unusual at all. That happens all the time.
  Now, I am frankly surprised there is anyone in this Chamber who would 
disagree with the proposition that we ought to get quarterly 
classified, top-secret reports on what is happening to try to eliminate 
the al-Qaida leadership that apparently is now in a safe haven in the 
tribal area of Pakistan. I didn't expect that to be controversial. I 
didn't expect there would be one person in this Senate who would 
disagree with that. But, apparently, there is. He has that right. But 
it is an unfortunate circumstance that we had a situation that allows, 
or a situation that persuades someone to stand up on the floor and say 
there is a double standard on rule XVI. There is no double standard. 
There is not one person in the Senate who believes that, outside of the 
person who said that. There is no double standard. The standard is 
applied in exactly the same way to every Senator.
  What is unusual to me is objecting to the standard of allowing what 
normally would be uncontroversial, or noncontroversial provisions--
including this one, saying it ought to be our top priority to eliminate 
the leaders of al-Qaida, and that the Administration should give 
Congress quarterly reports on what is being done to address the 
greatest terrorist threat to our country. I am flabbergasted. I am 
enormously surprised that would be controversial with anyone in the 
Senate. I would expect 100 Senators would agree with that proposition, 
but one, apparently, does not.
  So we will have that debate again. We will have the debate at another 
time. As I said earlier, we have already added the same amendment to 
the Defense authorization bill. That was an amendable bill. That bill 
has been taken from the floor at this point, but I assume it will come 
back.
  I did wish to make the point on behalf of every Senator, except the 
person who said this, that there is no double standard on rule XVI. 
Those who suggest that, profoundly misunderstand, apparently, the rules 
of the Senate. But there should not be a misunderstanding in this 
Senate about the urgency of at least 99 Members of the Senate wanting 
to go after and eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. I would hope that 
would represent everyone's determination.
  Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that represents the greatest 
terrorist threat to this country, right now, according to the National 
Intelligence Estimate; and al-Qaida and its leaders are the ones who 
boasted about murdering 3,000 or more innocent Americans on 9/11/2001.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, what is the pending business? Madam 
President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Grassley amendment.


                    Amendment No. 2444, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. The Grassley amendment, No. 2444, is the pending 
amendment. I understand that there is a modification at the desk. Is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The amendment (No. 2444), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available to the Office 
     of the Secretary and Executive Management under this Act may 
     be expended for any new hires by the Department of Homeland 
     Security that are not verified through the basic pilot 
     program required under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe that amendment is agreed to 
at this time, as modified.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment has been reviewed. We 
have no objection to proceeding to consider the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2444), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 2416 Withdrawn

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, am I correct under regular order the 
pending amendment is now Schumer amendment No. 2416?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
Schumer amendment No. 2416 that is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2461, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I understand now under regular order 
the next pending amendment is Schumer amendment No. 2461, and there is 
a modification at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we have talked with the minority. I do 
believe this amendment, as well, is agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, there is no objection to proceeding to 
consider that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 2461), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 19, line 26, strike ``$524,515,000'' and insert 
     ``$521,515,000''.
       On page 18, line 2, strike ``$5,039,559,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,042,559,000''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2461), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2447

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, under regular order the next amendment 
is Schumer amendment No. 2447. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe that amendment also has been agreed to on both 
sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we have no objection to proceeding to 
consider the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2447) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2462

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, under regular order is the next item of 
business the Dole amendment, No. 2462?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, at this time we are hoping Senator Dole 
can be on the Senate floor. We are working our way through these 
amendments really well at this point. We do have a number of Senators 
who have their amendments in order. I advise all of them to stay close 
by the floor. We are trying to work our way through them. As soon as 
Senator Dole arrives on the floor, we will try to work out an agreement 
with her and hopefully move forward.


                      Amendment No. 2476 Withdrawn

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 
2476.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           amendment no. 2497

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President. I have an amendment that I will offer at 
the appropriate time.
  Madam President, in this technological age of vehicle barriers, 
ground-

[[Page S10084]]

based radar, camera towers, and unmanned aerial vehicles, I am pleased 
to note that the U.S. Border Patrol still guards America's southwest 
border in a timeless and very American manner, on horseback.
  Unfortunately, sometimes these horses are injured or simply are no 
longer fit for such rigorous service. When that happens, the Border 
Patrol must make the decision to either put the horse out to pasture, 
or, in some cases, as the only humane option, to relieve the poor 
animal's suffering and put it to sleep. Before that happens, my 
amendment would ensure that the Border Patrol provides the trainer or 
handler of the horse with an opportunity to adopt it.
  This is a very simple amendment. The Bureau of Land Management within 
the Department of the Interior already has a horse adoption program, 
which I encourage the Border Patrol to use as a model for creating its 
own program. My amendment would also ensure that such an adoption 
program includes appropriate safeguards to ensure that a horse, once 
adopted, is not sold for slaughter or treated inhumanely. This 
amendment would make 20 horses available for adoption per year within 
the Homeland Security Department. It is the humane and decent thing to 
do for these noble animals which help to secure our borders and keep 
our citizens safe.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment when it is offered later today.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to praise the work of 
Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator 
Murray, and the entire Appropriations Committee for the work they have 
done on the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. 
This is a strong bill. It is an essential bill to protect our homeland.
  Our foremost duty here in the Congress is to make sure we are 
protecting America, and this bill is a significant step in the right 
direction. I agree with Senator Byrd and the majority leader that this 
must be the first appropriations bill for this fiscal year and that we 
must pass it this year. I hope we will pass it later today.
  A government's primary responsibility is in the protection of the 
homeland and keeping its citizens safe from attack. This bill will help 
us secure our borders, train and support our first responders, prevent 
the transport of nuclear materials, and strengthen our defenses against 
terrorists.
  We need not look far to understand the threats that face this 
country. September 11 brought the specter of terrorism to the front 
door of America. September 11 illustrated tragically and horribly the 
great threat extremist groups can pose to the United States. But 
September 11 is not the only terrorist attack we or our allies have 
endured in recent times. In 2002, a bomb in Bali killed 202 people and 
wounded 209. In 2004, bombs on trains in Madrid killed 191 people and 
wounded over 2,000. In 2005, attacks on London's Underground killed 52 
commuters and injured 700. The list goes on and on.
  The State Department reports that the number of incidents of 
terrorism worldwide has grown dramatically in recent years. Between 
2005 and 2006, the number of incidents rose from 11,000 to over 14,000. 
Three-fourths of these incidents resulted in death, injury, or 
kidnapping. All told, terrorism claimed the lives of more than 74,000 
people around the world last year.
  Americans today know that they are not immune from attack. We know 
America is not immune from attack. We also know violent extremism is 
posing a growing threat to our society and to that of our allies. 
Americans expect their Government to respond to these threats with 
adequate resources, sound policies, and strong leadership.
  Unfortunately, our homeland is not as secure as it should be. A 
recent survey revealed that national security experts on both sides of 
the aisle agree that we have not come as far as we should have over the 
last 6 years. They agree that the Department of Homeland Security is 
underperforming. They agree that intelligence reform has not been 
effective. And they agree that too few resources are being allocated to 
the defense of our homeland and our Nation.
  The reports of holes in America's armor, from inadequate rail 
security to insufficient funding for screening at ports, along with the 
Government's recent record of failed responses to national disasters, 
such as the bungled leadership of Hurricane Katrina to a lack of 
National Guard equipment when a tornado tore through the State of 
Kansas--those incidents underline the urgency of passing a strong and 
smart bill that funds our homeland security.
  I wish to briefly describe three ways in which the additional funding 
in this bill is vital for our security.
  First, the funding levels allow us to improve security at the border 
and to enforce our immigration laws. Just a few weeks ago, during our 
immigration debate on this floor, we all agreed that we must get 
control of our border and know who is coming into this country. Now it 
is time for us to walk the walk. The bill before us would allow us to 
hire additional Border Patrol agents to protect our borders. It also 
includes funds for additional border fencing, infrastructure, and 
technology to monitor the vast open spaces we need to monitor and 
control. It also provides an additional $475 million for enforcement of 
customs and immigration laws within the United States. Our Nation is 
and must be a nation of laws.
  Second, I am proud that this bill supports our first responders--the 
firefighters, peace officers, nurses, and volunteers who rush in when 
others rush out. They serve us by devoting their time, their skills, 
their courage, and oftentimes their lives. We owe them the tools and 
resources they need to do their jobs. The bill before us provides money 
for State and local emergency preparedness programs, money for 
firefighter assistance grants in this program and funds for emergency 
performance grants.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill restores funds to our first 
responder and State training programs for law enforcement and 
firefighter operations that the President had proposed to cut. This 
bill, however, funds these provisions, and that includes $525 million 
for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, $375 million for law 
enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, $560 million for 
firefighter equipment grants, and $140 million to hire firefighters.
  I wish also to note that the bill makes a serious investment in the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the crown jewel of training 
centers for the law enforcement community. A bipartisan group of us 
added a provision to the 9/11 Commission bill to create the Rural 
Policing Institute at FLETC to address the particular law enforcement 
needs of rural America. This was a need that I saw. It was very clear 
to me as attorney general for Colorado. The rural sheriffs and peace 
officers whom I spoke with during all of the time that I was attorney 
general and in crafting the Rural Policing Institute legislation agreed 
that the Rural Police Institute would be a valuable addition to FLETC.
  The $220 million in this bill for FLETC will help ensure that our 
peace officers continue to get the highest level of training they need 
as we deal with the reality we find in the post-9/11 world. It is going 
to be the eyes and ears and skills of the nearly 800,000 peace officers 
of America who will protect our homeland from the vicious kinds of 
attacks we saw in New York on 9/11, the vicious kinds of attacks that 
took 150-plus lives in Oklahoma City some years ago. So we must do 
everything we can to support our men and women who are in law 
enforcement at both the local and State level. This legislation does 
that.

  Finally, in addition to providing better protection along our borders 
and ports and more tools for law enforcement and first responders, this 
bill helps us to prepare to recover from an attack or a disaster.
  FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina sounded the alarm bells for all 
of us. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to have heard them. Not only

[[Page S10085]]

does FEMA need better leadership and serious Congressional oversight, 
but it now needs the resources to do this job. The bill before us would 
provide $6.9 billion for emergency preparedness and response activity. 
That is a significant amount of additional money beyond what the 
President requested. Almost half of those dollars would go out to 
States and local preparedness programs.
  Once again, I wish to reiterate my appreciation for the bipartisan 
leadership which Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, 
Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and the other members of the 
Appropriations Committee have shown on this bill.
  It is right that this is the first appropriations bill that we 
consider because our homeland security must come first before 
everything else. The threat of attack on our soil is as great as it 
ever has been, and this bill is an important step toward ensuring 
America's first responders have the tools and the equipment and 
training they need to keep America safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I rise to compliment the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado. In his statement, he is right on when he is 
talking about the fact that there is no other bill we have pending in 
the Senate that is more important than the bill we are considering here 
today, the funding of the Department of Homeland Security and the 
agencies which are charged with the responsibility of carrying out the 
authorizations that have been passed earlier creating the Department 
following the 9/11 attacks on our country.
  This is serious business. I compliment the Senator on the manner in 
which he is carrying out his duties as a new member of this body--
relatively new member. He has important committee assignments, and we 
appreciate the commitment he has shown during consideration of this 
bill and the discussion of amendments and the offering of amendments to 
try to help make sure that the work product we produce is the best we 
can produce for our great country and our homeland.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current 
amendment be set aside and I be permitted to speak on two amendments 
that I will call up, intend to speak on, and then ask that they be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2503 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. MARTINEZ. I call up amendment 2503 and ask that Senators Kyl and 
Graham be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Martinez], for himself, Mr. 
     Kyl, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2503 to 
     amendment No. 2383.

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

(Purpose: To require the issuance and use of social security cards with 
biometric identifiers for the establishment of employment authorization 
                             and identity)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536. (a) Use of Biometric Social Security Cards to 
     Establish Employment Authorization and Identity.--Section 
     274A(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii)(III), by striking ``use.'' and inserting 
     ``use; or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) social security card (other than a card that 
     specifies on its face that the card is not valid for 
     establishing employment authorization in the United States) 
     that bears a photograph and meets the standards established 
     under section 536(c) of the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2008, upon the recommendation of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
     Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to section 
     536(e)(1) of such Act.''.
       (b) Access to Social Security Card Information.--Section 
     205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) As part of the employment eligibility verification 
     system established under section 274A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a), the Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall provide to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     access to any photograph, other feature, or information 
     included in the social security card.''.
       (c) Fraud-Resistant, Tamper-Resistant, and Wear-Resistant 
     Social Security Cards.--
       (1) Issuance.--Not later than first day of the second 
     fiscal year in which amounts are appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (f), the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall begin to administer and 
     issue fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, and wear-resistant 
     social security cards displaying a photograph.
       (2) Interim.--Not later than the first day of the seventh 
     fiscal year in which amounts are appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (f), the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall issue only fraud-
     resistant, tamper-resistant, and wear-resistant social 
     security cards displaying a photograph.
       (3) Completion.--Not later than the first day of the tenth 
     fiscal year in which amounts are appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (f), all social 
     security cards that are not fraud-resistant, tamper-
     resistant, and wear-resistant shall be invalid for 
     establishing employment authorization for any individual 16 
     years of age or older.
       (4) Exemption.--Nothing in this section shall require an 
     individual under the age of 16 years to be issued or to 
     present for any purpose a social security card described in 
     this subsection. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the 
     Commissioner of Social Security from issuing a social 
     security card not meeting the requirements of this subsection 
     to an individual under the age of 16 years who otherwise 
     meets the eligibility requirements for a social security 
     card.
       (d) Duties of the Social Security Administration.--The 
     Commissioner of Social Security--
       (1) shall issue a social security card to an individual at 
     the time of the issuance of a social security account number 
     to such individual, which card shall--
       (A) contain such security and identification features as 
     determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner; and
       (B) be fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, and wear-
     resistant;
       (2) shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, issue regulations specifying such particular 
     security and identification features, renewal requirements 
     (including updated photographs), and standards for the social 
     security card as necessary to be acceptable for purposes of 
     establishing identity and employment authorization under the 
     immigration laws of the United States; and
       (3) may not issue a replacement social security card to any 
     individual unless the Commissioner determines that the 
     purpose for requiring the issuance of the replacement 
     document is legitimate.
       (e) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Report on the use of identification documents.--Not 
     later than the first day of the tenth fiscal year in which 
     amounts are appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in subsection (f), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to Congress a report recommending which 
     documents, if any, among those described in section 
     274A(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(B)), should continue to be used to 
     establish identity and employment authorization in the United 
     States.
       (2) Report on implementation.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date on which the Commissioner begins to administer 
     and issue fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, and wear-
     resistant cards under subsection (c)(1) of this section, and 
     annually thereafter, the Commissioner shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the implementation of this section. The 
     report shall include analyses of the amounts needed to be 
     appropriated to implement this section, and of any measures 
     taken to protect the privacy of individuals who hold social 
     security cards described in this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section and the amendments made by this section.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl and Graham be 
added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. In the course of the immigration debate, it became 
clear that one of the issues about interior enforcement that was so 
difficult for us to get our arms around was the issue of identifying 
who was here. It was the issue of duplicative Social Security numbers 
and cards and the ease with which those intent upon breaking the law 
could fraudulently create a Social Security card. It seems to me the 
time

[[Page S10086]]

has come for us to consider a biometric Social Security card. It would 
be a Social Security card that would fix this problem for interior 
enforcement and one that would be a foundational step toward having the 
kind of serious interior enforcement the American people want.
  One of the things we heard over and over is, why don't we enforce the 
current law. The reason we cannot enforce current law is because there 
isn't a national way in which we can identify who is here legally and 
who is not when they apply for a job. It isn't fair to put employers in 
a position of employing someone about whom they may wonder whether they 
are here legally but that they wouldn't know because there is no 
verifiable way of finding out. They also would have no way of knowing 
whether in fact the card they were being presented was a real one or a 
fraud.
  It would make substantial steps in securing and improving the 
employee verification system. This amendment would allow employers and 
employees alike to be sure their employment was lawful. It would 
provide a card with a photograph of every lawful guest worker, 
permanent resident or citizen that matches up with a photograph on file 
with the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland 
Security. It would also allow for phasing in this new card over a 
period of 10 years, upon which only biometric Social Security cards or 
a U.S. passport or green card would be valid for employment 
authorization purposes. It does not affect the use of driver's licenses 
for establishing identity. It does not become a national ID card. 
Rather, this amendment only addresses the use of the Social Security 
card which we already use and sets standards to protect against the use 
of fake Social Security cards. No lawful American or foreign visitor 
should have any legitimate concern. A new biometric card will go a long 
way toward ensuring that documents used for employment authorization 
are secure and fraud resistant. This card would help weed out 
fraudulent documents currently in circulation supporting illegal 
employment in our country.


                      Amendment No. 2503 Withdrawn

  My understanding is this amendment, if offered today, would be 
subject to a rule XVI. It does in fact attempt to legislate and 
attempts to correct a serious problem we face in the country today.
  At this time I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 2413 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. MARTINEZ. I call up amendment No. 2413.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Martinez] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2413 to amendment No. 2383.

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

  (Purpose: To require that all funds for State and local programs be 
                        allocated based on risk)

       On page 35, line 20, strike ``which shall'' and all that 
     follows through ``3714):'' on line 26 and insert the 
     following: ``which shall be allocated based solely on an 
     assessment of risk (as determined by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security) as follows:
       ``(1) $900,000,000 for grants to States, of which 
     $375,000,000 shall be for law enforcement terrorism 
     prevention grants:''.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. This is an amendment in which the senior Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Nelson, joins as a cosponsor. It is one that is 
tremendously important to make sure we have the best security for our 
Nation we can possibly have. The concept of this amendment is 
straightforward. It directs Homeland Security dollars to areas where 
the threat of attack by terrorists is the greatest.
  It was no accident that when the terrorists attacked our Nation on 
September 11, they picked powerful, high-profile and heavily trafficked 
targets. Terrorists target areas where they can inflict the most damage 
and get the most attention. For those reasons, they focus on urban 
areas and areas of national importance or those that are, naturally, 
highly populated. One of the things that often gets overlooked is when 
you look at only the population in a certain place, oftentimes we 
overlook places such as Florida. In Florida, we have 70 million people 
from all over the world and certainly from all over the United States 
who visit as tourists. During any given day there are hundreds of 
thousands of tourists all over the State of Florida. This only adds to 
the population of our State at any given point in time.
  On March 18, 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration proposed a no-
fly zone over the Walt Disney world resort area because, according to 
the FAA, the Disney parks are a potential target of symbolic value. In 
a similar instance, Port Everglades in Broward County actually has more 
passengers, freight, and people moving through it than even the port of 
Miami. All of the cruise ships, tankers, and shipping traffic out of 
the Miami area actually sail from Broward County. These examples 
highlight the issues associated with regional influx. They underscore 
the need for additional security resources.
  The whole State of Florida, in fact, now plays host to 77 million 
tourists a year. That is on top of the 17 million persons who call 
Florida home. We cannot overstate the importance of regional concepts 
and that models created by this amendment will encourage funding to be 
spent not only on our major cities but also on those regional centers 
that require by their nature special protections. On this issue, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has weighed in with a 
consistent message.
  In a letter the Secretary says:

       Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives 
     us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are 
     allocated in a prioritized and objective manner. The 
     Department of Homeland Security strongly supports 
     authorization language that would distribute Federal homeland 
     security grant funds based on risk and need, rather than on 
     static and arbitrary minimums.

  At this time I do not intend to pursue this amendment and would in a 
moment ask that it be withdrawn. My understanding is that the 9/11 
bill, the bill that gives life to many of the recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission, is going to be accepted or is going to be voted on and 
accepted by the Senate. In that bill there will be a much better 
distribution of dollars in a way that is more in keeping with the risks 
our Nation faces.


                      Amendment No. 2413 Withdrawn

  With that in mind, I will at this time ask that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2404

  Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to take an additional moment to speak about 
amendment 2404 which will be considered later today.
  Many other countries, including Israel, Canada, Japan, the United 
Kingdom, and the Netherlands, have successfully demonstrated how an 
international registered traveler program can work to ensure security, 
focus attention on lesser known travelers, and provide a smoother and 
more predictable travel schedule for repeat travelers. Amendment No 
2404 attempts to create an international registered travelers program.
  This amendment would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to 
establish an international registered traveler program to expedite the 
inspection of frequent U.S. and international travelers arriving by air 
into the United States.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security is accordingly authorized to 
impose a reasonable fee to cover the costs associated with establishing 
and maintaining such an expedited inspection process and is tasked to 
coordinate such a program with the Department of State.
  The Transportation Security Administration and private industry 
developed the Registered Traveler program here in the U.S. to provide 
expedited security screening for passengers who volunteer to undergo a 
TSA-conducted security threat assessment in order to confirm that they 
do not pose or are not suspected of posing a threat to transportation 
or national security. It has been quite successful. I believe this is 
something that can work.
  If we can create an international version, it will go a long way in 
helping to develop more strategic ties with our allies abroad and show 
openness to investment and travel in America.

[[Page S10087]]

  We fight all the time for travelers who have options to travel 
anywhere in the world to come to our country to be tourists. Certainly 
tourism areas in our country such as Florida, but like many others, 
Washington, DC, New York City, many national parks out West, many of 
the beautiful areas of our States are natural attractions for foreign 
travelers. But the foreign traveling public has options of where to go. 
Part of the decisionmaking process is cost and ease of traveling. I 
believe this is a well-thought-out amendment which will enhance our 
national security while at the same time allowing travelers to more 
easily find their way to our country in order to enhance the travel and 
tourism industry, which is of great importance in terms of our own 
tourism dollars, which keep many Americans employed.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for no longer than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Craig are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is the 
Dole amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree 
amendment to the Dole amendment, No. 2442.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this second-degree amendment is a modest 
but important amendment. It would ensure that $2.5 million of the $51 
million in this bill that is set aside for 287(g) training--and I will 
explain 287(g) training, but it is basically training of State and 
local law enforcement officers by Federal officials so that they can be 
of assistance to Federal officials----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator suspend a moment. The 
Parliamentarians are having a discussion about this amendment, which 
may be helpful.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I withdraw the second-degree amendment 
that I offered earlier, recognizing that there is some parliamentary 
question about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what I believe we should do, and the 
purpose of the amendment that I offered and am hoping we will be able 
to get accepted in some fashion, is modest, but it is an important 
step. It will require that $51 million be set aside in the underlying 
bill that is before us today for section 287(g) training; that is, 
training State and local law enforcement officers to be of assistance 
to Federal immigration officers, and that $2.5 million of the $51 
million could be used to reimburse State and local training expenses.
  Now, there are 65 pending training agreements out there right now, 
some of which are being executed and some of which are waiting to be 
executed. I would like to explain why I think this is important, fair, 
and commonsensical. It is something we should do.
  Section 133 of the Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility 
Act of 1996 is codified as section 287(g), the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, the INA, and it has commonly been known as the 287(g) 
program. Under this program, States and localities can ask the 
Department of Homeland Security to enter into a memorandum of 
understanding. That is like a treaty between the State and the 
Department of Homeland Security. They enter into these agreements.
  The Presiding Officer, as a former U.S. attorney, knows how these 
MOUs are. They enter into these agreements, and the agreements 
essentially provide that their local law enforcement officers be cross-
trained to work with Customs enforcement.
  The program clearly has not expanded at the pace we originally 
envisioned, but the tide is beginning to turn as to these issues and 
how we deal with the problem of illegal aliens. So today the number of 
illegal aliens in the United States is a staggering number. It is 
estimated at between 10 million to 12 million, with another estimated 
800,000 arriving in our country each year. Last year, we arrested over 
1 million.
  One solution to address the problem is to increase partnerships 
between Federal immigration authorities and State and local authorities 
through such programs as the 287(g) program. It is something I know a 
little bit about. I was a U.S. attorney in Alabama for 12 years. I was 
attorney general for 2 years, and I traveled around the State and met 
with local law enforcement officers as attorney general and as U.S. 
attorney. Since I have become a Senator, I have asked them about how 
things work if they apprehend somebody they believe to be illegally in 
our country.
  Let me tell my colleagues what they tell me without virtually any 
exception, except as we are seeing through this 287(g) program. But, 
fundamentally, what they have been telling me is they let them go. That 
is not just true in Alabama; it is true all over America. Local law 
enforcement officials who apprehend people they have every reason to 
believe--maybe absolute proof--that they are here illegally routinely 
are allowing the people they apprehend--maybe it is DUI, maybe it is 
for an accident or whatever, a domestic dispute--whatever it is, they 
are letting them go because somehow they have gotten the message that 
nobody will come and pick them up, and they don't know how to do it or 
who to call and what the processes are. That is what the 287(g) program 
is designed to deal with.
  Now, it has been odd to me since I have sought to do something about 
this for quite some time, well before the comprehensive immigration 
reform bill was introduced in this Senate over a number of years ago to 
deal with it, there is always an objection. It was out of that 
objection that I made the comment one time that people will vote for 
any kind of immigration reform, as long as it is a reform that would 
not work. If you produce something that will actually work and actually 
help the system get better and more lawful, somebody objects. It 
becomes a big deal. So I think this is a commonsensical thing.
  Our State and local officers are in the best position on a daily 
basis to come in contact with those unlawfully present here. We don't 
have Federal ICE agents, immigration agents throughout the country. 
Border Patrol people are just on the border. If you can get past the 
border--and that is one of the attractions of trying to get past the 
border--if you can get past it, you have a pretty good chance of being 
home free for some time.
  I think we have about 5,000 Federal ICE immigration agents inside our 
country, but only about 2,000 of those are actively involved in 
enforcement operations. We have 600,000 to 800,000 State and local law 
enforcement officers, sheriffs, police officers, State troopers. They 
are out there on the roads every day.
  Now, this bill and the training it provides on a 287(g) does not 
train and does not ask that the State and local officers do anything 
they don't want to do. They will not be compelled to participate in 
anything they choose not to participate in. It is a voluntary 
participation agreement. They are not called upon to participate in 
conducting raids to try to identify and find people who might be here 
illegally. Our goal would be to provide a situation in which they could 
assist the ICE officers during the course of their ordinary duties. If 
they come upon someone likely to be an illegal alien, they would take 
the proper steps, after they have been trained, to identify whether 
they are, in fact, illegal and take the appropriate steps in

[[Page S10088]]

conjunction with ICE to handle it in the proper manner.
  Because of an interest I had in it for some time, the State of 
Alabama, I am proud to say, became the second State in the Nation to 
enter into one of these agreements. Our Governor, Bob Riley, thought it 
was the right thing to do. He is an excellent Governor. He took steps 
to do it some years ago.
  To date, we have trained 60 State troopers in 3 classes of 20 each, 
and the Federal Government trained these troopers at the Center for 
Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, AL. But let me tell my colleagues 
what happened to the State as a result of their partnership and 
willingness to assist the Federal Government. They have to pick up the 
costs of this training. Each class costs Alabama an average of $40,000, 
for a total of $120,000 in State money, all designed to help ensure 
that our State troopers are knowledgeable on all of the correct, fair, 
just, and legal ways to deal with illegal entrants into our country, 
and to be able to assist the Federal agents in doing their duties.
  I think one reason we have seen a fairly slow expansion of the 287(g) 
program is the fact that it costs the States a bunch of money. Now we 
have $51 million set aside here in this program for training. But they 
are not paying any of it, apparently, as of this date to refund the 
States for their costs of training. It takes some number of weeks in 
this training--more than I think is justified. It is 6 weeks, my 
counsel tells me. It is 6 weeks that they have to go through a training 
program.
  I have to tell my colleagues, if you go through any town in the 
country, whether it is Alabama or anywhere else, and you are a Senator, 
and you are speeding through that town and you are drunk, some 19-year-
old, 20-year-old police officer can put you in jail, put your rear end 
in the Bastille. He doesn't have to have special training on how to 
arrest a Senator. But we are going to give special training to our 
local police officers on how to arrest somebody who is not even a 
citizen of the United States of America. That is what Homeland Security 
wants and that is what they believe. Six weeks, in my view, is too 
much, for heaven's sake. But they want 6 weeks of training and they 
make them cross designated and very intense partners in this program. 
But if you take a police officer off the streets for 6 weeks, that is a 
drain on the State and local police departments, and we ought to be 
able to compensate them some for it, in my view.
  Let me tell you what happened in my State. It has been rather 
remarkable. In the first 18 months of operation, the Alabama MOU has 
resulted in the seizure of over $689,000 in cash in connection with 
criminal immigration offenses. Pretty good action there. As of last 
year, the training of those troopers had already resulted in 54 
indictments, including those for illegal entry, false claims to 
citizenship, fraudulent documents, and visa fraud. It resulted in 33 
convictions, including Social Security fraud, prior deported aggravated 
felons, and visa fraud. These are in Federal Court, not State court. 
You cannot try people in State court for immigration offenses. They are 
picked up by the Federal prosecutors and they have to meet some 
seriousness standard before they would actually be prosecuted in 
Federal Court.
  In addition to those I mentioned, there are six Federal charges 
pending disposition, including aliens with firearms. There are 13 
Federal charges pending indictment. So this is a matter that has the 
potential to help us identify those who are here illegally and those 
who may pose a threat to our country. It could well be that the next 
person planning an attack somewhere in the United States may be one of 
those picked up because, as we know, of the 18 hijackers, several of 
them were picked up--some more than once--by State and local officers. 
But they had no way to access or did not access the actual history of 
these individuals to find out whether they were here legally and might 
otherwise be subject to arrest. If that had occurred and our system had 
worked effectively, it is conceivable that the case could have been 
broken before 9/11 occurred.
  The 9/11 Commission did point out that we need to do a far better job 
in this area. The 9/11 Commission recommended we implement State and 
Federal training and law enforcement cooperation and enhance that 
ability. That was one of their firm recommendations. We have not done 
that to any significant degree at this point.
  The first State to be accepted with an MOU was Florida. They also 
have a history of an effective program under 287(g). The ICE program 
provides local law enforcement with comprehensive training and, once 
certified, the officers remain basically under ICE's supervision under 
all matters relating to immigration. To address concerns voiced by 
immigrant interest groups, Federal, State, and local enforcement have 
engaged in significant outreach efforts with local immigrant 
communities and have not engaged in sweeps for undocumented aliens.
  One of the greatest testaments to the success of a program is that in 
no instance has a complaint been filed against law enforcement officers 
as a result of the actions under this memorandum of understanding. It 
has gone extremely well without the kind of complaints that people have 
suggested might happen, and it has been an asset to the Federal 
Government and should be continued. It is already part of our law. We 
have provisions that allow for it. We have money set aside--$51 million 
in one area and $5 million in another area--but we don't have 
provisions to help the States defray the cost of their training.

  Now, I will remind my colleagues of some of the objective reports 
since 9/11 that are important to us. One is the Hart-Rudman report. The 
report is entitled ``America Still Unprepared--America Still in 
Danger.'' They found that one problem America still confronts is that 
``700,000 local and State police officers continue to operate in a 
virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watchlists.'' 
The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears 
of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.''
  On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding 
hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of 
more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the United States. They 
suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 
local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they can be 
brought out of the information void.
  The final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon 
the United States, the 9/11 Commission, released in the summer of 2004, 
also recognized the important role of State and local law enforcement 
officers in immigration law enforcement. Again, let me remind you, we 
have only a couple of thousand actively engaged Federal investigators 
inside our country to actually enforce immigration law. So how do we 
expect to intercept some of the individuals who may be plotting this 
very moment to attack? They may be here with false documents, or they 
may have gotten into the country legally and overstayed. How are we 
going to find them if we don't welcome the participation of State and 
local law enforcement officers? In the 9/11 Commission report, the 
section titled ``Immigration Law and Enforcement,'' the Commission 
found this:

       [T]oday, more than 9 million people are in the United 
     States outside the legal immigration system.

  Some say it is 12 million, but they say more than 9. Nobody can 
dispute that. They continue:

       There is a growing role for State and local law enforcement 
     agencies. They need more training and work with Federal 
     agencies so they can cooperate more effectively with those 
     Federal authorities. . . .

  To achieve that necessary collaboration, we must first clarify the 
authority delegated to each level of law enforcement and make it clear 
that State and local officers have authority to and are welcome to 
participate actively in the enforcement of immigration law.
  My amendment will do that. It is something that is overdue, and we 
should do it. I remain a bit baffled by the objections that continue to 
be raised on this. I had occasion last year to participate with my 
chief counsel, who is here with me--Cindy Hayden--to prepare a law 
review article for the Stanford Law Review on the question of the 
authority of State and local law enforcement officers. It is somewhat 
complex, but it is not disputed that State and local law enforcement 
have the authority to detain people who

[[Page S10089]]

have come into our country illegally across our borders. They cannot 
prosecute them. They can detain them only for a reasonable period of 
time. They have to turn them over to Federal agencies. But they are 
able, with regard to criminal immigration offenses, to conduct such 
detentions as a complement to and as a part of their historic ability 
to assist in the enforcement of existing Federal law--and, indeed, 
citizens can make citizen arrests for violations in some instances. 
This has been a part of the law.
  What is somewhat confused is that we have perhaps 40 percent of the 
people enter into our country legally, but overstay. Maybe that large a 
percentage of our illegal population are visa overstays. The Court of 
Appeals in California--our Nation's clearly most liberal, the Ninth 
Circuit--concluded that local officers do not have the authority to 
detain those visa overstayers. If you break across the border, that is 
clearly a criminal offense and detention can be had for that, they say, 
but not for the others. Two other circuits--the Tenth and Fifth--seem 
to indicate otherwise.
  The Department of Justice did a memorandum at one point that said 
there was not authority for the detention of people in our country who 
have not committed criminal violations of immigration law. Then that 
opinion was withdrawn. So the matter is confusing. There was an article 
in the Washington Times newspaper about it yesterday. The article 
quoted one of the people as saying there are gray areas here. There was 
an article in the Huntsville, AL, newspaper about a meeting with the 
police and the lawyers and the city council about what they could do to 
participate in the enforcement of laws with regard to those in our 
country illegally. The lawyers told them there is some confusion there.
  Well, it is not hard for us to clear up that confusion. The House of 
Representatives tried to do it in their first bill last year, so they 
made it a felony to overstay and enter the country illegally. That 
resulted in an uproar and people saying we are going to make felons of 
them and that was awful, so there was a big retreat from that. We have 
to figure out the best way to proceed with it.
  My view is two things need to occur. We need better training of our 
State and local law enforcement that goes into their existing power so 
they know what they are able to do and they don't overreach; second, we 
need to pass legislation. But this is an appropriations bill and we 
cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. We are not able to offer an 
amendment that would change or would clarify what the powers of the 
local law enforcement are.
  We should make it quite clear that they have the power to detain 
anyone in our country illegally. They can detain a Governor. They can 
detain a mayor. They can detain a Senator. Why can't they detain 
somebody who is not a citizen and is in the country illegally?
  What do the American people think about this? Americans strongly 
value our heritage as a nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome 
legal immigrants and new citizens. They value the character, the 
ability, the decency, and the strong work ethic of so many of those who 
have come to our country. However, it is also clear that Americans do 
not feel the same way about those who violate our laws. The fact is, a 
large majority feel that State and local governments should be aiding 
the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration.
  A Roper poll titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' 
found that 88 percent of Americans agree and 68 percent strongly agree 
that Congress should require State and local government agencies to 
notify INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they 
determine that a person is here illegally or who has presented 
fraudulent documentation.
  Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree and 62 percent strongly 
agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local 
governments and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and turn over to 
the INS illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.
  So this amendment I have offered is far less reaching. Those numbers 
speak volumes about the instincts and the understanding of the American 
people about the enforcement of laws in America.
  It is important to note that these responses were collected in 
response to questions about requiring State and local law enforcement 
action. The amendment I have offered does not require that, although it 
is mightily frustrating to see cities and certain jurisdictions open, 
call themselves sanctuary bodies, and assert to the whole world that 
not only will they not help in any way to enforce the law but will, in 
fact, not cooperate with the enforcement of Federal laws in their 
jurisdiction. To me that is inexcusable. It is an affront to our 
history as a lawful society, and I am troubled by it.
  Again, the first step is we should do a better job of training local 
and State law enforcement officers, and, second, we should clarify 
their jurisdiction. If we do not do that, I don't think we are very 
serious about bringing under control illegal immigration in America.
  I did offer a second-degree amendment earlier, and I withdrew it. I 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify Senator Dole's 
amendment to include the language I proposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, there are a number 
of amendments we expect to be called up shortly. For the information of 
all Senators, we are working through the order we have in front of us 
right now. Staff is working through a number of amendments we think 
will be agreed to. At that point, we can work through the final 
amendments, and we will talk with the Senator about offering his 
amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and thank Senator Murray.
  I do feel strongly about this issue. We have talked about it for 
quite a number of years. It is time for us to get this matter settled 
and fixed. It is overdue. I look forward to working with the Senator.
  I thank the Chair. I see other Senators have arrived.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have consulted with the Democratic manager 
of this bill, I have spoken to Senator Cochran, Senator McConnell. We 
are going to plow on to finish this bill tonight.
  Now, we have worked long and hard the last couple of weeks, late 
nights, and we may have to have one tonight. We really need to finish 
this legislation for all of the reasons we have all talked about 
before, not the least of which is we have so much to do next week that 
we have to finish this tonight. We also have some other things we are 
going to try to do, but everyone should be aware of that. Do not plan 
on going home for dinner tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are making progress. We have been 
working through a number of amendments over the past several hours. I 
thank the majority leader, the minority leader, as well as the managers 
of the bill in helping us move forward.


                     Amendment No. 2496, withdrawn

                    Amendment No. 2488, as modified

  I would just reiterate what Senator Reid said earlier. I am happy 
that we

[[Page S10090]]

have finally resolved the issue regarding the amendment of the Senator 
from Louisiana. I believe we are at the point now where we can move 
forward on that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Cochran second-degree amendment No. 
2496 be withdrawn; that the Vitter amendment No. 2488, as modified, be 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. And following the vote on that, that the Senator from 
Louisiana be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2488), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me thank both the majority leader and 
the Democratic manager of the bill, Senator Murray, for their work, for 
their amicable resolution of this issue. I think it is a very good 
bipartisan, productive, amicable result. I appreciate all of you 
working together in that regard.
  I also extend my thanks to Senator Cochran, the Republican manager of 
the bill, who was also very helpful in that regard in coming to a 
productive, amicable resolution. I appreciate all of that work.
  I just wanted to underscore the importance of what we have done 
because I think this is a very important issue for the people of 
Louisiana, for the people of the entire United States.
  Last year, on this very same bill, I joined with you, Mr. President, 
and we were successful in passing an amendment on the Senate floor, and 
then in the conference committee we were successful in passing a 
version of that out of the conference committee into law. That was an 
important step forward at the time to ensure we would not have Federal 
agents, we would not have the heavy hand, if you will, of the Federal 
Government coming down to rip out of people's grasp--U.S. citizens--
pharmaceuticals they had bought properly in Canada as they were coming 
back into our country. I think the policy of doing that in the past was 
outrageous, particularly considering the sky-high prices American 
consumers face in the United States and the very different lower prices 
they face in Canada. So that step forward a year ago was very 
important.
  I think what we just agreed to a few minutes ago, what will be on 
this bill, is an even more significant step forward because compared to 
what came out of conference and what was signed into law last year, 
this takes two additional steps.
  First of all, we are no longer saying it is limited to prescription 
drugs on the person of an American citizen. What that means is that we 
are also including protection of Internet and mail order sales. That is 
enormously important for you, Mr. President, representing the State of 
Florida, and for me, representing the State of Louisiana. It is one 
thing for folks in Minnesota to travel to Canada and to come back; it 
is obviously a very different thing for folks in Florida or Louisiana 
to physically travel to Canada and come back. So compared to what we 
got passed into law last year, this is far broader and far more 
significant because it also covers mail order and Internet sales.
  The second big difference is, again, what we passed last year was 
limited to a 90-day supply, and what we are passing on the Senate floor 
right now has no such limitation. Again, I think that is another 
significant step forward, a significant expansion of the law on the 
road to full-blown reimportation.
  Again, I thank everyone who was involved in this very productive 
resolution. We got a resounding vote a year ago--68 to 32. We got, 
technically, even a better vote today, in the sense that it was voice 
voted, unanimous consent, so technically unanimous. We got a much 
broader provision today, which I think is a very important step forward 
on the road to my ultimate goal, which is full-blown reimportation with 
all the requisite safety provisions and authorizing language that would 
be involved.
  Of course, we cannot do that authorizing legislation on this bill 
because it is an appropriations bill, but we can, we should, we must, 
on another vehicle soon, very soon, absolutely this year. I look 
forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. President, with other 
leaders on this issue, Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator Thune, 
Senator DeMint, and many others who completely support the ultimate 
objective of full-blown drug reimportation to allow American consumers 
unbridled access to safe, cheaper prescription drugs, including by mail 
order and the Internet.
  Again, I believe the step we are taking here tonight, compared to 
what we were able to pass into law through the Vitter-Nelson amendment 
last year, is an important additional step in removing the limitation 
that it has to be on your person, so saying we can do it by mail order 
and the Internet, and by removing the limitation of a 90-day supply.
  With that, I again thank all of the participants for this very 
positive, amicable, bipartisan resolution of the issue on this bill. I 
look forward to continuing to walk down this path toward the ultimate 
goal I share with you and so many others on the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Unanimous Consent Request--5849

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, may at any 
time proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 127, S. 849, the Openness 
Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007; that the 
bill be considered under the following limitations: that there be a 
time limit of 2 hours of general debate on the bill, with the time 
equally divided and controlled between the chair and ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee or their designees; that the only amendment in 
order be a Leahy-Cornyn technical amendment, which is at the desk; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be agreed to, the 
bill as amended be read three times, and the Senate vote on passage of 
the bill, with the above occurring without further intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are 
ongoing discussions with both sides of the aisle as well as the 
administration to come up with bipartisan, consensual language on this 
issue and that we are unable to clear the agreement at this time. 
Therefore, on behalf of several Republican senators, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Cochran has expressed 
the sentiments of some on his side of the aisle. I would like to say 
for the record that we have made this proposal for several months now. 
I think those who are trying to move this issue have shown 
extraordinary patience in trying to reach an accommodation, and this is 
no reflection on the Senator from Mississippi, who was not involved in 
this debate, that I know of. It only is a plea to those who are 
considering the merits of this legislation to try to do so in a timely 
fashion.
  Mr. President, I would like to reiterate what the majority leader 
said earlier for those following the debate. If there are Members of 
the Senate of either political party who have pending amendments on the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, we encourage you to come to the 
Senate floor as soon as possible and be prepared to call up your 
amendment. We are going to stay in session tonight until all amendments 
are disposed of. We will vote on final passage this evening, whatever 
time that may be. We hope it will not be a late-night session, but when 
there are many amendments pending and no Members on the floor, it is a 
frustrating situation for everyone.
  So I hope that those who have amendments they care about will come 
forward as soon as possible, come to the floor and work to try to 
resolve those amendments, withdraw these amendments, or bring them to a 
vote.

[[Page S10091]]

  I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SANDERS). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2462

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the pending amendment, I believe, is the 
Dole amendment No. 2462; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been agreed 
to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2462) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 2449 Withdrawn

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next pending amendment is the Dole 
amendment No. 2449. I believe that is the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be called up by the individual Senators, with the 
following time agreements, with no intervening action: amendment No. 
2481, by Senator DeMint; amendment No. 2516, by Senator Salazar; 
amendment No. 2498, by Senator Sanders; that the Senators be allowed to 
speak for up to 10 minutes, with no intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with that we now have three Senators who 
will be calling up amendments.
  I again say to any Senator who has an amendment they want to offer 
tonight, we are moving quickly to final passage. In a few minutes, we 
will have a number of amendments that have been agreed to on both 
sides. We will be calling those up.
  Between now and then, the Senators I referred to will be speaking to 
their amendments and calling them up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                Amendment No. 2481 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2481.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMINT] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2481 to amendment No. 2383.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to remove offenses from the list 
  of criminal offenses disqualifying individuals from receiving TWIC 
                                 cards)

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to remove offenses from the 
     list of criminal offenses disqualifying individuals from 
     receiving a Transportation Worker Identification Credential 
     under section 1572.103 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I had an opportunity this morning to speak 
briefly about this amendment, and in the interest of time I will be 
brief again.
  This amendment is about the security of our ports. Two times within 
the last year this body passed a bill that would prohibit access to 
convicted felons of secure areas of our ports. We passed it once in the 
SAFE Port Act, and that amendment was diluted when it came back. Also, 
we will find in the 9/11 Commission bill that will come back--we had 
passed it and put it in as part of that bill--it has been once again 
diluted.
  This needs to be a serious consideration. We can spend billions and 
billions of dollars on screening and all kinds of equipment, but if one 
person in our ports turns away from something being shipped in and does 
not do the proper inspection and lets something in, we could be in a 
lot of trouble as a country.
  So this amendment simply does not allow the Secretary to use funds to 
eliminate any of the felonies listed in the amendment. Please keep in 
mind, this list of felonies is one that has been adopted by the 
Homeland Security agency. It is very similar to the lists we use in our 
airports, which have protected us for a number of years.
  It is very important we recognize that people who have been 
susceptible to criminal activity can be susceptible again. This is not 
that we do not want to give people a second chance, but second chances 
should not be at the expense of the security of this country.
  So this amendment would disallow the use of funds to water down and 
eliminate any of the felonies listed in the Department of Homeland 
Security's list of those who are denied access to what we call the TWIC 
cards, which are the transportation worker identification cards.
  So with that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The DeMint amendment No. 2481.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2516 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2516 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], for himself and 
     Mr. Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 2516 to 
     amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end, add the following:

     SECTION 1. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND AND MARITIME 
                   BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Operational Control of the United States Borders.--
     Notwithstanding any provision in this Act, the President 
     shall ensure that operational control of all international 
     land and maritime borders is achieved.
       (b) Achieving Operational Control.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall establish and demonstrate operational 
     control of 100 percent of the international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States, including the ability to 
     monitor such borders through available methods and 
     technology.
       (1) Staff enhancements for border patrol.--The United 
     States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol may hire, 
     train, and report for duty additional full-time agents. These 
     additional agents shall be deployed along all international 
     borders.
       (2) Strong border barriers.--The United States Customs and 
     Border Protection Border Patrol may:
       (A) Install along all international borders of the United 
     States vehicle barriers;
       (B) Install along all international borders of the United 
     States ground-based radar and cameras; and
       (C) Deploy for use along all international borders of the 
     United States unmanned aerial vehicles, and the supporting 
     systems for such vehicles;
       (c) Presidential Progress Report.--
       (1) In general--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the 
     President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the 
     progress made in funding, meeting or otherwise satisfying 
     each of the requirements described under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2).
       (2) Progress not sufficient.--If the President determines 
     that sufficient progress is not being made, the President 
     shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) 
     specific funding recommendations, authorization needed, or 
     other actions that are or should be undertaken by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.

     SECTION 2. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECURING LAND AND MARITIME 
                   BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Any funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to 
     ensure operational control is

[[Page S10092]]

     achieved for all international land and maritime borders of 
     the United States.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Martinez and Senator Graham be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I note at the outset this amendment is 
sponsored by Senator Menendez, myself, Senator Graham, and Senator 
Martinez.
  What it does, in a very simple statement, is say any funds we 
appropriate under this legislation with respect to our border security 
should be used to ensure the operational control that needs to be 
achieved for all our international land and maritime borders of the 
United States.
  This is an important amendment because the earlier amendment, which I 
cosponsored with Senator Graham, focused on the appropriation of moneys 
to go to the southern border, the border between Mexico and the United 
States. The fact is, those of us who are here working on homeland 
security should care and do care about making sure we have secure 
borders to this country, including our land and our maritime borders.
  So what this amendment does is it directs that these expenditures of 
moneys can be spent in securing our land borders to the north and to 
the south as well as our maritime borders of the United States of 
America. It is an amendment which is important, and there is an 
important statement to be made here. Much of the attention we have been 
giving to the southern border, in terms of the broken borders we are 
trying to fix in this immigration debate, has taken away the needed 
amount of attention we should be focused on with respect to the other 
borders.
  The fact is, we have a very broken system of immigration. We have a 
very broken system of our borders today in the United States of 
America. But it is not just the border with Mexico that is broken. It 
is also the border between the United States and Canada, and it is also 
our maritime borders that need additional security. So it is my hope 
that with this amendment we will be able to put attention on our 
maritime borders as well as our northern border.
  I wish to give a couple of examples about why it is that this 
amendment is needed. If you look at the number of examples we have with 
terrorists and other people who would wish to do us harm, they come in 
from across the borders, many of them come into this country legally 
and then they overstay their visas.
  One example of what we know from the north, and that is in December 
of 1999, the Jordanian police foiled a plot to bomb hotels and other 
sites frequented by American tourists. It was a U.S. Customs agent on 
the U.S.-Canadian border who arrested the person who was smuggling 
explosives intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport. 
So when we talk about homeland security and we talk about securing our 
border to the south, it is equally important we are securing our border 
to the north, and it is equally important we are securing our maritime 
borders as well.
  Another example: Recently, a human smuggling ring running 
undocumented work immigrants into the United States from Canada was 
dismantled. This was a human smuggling ring that was bringing 
undocumented workers through Canada. That ring was responsible for 
bringing dozens of Indian and Pakistani immigrants into the country.
  So I think these are examples that demonstrate if we are going to 
secure our borders, it is not just the border between Mexico and the 
United States that needs to be secured; it is all the borders of the 
United States of America.
  I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Menendez, Senator Martinez, 
Senator Graham, and me in the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
Senator from Vermont is now recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is Salazar amendment No. 
2516.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside so I can call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2498 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up the Sanders-Feingold amendment 
No. 2498 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 2498 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds made available in this Act from being used 
  to implement a rule or regulation related to certain petitions for 
        aliens to perform temporary labor in the United States)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536. Prohibition on Use Funds for Rulemaking Related 
     to Petitions for Aliens.
       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security or any delegate of the 
     Secretary to issue any rule or regulation which implements 
     the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to Petitions for 
     Aliens To Perform Temporary Nonagricultural Services or Labor 
     (H-2B) set out beginning on 70 Federal Register 3984 (January 
     27, 2005).

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Chairman Byrd 
and Ranking Member Cochran for their outstanding leadership on this 
excellent piece of legislation. The fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill will make this country safer, and I thank Chairman 
Byrd and Senator Cochran for their hard work in crafting this bill.
  The amendment I am offering now is, in fact, a very simple amendment. 
As you know, there is strong concern all over this country about the 
increase in poverty and the decline of the middle class. It seems to 
me--at a time when we are hemorrhaging millions of good-paying jobs; at 
a time when Americans are losing, by the millions, their health 
insurance, when moms cannot afford affordable childcare, people are 
losing their pensions--we have to do everything we can to make sure the 
policies we implement do not hurt low- and moderate-income families and 
make a bad situation even worse.
  On the contrary, this Congress has to do everything we can to make 
sure we lift up wages--we lift up working conditions--and not push them 
down. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Labor have proposed regulations that, if implemented, 
could have a significant negative impact in terms of lowering wages and 
working conditions for American workers.
  Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department 
of Labor have proposed regulations that would eliminate the labor 
certification process and replace it with a labor attestation process. 
State workforce agencies and the Department of Labor as a whole would 
no longer be involved in certifying that employers applying for H-2B 
visas are not displacing American workers or adversely affecting the 
wages or working conditions of U.S. workers.
  The proposed regulations, for the most part, would only require 
employers to attest--to attest--to the Department of Homeland Security 
that they are following the law. All they have to do is say: I am 
following the law. Trust us. In other words, the Federal Government 
would take employers at their word that they are complying with the 
law, with little, if any, oversight.
  Among other things, the proposed regulations fail to ensure H-2B visa 
work is temporary in nature. H-2B work is supposed to be temporary. The 
proposed regulations fail to ensure that no qualified American worker 
is available for H-2B positions. In other words, the employer is 
supposed to go out and make sure there are not American workers 
available for that position. The proposed regulations fail to require 
that H-2B employers do not adversely affect U.S. wages and working

[[Page S10093]]

conditions, all of which are required by current law. In other words, 
the law says an employer cannot pay low wages which have the impact of 
lowering wages for all workers in that area.

  Now, let me very briefly read to my colleagues what the AFL-CIO has 
written about these regulations:

       The proposed regulations would significantly weaken the 
     ability of the Department of Labor and the Department of 
     Homeland Security to meet the statutory requirements of the 
     H-2B program as established by Congress and would establish a 
     new regulatory system that would be arbitrary and capricious. 
     Current administrative procedures have so far failed to 
     adequately protect H-2B workers, domestic workers, and the 
     domestic labor market. The proposed regulations, rather than 
     addressing and remedying these fundamental flaws in current 
     procedures, would only further undermine the administration's 
     ability to ensure the H-2B program operates in full 
     compliance with the law and in a rational manner. The 
     proposed regulations are not only unacceptable to the AFL-CIO 
     and to worker and immigrant advocates as a matter of public 
     policy--if enacted, they would also constitute an unjustified 
     and unauthorized derogation from the administration's 
     responsibilities under the law.

  In addition, according to a recent report by the Southern Poverty Law 
Center entitled ``Close to Slavery,'' H-2B workers are routinely 
cheated out of wages; forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low 
wage, temporary jobs; held virtually captive by employers or labor 
brokers who seize their documents; forced to live in squalid 
conditions; and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.
  The amendment I am offering today would prohibit the Department of 
Homeland Security from using any of the funds in this act to implement 
these proposed regulations.
  Given the serious abuses of the H-2B program by many employers 
documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the strong 
opposition of working people from all over this country, I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. We have a bad 
situation now. Let us not make it worse.
  Simply put, we must make sure that labor protections for American 
workers and for foreign workers who are temporarily working in our 
country--we must make sure these regulations are strengthened, not 
weakened. Over the long term, I will be introducing legislation to 
accomplish that goal. But in the interim, we must not take a major step 
backwards in terms of protecting both U.S. workers and guest workers 
from unscrupulous employers. That is what this amendment is all about, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lieberman be allowed 10 minutes to call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2407 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend 
Senator Murray from Washington State. I call up amendment No. 2407.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself 
     and Mrs. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 2407 to 
     amendment No. 2383.

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

      (Purpose: To provide funds for the Interoperable Emergency 
                     Communications Grant Program)

       On page 35, line 20, strike ``$3,030,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,130,500,000''.
       On page 39, line 21, strike the colon, insert a period and 
     add the following:
       (4) $100,000,000 for grants under the Interoperable 
     Emergency Communications Grants Program established under 
     title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002; Provided, 
     That the amounts appropriated to the Department of Homeland 
     Security for discretionary spending in this Act shall be 
     reduced on a pro rata basis by the percentage necessary to 
     reduce the overall amount of such spending by $100,000,000.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is introduced by the 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, the ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Committee, and myself. At this time I wish to ask unanimous 
consent that Senator McCaskill of Missouri be added as an original 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer knows, in a 
short while this evening, the Senate will consider the conference 
report, which has brought together the so-called 9/11 legislation 
passed by both the House and the Senate. I am very pleased, as I will 
say when that matter comes up, that the conferees have reached an 
agreement, because I believe this bill will greatly enhance the 
security of the American people, protecting them from natural disasters 
and also, God forbid, from a terrorist attack. This conference report 
will enact remaining unenacted or inadequately enacted recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission.
  Specifically in regard to this amendment, the conference report will 
create, if favorably adopted, a new interoperability emergency 
communications grant program to help Federal, State, and local 
responders achieve comprehensive interoperability.
  My colleagues know the need from which this amendment arises, and, in 
fact, some of the tragic experiences from which it arises. On September 
11 at the World Trade Center and the Towers, we know as a matter of 
fact that lives were lost because the heroic emergency response 
personnel--the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical 
personnel--simply could not communicate with one another because their 
systems did not allow them to do that. During Hurricane Katrina, there 
was a breakdown because of the catastrophic impact of that natural 
disaster in the very operability of communications.
  We have heard from experts on how best respond to these disasters and 
of the crying need for investment in making our communications systems 
interoperable. Our State and local emergency response officials, 
elected officials, tell us this is a crying need. The fact is it is a 
need that is very hard, particularly for local governments, to satisfy. 
Anybody who has ever dealt with a municipal budget looks at the budget 
of the firefighters, the police departments--these are personnel-
intensive budgets. There is not enough left over for what might be 
called capital investments, equipment investments. So this need for 
interoperable communications, which will save lives, without question, 
will simply not be met fast enough if we leave it to the local 
governments.
  Now, in the 9/11 Commission bill which we will consider later, this 
interoperability emergency communications grant program is not only 
created but authorizes the expenditure of $1.6 billion for this purpose 
over the next 4 years. This Homeland Security appropriations bill 
before us makes a substantial increase over the President's budget in 
funding for homeland security, $2\1/4\ billion. It is absolutely the 
right thing to do. It is absolutely the necessary thing to do to 
protect the American people from disaster and/or a terrorist attack. 
However, the bill before us does not include any money for 
interoperability of communications at the local level.
  Perhaps because this conference report we are going to consider 
tonight was not adopted when the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee reached its judgments, I will say for the record that the 
Senate itself earlier this year, in the Senate budget resolution, 
supported $400 million in dedicated funding for this program, with 
passage of that budget resolution, in anticipation, I believe, of this 
new program.
  What this amendment, offered by the Senator from Maine and myself and 
the Senator from Missouri, does is to provide $100 million to fund a 
first payment to fund this new interoperability emergency 
communications grant program. It is a kind of downpayment at a 
meaningful level; not as much as is necessary, but a beginning to this 
program. The authorization in the conference report is important. It 
takes a critical step forward. But it must be funded, or it will not 
mean anything to our first responders and those of the rest of us in 
America who depend on them for our protection.

[[Page S10094]]

  I wish to note as an indication of the urgent need for this kind of 
funding that the following first responder groups have written and 
expressed their support for this amendment: the International 
Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, 
the Congressional Fire Service Institute, and the National Volunteer 
Fire Council. All of these folks representing millions of first 
responders around America are asking for this funding.
  I will report to my colleagues that the House has included $50 
million as a first payment to fund this interoperability communications 
fund in its Homeland Security appropriations bill. I hope my colleagues 
will help us do our part, now that we are about to authorize the fund 
later tonight by adopting this amendment.
  I ask when the vote is taken on this amendment that it be taken by 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want our colleagues to know we are 
trying to work as diligently as possible to move forward at this time. 
The Senator from New Jersey wants 10 minutes to speak, and after that I 
think we can start moving on some of the amendments. So I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from New Jersey to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague 
from Washington State providing the time.
  I rise in strong support of the Salazar-Menendez amendment. I expect 
from all of the voices I have heard in our debate about immigration as 
part of this Homeland Security bill that we will have resounding 
support for this amendment, because I know those who want to protect 
the United States at its border crossings are going to want to protect 
all of its border crossings.
  I have heard a lot about our challenges along our southern border, 
but I have heard nothing about our challenges along our northern 
border. In that respect, I think it is important to call the attention 
of the Senate to the fact that over the last several years, according 
to official reports, the Congressional Research Service tells us there 
have been nearly 69,000 individuals who have crossed over the northern 
border and, of course, that number is small in comparison because we 
don't have the Border Patrol agents on the northern border to be 
dealing with the interdictions that would be called for.
  So while there are 13,488 Border Patrol agents in the entire force, 
there are only 965 agents along the northern border. That northern 
border has over 5,525 miles of border between the United States and the 
North, significantly more than the 1,993 miles along the southern 
border. Yet over 69,000 people have crossed, to our knowledge, because 
if you divide out the number of Border Patrol agents at any given time 
on the northern border, they are looking at patrolling hundreds and 
hundreds of miles for a fraction of what is the Border Patrol on any 
given shift. Therefore, what that number tells us is that while 
thousands cross on the northern border, we don't even know the 
magnitude of it, because we are not paying attention. We are not paying 
attention on the northern border.
  I will remind my colleagues that it was Ahmed Ressam in 1999, 
December of 1999, the millennium bomber, who came in through the 
northern border of the United States. We don't seem to be concerned 
about the northern border. What Senator Salazar's and my amendment 
simply does is to make sure that we are, in fact, looking at all of our 
international borders and allocating the resources appropriately.
  Now, unless this debate is about something more than protecting the 
United States, we should have a resounding vote. Because if you are 
concerned about one terrorist coming through a border, you should be 
concerned about a border that is far more porous, far greater in 
length; the one that actually has a history of having someone who 
sought to commit an act of violence within the United States crossing 
that northern border--one that is totally undermanned in the context of 
protecting that border and, obviously, it means we have far greater 
numbers than the 69,000; at the same time, one in which we have 
actually seen the number of Border Patrol agents decrease. We have a 
mandate in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act 
that mandated that the Canadian border receive increases in Border 
Patrol agents equal to 20 percent of the Border Patrol agents that 
exist. And, ultimately, we have seen a reduction during fiscal year 
2005-2006 in the total number of Border Patrol agents by nearly 9 
percent.

  So we have a history of people crossing the border, a history of the 
millennium bomber. Yet we have a decrease in Border Patrol agents who 
are on the northern border. You are either for protecting the country 
or you are not. By the way, if I were a terrorist, and I wanted to get 
into the United States, and the bottom line is that I know they are 
going to put everybody down at the southern border, guess what. I would 
be coming through the northern border because with over 5,500 miles and 
with only 965 total Border Patrol agents for three shifts around the 
clock for that whole stretch, that makes it a much greater percentage 
for me to be able to come over the northern border than to face the 
challenges of the southern border.
  I know our colleagues here who care so much, as we do, about the 
national security and the defense of this country are going to give 
this amendment an overwhelming vote. I expect it to be accepted by a 
voice vote. If the answer is no, we are not concerned about the 
northern border, then I have to question the motives of some in this 
debate because we are either concerned about the security of the 
country or we have a certain prejudice over a certain part of what we 
consider a threat to the United States. Porous borders are a collective 
threat. But when we focus all of our time and attention at one end, 
let's leave a wide gaping hole on the other part, the one that has over 
2\1/2\ times more territory to cover and has probably 10 percent of all 
the Border Patrol agents in the country.
  I am sure this will be accepted by voice or we will have an 
overwhelming vote because the absence of having an overwhelming vote to 
make sure we protect our country indicates to me that the concern of 
some is not about protecting our country, the concern of some is that, 
in fact, they have a concern about who comes to this country--not 
because they seek to provide an act of terrorism, but because of who 
they are. So I think this will be a defining moment in which we can 
collectively work to protect our country, make sure we have the 
appropriate resources and allocations of them to the northern border as 
well as the southern border, make sure that we fill up all of our 
security gaps and, therefore, strengthen the security of the country. 
In the absence of that, many of us will have to question what this 
debate has really been about.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 8:30 this 
evening, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following 
amendments in the order listed; that no amendments be in order to any 
of the amendments in this agreement prior to the vote; that there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote: 
Lieberman amendment No. 2407, Sanders amendment No. 2498, Salazar 
amendment No. 2516, and DeMint amendment No. 2481.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page S10095]]

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I ask the managers of 
the bill if there is going to be another set of amendments on which we 
are going to vote tonight.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from 
Louisiana and the Senator from Oklahoma both would like to call up an 
amendment, but in the intervening time between now and 8:30, we welcome 
talking with the Senators to set up some time for those who want to 
call up their amendments to do so.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, are there only two other 
amendments that are to come up?
  Mrs. MURRAY. No, there are a number of amendments beyond the four I 
just mentioned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I take 30 seconds to explain why? I 
have no objection to the text of the Salazar amendment and have talked 
with Senator Salazar about it. My understanding is that it has the same 
rule XVI germaneness objection to it that is being posited against an 
amendment of mine, which I think also is not objectionable. I want to 
make sure all amendments are treated the same that have the same 
objection to them.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold his 
objection, I inform him that when the Salazar amendment is pending 
before the Senate, he will be able to offer a rule XVI point of order 
if he so wishes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand there was a unanimous consent 
request to consider the amendment. I was in the cloakroom at the time 
and had to come out. Perhaps I misunderstood.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The amendment will be called up for a vote, and a rule 
XVI point of order could be raised at that point on the amendment. We 
are simply setting up these amendments to consider at that time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I registered my objection, and I continue to 
do so, but I am happy to try to work something out.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, isn't it true that we don't have to have 
unanimous consent to proceed to a vote? This is all that is being 
asked. We are not asking to adopt these amendments, but we are simply 
setting up an order and a time for the voting to begin. I just didn't 
want anybody to misunderstand what is being asked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent request: 
that at 8:30 this evening, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to 
the following amendments--we will remove the Salazar amendment--and 
that no other amendments will be in order: Lieberman amendment No. 
2407, Sanders amendment No. 2498, and DeMint amendment No. 2481.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to be added to the 
unanimous consent request. I am very unclear as to whether there will 
be an objection to me offering an amendment. I would like it added to 
the list. The Senator from Mississippi said we don't need unanimous 
consent to file my amendment. I want my amendment to be filed and will 
take a vote up or down.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I add to the unanimous consent I already put in place 
that following this order being put in place, between now and 8:30 p.m. 
that Senator Coburn and Senator Landrieu be allowed to call up their 
amendments and speak for 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Is it the intention of the Senator from Washington--
while I understand this is simply for the purposes of an order, are we 
expecting, regardless of the order, a vote to be called on the Salazar 
amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. May I respond to the Senator? Their amendment is one of 
the pending amendments. The yeas and nays have been ordered on it. So 
before this bill is finally adopted, their amendment will be in order 
at some point.
  We are trying to move our way through, Mr. President, to the end of 
this evening. The majority leader has said we will finish this bill 
tonight. There are a number of amendments that are pending. We hope to 
dispose of all of them before it gets too late this evening.
  I again ask unanimous consent as I said before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                Amendment No. 2442 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and appreciate her 
consideration in giving me an opportunity to call up an amendment even 
though we are not going to debate it. We will put it in the pending 
file. I understand that. I thank her for her courtesy.
  I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 
2442 be brought up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 2422 to amendment No. 
     2383.

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

           (Purpose: To prohibit funding for no-bid earmarks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a)(1)(A) None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to make any 
     payment in connection with a contract awarded through a 
     congressional initiative unless the contract is awarded using 
     competitive procedures in accordance with the requirements of 
     section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 2304 of title 
     10, United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       (B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     used to make any payment in connection with a contract 
     awarded through a congressional initiative unless more than 
     one bid is received for such contract.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be awarded by grant or cooperative agreement through 
     a congressional initiative unless the process used to award 
     such grant or cooperative agreement uses competitive 
     procedures to select the grantee or award recipient. Except 
     as provided in paragraph (3), no such grant may be awarded 
     unless applications for such grant or cooperative agreement 
     are received from two or more applicants that are not from 
     the same organization and do not share any financial, 
     fiduciary, or other organizational relationship.
       (3)(A) If the Secretary of Homeland Security does not 
     receive more than one bid for a contract under paragraph 
     (1)(B) or does not receive more than one application from 
     unaffiliated applicants for a grant or cooperative agreement 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary may waive such bid or 
     application requirement if the Secretary determines that the 
     contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is essential to the 
     mission of the Department of Homeland Security.
       (b)(1) Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a report on 
     congressional initiatives for which amounts were appropriated 
     during fiscal year 2008.
       (2) The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include 
     with respect to each contract and grant awarded through a 
     congressional initiative--
       (A) the name of the recipient of the funds awarded through 
     such contract or grant;
       (B) the reason or reasons such recipient was selected for 
     such contract or grant; and
       (C) the number of entities that competed for such contract 
     or grant.
       (3) The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     publicly available through the Internet website of the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       (c) In this section:
       (1) The term ``congressional initiative'' means a provision 
     of law or a directive contained within a committee report or 
     joint statement of managers of an appropriations Act that 
     specifies--
       (A) the identity of a person or entity selected to carry 
     out a project, including a defense system, for which funds 
     are appropriated or otherwise made available by that

[[Page S10096]]

     provision of law or directive and that was not requested by 
     the President in a budget submitted to Congress; and
       (B) the amount of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for such project.
       (2) The term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a fairly simple amendment. I plan 
on offering this on every appropriations bill. What it says to the 
American people is we know we are going to do certain things to send 
projects home. What this says is if you do that, then there ought to be 
a competitive bid on the project rather than a sweetheart deal to 
wherever it is going.
  It is a very simple amendment. It says if we are going to send 
something home through an earmark, then the process of expending that 
money ought to be on a competitive bid basis so we get good value for 
the American taxpayer--no cost-plus, just competitively bid.
  With that, I reserve my debate for a later time and yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2525 to Amendment No. 2383

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in the underlying bill, which makes a 
tremendous amount of progress, in my opinion, with protecting the 
homeland--increasing funding for port security, transportation, et 
cetera, and I have said publicly and privately my great thanks, on 
behalf of the people of Louisiana whom I represent, to the leaders 
managing this bill--in the underlying bill, there is a provision that 
some of us have worked very hard on to help expedite the rebuilding of 
schools in the gulf coast area.
  As you know, 2 years this August is the anniversary of Katrina and 
Rita. Literally hundreds of schools were destroyed. As I said a 
thousand times on this floor and will continue to say, the Federal 
Government was simply overwhelmed by the catastrophic nature of this 
event, the scope of which had never been seen. So I offer this 
amendment, and send one to the desk that I am speaking of now to help 
fix one very small problem with actually one school.

  The underlying bill sets up a process--and I am very grateful to the 
committee, Republicans and Democrats, who supported a new process--and 
actually FEMA was very helpful in supporting a new process--to help us 
rebuild the schools faster, better; not at greater expense to the 
taxpayer but a better way to deal with this catastrophic disaster.
  However, if this amendment I am offering right now does not pass, 
there will be one school that is left out of this fix, and that is why 
I offer it, on behalf of a very small parish in south Louisiana, a 
school I happened to visit, a school that thought they had one 
agreement with FEMA but, evidently, there was a great misunderstanding.
  This school has 500 children who go here, and they have had a very 
difficult time over the last 2 years, so I offer this amendment for 
them. It is extremely small, when compared to all the amendments my 
colleagues are offering, but it would help them to get their small 
school district back up and running. That is the essence of what the 
amendment does. As I say, it will affect basically one school in New 
Iberia Parish.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2525 to amendment No. 2383.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To require regional evacuation and sheltering plans)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. EVACUATION AND SHELTERING.

       (a) Regional Evacuation and Sheltering Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 360 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, in coordination with the heads 
     of appropriate Federal agencies with responsibilities under 
     the National Response Plan or any successor plan, States, 
     local governments, and appropriate nongovernmental 
     organizations, shall develop and submit to Congress, regional 
     evacuation and sheltering plans that--
       (A) are nationally coordinated;
       (B) incorporate all appropriate modes of transportation, 
     including interstate rail, commercial rail, commercial air, 
     military air, and commercial bus;
       (C) clearly define the roles and responsibilities of 
     Federal, State, and local governments in the evacuation plan; 
     and
       (D) identify regional and national shelters capable of 
     housing evacuees and victims of an emergency or major 
     disaster in any part of the United States.
       (2) Implementation.--After developing the plans described 
     in paragraph (1), the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency and the head of any Federal agency with 
     responsibilities under those plans shall take necessary 
     measures to be able to implement those plans, including 
     conducting exercises under such plans as appropriate.
       (b) National Sheltering Database.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, in coordination with 
     States, local governments, and appropriate nongovernmental 
     entities, shall develop a national database inventorying 
     available shelters, that can be shared with States and local 
     governments.
       (c) Cost-Benefit Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, in consultation with the heads of 
     appropriate Federal agencies with responsibilities under the 
     National Response Plan or any successor plan, shall conduct 
     an analysis comparing the costs, benefits, and health and 
     safety concerns of evacuating individuals with special needs 
     during an emergency or major disaster, as compared to the 
     costs, benefits, and safety concerns of sheltering such 
     people in the area they are located when that emergency or 
     major disaster occurs.
       (2) Considerations.--In conducting the analysis under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall consider--
       (A) areas with populations of not less than 20,000 
     individual needing medical assistance or lacking the ability 
     to self evacuate;
       (B) areas that do not have an all hazards resistance 
     shelter; and
       (C) the health and safety of individuals with special 
     needs.
       (3) Technical assistance.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall, as appropriate, provide 
     technical assistance to States and local governments in 
     developing and exercising evacuation and sheltering plans, 
     which identify and use regional shelters, manpower, 
     logistics, physical facilities, and modes of transportation 
     to be used to evacuate and shelter large groups of people.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``emergency'' 
     and ``major disaster'' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 102 of ther Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).


                           Amendment No. 2407

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly the Senate will vote on an 
amendment Senator Lieberman and I have offered to provide $100 million 
in badly needed funding for a new emergency communications grant 
program. This program is about to be authorized in the Homeland 
Security bill we have recently completed the conference negotiations 
on, and which I anticipate will be cleared either tonight or tomorrow 
morning.
  When we look at the needs of our first responders, interoperability 
of communications equipment is at the top of their list. We saw on 9/11 
that firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel 
lost their lives because of an inability to communicate due to 
incompatible equipment. We saw it again in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina, where police could not communicate with firefighters, who 
could not communicate with emergency medical personnel.
  Unfortunately, achieving interoperability is an expensive, lengthy, 
and difficult process, and it is one our State and local governments 
need assistance in meeting. The proposal Senator Lieberman and I have 
put forth is a pretty modest proposal. The Homeland Security conference 
report authorizes a $400 million program. The budget resolution did as 
well for this year. What we are asking for is a modest downpayment of 
$100 million. It is offset by a modest reduction in other accounts.

[[Page S10097]]

  Let me say that this amendment does have the strong support of our 
first responder community. It has been endorsed by the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, 
the International Association of Firefighters, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Association of Public Safety 
Communications Officials International.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that endorsement letters from 
those organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         International Association


                                 of Fire fighters',

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins: On behalf of 
     the nation's more than 280,000 professional fire fighters and 
     emergency medical personnel, I am writing to express our 
     support for your amendment to the 2008 Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 providing $100 
     million for grants to improve emergency communications.
       The Department of Homeland Security's 2006 National 
     Interoperability Baseline Survey found that first responder 
     agencies have made some progress towards achieving 
     interoperability. However, the failure of emergency personnel 
     to communicate with each other along the Gulf Coast in the 
     wake of Hurricane Katrina provides a stark example of just 
     how much work remains to ensure that first responders have 
     adequate communications capabilities in emergencies.
       The new grant program dedicated to improving first 
     responder communications, established in the 9/11 Commission 
     Act, will help states achieve this critical goal. By 
     permitting funds to be used to assist with a variety of 
     activities, including activities to achieve basic 
     operability, this new program will enable states and regions 
     to overcome their own unique communications challenges, and 
     ensure a solid foundation upon which to build an 
     interoperable communications network.
       The ability of first responders to communicate with each 
     other, as well as with state and federal authorities, is 
     integral to any effective, coordinated emergency response. 
     The Lieberman-Collins amendment will provide a down payment 
     on our commitment to help America's first responders 
     communicate during an emergency.
       Thank you for your leadership on this vital issue and your 
     continued strong support of our nation's fire fighters.
           Sincerely,
                                           Harold A. Schaitberger,
     General President.
                                  ____


                     [From the APCO International]

    APCO Supports Lieberman-Collins Communications Interoperability 
                               Amendment

       The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials 
     (APCO) International supports Senators Lieberman and 
     Collins's amendment to appropriate $100 million for a new 
     Interoperable Communications Grant Program.
       Since 2002, our nation has had to overcome the devastation 
     caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the Gulf Coast, 
     which showed the operational vulnerability of emergency 
     communications systems. The issue was not only 
     interoperability but also operability. Due to the lack of 
     operable emergency communications systems, command and 
     control of the disasters was almost non-existent.
       Five years after September 11, 2001 APCO International 
     finds that, while there have been significant accomplishments 
     to report on issues affecting public safety communications, 
     there is also a disturbing lack of progress. Multiple 
     nationwide surveys indicate there are significant shortfalls 
     in communications operability and interoperability in many 
     regions and locales with many contributing factors. The 
     lessons learned from 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for 
     emergency communications are simple. Be prepared. 
     Preparedness, planning and training are the key elements to 
     achieving operability and interoperability during day-to-day 
     activities and disasters.
       Preparedness involves planning and implementing current and 
     effective technology solutions. Preparedness involves 
     coordination and mutual aid agreements with surrounding 
     jurisdictions, state and federal government agencies. 
     Preparedness involves making sure your personnel and 
     equipment are able to function during any emergency and meet 
     the unexpected challenges that may arise at any time. 
     Preparedness is making sure the daily operations of the 
     emergency communications center are adaptable to any 
     unexpected situation. Preparation also includes adequate 
     funding for planning and operations.
       We strongly believe this amendment will provide the funding 
     needed to vastly enhance our Nation's operability and 
     interoperable emergency communications systems and we hope 
     that your Senator can support this amendment.
                                  ____

                                         International Association


                                               of Fire Chiefs,

                                        Fairfax, VA, Mar. 2, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman: On behalf of the nearly 13,000 
     chief fire and emergency officers of the International 
     Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to express 
     our support for several major provisions included in S. 4, 
     the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. I appreciate 
     the hard work and dedication your committee has put into this 
     legislation, and I urge the Senate to move expeditiously 
     towards its passage.
       The IAFC is proud to endorse the information sharing 
     programs outlined in Title I of the bill. These programs, 
     which include guidelines to help integrate the fire service 
     into fusion centers and a fellowship program designed to 
     improve the exchange of intelligence data between government 
     entities, constitute a significant step forward in our 
     nation's homeland security efforts. By ensuring that fire 
     departments and other emergency response providers 
     participate directly in fusion centers, Title I will open new 
     doors for nontraditional information gathering, enhanced 
     capabilities assessments, and better coordination between the 
     fire service and law enforcement in planning for and 
     responding to major disasters. Simply put, these changes will 
     make our information sharing programs more effective and our 
     country safer.
       Additionally, the IAFC strongly supports the operable and 
     interoperable communications programs defined in Title III. 
     The IAFC is working with partners in public safety on 
     numerous fronts to strengthen the voice and data 
     communications capabilities of first responders throughout 
     the United States. Accomplishing this goal requires adequate 
     spectrum for responders to communicate, as well as funding 
     for purchase and installation of the equipment necessary to 
     utilize the available spectrum. At present, substantial 
     action remains to be taken by the federal government on both 
     fronts, and Title III of S. 4 will make a positive 
     contribution by authorizing over $3 billion for the Emergency 
     Communications Operable and Interoperable Grants program.
       Furthermore, the IAFC supports the critical infrastructure 
     provisions set forth in Title X of the Improving America's 
     Security Act. The IAFC looks forward to working towards Title 
     X's critical infrastructure goals through the partnership 
     model currently reflected in the National Infrastructure 
     Protection Plan (NIPP). In particular, we believe that 
     ensuring adequate protection for human elements--as well as 
     physical and cyber elements--will be an essential part of the 
     critical infrastructure protection efforts carried out by the 
     fire service under this title.
       Finally, the IAFC strongly believes that however grant 
     reform measures (such as those described in Title II) are 
     resolved in this legislation, the final product should 
     preserve the all-hazards nature of the FIRE and SAFER Act 
     grant programs. These programs were created with an emphasis 
     on equipping the fire service with the tools, equipment, 
     training, staff, and other resources needed to respond 
     effectively to all types of emergencies--whether natural or 
     man-made, great or small. In its present form, section 
     2002(c) of the Improving America's Security Act fully 
     protects the FIRE and SAFER Act grant programs, and any 
     changes to the grant reform section should preserve section 
     2002(c) as it is currently written.
       As the primary fire service leadership organization in the 
     United States, the IAFC would like to thank you and your 
     dedicated staff for your work thus far on S. 4. The IAFC 
     stands ready to provide you with information and support as 
     the Improving America's Security Act of 2007 moves forward in 
     the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                            Chief James B. Harmes,
     CFO, President.
                                  ____

                                                     June 7, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins: On 
     behalf of our organizations, we urge you to consider the 
     following issues as conference negotiations on H.R. 1, the 
     Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act, and S. 
     4, the Improving America's Security Act get underway. 
     Individually and collectively, we appreciate the support you 
     have shown for the fire and emergency services through your 
     work on this critical homeland security legislation.
       Over the past sereral years, the question of how homeland 
     security grant funding should be distributed has been an 
     extremely contentious issue. While we do not have a position 
     on how this matter should be resolved, we do ask that you 
     make sure that the FIRE and SAFER Act grant programs are not 
     affected by reforms included in the conference report. The 
     FIRE and SAFER Act grant programs were created with an 
     emphasis on equipping the fire service with the tools, 
     equipment, training, staffing, and other resources needed to 
     respond effectively to all types of emergencies--whether 
     natural or man-made,

[[Page S10098]]

     great or small. Section 2002 of each bill fully protects 
     these programs, and any compromise grant reform section 
     should preserve these safeguards.
       A second issue of critical importance to the fire service 
     is the ability to communicate effectively. As you know, first 
     life responders throughout the United States are currently 
     facing major challenges in the area of wireless 
     communications. Fortunately, both H.R. 1 and S. 4 create new 
     grant programs designed to help address this problem. In 
     crafting the final version of the communications grant 
     program, we ask you to retain the $3.3 billion authorization 
     total included in S. 4, ensure that funding is available for 
     both operable and interoperable communications projects, and 
     build in flexibility allowing funding to be used for systems 
     in a wide range of operating frequencies. Furthermore, we 
     urge you to ensure that these grants utilize the Department 
     of Homeland Security's SAFECOM grant guidance and fund all of 
     the areas defined in the SAFECOM ``Interoperability 
     Continuum,'' including governance.
       In addition to seeking progress on the issues above, the 
     first responder community also wishes to see a well-prepared 
     private sector that will voluntarily take its share of 
     responsibility for emergency preparedness and business 
     continuity. The voluntary private sector preparedness program 
     outlined in S. 4, which relies on standards such as the NFPA 
     1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business 
     Continuity Programs, would enable our nation to better 
     protect lives and property. This initiative complements other 
     first responder disaster and emergency preparedness plans and 
     is critical for a robust homeland security policy. 
     Accordingly, we believe that the Senate-passed language 
     should be retained in the conference report.
       Finally, we strongly urge you not to include provisions in 
     the conference report that would establish new federal 
     mandates for re-routing of hazardous materials around urban 
     areas. While we understand that local re-routing may be 
     necessary on a case-by-case basis, federal mandatory re-
     routing regulations would create additional dangers by 
     shifting hazardous materials to rural areas that may not be 
     as well-staffed or equipped to deal with an incident. In 
     addition, re-routing hazardous materials would keep them in 
     transit for a longer amount of time, which would increase the 
     risk and the potential for an incident to occur. Larger, 
     urban fire departments are generally in a better position to 
     handle these incidents, because they have more specialized 
     equipment and other resources.
       Again, thank you for your attention to these pressing 
     homeland security issues. Should you have questions or desire 
     additional information as you move through the conference 
     process, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin King.
           Sincerely,
     Chief James B. Harmes,
       CFO, President, IAFC.
     Thomas Fee,
       President, IAAI.
     James M. Shannon,
       President, NFPA.
     Chief Philip C. Stittleburg,
       Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council.
                                  ____

                                         International Association


                                 of Fire Fighters',

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Hon. Susan Collinsm,
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins: On 
     behalf of the nation's more than 280,000 professional fire 
     fighters and emergency medical personnel, I applaud you for 
     your efforts to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission. We are especially grateful that you included in 
     your proposal provisions to reform our nation's Homeland 
     Security Grant Program and enhance first responder 
     communications.
       The establishment of the new grant program dedicated to 
     improving communications operability and interoperability is 
     vital to protecting the health and safety of our nation's 
     fire fighters. Permitting funds to be used to assist with a 
     variety of activities, including activities to achieve basic 
     operability, will enable states and regions to overcome their 
     own unique communications challenges.
       Provisions ensuring that states provide local governments 
     and first responders homeland security funding in an 
     expedited manner, and permitting a portion of funds to be 
     used for the payment of overtime and backfill costs will 
     allow communities to take full advantage of this invaluable 
     federal assistance.
       The Improving America's Security Act also demonstrates your 
     strong commitment to America's fire service. By guaranteeing 
     that members of the fire service are involved in local 
     planning to determine effective funding priorities, and by 
     maintaining FIRE and SAFER grants as separate and distinct 
     programs, you properly ensure that America's fire service 
     will continue to receive funding to fulfill its vital role in 
     local emergency preparedness.
       Thank you for your leadership on these vital issues. We 
     appreciate your willingness to work closely with the IAFF in 
     developing the Improving America's Security Act, and look 
     forward to continuing our work together on behalf of our 
     nation's emergency response personnel.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Barry Kasinitz,
                                   Director, Governmental Affairs.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, again, I hope our colleagues will take a 
hard look at this amendment and will decide it warrants their support 
to address one of the major problems that has hampered emergency 
response, decreased the effectiveness of those who are putting their 
lives on the line, and truly can be a matter of life and death.
  Let me end my comments by applauding, nevertheless, the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work. Senator Byrd, 
Senator Murray, and Senator Cochran have done a terrific job on a very 
difficult issue, but this is an attempt to make their good work even 
better.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the 
Lieberman amendment. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Senate that I 
believe both sides are in agreement that the Lieberman amendment is 
accepted. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the 
Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, may I first thank Senator Murray, 
Senator Cochran, and our colleagues for their support. This is an 
important amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. The Homeland 
Security appropriations bill could not have funded the Emergency Grant 
Program set up by the 9/11 bill, which we have not passed yet, so I 
appreciate very much their support. This amendment is supported by 
almost all of the first responder groups--firefighters, police 
officers, volunteer firefighters, et cetera--because they desperately 
need funding to help them make their communication systems 
interoperable.
  Thanks to our colleagues on both sides. Senator Collins and Senator 
McCaskill and I join in those thank yous.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). If there is no further debate, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2407) was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2498

  Mrs. MURRAY. What is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate under 
the unanimous consent agreement is the Sanders amendment, on which 
there are 2 minutes equally divided.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, what the H-2B program provides is that 
guest workers may come into this country on a temporary basis if no 
qualified U.S. worker is available for that position and that the wages 
paid to H-2B employees do not adversely impact U.S. wages and working 
conditions. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Labor have proposed regulations that would eliminate the 
labor certification process and move toward a process which has 
virtually no enforcement mechanisms and which simply takes the 
employer's word as to

[[Page S10099]]

whether they are obeying these regulations. In other words: Trust us, 
we are doing the right thing.
  This is absurd. This amendment would simply prohibit the Department 
of Homeland Security from using any of the funds in this act to 
implement these proposed regulations. This amendment is supported by 
Senator Feingold as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  One minute is allowed under the unanimous consent agreement.
  Is the time yielded back? In the opinion of the Chair, the time is 
yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brownback
     Coleman
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 2498) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are now to the DeMint amendment No. 
2481. That is the pending item.
  I believe the Senators on this side are ready to accept this 
amendment, and if the Senator wants a voice vote, we are more than 
happy to do it.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered. Who 
yields time? Two minutes is allowed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I could not hear the Senator.
  Mr. DeMINT. I have asked for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, over the last year this body has taken a 
strong bipartisan stand to make our ports more secure. After the 
Department of Homeland Security established regulations to bar felons 
from the secure areas of our ports, the Senate passed an amendment by 
94 votes to codify that regulation into law.
  These regulations are very similar to the ones we use at our 
airports. Unfortunately, our strong stand on the Senate floor was 
diluted in conference with the House.
  My amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security from using any funds appropriated in this bill from 
being used to delete or modify any of the lists of felonies in the 
regulation.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to be consistent and vote 
again yes for this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we didn't hear what the Senator said. Does 
the Senator want to say it again?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Am I correct in that I have another minute to do the same 
thing again?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can summarize.
  Mr. DeMINT. I can summarize. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the 
Senator for demanding order.
  This is a very important amendment. There is no need to spend 
billions of dollars keeping our ports secure if we are going to allow 
serious felons to work there. We all know that. We voted already, 94 to 
2, for this exact same provision, only in an appropriations bill. In 
order not to attract rule XVI, this is just to prohibit the use of 
funds in eliminating or deleting or changing any of the list of 
felonies for 1 year.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I expect that most of the Members on our 
side will be voting for this. We had been willing to accept it without 
a vote. But having said that, I hope once we accept it on this bill, it 
means that we will not have to have a vote later this evening on a 
motion to recommit on the 9/11 Commission because once we vote on this 
and it is part of this package, it will mean, hopefully, we will not 
have to deal with it on the next bill that we will be considering 
tonight, the 9/11 Commission. So with that I will be voting aye. I urge 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
       Specter
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brownback
     Coleman
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 2498) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S10100]]

                           Amendment No. 2442

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe we now have agreement on the 
Coburn amendment No. 2442 that is pending. I believe we have agreed to 
accept that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Without objection, the amendment is 
now pending.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2442) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, as 
the majority leader said, we are going to go to final passage tonight 
no matter what it takes. We are working our way through the amendments.
  I am going to proceed to two amendments that I believe are agreed 
upon by Senator Salazar and Senator Kyl that I believe will be adopted 
by voice vote.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I have not made a unanimous consent request, I would 
say.
  We are working with the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, on an 
amendment she intends to offer. Meanwhile, we are working to put 
together a final package of agreed-upon amendments that will take us 
about 20 minutes to put together. Hopefully, at that time we will have 
a vote on final passage. So I would like all Senators to know we are 
going to work our way through several amendments over the next 20 
minutes or half hour and, hopefully, be at a point where we can move to 
final passage on this bill.
  Mr. President, with that, we now have an agreement on both the 
Salazar and Kyl amendments. I send both----
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have order in the Chamber.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, just to notify the Senator, I have not 
asked for unanimous consent. I say to the Senator, we will get to her 
amendment.


        Amendments Nos. 2516, as Modified; and 2518, as Modified

  Mr. President, we now have an agreement on both the Salazar and Kyl 
amendments. I send both amendments to the desk, as modified, and ask 
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, amendment No. 2516, is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following

     SECTION 1. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND AND MARITIME 
                   BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Operational Control of the United States Borders.--The 
     President shall ensure that operational control of all 
     international land and maritime borders is achieved.
       (b) Achieving Operational Control.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall establish and demonstrate operational 
     control of 100 percent of the international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States, including the ability to 
     monitor such borders through available methods and 
     technology.
       (1) Staff enhancements for border patrol.--The United 
     States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol may hire, 
     train, and report for duty additional full-time agents. These 
     additional agents shall be deployed along all international 
     borders.
       (2) Strong border barriers.--The United States Customs and 
     Border Protection Border Patrol may:
       (A) Install along all international borders of the United 
     States vehicle barriers;
       (B) Install along all international borders of the United 
     States ground-based radar and cameras;
       (C) Deploy for use along all international borders of the 
     United States unmanned aerial vehicles. and the supporting 
     systems for such vehicles;
       (c) Presidential Progress Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the 
     President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the 
     progress made in funding, meeting or otherwise satisfying 
     each of the requirements described under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2).
       (2) Progress not sufficient.--If the President determines 
     that sufficient progress is not being made, the President 
     shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) 
     specific funding recommendations, authorization needed, or 
     other actions that are or should be undertaken by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 2. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECURING LAND AND MARITIME BORDERS 
                   OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Any funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to 
     ensure operational control is achieved for all international 
     land and maritime borders of the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Kyl amendment, as 
modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington, [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Kyl, 
     for himself and Mr. Martinez, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2518, as modified, to amendment No. 2383.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, reading of the amendment is 
dispensed with.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY 
                   VERIFICATION BASIC PILOT PROGRAM.

       Of the amounts appropriated for border security and 
     employment verification improvements under section 1003 of 
     Division B, $60,000,000 shall be made available to--
       (1) ensure that State and local programs have sufficient 
     access to, and are sufficiently coordinated with, the Federal 
     Government's Employment Eligibility Verification System;
       (2) ensure that such system has sufficient capacity to 
     timely and accurately--
       (A) register employers in States with employer verification 
     requirements;
       (B) respond to inquiries by employers; and
       (C) enter into memoranda of understanding with States to 
     ensure responses to subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
       (3) develop policies and procedures to ensure protection of 
     the privacy and security of personally identifiable 
     information and identifiers contained in the basic pilot 
     program, including appropriate privacy and security training 
     for State employees.
       (4) ensure that the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
     Liberties of the Department of Justice has sufficient 
     capacity to conduct audits of the Federal Government's 
     Employment Eligibility Verification System to assess employer 
     compliance with System requirements, including the applicable 
     Memorandum of Understanding.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe both sides have agreed to this 
amendment, and we do not have further debate. I believe we are ready to 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Kyl amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2518), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe we now move to Senator 
Salazar's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Salazar 
amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2516), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 2419 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not pending.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
are now working with the Senator from Louisiana who has an amendment 
that is pending, on how we are going to dispose of that. We will work 
that out over the next several minutes. We have a number of other 
amendments we have been working with Senators on that I believe will be 
agreed upon on all sides. Again, our staffs are working diligently. I 
expect it will take them the next 15 or 20 minutes. At that time, we 
hope to have all the amendments before the Senate and move to final 
passage on this bill.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S10101]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2527 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Landrieu and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2527 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
 Management Agency to authorize an in-lieu contribution to the Peebles 
                                School)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTION.

       The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall authorize a large in-lieu contribution under 
     section 406(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(c)(1)) to the 
     Peebles School in Iberia Parish, Louisiana for damages 
     relating to Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 
     2005, notwithstanding section 406(c)(1)(C) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5172(c)(1)(C)).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed 
to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2527) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are going to move to a number of 
amendments that have been agreed to in a few short minutes. I ask the 
patience of all the Senators here, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 2525 Withdrawn

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 2525.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2469 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2469 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Cochran 
     and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 2469 to 
     amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that certain hazard mitigation projects shall not 
            be subject to any precertification requirements)

       On page 64, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (d) Notwithstanding section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c), projects relating to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for 
     which the non-Federal share of assistance under that section 
     is funded by amounts appropriated to the Community 
     Development Fund under chapter 9 of title I of division B of 
     the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, 
     and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148; 119 
     Stat. 2779) or chapter 9 of title II of the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
     on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 
     120 Stat. 472) shall not be subject to any precertification 
     requirements.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed 
to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2499, As Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2499, send a 
modification to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2499, as modified to amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 6, line 16, after ``entry:'', insert ``of which 
     $15,000,000 shall be used to procure commercially available 
     technology in order to expand and improve the risk-based 
     approach of the Department of Homeland Security to target and 
     inspect cargo containers under the Secure Freight Initiative 
     and the Global Trade Exchange.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed 
to on all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2499), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2475, As Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2475, send a 
modification to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment No. 2475, as modified, to amendment No. 
     2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7, line 7, insert after ``operations;'' the 
     following: ``of which $40,000,000 shall be utilized to 
     develop and implement a Model Ports of Entry program and 
     provide resources necessary for 200 additional CBP officers 
     at the 20 United States international airports that have the 
     highest number of foreign visitors arriving annually as 
     determined pursuant to the most recent data collected by the 
     United States Customs and Border Protection available on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, to provide a more efficient 
     and welcoming international arrival process in order to 
     facilitate and promote business and leisure travel to the 
     United States, while also improving security;''

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2475), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2513 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2513 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2513 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a national strategy and report on closed circuit 
                          television systems)

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 536. NATIONAL STRATEGY ON CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall--
       (1) develop a national strategy for the effective and 
     appropriate use of closed circuit television to prevent and 
     respond to acts of terrorism, which shall include--
       (A) an assessment of how closed circuit television and 
     other public surveillance systems can be used most 
     effectively as part of an overall terrorism preparedness, 
     prevention, and response program, and its appropriate role in 
     such a program;

[[Page S10102]]

       (B) a comprehensive examination of the advantages and 
     limitations of closed circuit television and, as appropriate, 
     other public surveillance technologies;
       (C) best practices on camera use and data storage;
       (D) plans for coordination between the Federal Government 
     and State and local governments, and the private sector--
       (i) in the development and use of closed circuit television 
     systems; and
       (ii) for Federal assistance and support for State and local 
     utilization of such systems;
       (E) plans for pilot programs or other means of determining 
     the real-world efficacy and limitations of closed circuit 
     televisions systems;
       (F) an assessment of privacy and civil liberties concerns 
     raised by use of closed circuit television and other public 
     surveillance systems, and guidelines to address such 
     concerns; and
       (G) an assessment of whether and how closed circuit 
     television systems and other public surveillance systems are 
     effectively utilized by other democratic countries in 
     combating terrorism; and
       (2) provide to the Committees on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, Appropriations, and the Judiciary of 
     the Senate and the Committees on Homeland Security 
     Appropriations, and the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report that includes--
       (A) the strategy required under paragraph (1);
       (B) the status and findings of any pilot program involving 
     closed circuit televisions or other public surveillance 
     systems conducted by, in coordination with, or with the 
     assistance of the Department of Homeland Security up to the 
     time of the report; and
       (C) the annual amount of funds used by the Department of 
     Homeland Security, either directly by the Department or 
     through grants to State, local, or tribal governments, to 
     support closed circuit television and the public surveillance 
     systems of the Department, since fiscal year 2004.
       (b) Consultation.--In preparing the strategy and report 
     required under subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall consult with the Attorney General, the Chief 
     Privacy Officer of the Department of Homeland Security, and 
     the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the 
     Department of Homeland Security.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2513) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2502 to Amendment No. 2383

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate 
 the sale of ammonium nitrate to prevent and deter the acquisition of 
        ammonium nitrate by terrorists, and for other purposes)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2502 and ask for 
its immediate consideration
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Pryor, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2502 to amendment No. 2383.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed 
to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2502) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2514 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2514 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Ms. 
     Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 2514 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prevent procurement of any additional major assets until 
completion of an Alternatives Analysis, and to prevent the use of funds 
  contained in this act for procurement of a third National Security 
          Cutter until completion of an Alternatives Analysis)

       On page 22, beginning in line 17, strike ``Provided,'' and 
     insert ``Provided, That no funds shall be available for 
     procurements related to the acquisition of additional major 
     assets as part of the Integrated Deepwater Systems program 
     not already under contract until an Alternatives Analysis has 
     been completed by an independent qualified third party: 
     Provided further, That no funds contained in this Act shall 
     be available for procurement of the third National Security 
     Cutter until an Alternatives Analysis has been completed by 
     an independent qualified third party: Provided further,''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2514) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2391 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2391 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Ms. 
     Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 2391 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a 
 strategy and funding plan to implement the recommendations regarding 
     the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games in the Joint 
   Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 5441 
 (109th Congress), the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
                               Act, 2007)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS SPECIAL EVENT; 2010 
                   VANCOUVER OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES.

       As soon as practicable, but not later than 3 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
     regarding the plans of the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     relating to--
       (1) implementing the recommendations regarding the 2010 
     Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 
     5441 (109th Congress), the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2007, with specific funding strategies 
     for--
       (A) the Multiagency Coordination Center; and
       (B) communications exercises to validate communications 
     pathways, test equipment, and support the training and 
     familiarization of personnel on the operations of the 
     different technologies used to support the 2010 Vancouver 
     Olympic and Paralympic Games; and
       (2) the feasibility of implementing a program to prescreen 
     individuals traveling by rail between Vancouver, Canada and 
     Seattle, Washington during the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and 
     Paralympic Games, while those individuals are located in 
     Vancouver, Canada, similar to the preclearance arrangements 
     in effect in Vancouver, Canada for certain flights between 
     the United States and Canada.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2391) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2466 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2466 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. 
     Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 2466 to amendment 
     No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S10103]]

                           amendment no. 2466

  (Purpose: To provide local officials and the Secretary of Homeland 
  Security greater involvement in decisions regarding the location of 
                            border fencing)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDER.

       Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and 
     Naturalization,'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland 
     Security''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``in the Border 
     Area'' and inserting ``Along the Border'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
       (C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated--
       (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Security 
     features'' and inserting ``Additional fencing along southwest 
     border''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall construct reinforced 
     fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border 
     where fencing would be most practical and effective and 
     provide for the installation of additional physical barriers, 
     roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational 
     control of the southwest border.
       ``(B) Priority areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
       ``(i) identify the 370 miles along the southwest border 
     where fencing would be most practical and effective in 
     deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal 
     entry into the United States; and
       ``(ii) not later than December 31, 2008, complete 
     construction of reinforced fencing along the 370 miles 
     identified under clause (i).
       ``(C) Consultation.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, States, 
     local governments, Indian tribes, and property owners in the 
     United States to minimize the impact on the environment, 
     culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities 
     and residents located near the sites at which such fencing is 
     to be constructed.
       ``(ii) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subparagraph may 
     be construed to--

       ``(I) create any right of action for a State, local 
     government, or other person or entity affected by this 
     subsection; or
       ``(II) affect the eminent domain laws of the United States 
     or of any State.

       ``(D) Limitation on requirements.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical 
     barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a 
     particular location along an international border of the 
     United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or 
     placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means 
     to achieve and maintain operational control over the 
     international border at such location.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (5), as redesignated, by striking ``to 
     carry out this subsection not to exceed $12,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is also agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2466) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2484 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2484 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Gregg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2484 to amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for greater accountability in grant and contract 
                            administration)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. ACCOUNTABILITY IN GRANT AND CONTRACT 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       The Department of Homeland Security, through the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, shall--
       (1) consider implementation, through fair and open 
     competition, of management, tracking and accountability 
     systems to assist in managing grant allocations, 
     distribution, expenditures, and asset tracking; and
       (2) consider any efficiencies created through cooperative 
     purchasing agreements.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment is also agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing on the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2484) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2486 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2486 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Ms. Collins, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2486 to amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require an appropriate amount of funding for the Office of 
                          Bombing Prevention)

       On page 30, line 17, before the period insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That $10,043,000 shall be for the 
     Office of Bombing Prevention and not more than $26,100,000 
     shall be for the Next Generation Network''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2486) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2497 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2497 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2497 to amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a wild horse and burro adoption program at the 
                    Department of Homeland Security)

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to destroy or put out to pasture any horse or other 
     equine belonging to the Federal Government that has become 
     unfit for service, unless the trainer or handler is first 
     given the option to take possession of the equine through an 
     adoption program that has safeguards against slaughter and 
     inhumane treatment.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2497) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2404, As Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2404, with a 
modification, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. 
     Martinez, proposes an amendment numbered 2404, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM.

       Section 7208(k)(3) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b(k)(3)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3) International registered traveler program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     establish an international registered traveler program that 
     incorporates available technologies, such as biometrics and 
     e-passports, and security threat assessments to expedite the 
     screening and processing of international travelers, 
     including United States Citizens and residents,

[[Page S10104]]

     who enter and exit the United States. The program shall be 
     coordinated with the US-VISIT program, other pre-screening 
     initiatives, and the Visa Waiver Program within the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       ``(B) Fees.--The Secretary may impose a fee for the program 
     established under subparagraph (A) and may modify such fee 
     from time to time. The fee may not exceed the aggregate costs 
     associated with the program and shall be credited to the 
     Department of Homeland Security for purposes of carrying out 
     the program. Amounts so credited shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(C) Rulemaking.--Within 365 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall initiate a 
     rulemaking to establish the program, criteria for 
     participation, and the fee for the program.
       ``(D) Implementation.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     establish a phased-implementation of a biometric-based 
     international registered traveler program in conjunction with 
     the US-VISIT entry and exit system, other pre-screening 
     initiatives, and the Visa Waiver Program within the 
     Department of Homeland Security at United States airports 
     with the highest volume of international travelers.
       ``(E) Participation.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     international registered traveler program includes as many 
     participants as practicable by--
       ``(i) establishing a reasonable cost of enrollment;
       ``(ii) making program enrollment convenient and easily 
     accessible; and
       ``(iii) providing applicants with clear and consistent 
     eligibility guidelines.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2404), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2478 to Amendment No. 2383

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2478 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Akaka, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2478 to amendment No. 2383.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a report on the Performance Accountability and 
    Standards System of the Transportation Security Administration)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
                   STANDARDS SYSTEM OF THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       Not later than March 1, 2008, the Transportation Security 
     Administration shall submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the 
     implementation of the Performance Accountability and 
     Standards System, including--
       (1) the number of employees who achieved each level of 
     performance;
       (2) a comparison between managers and non-managers relating 
     to performance and pay increases;
       (3) the type and amount of all pay increases that have 
     taken effect for each level of performance; and
       (4) the attrition of employees covered by the Performance 
     Accountability and Standards System.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe this amendment has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2478) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 1

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
disposition of H.R. 2638, the Senate turn to the consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 1, the 9/11 bill; that there be 90 minutes of 
debate to be equally divided under the control of the two leaders or 
their designees, and 30 additional minutes for Senator Coburn; that at 
the conclusion of the time for debate on the conference report Senator 
DeMint be recognized to offer a motion to recommit the conference 
report to report back with his dock worker provisions; that there be 20 
minutes equally divided for debate on his motion; that no other 
amendments or motions be in order; that at the conclusion or yielding 
back of time, the Senate vote on his motion to recommit; that if the 
motion is defeated, the Senate then vote on passage of the conference 
report, with the proceeding all occurring without intervening action or 
debate.
  Of course, everybody knows this has been cleared with my counterpart, 
Senator McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I stipulate that 
Senator Collins will control up to 30 minutes of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon passage of 
H.R. 2638, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference 
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair 
be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate and the 
subcommittee be appointed as conferees, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are working our way through things, so we 
will go into a short quorum call.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2516, as Further Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 2516, the amendment be 
further modified with the version I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2516), as further modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SECTION 1. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND AND MARITIME 
                   BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Operational Control of the United States Borders.--The 
     President shall ensure that operational control of all 
     international land and maritime borders is achieved.
       (b) Achieving Operational Control.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall establish and demonstrate operational 
     control of 100 percent of the international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States, including the ability to 
     monitor such borders through available methods and 
     technology.
       (1) Staff enhancements for border patrol.--The United 
     States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol may hire, 
     train, and report for duty additional full-time agents. These 
     additional agents shall be deployed along all international 
     borders.
       (2) Strong border barriers.--The United States Customs and 
     Border Protection Border Patrol may:
       (A) Install along all international borders of the United 
     States vehicle barriers;
       (B) Install along all international borders of the United 
     States ground-based radar and cameras; and
       (C) Deploy for use along all international borders of the 
     United States unmanned aerial vehicles, and the supporting 
     systems for such vehicles;
       (c) Presidential Progress Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the 
     President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the 
     progress made in funding, meeting or otherwise satisfying 
     each of the requirements described under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2).
       (2) Progress not sufficient.--If the President determines 
     that sufficient progress is not being made, the President 
     shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) 
     specific funding recommendations, authorization needed, or 
     other actions that are or

[[Page S10105]]

     should be undertaken by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 2. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECURING LAND AND MARITIME BORDERS 
                   OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Any funds appropriated under Division B of this Act shall 
     be used to ensure operational control is achieved for all 
     international land and maritime borders of the United States.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2518, as further Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding adoption of Kyl amendment No. 2518, the amendment be 
further modified with the version I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2518), as further modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY 
                   VERIFICATION BASIC PILOT PROGRAM.

       Of the amounts appropriated for border security and 
     employment verification improvements under section 1003, of 
     Division B, $60,000,000 shall be made available to--
       (1) ensure that State and local programs have sufficient 
     access to, and are sufficiently coordinated with, the Federal 
     Government's Employment Eligibility Verification System;
       (2) ensure that such system has sufficient capacity to 
     timely and accurately--
       (A) register employers in States with employer verification 
     requirements;
       (B) respond to inquiries by employers; and
       (C) enter into memoranda of understanding with States to 
     ensure responses to subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
       (3) develop policies and procedures to ensure protection of 
     the privacy and security of personally identifiable 
     information and identifiers contained in the basic pilot 
     program, including appropriate privacy and security training 
     for State employees.
       (4) ensure that the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
     Liberties of the Department of Justice has sufficient 
     capacity to conduct audits of the Federal Government's 
     Employment Eligibility Verification System to assess employer 
     compliance with system requirements, including the applicable 
     Memorandum of Understanding.
       (5) These amounts are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I advise Senators that we have about 10 
more minutes. We are working through the final package of agreed-upon 
amendments which we hope to have to the floor in the next 10 minutes. 
We will work our way through those amendments and on to final passage.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have a list, a managers' package that I 
believe has been agreed to on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that 
I be allowed to send them to the desk en bloc, with the modifications, 
and have them agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. I would like to object. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with the objection heard, we have about 
20 amendments. We will work our way through them one at a time.
  We are getting a copy of the amendments to the desk. As soon as that 
is done, we will have to proceed through the amendments one by one 
until they are agreed to.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know of no other amendments to come 
before the Senate on this bill. I move to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on the committee substitute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that we go back to second 
reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 2438, 2432, 2451, 2495, 2500, as Modified, 2507, 2477, 
  2519, 2439, 2406, 2417, as Modified, 2504, 2421, as Modified, 2422, 
  2526, 2445, as Modified, 2465, as Modified, 2508, 2509, 2463, 2490, 
2521, 2467, as Modified, 2474, as Modified, 2522, as Modified, 2524 to 
                        amendment 2383, en bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the managers' package, as 
was presented, be sent to the desk, en bloc, with the modifications as 
requested and be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments considered and agreed to are as follows:


                           Amendment no. 2438

  (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study on 
                       shared border management)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SHARED BORDER MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the Department of Homeland 
     Security's use of shared border management to secure the 
     international borders of the United States.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     to Congress that describes--
       (1) any negotiations, plans, or designs conducted by 
     officials of the Department of Homeland Security regarding 
     the practice of shared border management; and
       (2) the factors required to be in place for shared border 
     management to be successful.


                           Amendment no. 2432

(Purpose: To increase the authorized level for the border relief grant 
               program from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000)

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       Sec. __.  Amounts authorized to be appropriated in the 
     Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2007 are increased by 
     $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.


                           Amendment no. 2451

   (Purpose: To conduct a study to determine whether fencing on the 
    southern border can be constructed for less than an average of 
                          $3,200,000 per mile)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. GAO STUDY OF COST OF FENCING ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

       (a) Inquiry and Report Required.--The Comptroller of the 
     United States shall conduct a study examining--
       (1) the total amount of money that has been expended, as of 
     June 20, 2007, to construct 90 miles of fencing on the 
     southern border of the United States;
       (2) the average cost per mile of the 90 miles of fencing on 
     the southern border as of June 20, 2007;
       (3) the average cost per mile of the 370 miles of fencing 
     that the Department of Homeland Security is required to have 
     completed on the southern border by December 31, 2008, which 
     shall include $1,187,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2007 
     for ``border security fencing, technology, and 
     infrastructure'' and the $1,000,000,000 appropriated under 
     this Act under the heading ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology'';
       (4) the total cost and average cost per mile to construct 
     the 700 linear miles (854 topographical miles) of fencing on 
     the southern border required to be constructed under section 
     102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended by section 3 of the 
     Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367);
       (5) the total cost and average cost per mile to construct 
     the fencing described in paragraph (4) if the double layer 
     fencing requirement were eliminated; and
       (6) the number of miles of single layer fencing, if fencing 
     were not accompanied by additional technology and 
     infrastructure such as cameras, sensors, and roads, which 
     could be built with the $1,187,000,000 appropriated in fiscal 
     year 2007 for ``border security fencing, technology, and 
     infrastructure'' and the $1,000,000,000 appropriated under 
     this Act under the heading ``Border Security Fencing, 
     Infrastructure, and Technology''.
       (b) Submission of Report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this

[[Page S10106]]

     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report on the 
     results of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a) 
     to--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (3) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (4) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           amendment no. 2495

   (Purpose: To restore the credibility of the Federal Government by 
taking action to enforce immigration laws, to request the President to 
    submit a request to Congress for supplemental appropriations on 
                  immigration, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON IMMIGRATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On June 28th, 2007, the Senate, by a vote of 46 to 53, 
     rejected a motion to invoke cloture on a bill to provide for 
     comprehensive immigration reform.
       (2) Illegal immigration remains the top domestic issue in 
     the United States.
       (3) The people of the United States continue to feel the 
     effects of a failed immigration system on a daily basis, and 
     they have not forgotten that Congress and the President have 
     a duty to address the issue of illegal immigration and the 
     security of the international borders of the United States.
       (4) People from across the United States have shared with 
     members of the Senate their wide ranging and passionate 
     opinions on how best to reform the immigration system.
       (5) There is no consensus on an approach to comprehensive 
     immigration reform that does not first secure the 
     international borders of the United States.
       (6) There is unanimity that the Federal Government has a 
     responsibility to, and immediately should, secure the 
     international borders of the United States.
       (7) Border security is an integral part of national 
     security.
       (8) The greatest obstacle the Federal Government faces with 
     respect to the people of the United States is a lack of trust 
     that the Federal Government will secure the international 
     borders of the United States.
       (9) This lack of trust is rooted in the past failures of 
     the Federal Government to uphold and enforce immigration laws 
     and the failure of the Federal Government to secure the 
     international borders of the United States.
       (10) Failure to uphold and enforce immigration laws has 
     eroded respect for those laws and eliminated the faith of the 
     people of the United States in the ability of their elected 
     officials to responsibly administer immigration programs.
       (11) It is necessary to regain the trust of the people of 
     the United States in the competency of the Federal Government 
     to enforce immigration laws and manage the immigration 
     system.
       (12) Securing the borders of the United States would serve 
     as a starting point to begin to address other issues 
     surrounding immigration reform on which there is not 
     consensus.
       (13) Congress has not fully funded some interior and border 
     security activities that it has authorized.
       (14) The President of the United States can initiate 
     emergency spending by designating certain spending as 
     ``emergency spending'' in a request to the Congress.
       (15) The lack of security on the international borders of 
     the United States rises to the level of an emergency.
       (16) The Border Patrol are apprehending some, but not all, 
     individuals from countries that the Secretary of State has 
     determined have repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism who cross or attempt to cross 
     illegally into the United States.
       (17) The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a 
     human smuggling ring that has been bringing Iraqis and other 
     Middle Eastern individuals across the international borders 
     of the United States.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of Senate that--
       (1) the Federal Government should work to regain the trust 
     of the people of the United States in its ability of the 
     Federal Government to secure the international borders of the 
     United States;
       (2) in order to restore the credibility of the Federal 
     Government on this critical issue, the Federal Government 
     should prove its ability to enforce immigration laws by 
     taking actions such as securing the border, stopping the flow 
     of illegal immigrants and drugs into the United States, and 
     creating a tamper-proof biometric identification card for 
     foreign workers; and
       (3) the President should request emergency spending that 
     fully funds--
       (A) existing interior and border security authorizations 
     that have not been funded by Congress; and
       (B) the border and interior security initiatives contained 
     in the bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform 
     and for other purposes (S. 1639) introduced in the Senate on 
     June 18, 2007.


                    amendment no. 2500, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ENSURING THE SAFETY OF AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Food and Drug Administration, as part of its 
     responsibility to ensure the safety of food and other 
     imports, maintains a presence at 91 of the 320 points of 
     entry into the United States.
       (2) United States Customs and Border Protection personnel 
     are responsible for monitoring imports and alerting the Food 
     and Drug Administration to suspicious material entering the 
     United States at the remaining 229 points of entry.
       (b) Report.--The Commissioner of United States Customs and 
     Border Protection shall submit a report to Congress that 
     describes the training of United States Customs and Border 
     Protection personnel to effectively assist the Food and Drug 
     Administration in monitoring our Nation's food supply.


                           amendment no. 2507

  (Purpose: To require a study on the implementation of the voluntary 
                provision of emergency services program)

       On page 69, between after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536. (a) Study on Implementation of Voluntary 
     Provision of Emergency Services Program.--(1) Not later than 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 
     shall conduct a study on the implementation of the voluntary 
     provision of emergency services program established pursuant 
     to section 44944(a) of title 49, United States Code (referred 
     to in this section as the ``program'').
       (2) As part of the study required by paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall assess the following:
       (A) Whether training protocols established by air carriers 
     and foreign air carriers include training pertinent to the 
     program and whether such training is effective for purposes 
     of the program.
       (B) Whether employees of air carriers and foreign air 
     carriers responsible for implementing the program are 
     familiar with the provisions of the program.
       (C) The degree to which the program has been implemented in 
     airports.
       (D) Whether a helpline or other similar mechanism of 
     assistance provided by an air carrier, foreign air carrier, 
     or the Transportation Security Administration should be 
     established to provide assistance to employees of air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers who are uncertain of the 
     procedures of the program.
       (3) In making the assessment required by paragraph (2)(C), 
     the Administrator may make use of unannounced interviews or 
     other reasonable and effective methods to test employees of 
     air carriers and foreign air carriers responsible for 
     registering law enforcement officers, firefighters, and 
     emergency medical technicians as part of the program.
       (4)(A) Not later than 60 days after the completion of the 
     study required by paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the findings of such study.
       (B) The Administrator shall make such report available to 
     the public by Internet web site or other appropriate method.
       (b) Publication of Report Previously Submitted.--The 
     Administrator shall make available to the public on the 
     Internet web site of the Transportation Security 
     Administration or the Department of Homeland Security the 
     report required by section 554(b) of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-
     295).
       (c) Mechanism for Reporting Problems.--The Administrator 
     shall develop a mechanism on the Internet web site of the 
     Transportation Security Administration or the Department of 
     Homeland Security by which first responders may report 
     problems with or barriers to volunteering in the program. 
     Such mechanism shall also provide information on how to 
     submit comments related to volunteering in the program.
       (d) Air Carrier and Foreign Air Carrier Defined.--In this 
     section, the terms ``air carrier'' and ``foreign air 
     carrier'' have the meaning given such terms in section 40102 
     of title 49, United States Code.


                           amendment no. 2477

(Purpose: To require the Government Accountability Office to report on 
              the Department's risk-based grant programs)

       On page 40, line 15, after ``Security'' insert ``and an 
     analysis of the Department's policy of ranking States, 
     cities, and other grantees by tiered groups,''.


                           amendment no. 2519

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
 made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an 
 amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such 
   amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in 
     writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the 
     contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability)

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no 
     unpaid Federal tax assessments, that the contractor or 
     grantee has entered into an installment agreement or offer in 
     compromise

[[Page S10107]]

     that has been accepted by the IRS to resolve any unpaid 
     Federal tax assessments, that the contractor or grantee has 
     entered into an installment agreement or offer in compromise 
     that has been accepted by the IRS to resolve any unpaid 
     Federal tax assessments, or, in the case of unpaid Federal 
     tax assessments other than for income, estate, and gift 
     taxes, that the liability for the unpaid assessments is the 
     subject of a non-frivolous administrative or judicial appeal. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the certification 
     requirement of part 52.209-5 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall also include a requirement for a 
     certification by a prospective contractor of whether, within 
     the three-year period preceding the offer for the contract, 
     the prospective contractor--
       (1) has or has not been convicted of or had a civil 
     judgment or other judicial determination rendered against the 
     contractor for violating any tax law or failing to pay any 
     tax;
       (2) has or has not been notified of any delinquent taxes 
     for which the liability remains unsatisfied; or
       (3) has or has not received a notice of a tax lien filed 
     against the contractor for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied or for which the lien has not been released.


                           amendment no. 2439

(Purpose: To resolve the differences between the Transportation Worker 
 Identification Credential program administered by the Transportation 
  Security Administration and existing State transportation facility 
                        access control programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TRANSPORTATION FACILITY ACCESS CONTROL PROGRAMS.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall work with 
     appropriate officials of Florida and of other States to 
     resolve the differences between the Transportation Worker 
     Identification Credential program administered by the 
     Transportation Security Administration and existing State 
     transportation facility access control programs.


                           amendment no. 2406

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for planning, testing, piloting, 
             or developing a national identification card)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a 
     national identification card.


                    amendment no. 2417, AS MODIFIED

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 536. Additional Assistance for Preparation of Plans.
       Subparagraph (L) of section 33(b)(3) of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(3)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(L) To fund fire prevention programs, including planning 
     and preparation for wildland fires.


                           amendment no. 2504

    (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding to need to 
 appropriate sufficient funds to increase the number of border patrol 
 officers and agents protecting the northern border pursuant to prior 
                            authorizations)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that sufficient funds should be 
     appropriated to allow the Secretary to increase the number of 
     personnel of United States Customs and Border Protection 
     protecting the northern border by 1,517 officers and 788 
     agents, as authorized by--
       (1) section 402 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
     Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
     Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 
     107-56);
       (2) section 331 of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     210); and
       (3) section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458).


                     Amendment no. 2421, as modified

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

      TITLE __--BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Border Infrastructure and 
     Technology Modernization Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection 
     of the Department of Homeland Security.
       (2) Maquiladora.--The term ``maquiladora'' means an entity 
     located in Mexico that assembles and produces goods from 
     imported parts for export to the United States.
       (3) Northern border.--The term ``northern border'' means 
     the international border between the United States and 
     Canada.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
       (5) Southern border.--The term ``southern border'' means 
     the international border between the United States and 
     Mexico.

     SEC. 603. HIRING AND TRAINING OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY PERSONNEL.

       (a) Officers and Agents.--
       (1) Increase in officers and agents.--Subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, during each of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2013, the Secretary shall--
       (A) increase the number of full-time agents and associated 
     support staff in United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security by the 
     equivalent of at least 100 more than the number of such 
     employees as of the end of the preceding fiscal year; and
       (B) increase the number of full-time officers, agricultural 
     specialists, and associated support staff in United States 
     Customs and Border Protection by the equivalent of at least 
     200 more than the number of such employees as of the end of 
     the preceding fiscal year.
       (2) Waiver of fte limitation.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to waive any limitation on the number of full-time equivalent 
     personnel assigned to the Department of Homeland Security to 
     fulfill the requirements of paragraph (1).
       (b) Training.--As necessary, the Secretary, acting through 
     the Assistant Secretary for United States Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement and the Commissioner, shall provide 
     appropriate training for agents, officers, agricultural 
     specialists, and associated support staff of the Department 
     of Homeland Security to utilize new technologies and to 
     ensure that the proficiency levels of such personnel are 
     acceptable to protect the borders of the United States.

     SEC. 604. PORT OF ENTRY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT STUDY.

       (a) Requirement To Update.--Not later than January 31 of 
     every other year, the Commissioner, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of General Services shall--
       (1) review--
       (A) the Port of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study 
     prepared by the United States Customs Service, the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the General 
     Services Administration in accordance with the matter 
     relating to the ports of entry infrastructure assessment set 
     forth in the joint explanatory statement on page 67 of 
     conference report 106-319, accompanying Public Law 106-58; 
     and
       (B) the nationwide strategy to prioritize and address the 
     infrastructure needs at the land ports of entry prepared by 
     the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services 
     Administration in accordance with the committee 
     recommendations on page 22 of Senate report 108-86, 
     accompanying Public Law 108-90;
       (2) update the assessment of the infrastructure needs of 
     all United States land ports of entry; and
       (3) submit an updated assessment of land port of entry 
     infrastructure needs to Congress.
       (b) Consultation.--In preparing the updated studies 
     required under subsection (a), the Commissioner and the 
     Administrator of General Services shall consult with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the 
     Secretary, and affected State and local agencies on the 
     northern and southern borders of the United States.
       (c) Content.--Each updated study required in subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) identify port of entry infrastructure and technology 
     improvement projects that would enhance border security and 
     facilitate the flow of legitimate commerce if implemented;
       (2) include the projects identified in the National Land 
     Border Security Plan required by section 605; and
       (3) prioritize the projects described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) based on the ability of a project--
       (A) to enhance the ability of United States Customs and 
     Border Protection to achieve its mission and to support 
     operations;
       (B) to fulfill security requirements; and
       (C) facilitate trade across the borders of the United 
     States.
       (d) Project Implementation.--The Commissioner, as 
     appropriate, shall--
       (1) implement the infrastructure and technology improvement 
     projects described in subsection (c) in the order of priority 
     assigned to each project under subsection (c)(3); or
       (2) forward the prioritized list of infrastructure and 
     technology improvement projects to the Administrator of 
     General Services for implementation in the order of priority 
     assigned to each project under subsection (c)(3).
       (e) Divergence From Priorities.--The Commissioner may 
     diverge from the priority order if the Commissioner 
     determines that significantly changed circumstances, 
     including immediate security needs, changes in infrastructure 
     in Mexico or Canada, or similar concerns, compellingly alter 
     the need for a project in the United States.

     SEC. 605. NATIONAL LAND BORDER SECURITY PLAN.

       (a) Requirement for Plan.--Not later than January 31 of 
     every other year, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall prepare a National Land Border Security 
     Plan and submit such plan to Congress.
       (b) Consultation.--In preparing the plan required under 
     subsection (a), the Commissioner shall consult with other 
     appropriate Federal agencies, State and local law enforcement 
     agencies, and private entities that are involved in 
     international trade across the northern or southern border.
       (c) Vulnerability Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The plan required under subsection (a) 
     shall include a vulnerability, risk, and threat assessment of 
     each port of entry located on the northern border or the 
     southern border.

[[Page S10108]]

       (2) Port security coordinators.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Commissioner, may establish 1 or more port 
     security coordinators at each port of entry located on the 
     northern border or the southern border--
       (A) to assist in conducting a vulnerability assessment at 
     such port; and
       (B) to provide other assistance with the preparation of the 
     plan required under subsection (a).
       (d) Coordination With the Secure Border Initiative.--The 
     plan required under subsection (a) shall include a 
     description of activities undertaken during the previous year 
     as part of the Secure Border Initiative and actions planned 
     for the coming year as part of the Secure Border Initiative.

     SEC. 606. EXPANSION OF COMMERCE SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Commerce Security Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner, in consultation 
     with the Secretary, shall develop a plan to expand the size 
     and scope, including personnel needs, of the Customs-Trade 
     Partnership Against Terrorism program or other voluntary 
     programs involving government entities and the private sector 
     to strengthen and improve the overall security of the 
     international supply chain and security along the northern 
     and southern border of the United States.
       (2) Southern border supply chain security.--Not later than 
     1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commissioner shall provide Congress with a plan to improve 
     supply chain security along the southern border, including 
     where appropriate, plans to implement voluntary programs 
     involving government entities and the private sector to 
     strengthen and improve the overall security of the 
     international supply chain that have been successfully 
     implemented on the northern border.

     SEC. 607. PORT OF ENTRY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall carry out a technology demonstration 
     program to test and evaluate new port of entry technologies, 
     refine port of entry technologies and operational concepts, 
     and train personnel under realistic conditions.
       (b) Technology and Facilities.--
       (1) Technology tested.--Under the demonstration program, 
     the Commissioner shall test technologies that enhance port of 
     entry operations, including those related to inspections, 
     communications, port tracking, identification of persons and 
     cargo, sensory devices, personal detection, decision support, 
     and the detection and identification of weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       (2) Facilities developed.--At a demonstration site selected 
     pursuant to subsection (c)(3), the Commissioner shall develop 
     any facilities needed to provide appropriate training to 
     Federal law enforcement personnel who have responsibility for 
     border security, including cross-training among agencies, 
     advanced law enforcement training, and equipment orientation 
     to the extent that such training is not being conducted at 
     existing Federal facilities.
       (c) Demonstration Sites.--
       (1) Number.--The Commissioner shall carry out the 
     demonstration program at not less than 3 sites and not more 
     than 5 sites.
       (2) Location.--Of the sites selected under subsection (c)--
       (A) at least 1 shall be located on the northern border of 
     the United States; and
       (B) at least 1 shall be located on the southern border of 
     the United States.
       (3) Selection criteria.--To ensure that 1 of the facilities 
     selected as a port of entry demonstration site for the 
     demonstration program has the most up-to-date design, 
     contains sufficient space to conduct the demonstration 
     program, has a traffic volume low enough to easily 
     incorporate new technologies without interrupting normal 
     processing activity, and can efficiently carry out 
     demonstration and port of entry operations, 1 port of entry 
     selected as a demonstration site may--
       (A) have been established not more than 15 years before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act;
       (B) consist of not less than 65 acres, with the possibility 
     of expansion onto not less than 25 adjacent acres; and
       (C) have serviced an average of not more than 50,000 
     vehicles per month during the 12 months preceding the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Relationship With Other Agencies.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Commissioner, shall permit personnel from 
     appropriate Federal agencies to utilize a demonstration site 
     described in subsection (c) to test technologies that enhance 
     port of entry operations, including those related to 
     inspections, communications, port tracking, identification of 
     persons and cargo, sensory devices, personal detection, 
     decision support, and the detection and identification of 
     weapons of mass destruction.
       (e) Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the activities 
     carried out at each demonstration site under the technology 
     demonstration program established under this section.
       (2) Content.--The report shall include an assessment by the 
     Commissioner of the feasibility of incorporating any 
     demonstrated technology for use throughout United States 
     Customs and Border Protection.

     SEC. 608. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any funds otherwise 
     available, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary to carry out sections 603, 604, 605, 606, 
     and 607 for FY2009-FY2013.
       (b) International Agreements.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under this title may be used for the 
     implementation of projects described in the Declaration on 
     Embracing Technology and Cooperation to Promote the Secure 
     and Efficient Flow of People and Commerce across our Shared 
     Border between the United States and Mexico, agreed to March 
     22, 2002, Monterrey, Mexico (commonly known as the Border 
     Partnership Action Plan) or the Smart Border Declaration 
     between the United States and Canada, agreed to December 12, 
     2001, Ottawa, Canada that are consistent with the provisions 
     of this title.


                           amendment no. 2422

 (Purpose: To conduct a study to improve radio communications for law 
 enforcement officers operating along the international borders of the 
                             United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY OF RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ALONG THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall conduct a study to determine the areas along the 
     international borders of the United States where Federal and 
     State law enforcement officers are unable to achieve radio 
     communication or where radio communication is inadequate.
       (b) Development of Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the conclusion of the study described 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary shall develop a plan for 
     enhancing radio communication capability along the 
     international borders of the United States.
       (2) Contents.--The plan developed under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) an estimate of the costs required to implement the 
     plan; and
       (B) a description of the ways in which Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement officers could benefit from the 
     implementation of the plan.


                           amendment no. 2526

(Purpose: To provide that certain funds shall be made available to the 
 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for the fraud risk 
   assessment relating to the H-1B program is submitted to Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Of the funds provided under this Act or any other Act to 
     United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, not less 
     than $1,000,000 shall be provided for a benefits fraud 
     assessment of the H-1B Visa Program.


                     amendment no. 2445 as modified

       At the end, add the following:
       Sec. 536. (a) Report on Interagency Operational Centers for 
     Port Security.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to Congress a report and make the report 
     available on its website on the implementation and use of 
     interagency operational centers for port security under 
     section 70107A of title 46, United States Code.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A detailed description of the progress made in 
     transitioning Project Seahawk in Charleston, South Carolina, 
     from the Department of Justice to the Coast Guard, including 
     all projects and equipment associated with that project.
       (2) A detailed description of that actions being taken to 
     assure the integrity of Project Seahawk and ensure there is 
     no loss in cooperation between the agencies specified in 
     section 70107A(b)(3) of title 46, United State Code.
       (3) A detailed description and explanation of any changes 
     in Project Seahawk as of the date of the report, including 
     any changes in Federal, State, or local staffing of that 
     project.


                    amendment no. 2465, as modified

       On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 536. (a) The amount appropriated by title III for 
     necessary expenses for programs authorized by the Federal 
     Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 under the heading 
     ``firefighter assistance grants'' is hereby increased by 
     $5,000,000 for necessary expenses to carry out the programs 
     authorized under section 34 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a).
       (b) The amount appropriated by title III under the heading 
     ``infrastructure protection and information security'' is 
     hereby reduced by $5,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2508

  (Purpose: To provide funds to modernize the National Fire Incident 
Reporting System and to encourage the presence of State and local fire 
     department representatives at the National Operations Center)

       On page 35, line 15, strike ``costs.'' and insert the 
     following: ``costs: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount made available under this heading, $1,000,000 shall be 
     to develop a web-based version of the National Fire Incident 
     Reporting System that will ensure that fire-related data can 
     be submitted and accessed by fire departments in real 
     time.''.

       On page 5, line 3, strike ``expenses.'' and insert the 
     following: ``expenses: Provided, That

[[Page S10109]]

     the Director of Operations Coordination shall encourage 
     rotating State and local fire service representation at the 
     National Operations Center.''.


                           amendment no. 2509

(Purpose: To mitigate the health risks posed by hazardous chemicals in 
trailers provided by Federal Emergency Management Agency, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 5, line 20, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That the Inspector General shall 
     investigate decisions made regarding, and the policy of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency relating to, formaldehyde 
     in trailers in the Gulf Coast region, the process used by the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency for collecting, 
     reporting, and responding to health and safety concerns of 
     occupants of housing supplied by the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency (including such housing supplied through a 
     third party), and whether the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency adequately addressed public health and safety issues 
     of households to which the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency provides disaster housing (including whether the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency adequately notified 
     recipients of such housing, as appropriate, of potential 
     health and safety concerns and whether the institutional 
     culture of the Federal Emergency Management Agency properly 
     prioritizes health and safety concerns of recipients of 
     assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency), and 
     submit a report to Congress relating to that investigation, 
     including any recommendations''.

       On page 35, line 15, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That not later than 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall, as 
     appropriate, update training practices for all customer 
     service employees, employees in the Office of General 
     Counsel, and other appropriate employees of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency relating to addressing health 
     concerns of recipients of assistance from the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency''.

       On page 40, line 24, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That not later than 15 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 
     detailing the actions taken as of that date, and any actions 
     the Administrator will take, regarding the response of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency to concerns over 
     formaldehyde exposure, which shall include a description of 
     any disciplinary or other personnel actions taken, a detailed 
     policy for responding to any reports of potential health 
     hazards posed by any materials provided by the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (including housing, food, water, 
     or other materials), and a description of any additional 
     resources needed to implement such policy: Provided further, 
     That the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, in conjunction with the head of the Office of Health 
     Affairs of the Department of Homeland Security, the Director 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     design a program to scientifically test a representative 
     sample of travel trailers and mobile homes provided by the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, and surplus travel 
     trailers and mobile homes to be sold or transferred by the 
     Federal government on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, for formaldehyde and, not later than 15 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report regarding the 
     program designed, including a description of the design of 
     the testing program and the quantity of and conditions under 
     which trailers and mobile homes shall be tested and the 
     justification for such design of the testing: Provided 
     further, That in order to protect the health and safety of 
     disaster victims, the testing program designed under the 
     previous proviso shall provide for initial short-term 
     testing, and longer-term testing, as required: Provided 
     further, That not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, in conjunction with the head of 
     the Office of Health Affairs of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall, at a minimum, complete the initial 
     short-term testing described in the previous proviso: 
     Provided further, That, to the extent feasible, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall use a qualified contractor residing or doing business 
     primarily in the Gulf Coast Area to carry out the testing 
     program designed under this heading: Provided further, That, 
     not later than 30 days after the date that the Administrator 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency completes the 
     short-term testing under this heading, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in conjunction with 
     the head of the Office of Health Affairs of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 
     describing the results of the testing, analyzing such 
     results, providing an assessment of whether there are any 
     health risks associated with the results and the nature of 
     any such health risks, and detailing the plans of the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
     act on the results of the testing, including any need to 
     relocate individuals living in the trailers or mobile homes 
     provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or 
     otherwise assist individuals affected by the results, plans 
     for the sale or transfer of any trailers or mobile homes 
     (which shall be made in coordination with the Administrator 
     of General Services), and plans to conduct further testing: 
     Provided further, That after completing longer-term testing 
     under this heading, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, in conjunction with the head of 
     the Office of Health Affairs of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report describing the 
     results of the testing, analyzing such results, providing an 
     assessment of whether any health risks are associated with 
     the results and the nature of any such health risks, 
     incorporating any additional relevant information from the 
     shorter-term testing completed under this heading, and 
     detailing the plans and recommendations of the Administrator 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act on the 
     results of the testing.


                           amendment no. 2463

    (Purpose: To apply basic contracting laws to the Transportation 
                        Security Administration)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TSA ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT POLICY.

       (a) In General.--Section 114 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (o) and redesignating 
     subsections (p) through (t) as subsections (o) through (s), 
     respectively.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.


                           amendment no. 2490

(Purpose: To provide for a report on regional boundaries for Urban Area 
                      Security Initiative regions)

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. REPORT ON URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Government Accountability Office shall submit a 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees which 
     describes the criteria and factors the Department of Homeland 
     Security uses to determine the regional boundaries for Urban 
     Area Security Initiative regions, including a determination 
     if the Department is meeting its goal to implement a regional 
     approach with respect to Urban Area Security Initiative 
     regions, and provides recommendations for how the Department 
     can better facilitate a regional approach for Urban Area 
     Security Initiative regions.


                           amendment no. 2521

     (Purpose: To provide for special rules relating to assistance 
               concerning the Greensburg, Kansas tornado)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In this section:
       (1) The term ``covered funds'' means funds provided under 
     section 173 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2918) to a State that submits an application under 
     that section not earlier than May 4, 2007, for a national 
     emergency grant to address the effects of the May 4, 2007, 
     Greensburg, Kansas tornado.
       (2) The term ``professional municipal services'' means 
     services that are necessary to facilitate the recovery of 
     Greensburg, Kansas from that tornado, and necessary to plan 
     for or provide basic management and administrative services, 
     which may include--
       (A) the overall coordination of disaster recovery and 
     humanitarian efforts, oversight, and enforcement of building 
     code compliance, and coordination of health and safety 
     response units; or
       (B) the delivery of humanitarian assistance to individuals 
     affected by that tornado.
       (b) Covered funds may be used to provide temporary public 
     sector employment and services authorized under section 173 
     of such Act to individuals affected by such tornado, 
     including individuals who were unemployed on the date of the 
     tornado, or who are without employment history, in addition 
     to individuals who are eligible for disaster relief 
     employment under section 173(d)(2) of such Act.
       (c) Covered funds may be used to provide professional 
     municipal services for a period of not more than 24 months, 
     by hiring or contracting with individuals or organizations 
     (including individuals employed by contractors) that the 
     State involved determines are necessary to provide 
     professional municipal services.
       (d) Covered funds expended under this section may be spent 
     on costs incurred not earlier than May 4, 2007.

[[Page S10110]]

                    amendment no. 2467, AS MODIFIED

       On page 69, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 536. DATA RELATING TO DECLARATIONS OF A MAJOR DISASTER.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, except as provided in subsection (b), and 30 days 
     after the date that the President determines whether to 
     declare a major disaster because of an event, and any appeal 
     is completed; the Administrator shall submit to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
     and publish on the website of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, a report regarding that decision, which 
     shall summarize damage assessment information used to 
     determine whether to declare a major disaster;
       (b) Exception.--The Administrator may redact from a report 
     under subsection (a) any data that the Administrator 
     determines would compromise national security.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
       (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).


                           amendment no. 2474

       On page 17, line 6, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall ensure that the workforce of the Federal 
     Protective Service includes not fewer than 1,200 Commanders, 
     Police Officers, Inspectors, and Special Agents engaged on a 
     daily basis in protecting Federal buildings (under this 
     heading referred to as `in-service'): Contingent on the 
     availability of sufficient revenue in collections of security 
     fees in this account for this purpose. Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall adjust fees as 
     necessary to ensure full funding of not fewer than 1,200 in-
     service Commanders, Police Officers, Inspectors, and Special 
     Agents at the Federal Protective Service''.


                    amendment no. 2522, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 536. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CENTER OF 
                   EXCELLENCE.

       If the Secretary of Homeland Security establishes a 
     National Transportation Security Center of Excellence to 
     conduct research and education activities, and to develop or 
     provide professional security training, including the 
     training of transportation employees and transportation 
     professionals, the Mineta Transportation Institute at San 
     Jose State University may be included as a member institution 
     of such Center.


                           amendment no. 2524

(Purpose: To provide funding for security associated with the national 
                           party conventions)

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Of amounts appropriated under section 1003, 
     $100,000,000, with $50,000,000 each to the Cities of Denver, 
     Colorado, and St. Paul, Minnesota, shall be available for 
     State and local law enforcement entities for security and 
     related costs, including overtime, associated with the 
     Democratic National Conventional and Republican National 
     Convention in 2008. Amounts provided by this section are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe those are all the amendments to come before 
the Senate.


                           amendment no. 2521

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on May 4, Greensburg, KS, was devastated 
by a tornado. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with the many 
families affected by this disaster, and we fully support their 
rebuilding efforts.
  I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Roberts and 
Senator Brownback to the Homeland Security appropriations bill that 
would allow Greensburg to hire the essential workers it needs to help 
rebuild the town.
  The protections in current law governing national emergency grants 
under the Workforce Investment Act serve an important purpose. They 
ensure that the program is targeted to help workers who need it most, 
and is not used to displace public sector workers with workers that do 
not receive the same wage and merit system protections.
  Greensburg, however, faces unique circumstances. In the wake of the 
disaster, this small city has an obvious need for professionals--such 
as zoning experts, planning professionals, and building inspectors--
with expertise that is not readily available in the area. In these 
unique circumstances, the waivers provided for in this bill are a 
reasonable response. It is obviously not, however, a precedent for 
future recipients of these emergency grants.
  I hope very much that these waivers will do as much as possible to 
help the people of Greensburg restore their city and rebuild their 
lives, and I wish them well in the years ahead.


                           amendment no. 2474

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, my amendment is an amendment I wish I 
did not have to offer. It is necessary, unfortunately, because of the 
administration's continued plan to outsource or privatize critical 
components of our homeland security.
  I am proud to have Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Lautenberg, Akaka, 
Menendez, Kerry, Mikulski, Cardin and the chairman and ranking member 
of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee 
respectively, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, as cosponsors of 
this amendment.
  This amendment also has the endorsement of the American Federation of 
Government Employees. I will ask to have printed in the Record their 
letter of support.
  Mr. President, the most recent key judgments of the National 
Intelligence Estimate were crystal clear: our homeland is under a 
``heightened threat environment'' and that al-Qaida is undiminished in 
its goal in attacking us here at home.
  At the very same time, despite a lot of tough rhetoric, the Bush 
administration wants to cut the only Federal agency responsible for 
protecting nearly 9,000 nonmilitary Federal buildings nationwide.
  The Federal Protective Service, or FPS, protects more than 1.1 
million Federal employees located in more than 2,100 communities across 
our country.
  While protecting Federal buildings, the FPS also monitors the 
qualifications and performance of 15,000 privately contracted security 
guards.
  In 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the General Services 
Administration and Congress concluded that FPS required 1,480 field 
personnel to do its duty.
  After 9/11, as we face even greater threat, as we have rightfully 
heightened our security and vigilance here at home, the Bush 
administration has slashed FPS personnel to fewer than 1,200. If it has 
its way, the administration will cut that number to 950 in 2008.
  Just today, we learned that the FPS has recently issued an internal 
document, entitled ``Increased Risk of Terrorist Attack This Summer'' 
detailing high-risk threats to Federal buildings and employees.
  The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, Richard 
L. Skinner, investigated the FPS. Among the disturbing findings: Only a 
dozen FPS employees are tasked with checking the credentials and 
performances of the 5,700 guards in the DC area--``an inadequate 
number'' according to the audit; 30 percent of contract security guards 
in the sample had at least one expired certification, security 
contractors failing to perform security services according to terms and 
conditions of their contracts.
  The report concluded that many of the deficiencies cited occurred 
because FPS personnel were not effectively monitoring the contract 
guard program.
  On May 1, 2007, Jim Taylor, the deputy inspector general for the 
Department of Homeland Security testified before the House Committee on 
Homeland Security and stated that further reductions in the FPS ``could 
lead to uneven effects across the nation, perhaps place some facilities 
at risk.''
  Last month, contract security guards did not show up for work at the 
Department of Education and two Food and Drug Administration offices. 
The contract guards' employer had not paid 400 employees in a month, 
citing financial difficulties. But FPS did pay the company for its 
services. It turns out that the company's president served 5 years in 
jail for bank fraud and money laundering. According to company's 
general manager, the president of the company used company money to pay 
for luxury condos here in the District of Columbia and in Myrtle Beach, 
SC.
  This latest episode only underscores the importance of not cutting 
the Federal Protective Services staff, but increasing it. It not only 
saves us from wasting Federal resources--it could save lives.
  My amendment would stop the Department of Homeland Security from 
continuing to downsize the Federal

[[Page S10111]]

Protective Service. The amendment would require the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to assure that the workforce of the Federal 
Protective Service includes no fewer than 1,200 commanders, police 
officers, and special agents engaged on a daily basis in protecting 
Federal buildings.
  This amendment does not require an offset or any additional spending. 
FPS operations are solely funded through security fees and 
reimbursements paid for by Federal agencies. The amendment would 
require the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of 
Homeland Security to adjust Federal building security fees as necessary 
to ensure full funding of not fewer than 1,200 in-service commanders, 
police officers, inspectors, and special agents at the Federal 
Protective Service.
  Mr. President, security on the cheap is no security at all. Our 
Nation faces serious threats--this Congress should demand a response by 
the Bush administration commensurate with the danger--and the 
President's own rhetoric. I ask my colleagues to join me to ensure that 
the Federal Protective Services has the personnel needed to do its job 
and that we do not send the message that our Federal buildings are 
exposed.
  Mr. President, last week's key judgments of the National Intelligence 
Estimate made clear that al-Qaida has ``protected or regenerated key 
elements of its Homeland attack capability'' and is now as strong as it 
was in 2001.
  I commend the work of Senator Byrd and the members of the 
Appropriations Committee for putting together a Homeland Security 
appropriations bill that supports tough and smart measures to make our 
country more secure. This is a must-pass piece of legislation that we 
cannot afford to delay and I urge my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle not to obstruct this critical legislation so we can implement 
these measures to make our country more secure.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to 
which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            American Federation of


                                Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2007.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Federation of 
     Government Employees, AFL-CIO, I urge you to support Senator 
     Clinton's amendment to the FY '08 Homeland Security 
     Appropriations bill to insure that our nation's federal 
     buildings are adequately protected. For the past several 
     months the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement has been implementing a proposal to 
     eliminate over 350 commanders, police officers, and special 
     agents from the Federal Protective Service (FPS). Experienced 
     law enforcement officers have been actively encouraged to 
     leave the agency. leaving vulnerable countless federal 
     buildings that once receive around-the-clock FPS protection.
       The Bush Administration is attempting to unilaterally alter 
     the mission of this critical homeland security agency despite 
     the demonstrated need for high security at federal buiidings 
     and complexes. It would be hard to forget that day in April 
     1995, when domestic terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry 
     Nichols drove up to the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma 
     City and unleashed the first major terrorist attack in the 
     U.S. In the post-9/11 world in which we live, to eliminate 
     the law enforcement and antiterrorism activities of the 
     Federal Protective Service is unthinkable.
       The Senate Appropriations Committee included strong 
     language opposing the FPS plan and the House calls it an 
     unfunded mandate and requires the agency to negotiate 
     security agreements with every impacted state and local law 
     enforcement agency, yet the Department continues to press 
     forward with its misguided, dangerous initiative.
       For this reason it has become necessary to require the 
     Department to maintain a specified level of manpower in order 
     to insure our continuing safety. In order to assure that the 
     FPS is restored to its full complement of personnel, Senator 
     Clinton will offer an amendment to the Homeland Security 
     Appropriations bill that requires the Department to maintain 
     a minimum of 1200 total in-service personnel (Commanders, 
     Inspectors, Police Officers and Special Agents). This is 
     based on a field staffing level for FPS of 1480 which was 
     GSA's target until 2003.
       The Federal Protective Service is an often overlooked, yet 
     critical component of our overall homeland security safety 
     net. The GAO has been asked by the Chairman and Ranking 
     Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs Committee to conduct a review of FPS funding and 
     other issues. We strongly believe that in view of that 
     pending study, fundamental reform of the FPS mission, such as 
     the Administration is proposing, is inappropriate and should 
     be stopped.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Beth Moten,
                               Legislative and Political Director.


                           amendment no. 2487

  Mr. President, I would have called up amendment No. 2487.
  This amendment is also cosponsored by Senator Dorgan.
  Mr. President, in a little over a week, the Transportation Security 
Administration plans to lift its ban on disposable butane lighters, a 
decision that is both ill-advised and ill-considered. Lifting the ban 
on these lighters defies common sense and ignores the TSA's own 
recommendations.
  In March 2005, a TSA spokesman said, ``The threat posed by lighters 
on board is valid.'' TSA has warned that al-Qaida and those seeking to 
do us harm intend to use everyday household items to conceal explosives 
and detonate them on board airliners.
  In fact, the TSA actually wanted to go further than banning lighters 
alone. The TSA wanted to ban matches, too. But the Bush administration 
demanded that the TSA conduct cost-benefit analysis before banning 
matches, another decision that calls into question the commitment 
within the administration to matching security rhetoric with smart 
security policies. Even the CEO of the Zippo Company, a company that 
manufactures disposable butane lighters, expressed support for the 
lighter ban stating, ``We're never going to get lighters back into the 
cabin in carry-on baggage. We never really argued with the TSA on that 
because we don't want to compromise safety in any way.''
  And we all remember, in December 2001, when Richard Reid, the so-
called ``Shoe Bomber,'' attempted to murder 197 people onboard an 
American Airlines flight when he attempted to set off explosives hidden 
in his shoe using a box of matches. According to the FBI, Reid likely 
would have been successful if he had used a butane lighter.
  The TSA claims that lifting the ban will free up time for security 
officers to focus on finding more high threat items. However, the TSA 
is not lifting the ban on all lighters. Passengers will still not be 
allowed to carry torch lighters or cigar lighters onboard an aircraft.
  The result? Instead of banning all lighters, security officers will 
now have to differentiate between disposable butane lighters and other 
lighters in every single piece of luggage that they have to inspect. 
Even on the TSA's own website the difference between what is acceptable 
and what is not is hard to discern.
  And this justification has been tested before, when the TSA lifted 
the ban on small scissors and knives. In April, the Government 
Accountability Office released a report on that decision. The GAO found 
that it is unclear whether lifting that ban ``had any impact on 
Transportation Security Officers' ability to detect explosives--a key 
goal for the change.''
  The decision to lift the ban on disposable butane lighters makes 
inspecting luggage more difficult, makes the rules more complicated, 
and makes the skies more dangerous.
  So, let's briefly summarize the TSA's decision. You can bring a 
disposable butane lighter but not a cigar lighter or a torch lighter. 
You can bring a fueled lighter onboard but you cannot check it in your 
luggage. You can bring explosive liquid in the form of a fueled butane 
lighter but cannot bring a large tube of toothpaste in the form of 
toothpaste. And you don't need the lighter anyway because you cannot 
smoke onboard. It seems that common sense has left the gate at the 
Transportation Security Administration.

  Mr. President, my amendment would have continued to prohibit butane 
lighters onboard an aircraft until the TSA provides Congress a report 
identifying all anticipated security benefits and any possible 
vulnerabilities associated with allowing butane lighters into airport 
sterile areas and onboard an aircraft, as well as any supporting 
analysis justifying their conclusions.
  Further, my amendment would have required the GAO to conduct an 
assessment of the report submitted by TSA to Congress. Until these 
reports were conducted, the ban on butane lighters would remain in 
place.
  My amendment has the support of the 55,000-member Association of

[[Page S10112]]

Flight Attendants. I will ask that a letter from the Association of 
Flight Attendants be printed in the Record.
  Flight attendants are on the front lines in the event of a terrorist 
attack involving aircraft. They are our first responders onboard and 
understand what could constitute a dangerous tool in the hands of a 
determined terrorist. After September 11, 2001, keeping weapons--and 
any device that could be used as a weapon--off passenger airplanes is 
not ``security theatre.'' It is security, plain and simple.
  My amendment also has the endorsement of the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association, which represents over 25,000 Federal law 
enforcement officers, including Federal Air Marshals. I will ask that 
their letter of support be printed in the Record.
  In their letter, they say that ``allowing butane lighters onto 
commercial aircraft would jeopardize the safety of both the flying 
public and the Federal Air Marshals who protect them.''
  I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this amendment. Let's 
restore common sense and do all we can to limit the kinds of potential 
weapons terrorists may employ onboard aircraft.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I 
referred by printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Association of Flight


                                     Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2007.
       Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the 55,000 members from 
     20 Airlines represented by the Association of Flight 
     Attendants--CWA, I am writing to express our support for your 
     efforts to reinstitute the ban on lighters onboard passenger 
     aircraft. We look forward to working with you to reinstitute 
     this common sense security measure.
       As the first responders onboard passenger aircraft, we were 
     extremely frustrated with the decision by the Transportation 
     Security Administration (TSA) in December of 2005 to lift the 
     ban on scissors, screwdrivers and other tools that could be 
     used as potential weapons onboard the aircraft. Such a move 
     by the TSA was shortsighted and not in the best interest of 
     the overall security of passenger aircraft and our aviation 
     system. Furthermore, they failed to take into consideration 
     the concerns of flight attendants, those that are jeopardized 
     the most by reintroducing these dangerous items into our 
     workplace.
       This recent TSA decision to lift the ban on lighters is no 
     different. It is yet another shortsighted move on their part 
     to supposedly free up screener time to check for other, more 
     dangerous, items. If the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, had a 
     lighter during his efforts to bring down an American Airlines 
     flight he most likely would have succeeded. The ban on 
     lighters was a common sense move to prevent another tragedy 
     and must be reinstated.
       Flight attendants are in a unique position, as the first 
     responders onboard all passenger aircraft, to know what could 
     constitute a dangerous tool in the hands of a determined 
     terrorist. We remain adamant that TSA must reinstitute its 
     ban on small blades and tools and this recent decision to 
     allow lighters onboard the aircraft should be reinstated.
       Again, we look forward to working with you to reinstate 
     this common sense safety procedure.
           Respectfully,
                                               Patricia A. Friend,
     International President.
                                  ____

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                                    Lewisberry, PA, July 26, 2007.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: As the President of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), representing over 
     25,000 Federal law enforcement officers, I wish to offer our 
     support for continuing the ban on butane lighters on 
     commercial aircraft.
       A decision to change the ``Prohibited Item List'' and allow 
     butane lighters on commercial aircraft could have potentially 
     life threatening consequences. If in the well known ``shoe 
     bomber case'' Richard Reid had used a butane lighter the 
     results might have been catastrophic.
       Both the flying public and TSA screeners have become 
     accustomed to the ban on butane lighters and a change now 
     would only create confusion among them. Furthermore, allowing 
     butane lighters onto commercial aircraft would jeopardize the 
     safety of both the flying public and the Federal Air Marshals 
     (FAMs) who protect them.
       We fully support your efforts to keep butane lighters on 
     the ``Prohibited Item List'' however we continue to have 
     concerns about certain items that have been removed in the 
     past. The safety of Federal law enforcement officers who fly 
     armed to prevent terrorist attacks should never be 
     compromised. The safety of the flight crew and the flying 
     public is of paramount importance to all of us.
       If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact 
     me at 917-738-2300.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Art Gordon,
                                               National President.


           funding for mass transit and commuter rail systems

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Byrd, concerning the amendment I have filed to the pending bill 
on the floor regarding the use of Transit Security Grant Program 
funding for mass transit and commuter rail systems across the Nation. 
My fellow home State Senator, Mr. Specter, is a cosponsor of this 
amendment. As the chairman is aware, the Southeastern Pennsylvania 
Transit Authority, SEPTA, is the fifth largest public transportation 
system in the Nation. SEPTA's mulimodal transit system provides a 
network of fixed-route service, including bus, subway, subway-surface, 
regional rail, light rail, trackless trolley and paratransit service. 
The SEPTA service area includes the heavily populated southeastern 
Pennsylvania counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and 
Philadelphia. This area encompasses approximately 2,200 square miles. 
SEPTA serves over one-half million customers daily and provides over 
303 million passenger trips annually. The safety and security of its 
passengers, infrastructure and equipment is a priority for SEPTA and it 
is a priority for me.
  The current SEPTA communications system does not permit communication 
inside the system's 20-mile commuter tunnel network and underground 
concourses. This puts significant limits on SEPTA's ability to deal 
with emergencies that occur in its underground facilities. To address 
this matter, SEPTA is working to develop a system that will allow the 
Authority to effectively participate in all emergency response and 
recovery actions which may occur in the system's tunnel network. This 
project will enable SEPTA to take measures to enhance safety and 
security.
  Based upon my conversations with SEPTA officials, I understand that 
it has been unable to fully utilize Federal homeland security funds in 
past years for this initiative. SEPTA officials report that Federal 
restrictions require expenditure of homeland security funds within a 3-
year time period. SEPTA officials further report that implementing a 
system-wide underground communications network, including appropriate 
use of capital investment planning and effective procurement practices, 
is not possible within this existing time frame. SEPTA has therefore 
been unable to make the progress it desired on this project.
  Given the potential consequences of current restrictions, it was my 
hope that an amendment expanding the timeframe for expenditure of 
fiscal year 2008 Transit Security Grant Program funds from the existing 
36 months to 48 months be adopted to enable transit systems across the 
nation, including SEPTA, to use their available funds in a more 
flexible manner.
  It is my understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, as well as the chairman of the authorizing committee, the 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, has several concerns 
regarding this amendment. I fully appreciate the valid points they 
raise and look forward to working with them to come to an appropriate 
solution. I would note that the distinguished Member from West Virginia 
has been very supportive of assistance in providing appropriate Federal 
funding for important homeland security initiatives in my home State 
and I wish to convey my gratitude.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania for his 
remarks on the amendment he has filed. The safety and security of our 
Nation's mass transit systems is a critical priority for me. We only 
need be reminded of the terror attacks in Madrid on a commuter rail 
system in 2004 and in London on the underground system in 2005 to 
appreciate the magnitude and urgency of the threat to our transit and 
rail networks.
  I look forward to working with my colleague to help ensure that 
SEPTA, and all mass transit and commuter rail systems, have the 
necessary resources to ensure their safety and security, including 
facilitation of communications

[[Page S10113]]

between first responders in the event of an attack. To the extent that 
the SEPTA system faces a unique challenge with regard to flexibility 
and duration of use of their existing Federal funds, I look forward to 
working with you and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to find an 
appropriate solution that meets the legitimate safety needs of the 
passengers and employees of the system.


                          the northern border

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act required that DHS triple 
the number for border patrol agents at the northern border, the Trade 
Act of 2002 required 285 additional customs inspectors for the northern 
border and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
included a provision that authorized an increase of 2,000 U.S. border 
protection agents each year from FY2006 through FY2010 and further 
required that 20 percent of the increase in agent manpower each fiscal 
year be assigned to the northern border. However, nearly a third of 
those agents have not been deployed to the northern border. According 
to the Congressional Research Service, the gap between the authorized 
level of Customs and Border Protection officers at the northern border 
and the actual number of officers deployed there will be roughly 1,517 
in FY2008.
  I am pleased that the Senate just passed the Graham-Pryor amendment 
that will provide $3 billion for border security and 23,000 full time 
agents to our borders. I ask my friend from West Virginia, the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, is it the intent of the amendment to 
provide those assets to both the northern and southern borders, and, to 
further implement the authorizations I mentioned, to deploy more agents 
to the northern border?
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate my friend from Michigan's concern about the 
northern border and tell him that yes, the amendment is meant to 
increase staffing at both of our borders and it is not the intent of 
the amendment to favor one border over the other. The Appropriations 
Committee has been clear in its support for the Border Patrol and its 
mission of preventing entry into the Untied States of illegal aliens, 
terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and other illicit goods or 
individuals. Further, in recognition of the importance of security at 
our northern border, the Appropriations Committee has directed the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to assign to the Northern Border 20 
percent of the net increase in agents in fiscal year 2008.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank Senator Byrd for this important clarification. I 
thank Senator Levin for being such a leader on this issue. I think it 
is important that people understand that this is not an issue that the 
northern states just decided to raise in the interest of getting our 
fair share. It is a matter of national security. The 9/11 Commission's 
report cites a lack of balance in manpower between the northern and 
southern borders. They note that the would-be terrorists in the 
millennium plot were detained on the northern border.
  This is not about being parochial. This is about our national 
security. This is about making sure that we have the resources to stop 
a terrorist from bringing materials for a dirty bomb in from Canada. 
It's about stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs 
like meth and marijuana that come in from the north each year.
  So I thank Chairman Byrd for clarifying that the additional Border 
Patrol personnel and funding contained in the Graham-Pryor amendment is 
not just going to go to the southern border, but will go to both of our 
borders. This amendment is vital to our homeland security, and I think 
that if the northern border gets 20 percent of the resources outlined 
in the amendment, we will have really done something significant to 
enhance the security of our 4,300 mile border with Canada. And so I 
thank the authors of the amendment, one of whom is here with us.
  Senator Graham, can you clarify that the intent of your amendment was 
to make additional Border Patrol agents and funding available for both 
the northern and southern border?
  Mr. GRAHAM. My friend from Montana is correct. The intent of the 
amendment was to improve our security and increase assets at both the 
northern and southern borders.


                           amendment no. 2481

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to explain my vote 
against the DeMint amendment no. 2481 to the Fiscal Year 2008 Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act.
  I voted against the DeMint amendment because it prohibited the 
Secretary from modifying the existing list of crimes disqualifying 
someone from receiving a Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential when circumstances warrant a regulatory change. Sound public 
policy requires flexibility on such matters and Congress can rely on 
the Secretary, a Cabinet official, to exercise sound discretion. If the 
Secretary fails to do so, Congress can always intervene and change the 
law.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I voted in favor of tabling the 
Alexander-Collins amendment on the REAL ID Act, Senate Amendment 2405, 
because I wanted to prevent reducing by almost 1 percent critical 
Federal spending on port and rail security, first responders' 
resources, and other homeland security protections. Rail infrastructure 
is the most widely attacked terrorist target in the world, and we must 
increase, not decrease, funding for our railroads. Similarly, port 
security is a top priority in our antiterrorism campaign, and I opposed 
this effort to divert funding from protecting our ports. I appreciate 
the work of my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to 
craft a balanced spending bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the fiscal year 2008 Department 
of Homeland Security, DHS, appropriations bill. The underlying 
legislation provides $37.5 billion--$2.3 billion more than the 
President requested--to help DHS defend against what the recently 
declassified National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, concluded will be ``a 
persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.''
  The President, however, has threatened to veto this bill and hold up 
essential security funding because its funding level is slightly above 
his budget request. After years of underfunding homeland security, 
cutting taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, and 
failing to veto one pork-laden spending bill passed by the GOP 
Congress, it is hard to take the President's sudden conversion to 
fiscal responsibility seriously. He has long since proven his appetite 
for spending beyond our means and has lost the support of his fiscally 
conservative base.
  In crafting this and other spending bills, the Democratically-
controlled Congress is meeting our needs while adhering to pay-as-you-
go rules which will help stem the record deficits of the last 6 years. 
This critical legislation funds important programs to protect the 
border, improve aviation security, fund and train first responders, and 
provide disaster relief to the States, and it does it without busting 
the budget.
  I am especially pleased that the bill provides $1 billion above the 
President's budget request for State and local grant programs such as 
the Urban Area Security Initiative and Port Security Grant Program. 
This will ensure that Massachusetts and other strategically important 
States receive an increase in counterterrorism funding in 2008. I 
remained concerned, however, that DHS still does not award grants 
solely according to risk. Given the sobering conclusions of the NIE, we 
cannot afford to misallocate homeland security grants. I thank Chairman 
Byrd and Senator Cochran for accepting an amendment that I offered 
which requires the Government Accountability Office to review the 
methodology the department uses to rank States and cities according to 
risk. Congress needs to know this information so that it can make 
informed decisions regarding the Department's grant policies.
  I also want to thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for accepting 
my amendment to create a pilot program to test automated document 
authentication technology at ports of entry. The technology DHS uses to 
authenticate foreign travel documents is unfortunately no better now 
than on 9/11. It simply checks personal information against databases 
which we know are not always accurate. In keeping with the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this pilot program will 
hopefully compel DHS to deploy technology that can detect security 
features and distinguish between real and fraudulent travel documents. 
DHS is spending millions to implement the US-VISIT

[[Page S10114]]

and Western Hemisphere Initiative but has yet to test technology that 
can authenticate the documentation that visitors will be required to 
provide under those programs. It is imperative that DHS conduct this 
pilot program as soon as possible and improve its ability to detect 
fraudulent travel documents.
  The Senate also adopted a bipartisan amendment to add $3 billion in 
emergency spending to help DHS hire more Border Patrol agents, 
detention beds, and monitoring equipment along the border which we all 
agree it needs. This amendment, while important, is not a substitute 
for finishing work on comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and 
I hope that Congress will revisit this important issue. Keeping 12 
million undocumented workers in the shadows is neither good for our 
economy or our security.
  Mr. President, H.R. 2368 provides for the first time adequate funding 
for agencies and programs within DHS. It would be irresponsible and 
reckless for the President to veto this bill, and I hope he reconsiders 
his position.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support final passage of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill today because its funding is 
vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for 
protecting us.
  Although all Americans are united in our commitment to secure our 
homeland, the administration's budget has too often not reflected that 
commitment. In particular, we have not kept faith with our first 
responders by giving them the tools they need, and we have not done 
enough to secure our borders. I am glad that this bill will make much 
needed improvements on these and other issues.
  The bill appropriates $37.6 billion for homeland security programs 
for fiscal year 2008, which is an increase of $2.2 billion over the 
President's budget. Perhaps most significantly, the legislation 
provides vital funding to our first responders to protect our country 
from a terrorist attack and ensure that we are able to respond 
adequately should such an attack occur. Specifically, it provides $525 
million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, $820 million for 
the Urban Area Security Initiative, $700 million for the assistance to 
firefighters grants and $300 million for emergency management 
performance grants.
  To secure our borders, a total of $10.2 billion is provided for 
Customs and Border Protection. I am pleased that, in addition to the 
funding in the underlying bill, the Senate also adopted an amendment to 
add an additional $3 billion for border security which will enable the 
Department of Homeland Security to hire, train and deploy 23,000 
additional full-time boarder patrol agents and provide other essential 
security measures at our borders. The legislation also provides $4.432 
billion for immigration and customs enforcement, including $146 million 
for 4,000 new detention beds.
  Finally, I want to note that the bill increases funding for the 
Transportation Security Administration by $164.6 million above last 
year's level, which is $764 million more than requested by the 
President. It provides $529.4 million for the procurement and 
installation of explosive detection systems at airports.
  The funding levels in this bill reflect our commitment to protecting 
the American people, and I am hopeful they will be maintained in 
conference and that we can quickly get this legislation to the 
President for his signature.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill now on the floor. As a member of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security, I am proud of the bill we crafted. This bill will provide our 
country with more of the resources it needs to protect our communities 
and secure our residents.
  Homeland security is particularly important to my home State. New 
Jersey lost 700 people on 9/11 families torn apart and lives ended 
without ever seeing loved ones again.
  And New Jersey is ripe with targets for terrorists, from our ports to 
our chemical plants. In fact, the FBI has stated that the most 
dangerous 2 miles in America for terrorism lie within the stretch of 
land from Port Newark to Newark Liberty International Airport.
  The level of funding for the Department of Homeland Security directly 
affects the safety of residents in my State.
  That is why I'm glad that this legislation would invest $37.6 billion 
into making our homeland safer and more secure.
  This figure is $2.2 billion more than what President Bush asked for. 
And because of that, the President is threatening to veto the bill. 
This is astonishing and it is wrong--$2.2 billion is less money than we 
spend in 1 week in Iraq.
  The Senate must stand up, pass this legislation, and begin to turn a 
corner to provide more money to effectively defend our homeland.
  In addition to more money for border security, this bill provides 
critical funding for first responders, including $560 million for 
firefighter equipment grants, $525 million for the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program--which is $275 million above the President's 
request--and $375 million for law enforcement and terrorism prevention 
grants.
  This bill also doubles port and rail security grants in the Bush 
proposal to $400 million.
  The Port of New Jersey and New York is largest port on the east 
coast--and the second-busiest container port in the country. Our ports 
in south Jersey are part of the Delaware River port system, which is 
the busiest crude oil tanker port in the country. Through these ports, 
many goods and materials transit to store shelves, gas pumps and 
factory assembly lines in the towns and cities in the interior of our 
country. In short, our ports are essential to our economy.
  And in 2006, Amtrak had record ridership of 25 million. Ridership is 
already up in 2007 by 5 percent. On an average weekday, nearly a 
million New Jerseyans rely on our transit systems to get to work, 
including trains, buses, and light rail lines.
  This funding for port and rail security is vital for our State.
  In 2006, the President--with great fanfare--signed a port security 
which authorized $400 million for port security grants this year. But 
then he failed to fund it.
  The Senate is prepared to follow through on the promise of this vital 
funding.
  I am also proud that we are working to protect our homeland--and our 
economy--from terrorists who set their sights on hazardous cargoes at 
sea.
  Senators Inouye, Stevens and I introduced legislation earlier this 
year to better protect maritime vessels carrying hazardous chemicals 
and petrochemicals. I am pleased that the committee has agreed with my 
request to include funding for maritime hazardous cargo protection--
including liquefied natural gas--in this Homeland Security bill.
  I am further pleased that the committee acknowledged in the Report 
for this bill the need to expand the laboratory space at the 
Transportation Security Lab, TSL, in Pomona, NJ, in order to 
accommodate the Department's explosives detection equipment 
certification program. This program certifies all explosives detection 
equipment used by the Transportation Security Administration, and 
provides certifications to equipment vendors. It is clear that this 
facility must be expanded to safely accommodate this important program.
  Finally, I am glad the Senate is once again going on record to 
support my provision to protect the rights of states to pass chemical 
security laws that are stronger than Federal regulations.
  DHS recently put rules into effect for the Federal regulation of 
chemical plant security. But in doing so, the agency wants to preempt 
states from enacting stronger chemical security laws. This is the wrong 
approach.
  The language in the Homeland Security funding bill before us wisely 
preserves the right of states to adopt chemical security measures 
stronger than Federal regulations. This language is supported by the 
chairs of the 9/11 Commission, the National Governors Association, and 
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  Simply put: preempting State laws would make the people of my State 
and other States less safe.
  The language in this bill will allow States to go beyond the Federal 
regulations as long as there is no actual conflict with the federal 
regulations. This

[[Page S10115]]

means that unless it is impossible to comply with both State law and 
Federal law, the State law is not preempted.
  Between the increases in funding for first responders, port, rail and 
maritime security, and the protection of States rights to pass chemical 
security laws that are stronger than Federal regulations, this is the 
right bill at the right time.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and I urge the 
President to sign it into law.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today marks an important milestone for 
this Congress. It seems that after spending the first half of the year 
staging political show-votes and investigations, our friends on the 
other side have woken up to the fact they only had two things to show 
for it: an angrier base and a long to-do list. In the fog of battle 
they forgot that getting things done in the Senate takes cooperation.
  We have cooperated on this bill. And it is a lot better for it. I am 
extremely pleased the majority ultimately accepted Senator Graham's 
border security amendment. We got the message last month: border 
security first. And now, thanks to this effort, we will be delivering a 
$3 billion downpayment on a stronger border. I also appreciate Senator 
Cornyn's insistence that interior enforcement be a part of that 
funding. To us it's pretty simple: there is no homeland security 
without border security. We will continue to push this idea on the 
floor of the Senate in the coming weeks and months. Today is just the 
beginning.
  A lesson we can learn from the last 6 months is that there is a cost 
to everything. And the cost of putting off legislating in favor of 
around-the-clock politics is that there isn't much to show for it in 
the end.
  It has been my view all along that we should have been working on 
appropriations bills all summer. Here we are almost in August and we 
have only passed one. So we are looking at a potential train wreck in 
September. But it is possible that if we work together, like we did 
this time, we can still make good progress. And I hope we do.
  A brief word about cloture. Look: anybody who has been in the Senate 
for more than a week will tell you--if they are being honest--that 40 
or so cloture votes in 6 months isn't a sign of minority obstruction; 
it is a sign of a majority that doesn't like the rules. The cloture 
club shouldn't be the first option. It should be the last. Hopefully 
today's vote is also a sign that we are moving away from cloture as a 
first resort.

  I hope the majority will follow through on a pledge that the senior 
Senator from Illinois made on the first day of the session. He said the 
American people put Democrats in the majority ``to find solutions, not 
to play to a draw with nothing to show for it.'' Very well said.
  My Republican colleagues hope we can operate this way. I think it 
will be the best way to operate in the fall if we actually intend to 
legislate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on agreeing to the substitute, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2383), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Coburn
     DeMint
     Inhofe
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brownback
     Coleman
     Dodd
     Johnson
     Lott
     McCain
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 2638), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House, and the 
Chair appoints the following conferees:
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter, 
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Alexander conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank all Senators who worked very hard 
to get the Homeland Security appropriations bill completed. I thank 
Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, managers of the bill. It has been a 
long process. We got a lot accomplished. We have one appropriations 
bill that we will now send to conference. I especially thank the staffs 
who spent long hours.
  I ask unanimous consent to have their names printed in the Record and 
to thank them publicly.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Majority Staff

     Charles Kieffer
     Chip Walgren
     Scott Nance
     Drenan E. Dudley
     Tad Gallion
     Christa Thompson
     Adam Morrison

                             Minority Staff

     Rebecca Davies
     Carol Cribbs
     Mark Van de Water

                          ____________________