To increase funding for the United States Marshals Service to ensure full funding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and offset the increase by reducing funding for the Advanced Technology Program.

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3093, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Inouye amendment No. 3214, to establish a fact-finding
Commission to extend the study of a prior Commission to
investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding
the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries
of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941
through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies.
Bingaman-Smith amendment No. 3208, to amend the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that
territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants
for confronting the use of methamphetamine.
Vitter amendment No. 3277, to prohibit funds from being
used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Thune amendment No. 3317, to provide, in a fiscally
responsible manner, additional funding for U.S. attorneys to
prosecute violent crimes in Indian country.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to bring our colleagues up to date, we
are resuming consideration of the appropriations on Commerce, Justice,
and Science. Working on a very collegial and bipartisan basis, our
staffs, the Mikulski staff and the Shelby staff, have worked through
the evening working to clear amendments. We believe we are making very
good progress.
Where we are now is the Senator from South Carolina will be offering
some amendments, and we will probably be having a debate before the
noon hour, and at that time we would like to have our colleagues visit
with us on how they intend to deal with the amendments they have filed.
I wish to share with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is
intent of the Democratic leader, Senator Reid that we will finish this
bill tonight. Senator Reid has instructed me as the manager of this
bill to complete action, even if it means staying well into the
evening.
We do not have to do that because we have just a core group of
amendments. If the Democrats would talk to me during the first vote,
and the Republicans would talk to Senator Shelby, we can move to
dispose of them, either to withdraw them, clear them or we ask our
colleagues to offer them.
I wished to thank the Senator from South Carolina for being here so
promptly. I wish to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their work.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 3286

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3286.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 3286.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 3286) is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available under the
Act may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative formula-
driven or competitive awarding process to award funds to a project in
response to a request from a member of Congress, and for other
purposes)

On page 97, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 528.  None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative
formula-driven or competitive awarding process to award funds
to a project in response to a request from a Member of
Congress (or any employee of a Member or committee of
Congress), unless the specific project has been disclosed in
accordance with the rules of the Senate or House of
Representatives, as applicable.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I actually have two amendments this
morning. I will speak briefly on both of them.
I believe both sides have agreed these are good ideas, and I believe
one will be accepted, and the other we are going to have a vote at 12,
as I understand it.
But the first amendment relates to earmarking and the wasteful
earmarks we have talked about often on the Senate floor. Much has been
done to make earmarks more transparent, to have more earmarks
disclosed.
I think as we do that, we are probably getting a better focus as a
Federal Government of how we should be spending our money. But old
habits die very hard. It has been very difficult for a number of
Members of the House and the Senate to give up this practice of being
able to send money wherever they want back in their own State or
anywhere in the country.
As we have made it harder to do earmarks in the open, we have found
that a number of Members of Congress or their staffs have been calling
agencies to request that earmarks be done without Congress's approval
at all. This type of ``phone marking'' has created a new loophole.
This amendment we are offering would disallow any use of funds for
that type of earmarking. If I can read the amendment it is very simple.
Again, I believe both sides agree on it.
It says:

None of the funds made available under this Act may be used
to circumvent any statutory or administrative formula-driven
competitive awarding process to award funds to a project in
response to a request from a Member of Congress (or any
employee of a Member or committee of Congress), unless the
specific project has been disclosed in accordance with the
rules of the Senate or House of Representatives, as
applicable.

That is all there is to this amendment, is to disallow this whole
idea of picking up the phone and deciding where taxpayer money should
go. I understand the other side is prepared to accept or have a voice
vote on this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the spirit of
reform of the Senator from South Carolina. We too support the spirit of
reform on these matters. I support this amendment. I do believe we can
accept it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed
to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3286) was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 3289

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the

[[Page S12895]]

pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3289.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 3289.

Mr. DeMint. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent Federal employees from purchasing unnecessary
first class or premium class airline tickets at taxpayers' expense, and
for other purposes)

On page 97, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
Sec. 528.  None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel
that would not be consistent with sections 301-10.123 and
301-10.124 of title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this is another simple amendment designed
to get more accountability in Federal agencies. The Government
Accountability Office recently published a report that has been in the
media all over the country, pointing out that millions of taxpayer
dollars are being wasted as employees of the Federal Government are
flying all over the world in premium business class or first class,
when the rules of these agencies specifically say that should not be
done.
My amendment does not change any rules of the Federal agencies; it
says the rules have to be complied with or the money that is in this
bill cannot be used.
I will read this amendment as well:

None of the funds made available under this Act may be used
to purchase first class or premium airline travel that would
not be consistent [with the number of sections that are
listed] of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Again, we are not changing any regulation. We are demanding that the
Federal agencies comply with their own rules and save the taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at noon
today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint amendment
No. 3289 and that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to
the vote and that the time until then be equally divided between
Senator DeMint, Senator Shelby, and myself, Senator Mikulski.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I neglected to add a cosponsor of this
amendment. Senator McCaskill would like to be our lead cosponsor on
this amendment. I appreciate her support as well as the chairman's.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know I rise in
support of the DeMint amendment. I think it is a very commonsense
amendment. I believe that when we are regulating how Government
employees travel, I do believe they follow the rules. I do not believe
they travel in a lavish lifestyle.
I wish to acknowledge the fact of two things: One, our colleague from
South Carolina has a GAO report that indicates reform is needed; reform
and clarity are needed on what our Government employees, traveling on
official business, can do.
We have heard all kinds of stories about some going on business
class, some going on first class, some where it is even short trips,
and so on. We acknowledge, of course, as always, the validity of the
GAO report. What I also want to say is this subcommittee, chaired by
myself and my ranking member, Senator Shelby, is on the side of reform.
Our three themes this year were security for our country, innovation to
keep us competitive, and, at the same time, accountability. We have
done a major set of reviews on things such as cost overruns in the NOAA
satellite program. We have also taken on things where we offered an
amendment together dealing with discipline in the funding of
conferences. We stopped the lavish conferences, the so-called $4
Swedish meatball amendment.
We believe the DeMint amendment is also in that same spirit of reform
Senator Shelby and I brought to this subcommittee and we now bring with
our bill to the floor. We are deep down reformers. We want to make sure
we accomplish the mission of the agencies for which we are the
guardians of the purse. But at the same time, we want to make sure
taxpayers are getting value for their dollar. Where there is excess,
poor judgment, or poor management, we are going to hold agencies to the
fire. We are going to hold agencies accountable. Therefore, when this
vote is taken, I urge, in the spirit of reform, the spirit of
accountability, that we join, once again, on a bipartisan basis and
pass this amendment. We so appreciate the work of the GAO, a wonderful
independent watchdog that Congress can turn to where it is not the
Senator from South Carolina's opinion or the opinion of the Senator
from Maryland about what is going on or the need for reform, but we
work on clearheaded analysis, intellectual rigor, let the facts speak
for themselves.
When you look at this GAO report, the facts do point to the fact that
we do need reform in this area. I am a supporter, but I also want to
acknowledge, though we need reform, I want to clearly state that most
civil servants follow the rules when they book their tickets on
Government travel. It ensures that these employees follow current
regulations that will limit the purchase of first-class tickets.
In the spirit of accountability, reform, and responsibility for the
taxpayers, again, I thank Senator Shelby for his work. We have made a
lot of progress on the spirit of reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from South Carolina,
Mr. DeMint, for his amendment dealing with travel and spending. If we
can save millions of dollars by people not flying first class, and so
forth, and abusing the system, we ought to do it. The spirit of this
amendment is good and I hope we can all vote on that at 12 noon, when
we have agreed to do so. I commend him for offering the amendment. It
will be good law for us to follow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside and that I may call up a couple of
amendments and talk for 3 or 4 minutes on them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3294 and 3295, En Bloc

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up en bloc amendments Nos. 3294 and
3295.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes amendments en
bloc numbered 3294 and 3295.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3294

(Purpose: To increase funding for the United States Marshals Service to
ensure full funding for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006 and offset the increase by reducing funding for the Advanced
Technology Program)

On page 33, line 26, strike the period and insert ``:
Provided further, That an additional $7,845,000 shall be
available to carry out the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 offset by a reduction in the amount
available for the Advanced Technology Program under the
heading `Industrial Technology Services' in title I of
$7,845,000.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3295

(Purpose: To increase funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program and offset the increase by reducing funding Nasa funding)

On page 53, line 11, strike the semicolon and insert ``:
Provided, That an additional $150,000,000 shall be available
for such program offset by a reduction in the amount

[[Page S12896]]

under the heading `National Aeronautics and Space
Administration'  `science, aeronautics and exploration' in
title III of $150,000,000;''.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3295 is to increase by $150
million the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and offset it with
a $150 million decrease in the NASA budget currently in the bill. The
NASA budget was increased $150 million over the President's request in
the underlying bill and then an emergency spending of an additional
billion dollars which was, by the way, already from over a billion
dollars more than in the bill last year. We are taking $150 million of
that and putting it toward this program that is underfunded every year.
It is to assist the States in prosecuting and arresting people who are
here illegally who have committed crimes.
This is an important piece of legislation. We don't have enough money
for correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented
criminal aliens, and this amount of money, especially for the border
States of the Southwest, is very important.
It might be drug programs people who are here illegally are running.
I was watching a program the other day that was talking about cheese
heroin, something that can addict our children with one dose. Kids have
died. I think there are 30 or 40 of them who have died in Texas
literally with one dose. Most of that is coming from our southern
border. We need to provide local law enforcement the resources to deal
with aliens who are coming to this country who are dealing with the
drug program. This is an important problem that we need to add extra
funding to. We still have a problem with illegal immigration in
securing our borders, but without a comprehensive immigration bill, we
at least need to add money so we can help the States prosecute and
incarcerate people who are here illegally, undocumented criminal aliens
who are here illegally who are wreaking havoc on communities around the
United States. I believe this is an important amendment. It is critical
that we help our States, counties, local parishes, tribal, and
municipal governments battle illegal immigration and keep law-breaking
illegal aliens off our streets.
The second amendment is an amendment that will fully fund the Adam
Walsh program. We all know what the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety
Act has done. This will fund it up to the President's request. It is
$7.8 million for the U.S. Marshals Service to fully implement the Adam
Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. We are taking the money from the ATP
program. I believe it is absolutely critical that we fully fund the
Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. As a father of three children,
the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act is critical to keeping the children
safe. It is a small amount of money, but it will bring the program up
to what the President has requested. It is an important program. The
advanced technology program has been something of questionable
efficacy. We should take some of that money and fully fund the Adam
Walsh Child Safety Act of 2006.
Having briefly spoken, I can speak on it more later. I know there is
other business to attend to, but I think these are both very important
amendments. I hope my colleagues will support them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from
Nevada, both on process as well as content. I believe, with the
concurrence of Senator Shelby, that there is one of the amendments we
might be able to take, and then the other, of course, would be a vote
in which we would move to table the amendment after lunch. But if I
could respond to the Senator from Nevada in terms of content, where he
wishes to increase funding for the Marshals Service for the full
funding of the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, we acknowledge the
validity of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada in this regard. The
Senator and I have been involved in a group where we are trying to put
our values into action. The Senator might recall my own background is
that of a social worker. I was a child abuse worker. I find that there
is nothing more despicable than a child predator. I believe it is so
dastardly, so despicable, so repugnant that every time I think about
the work Adam Walsh did, the work that comes out of our excellent bill
with our funding, we know we always want to do more when our children
are stalked in neighborhoods or playgrounds. We know they are being
stalked on the Internet. Without going into putting even more vile
things out there in conversation, the Senator from Nevada is well aware
of some of the most awful things that are going on on the Internet. We
want to acknowledge the validity of what he wants to do.
I know the Senator from Alabama wishes to speak on it, but we believe
we could take this amendment. I know the Senator will want to speak
about it.
Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator from Maryland yield briefly?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Absolutely.
Mr. ENSIGN. I appreciate her comments. The only reason I would object
to a voice vote is because I have seen too many voice votes in this
place and then things get dropped in conference. I would hope we could
have a recorded vote. I know they take up a little more time, but I
believe it is important to establish on the record that the Senate
actually does support the amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our majority staff who helps us organize
the traffic of this is now going to be writing this up. Let's see how
we can accommodate the Senator from Nevada. We will be able to ask for
a UC before we go into the caucus. But the minority Republican staff is
here. Senator Shelby will certainly protect the interests of the
Senator from Nevada.
If I may comment on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, we
will debate that amendment later when we are heading to a vote.
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. 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.

Amendment No. 3277

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Vitter
amendment No. 3277, which may be considered later this afternoon on
this pending Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
This amendment would prohibit fiscal year 2008 COPS funds from being
used in contravention of a provision in Federal law that relates to
information sharing about a person's immigration status.
The Senator from Louisiana has said this amendment is targeted at
``sanctuary cities.'' He is referring to the policies that have been
put in place by many cities, counties, and police departments in at
least 23 States and the District of Columbia that limit enforcement of
immigration laws by State or local authorities.
These cities, counties, and police departments have decided that it
is a matter of public health and safety not to inquire about
immigration status when people report crimes or have been the victims
of domestic abuse or go to a clinic to obtain vaccinations for their
children.
These State and local confidentiality policies do not stop the
Federal Government from enforcing immigration laws--a traditional
function of the Federal Government, not State and local governments.
Rather, they reflect a decision made by State and local authorities
that they do not want to have their police departments spend their time
and resources enforcing a traditionally Federal responsibility relative
to immigration law. Those laws are the Federal Government's
responsibility to enforce.
In many cities, including several in my home State of Illinois, city
and law enforcement officials have decided, reasonably, they want to
focus their attention and their police resources on stopping violent
crime.
Yesterday, I was in a section of Chicago known as Logan Square. There
is a wonderful organization known as Christopher House that was opening
a family resource center, a neighborhood center in the tradition of the
settlement houses that were started in the Chicago area by Jane Addams
almost a century ago. This Logan Square area is an up-and-coming part
of the city of Chicago. It is a beautiful neighborhood,

[[Page S12897]]

but it is a neighborhood that has been riddled with violence for over a
decade. Literally, children are being gunned down in the street. I
attended a memorial service a few weeks ago there for a young African-
American girl. She was killed on a playground while playing with her
friends by a drive-by shooting by gang bangers. The alderman in that
35th ward, Rey Colon, who is quite a leader in the community himself,
attended the service with me. As we walked into the church, he pointed
to a section on the sidewalk and said: Just a few years ago a member of
my family was killed on that spot.
Violence is endemic, unfortunately, in America, and we see it in
cities, great cities such as Chicago and others. Mayor Daley is making
an extraordinary effort to deal with this. I am joining him in that
effort. It is hard for me to imagine the Senator from Louisiana wants
to cut off the COPS Program funds for the city of Chicago. That is what
he suggested.
What will the COPS Program do for the city of Chicago? It will put
more police on the beat. There will be more police officers out there
in the neighborhoods to keep them safe. The COPS money can be used to
buy bulletproof vests so when a policeman is shot, he might survive.
The money is also being used for forensic analysis, DNA testing, trying
to find ways that ex-offenders can be brought back in a peaceful way to
the cities and towns from where they started. It is used for task
forces to go after sexual predators.
The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana would cut off these funds
for the city of Chicago. Why? Why in the world would the Senator from
Louisiana--a State I have bent over backwards to help since Hurricane
Katrina--want to cut off Federal funds to the city of Chicago, funds to
make the streets safer? Why would he want to cut off Federal funds to
any city in America to make the streets safer?
He wants to argue about immigration laws. Well, that is a valid
debate. We had it for 3 weeks here in the Senate, and we will have to
return to it because we ended up doing nothing. But in his effort today
to bring this immigration issue out to the floor of the Senate, the
Senator from Louisiana is threatening the Federal funds that many
cities in my home State of Illinois are using to fight violent crime.
Why? That makes no sense at all. Will he feel better if there are more
killings on the street? Of course not. None of us would. I think he
would feel better if there were more cops on the street.
But his amendment seeks to cut off COPS funding for the city of
Chicago and other towns in Illinois, and that is not right. I urge my
colleagues, when they consider the Vitter amendment, to consider how
you would respond to the mayors of these towns when they ask you: How
in the world did you disqualify my city from receiving money for
bulletproof vests for my policemen? How can you, Senator or
Congressman, explain to their families why that fallen policeman's life
was taken because no bulletproof vest could be provided from Federal
funds?
I do not understand the logic behind this. I would say that many of
these cities are working hard to fight crime. They are working with
many people. The former president of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, Joseph Estey, said in relation to a proposal similar
to the one offered by Senator Vitter:

Many leaders in the law enforcement community have serious
concerns about the chilling effect any measure of this nature
would have on legal and illegal aliens reporting criminal
activity or assisting police in criminal investigations. This
lack of cooperation could diminish the ability of law
enforcement agencies to police effectively their
communities and protect the public they serve.

It is particularly troubling that the Vitter amendment seeks to link
COPS funding to the overturning of city confidentiality policies. This
bill, the one Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have brought before
us, currently provides for $660 million in COPS funding. That is a
dramatic increase over the administration's request. The money, of
course, is for new police officers, bulletproof vests, combating
methamphetamine, law enforcement technology enhancements, arresting and
prosecuting child predators--the Vitter amendment would cut off Federal
funds for efforts to arrest and prosecute child predators--and a lot of
other important programs.
This COPS money is focused on helping State and local law enforcement
stop violent crime, stop crimes against children, stop sexual
predators. Similarly, cities and police departments have put policies
in place regarding the confidentiality of immigration status so they
can focus on stopping violent crime, and so law enforcement officials
can obtain information about crimes from victims and witnesses in
communities where they might not otherwise be able to obtain it.
The goal of reducing violent crime is not served by telling police
departments they can either have one crime reduction tool--the COPS
money--or another--these confidentiality policies.
Do we want to deprive police forces in 23 States additional manpower,
men and women on the beat, keeping schools and neighborhoods safe, and
deny these same police men and women bulletproof vests through the COPS
Program, because local officials have determined when it comes to the
enforcement of Federal immigration laws, the Federal Government should
assume that enforcement? That is what it comes down to.
We do have a serious immigration problem in this country. I voted--
most Members, maybe all Members have voted--for some $7 billion more in
enforcement at the border between the United States and Mexico. We have
to stop the illegal flow into this country. I think we have put our
money where our intentions are. That is a fact.
Earlier this year, we considered comprehensive immigration reform
that would also have greatly improved the enforcement of our
immigration laws. I supported this effort. It was controversial. We did
not have enough votes. The Senator who has brought this amendment to
the floor, which would cut off COPS funding, opposed any effort for a
comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, he wants to force on State
and local governments a responsibility we have not met at the Federal
level, and he wants to threaten them with cutting off COPS funds that
are critically important for them. I do not think that works.
Violent crime is a serious problem in my State and across the Nation.
Violent crime rates have gone up the last 2 years. We need to give our
communities the tools to address this problem.
I hope the Vitter amendment will be defeated. Let's make sure we do
not make the safety of people living in 23 States a political pawn in
this debate over immigration. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Vitter
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 3289

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are nearing the hour of 12 o'clock,
when we have agreed there will be a rollcall vote on the DeMint
amendment.
I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator DeMint
from South Carolina and ask unanimous consent that I be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. The GAO, the General Accounting Office, found that over
120 million in tax dollars were wasted by Federal agencies dealing with
travel--first-class travel--when economy travel or something less than
first class could do. That is unacceptable to all of us here.
I commend my colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, for
bringing this to the Senate's attention, and I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment in a few minutes.
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. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the DeMint
amendment No. 3289.
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 Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut

[[Page S12898]]

(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs.
Dole) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 365 Leg.]

YEAS--90

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

NOT VOTING--10

Bayh
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Dole
Inouye
Kennedy
Murkowski
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3289) was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15
p.m. today, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to
the Ensign amendment No. 3294, and that upon the use or yielding back
of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that
upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume amendment No.
3295, another Ensign amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote in relation to that amendment; that upon the use or yielding back
of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that
no amendments be in order to either amendment in this agreement prior
to the vote; and that the debate time be equally divided and controlled
between Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we also believe we will be having a vote
at more or less the same time on the Thune amendment, as it relates to
the Legal Services Corporation. We are waiting for final word from
Senator Harkin on that. But when we return from the respective caucus
lunches, we expect there to be a debate on the Thune amendment, the
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, will be speaking, and about that time we
expect to have another UC.
There will be votes throughout the afternoon. We urge our colleagues
at our respective party lunches to speak to both Senator Shelby and
myself as a way of disposing of those amendments that have been filed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes to pay tribute to a Louisianian who passed away this past week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for
her poignant comments.
Mr. President, we have another UC that has not quite ripened as yet,
so I will suggest we recess for the party luncheons.

____________________