To authorize employers to voluntarily verify the immigration status of existing employees.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

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

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

Pending:

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

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

Amendment No. 1399

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about an amendment
that will be up second, I believe, this morning. It is about our
southern border in this United States.
I think we have made some propositions to the American people to
secure our southern border. We have

[[Page S7228]]

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

Amendment No. 1371

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

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

That was a good statement from Homeland Security. But the reality is
that President Bush's Executive order that was to take place in
January, which would have required all government contractors to use E-
Verify, has been pushed back four times. So that is why I offered this
legislation.
It is perfectly appropriate for Congress to pass legislation to
require this. I have been advised today, though, of some good news.
Secretary Napolitano apparently will issue a statement later today
saying that after three or four extensions and putting off the E-Verify
mandate for government contractors she will issue that order. So that
is good news.
What would my amendment do? No. 1, it would make that not just a
Presidential policy subject to delay or implementation or withdrawal
whenever they wanted; it would make it a permanent rule that people who
have contracts with the government would have to use the E-Verify
system. Instead of a 3-year extension of the E-Verify system, as
provided for in this bill, it would go on and make it permanent. It is
a cornerstone today of a system that will work to a considerable degree
to reduce the number of illegal workers who are getting jobs--taking
jobs from American workers at this particularly difficult time. I think
it is a good step. I am glad the Secretary is moving forward finally on
making that a reality.
I hope my colleagues will step forward now and let's make this a
permanent system. It is certainly contemplated to be permanent. But for
odd reasons, to me, there seems to be a reluctance to make it so. The
system is up and running. It can handle millions more than the millions
it is already handling today. It is designed for a much larger use. It
will make a difference, and it will identify quite a number of people
who are here illegally seeking to work. In fact, I think the system
should be made to apply to all businesses in America. I believe we can
do that and should move in that direction. But the first step, it seems
to me, would be to say if we are going to create a stimulus package, if
this government is going to give contracts to private contractors who
do work for the government, they ought to at least ask them to verify
whether the person is legally in the country.
Yes, there are some good things additionally that need to be done,
such as a biometric identification system, which Senator Schumer
referred to last night. I would heartily support that, but I believe
this is the initial step that ought to be taken. The system should be
made permanent and the requirement that contractors of the government
should be a part of our law today.
I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I think it would be consistent
with the stated policies of the Obama administration and consistent
with what the Senate has been working on for some time. I am baffled
that Members would not support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 175

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.
Res. 175; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration;
further, that an amendment to the resolution, which is at the desk, be
agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that an amendment
to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the preamble, as
amended, be agreed to; finally, that a title amendment, which is at the
desk, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of several Senators, I object
to the distinguished Senator's request. I respect him, but there is an
objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, I rise asking my colleagues to
table the pending amendment filed by my distinguished colleague from
Alabama to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

[[Page S7229]]

His amendment would both make E-Verify permanent and would
immediately mandate all Federal contractors and subcontractors to use
E-Verify.
First, I have good news for my colleagues and good news for my
colleague from Alabama. The Department of Homeland Security has just
taken action--they were planning to do it before. It is coincidental
but fortuitous that it occurs right now. It addresses a good part of
the issue that my colleague from Alabama has raised.
Today, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement
indicating ``the administration's support for a regulation that will
award Federal contracts only to employers who use E-Verify to check
employee work authorization.''
As we all know, E-Verify is a voluntary system, not a mandatory
system. For Federal contractors, it will be mandatory, which is half
and the most operative part of my colleagues' amendment.
The administration's Federal contractor rule extends use of the E-
Verify system to covered Federal contractors and subcontractors,
including those who receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
funds. The administration will push ahead with full implementation of
the rule, which will apply to Federal solicitation and contract awards
starting on September 8, 2009--within a couple months.
Accordingly, I believe Senator Sessions' amendment is moot so far as
it applies to Federal contractors and doesn't need to be approved by us
in order for E-Verify to apply in this context.
He has another part of the amendment, which is to make E-Verify
permanent. I remind my colleagues that E-Verify is in effect for the
next 3 years. Making it permanent will extend to the outyears, but as
chair of the immigration subcommittee, and with the support of Chairman
Leahy, I have been investigating this issue.
I say to my colleagues that I don't think we want to make E-Verify
permanent because it is not tough enough or strong enough. There is a
gaping loophole in E-Verify. It is the best we have now. We should use
it for Federal contractors. I support that. But there is a big
loophole.
Let's say an illegal immigrant wants to say they are John Jones from
Syracuse, and they know John Jones's Social Security number. They can
easily get a fake ID that has John Jones's address on it, and they can
submit it into the system, and nothing in E-Verify will stop that
illegal immigrant from getting a job. Once they are in the system, they
are approved time after time.
What is more, nothing about E-Verify stops a citizen from loaning
their identity to friends and family so they can get a job. We need a
biometric system, with a picture and a biometric identifier. That is
the only way we will stop illegal immigration. E-Verify doesn't do it.
I assure my colleagues on our subcommittee on immigration, under
Chairman Leahy's leadership as chairman of the full committee, we are
investigating a biometric system which will once and for all stop
future illegal immigration. To make this system permanent, when there
is a better system in the offing, is premature.
I urge that the amendment be tabled. The first part has been adopted,
and the second part to make it permanent, when we already have it for 3
years, is wrong when we can do better 3 years from now.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I might have
30 seconds before the vote to make a request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, if I may respond to Senator
Schumer, it is my understanding that Secretary Napolitano's executive
order will be different than the Executive order the Bush
administration had, finally, after some delay, approved in that it
would say that a government contractor would not have to check the
employment history of employees working for them through the E-Verify
system--their validity--but only new hires they bring on, which is
quite a different thing.
I am aware of a businessman in Alabama who has had highway-type work
with good employees for many years--decades. He told me he is not now
able to compete and is losing contract after contract because his
competitor is using illegal labor. This is not an iddy-biddy matter; it
is real. I hope I am incorrect about what I understand the Secretary's
decision to be. If I am correct, I don't think the proposal is what it
should be, and it will still be insufficient.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond for 1
minute, with the permission of both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senator, my friend from Alabama, and
I, in one sense, think alike on this issue--stopping future flow of
illegal immigration. But he is right in that the order does not require
them to check back with previous employers. That is not how E-verify
works. They are not capable of doing it.
Obviously, we might want to set up 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 people and
get them to start checking on previous employment, but that is not how
E-verify works. It is one of the loopholes in the system. To say the
administration is not doing it, that is true, but neither does E-verify
require that. It probably should. But if we have a biometric, if we
have a picture, it will be a lot better and we will not need it.
The Senator is sort of right and sort of wrong but always good-
hearted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1198

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

Amendment No. 1371

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

[[Page S7230]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

YEAS--44

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

NAYS--53

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

NOT VOTING--3

Byrd
Harkin
Kennedy
The motion was rejected.

Amendment No. 1407 to Amendment No. 1371

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1399

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1399,
with the time equally divided between the Senator from Washington, Mrs.
Murray, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
Who yields time? The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, current law promises the American people
that we will secure our southern borders with 700 miles of pedestrian
fence. Obviously, we have seen violence increase and drug trafficking
and weapons trafficking. We have destabilized the Mexican government
because of our inability to carry out that promise. At this point there
are only 34 miles of double-layered pedestrian fences as promised in
our laws. We are supposed to have 700 miles. My amendment simply
enforces current law and sets a deadline that we finish a pedestrian
fence as required by law, finish the fence that is required by law by
the end of next year. This is a promise we should keep to the American
people.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my time to the Senator from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. The amendment
would force the Department of Homeland Security to construct hundreds
of additional miles of pedestrian fencing beyond that which is
determined as necessary. The Department of Homeland Security has
studied and analyzed the tactical infrastructure needs, including
pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing along that border. It has built
or is in the process of constructing the miles of pedestrian fencing
that are needed or that they believe is necessary.
The fact is, this body, when we changed the law not to be
prospective, we did not detail the location and type of fencing.
Instead, we left it to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Not only is this amendment wrong because it overturns the
U.S. Customs and Border Service determination of tactical
infrastructure needs along the border, it would be incredibly costly.
It would outstrip the funds provided for this purpose by requiring
additional fencing. Some miles of fencing have an average cost of $5
billion per mile.
I urge we vote no on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 9 seconds
remaining.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what we are doing is not working. This
amendment is designed to add some force and funding to current law. I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. If there is no further
debate on the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

YEAS--54

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

NAYS--44

Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Dodd
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar

[[Page S7231]]

Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Shaheen
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

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

Amendment No. 1375 to Amendment No. 1373

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1375, as Modified

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

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

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, originally my amendment dealt with two E-
Verify issues: the no-match rule under Social Security, which I am
about to talk about, and also ensuring that the E-Verify system is used
for employers who operate under Federal contracts.
Just a few minutes ago, we passed the Sessions amendment which deals
with the second of those issues, Federal contracts, so the modification
of my amendment simply takes that part of my amendment out and leaves a
correction of the remaining issue, the Social Security no-match rule.
That is the only thing the modification did.
What is the no-match rule? In August 2007, the Department of Homeland
Security introduced this no-match regulation which clarified the
responsibility of employers who receive notice that their employees'
names and Social Security numbers don't match the records of the Social
Security Administration. Under the rule, employers receiving this sort
of notice who did not take corrective action would be deemed to have
constructive knowledge that they are employing unauthorized or illegal
aliens. In other words, this rule provided clear guidance on the
appropriate responsibility of the employer, the appropriate due
diligence the employer should undertake if they receive a letter from
the Social Security Administration informing them there is not a proper
match under those records. DHS, GAO, and Social Security audits found
that such discrepancies often arise when workers use false documents to
illegally obtain employment in the United States.
Going after these no-matches is absolutely imperative to attack the
issue of illegal aliens in this country. Employers who receive no-match
letters know they have a problem and a responsibility to do something
about it. Either their record keeping needs to be improved or they have
hired undocumented workers. This no-match rule is reasonable in telling
the employers: You have a problem, and you have a responsibility to do
something about it in a circumstance where there is a no-match.
This no-match rule has been blocked by litigation filed by organized
labor and business groups that have consistently opposed enforcement of
many of our Federal immigration laws. But the administration has twice
asked the court to delay ruling on the government's motion to throw out
the lawsuit, thus voluntarily leaving the rule in legal limbo for more
than 5 years.
My amendment, as modified, would simply prevent any more delays on
the no-match rule. It would allow the Social Security Administration
and DHS to provide employers with notices of the problem in their
workforce payroll records. This is not only thoroughly reasonable, but
it is absolutely necessary--one of many necessary steps we must take to
move forward with regard to the illegal immigration problem and
productive enforcement. If there are situations where there isn't a
match under Social Security records, we need to do something about it.
The employer needs to look into it and do something about it or else
our illegal immigration laws are going to continue to be made a farce
and continue to be flagrantly violated in many cases. This is a
reasonable approach. It puts a reasonable but not undue burden on the
employer to do some appropriate due diligence when they get a no-match
notice from Social Security.
With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I
hope we will have a vote on it, probably later today. I look forward to
any continuing debate and urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1415 to Amendment No. 1373

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

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

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CHECKING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF EMPLOYEES.

Section 403(a)(3)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8
U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The person'' and inserting the following:
``(i) Upon hiring.--The person''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S7232]]

``(ii) Existing employees.--An employer that elects to
verify the employment eligibility of existing employees shall
verify the employment eligibility of all such employees not
later than 10 days after notifying the Secretary of Homeland
Security of such election.''.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the amendment I offer to the Homeland
Security appropriations bill deals with the E-Verify Program. This
morning, we voted to make the program a permanent part of our
immigration laws. This was a vote in favor of the program because it is
a very valuable tool for businesses across the country that want to
abide by the law.
My amendment makes the program an even better tool for businesses. It
says that if an employer chooses to verify the status of all their
workers, not just new hires, then they should be allowed to do so.
Employers want to abide by the law and hire people who are legally in
the country. Right now, E-Verify only allows the employer to check
prospective employees, but we should be allowing them access to this
free, online database system to check all of their workers.
I hope my colleagues will agree with this approach. I believe it
would fit in closely with initiatives by our new President to change
the emphasis upon enforcing the laws against employment of people who
come here illegally, because the President is emphasizing going after
employers who are not abiding by the law. And there are lots of
investigations that are going on in that direction.

So we are now giving employers, through my amendment, the opportunity
to check all their employees because that is very important. If a
person is a businessperson, and there is a prospect that Federal people
are going to come into the process and look at all their employment
records, I would think an employer would want this tool to be able to
use to see that everybody who has been hired--not just people recently
hired--is legally able to be here.
I urge my colleagues to agree to this amendment and allow their
businesses back home to take steps to be in compliance with their
immigration laws.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Thinning Elk Herds

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this morning the New York Times wrote an
editorial I wanted to commend my colleagues' attention to and take some
issue with. The editorial in the New York Times this morning is called
``Elk Hunting in the Badlands'' referring, of course, to the Badlands
of North Dakota where Theodore Roosevelt went out and lived and
ranched. The Badlands of North Dakota encompass, in large part, the
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, a wonderful park, and the Badlands
are about as beautiful as anything you will find in this country.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park has elk. In 1985, a number of elk
were released in the Badlands in the southern section. There were, I
think, around 50 head of elk that were released in the Badlands, and
that has now grown to somewhere close to 900 elk, which is about 600
more than can reasonably be handled in that area. So they need to cull
the elk herd. They need to thin out the elk herd because we can't allow
it to grow so large that we don't have the carrying capacity on that
land.
So as is the case with too many Federal agencies, once they started
thinking about how we will cull the elk herd, how we will take care of
this problem, they came up with an idea--actually, a number of ideas.
Among them was an idea that they would go hire Federal sharpshooters
and then cull the herd with Federal sharpshooters, and then have
helicopters transport out the carcasses once the sharpshooters had done
their job.
It seemed to me to be boneheaded to be thinking in those terms. Much
better, it seemed to me, was to develop an approach that was used in
the Grand Tetons, where they deputize hunters as volunteers, and each
volunteer can take an elk from the park.
Now, we don't allow ``hunting'' in national parks. I understand that,
and I am not proposing an open hunt. But in cases where you have to
thin a herd, rather than have the Federal Treasury decide that we are
going to hire Federal sharpshooters and then gas up the helicopters so
you can transport the carcasses of the dead animals, a much better
solution that you could find in almost any cafe in North Dakota,
talking to three people over strong coffee, is what about finding
qualified hunters, deputizing them, allowing each to take an elk and
take the meat home; ergo, you haven't cost the Federal Government
money. Under park supervision, you can have deputized, qualified
hunters whom you could easily qualify, and you have solved the problem.
This is not rocket science or a big, significant, complicated issue.
It is not a serious illness for which we don't know a cure. This is a
very simple issue of culling an elk herd. So I proposed that. The Park
Service said, well, there is a restriction here and there, so we are
going to hold a series of meetings. They held a series of meetings in
North Dakota. As is always the case with bureaucracy, they hold a lot
of meetings and come up with multiple alternatives, and they study them
to death until the alternatives are nothing but carcasses. This is an
issue in North Dakota in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park that has
gone on for some years. The Park Service had several different
alternatives. We were waiting for a long while to see what they were
going to announce. And it became clear to me that they weren't going to
get to a common-sense decision.
So I included a provision in the Interior Appropriations bill in
committee last week that is simple and it does as I have said: simply
cull the elk herd by deputizing qualified hunters, under the
supervision of the Park Service, who would be able to take the
animals--the carcasses--and the meat out of the Badlands. So that is in
the Interior Appropriations bill.
The New York Times today takes great issue with that. It says it is
not the right proposal at all, it is a terrible idea, that it would
legislate a management issue better left to the Secretary of the
Interior and the National Park Service. Well, the Secretary of the
Interior was in North Dakota with me about 5 weeks ago, and we had a
long discussion about this issue. And I know our former colleague Ken
Salazar, and I know he would want to come to a conclusion that
represents a deep reservoir of common sense as well for the taxpayers.
I understand that we don't want to open hunting seasons in national
parks. I propose only in a circumstance where, in this national park,
just as we have done in the Grand Teton National Park, which is
embedded in law, when you need to thin the herd, don't spend a pile of
taxpayers' money, don't gas up helicopters to haul carcasses around.
Deputize local qualified hunters and allow that. It is not a hunting
season. In this case, you are thinning the herd by using qualified
hunters, who could be deputized and operating under the supervision of
the Park Service, to remove the meat from the park. It is very simple.
The New York Times is a fine paper, but I doubt that it has a lot of
hunters on its staff. I know a bit about hunting, and I know a fair
amount about Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the Badlands. I know
the people I represent, who looked at this, and most North Dakotans
said: Why don't you get real and use a deep reservoir of common sense
and solve this problem the right way. Spare taxpayers the expense of
spending a lot of money, and do what we have done in the Grand Teton
National Parks.
That is the reason that last week I included the provision in the
Interior Appropriations bill. I wanted to describe it to my colleagues.
On behalf of the American taxpayer, let's do what is right and use some
common sense. This is not that complicated.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S7233]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1402

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today because there is a
reckless amendment on the floor of the Senate to strip this country of
an important infrastructure element to protect us against terrorism.
This amendment is intended to strip the State of New Jersey of critical
antiterrorism programs.
In poll after poll, the people across our country are still deeply
concerned about what might happen in the event of a terrorist attack.
Everyone knows we have people fighting against terror in other
countries, but we also have a huge assignment here. Just today, we saw
that an attempt to smuggle bomb parts into some government buildings
was successful. My God, what do we have to do to say to people in this
place: Our primary function is to protect our citizens, and New Jersey
is one of the 50 States in this country; that if it is a dangerous
event that occurs, whether it is a natural disaster or whether it is a
terrorist attack, we have an obligation to see that these States have
the tools to protect themselves.
Eliminating funding for these programs will make families in New
Jersey more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I
point out that this area we are particularly focused on--9/11, the
largest catastrophe that happened on American soil--is one area, which
I will describe in just a minute, that is one of the most densely
populated in the country, and the risks are very high.
Eliminating funds for these programs makes families in New Jersey
more vulnerable, and we are concerned about it. Without these
investments, when a terrorist strikes or a hurricane hits, there is a
good chance that emergency generators might not go on, firetrucks will
not arrive on time, and medical crews might not know where to go.
Let's be absolutely clear. New Jersey is no stranger to terrorism. We
lost 700 New Jersey residents on 9/11, and dozens more still retain
illnesses that developed as a result of their attempt to protect the
citizens who survived.
New Jersey is home to what has been labeled by the FBI as the most
dangerous 2-mile stretch in America for terrorism--that 2-mile distance
between the Port of Newark and Newark Airport. And New Jersey is the
most densely populated State in the Nation. In the area around this 2-
mile stretch terrorists could injure or kill almost 12 million people.
Because of the real possibility of an attack, cities and counties
throughout New Jersey have created local emergency operations centers.
What else could we ask for? What have the States where there are
droughts or hurricanes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions in this
country had the right to ask for? They have a right to ask for help.
But why only provide the help after something has happened if we can
prevent things from taking place?
Because of the real possibility of an attack, we have these local
emergency operations centers in New Jersey. These centers coordinate
information during an attack and manage the immediate response to
cataclysmic emergencies. Both the 9/11 Commission report and the
Department of Homeland Security have identified these centers as
imperative to people's safety and security when a community crisis
occurs. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission's senior counsel, if
there had been a functional emergency operations center after the
terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, lives would have been saved
that day.
Here is what will happen if the amendment being offered by Senators
McCain and Feingold is passed: The emergency operations center in Union
County, in my State, will not have an interoperable communications
network that connects fire, police, and medical officers. The emergency
operations center in South Orange--one of our cities--will not have a
working emergency generator.
We can't afford to be without this infrastructure of emergency
equipment as well as services. And the emergency operations center in
Hackensack will not be able to properly train police officers and
firefighters. Make no mistake, emergency operations centers save lives.
That is preventive. That is its purpose.
The amendment being offered by Senators McCain and Feingold defies
common sense. By jeopardizing emergency operations centers in my State
and other States across the country, this amendment would make us less
secure, and I hope my colleagues will say: No, we can't permit that. We
can't permit it in New Jersey and we can't permit it in other places in
the country.
We have to, as the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. It is the simplest
lesson we could learn. Prevention is far better than cure.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment that is
currently before us, which would eliminate funding for the emergency
operations center projects throughout the country, including one in
Providence, RI.
First, this issue hinges on several critical factors. One is,
ultimately, public safety. We have experienced, over the last several
years, a terrorist threat that could impair all kinds of communities
around this country. In fact, on the Fourth of July, several aircraft
in Istanbul were stopped and searched because there was intelligence
developed by both the German Government and the United States
indicating that there might be a threat to a commercial aircraft, as we
witnessed on 9/11. The bottom line is, these emergency operations
centers are critical.
There is another aspect, of course, too, and that is that we are in a
terrible situation economically. In Rhode Island, we are just a tad
behind Michigan in terms of unemployment, with 12.1 percent of our
workforce out of work--nearly 3 points higher than the national
average--and this funding not only will meet a critical need for public
safety but also help a little bit in terms of getting our economy
moving forward.
It will allow the city of Providence and the Providence Emergency
Management Agency to move closer to completing needed improvements to
its emergency operations center. This project will increase the space
at the Providence EOC to ensure a ready 24-hour presence and
accommodate a second complement of staff that will be required onsite,
should an emergency incident occur. In undertaking this work, at least
20 construction jobs will be produced. In Rhode Island, that is a good
project.
In 2004, the city of Providence designated a site within the city to
serve as the headquarters for the Providence EMA and has worked since
then to make improvements to the facility so it can serve the city
during a disaster or attack. The Providence EMA completed the first
phase of the work on the facility this year but must expand its
existing building in order to make shortfalls that were identified in a
2007 Federal Emergency Management Agency Technical Assistance Team
review. These shortfalls, as pointed out by the Federal Government,
included inadequate space within the existing facility for
administrative and emergency operations and a lack of adequate force
protection, physical security, and survivability measures. According to
Providence EMA, up to $3 million will be needed to complete this work.
Again, this was the result of a study by the Federal authorities as to
the adequacy of this facility. While FEMA has committed resources to
this project, Providence EMA does not have the funding to carry out all
the improvements that are required.
But beyond serving the needs of Providence, it plays a leading role
in our overall State operations. The Greater Providence Metropolitan
Medical Response System and the Providence Urban Area Security
Initiative

[[Page S7234]]

regions include Providence and eight surrounding communities,
representing 60 percent of the State's population. Let me say that
again. This EOC, although it is placed in Providence, plays a critical
role in coordinating the emergency response for 60 percent of the
people of Rhode Island. This is an important facility not just for one
community but for a significant number of areas. So this will be a
facility that is not only necessary but extremely efficient and
integral to the protection of a significant number of my constituents.
While I understand the administration believes that funding should be
allocated through a risk management framework, I support the
committee's decision to fund these projects. For my State, we know the
facility is needed. We know the improvements are needed. The Federal
authorities have pointed that out to us. It will not only protect a
small portion of one city, but it will effectively protect a larger
portion in terms of population to my State.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Mayor
of Providence and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency
regarding the project be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

City of Providence,

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

Hon. Jack Reed,
U.S. Federal Courthouse,
Providence, RI.
Dear Senator Reed, I write to express my strong support for
federal funding necessary to upgrade the functionality of the
City of Providence's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and to
ask for your assistance in securing this funding.
Following a 2007 on-site Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Technical Assistance Team's review of the EOC,
two major shortfalls were identified: (1) inadequate space
within the existing facility for administrative and emergency
operations and (2) the lack of adequate force protection,
physical security, and survivability measures. Federal
funding for the facility expansion will allow the City to
attain a resilient, modern, efficient and effective regional
EOC, capable of coordinating regional emergency response,
redundant interoperable communications and rapid public
warning.
The Providence Emergency Management Agency is responsible
for managing major emergencies in the City along with the
added responsibility for the Greater Providence Metropolitan
Medical Response System (GP-MMRS) and Providence Urban Area
Security Initiative (PUASI) regions. With limited EOC
interoperability in the eight surrounding communities
associated with MMRS and UASI programs, the improved
Providence EOC facility will be fully ready and equipped to
handle incidents which bisect traditional political
boundaries and provide needed incident support and
coordination to neighboring communities within the region,
thereby providing benefit to an estimated 60% of the State's
total population.
On 8 April 2009, after competing nationally in the DHS FY09
Emergency Operations Centers Grant Program, Providence was
one of the few cities that met and exceeded the strict
federal criteria and was awarded the maximum amount of
$1,000,000. We are requesting additional funding to fully
complete the project.
This funding is crucial for improving emergency
preparedness, response and recovery by ensuring the City has
the most advanced facility and capabilities able to provide
time critical flexibility, sustainability, security,
survivability and interoperability should a catastrophe occur
within or adjacent to our City.
I respectfully request your assistance in securing the
additional funds necessary for this project. Should you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at (401) 421-
7740.
Sincerely,
David N. Cicilline,
Mayor.
____

Military Staff,

Emergency Management Agency,

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

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal
year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and a program within it
which is very important to my home State and also to many other States
here in this great Nation. First, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member, and their staffs--the staffs, as we know, do so much great work
around here--for their leadership and foresight in crafting such an
important piece of legislation. I thank the chairman for taking my
thoughts and considerations into mind when they drafted this
legislation, as well as the thoughts and considerations of many of my
colleagues. This has truly been a bipartisan effort and shows the
Senate can get good results when we work together.
The funding in this bill covers a wide range of activities from
protecting our Nation from terrorist events to strengthening our local
preparedness and response activities. Today I rise in response to
opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment to strike funding for
emergency operations centers. The most fundamental responsibility of
government is protecting the lives and safety of the public. Arkansas
finds itself as No. 10 on a list of the 59 States and territories and
districts with the most presidentially declared major disasters. It is
not a welcome ranking, but it is a measurement of the risks Arkansans
face.
Since 9/11, State and local governments have faced increased
emergency preparedness responsibilities and costs for public safety.
Now, in the midst of continued all-hazard risks, State and local
governments are cutting spending on many critical programs, but
emergencies and disasters will not wait for our economy to improve.
Reports following Hurricane Katrina's response found multiple flaws in
situational awareness, command and control, logistical tracking, and
communications. Fully capable emergency operational centers at the
State and local level are essential to a comprehensive national
emergency management system.
EOCs require basic resources to operate smoothly and effectively in a
time of crisis. Some of the resources funded through EOCs include a
hardened and safe location for emergency management staff,
communications for reliable and accurate information gathering, and
effective, usable technology for tracking all resources, including
personnel and emergency supplies.
For example, the city of North Little Rock, AR's Office of Emergency
Services will be a recipient of these funds. This office is one of the
emergency operations centers tasked with providing disaster assistance
and support to a population of over 500,000 people in the central
Arkansas area--not just North Little Rock but the entire area. Although
the office's current personnel work very hard and are very diligent

[[Page S7235]]

about providing meaningful services to the area, the age and size of
its location limit its ability to house the needed technologies and
staff to adequately serve central Arkansas in the event of emergency.
Again, we have lots of emergencies there, as we will talk about.
These funds will be used to address these limitations and provide the
needed safety assurances.
Recently it has become popular to attack so-called earmarks. I agree
that congressionally directed spending needs to be transparent. I think
the Senate has already taken care of that. Its Members should be
accountable for the programs they support. I think the Senate has taken
care of that as well.
I am proud to support funding for emergency operations centers. I
also believe the Representatives of the States and the congressional
districts have an in-depth understanding of the needs and priorities in
their States, rather than employees serving in Federal executive
departments and agencies.
There is now great accountability in the congressionally directed
spending in appropriations bills. The public can easily review
congressionally directed spending requests and funding on Web sites
fully accessible to the public. In fact, the Constitution gives this
authority to the Congress.
The Constitution, article I, section 9, says:

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

That is what we are doing here today and that is what the
appropriations process is about, this constitutionally required system
we have, where Congress controls the purse strings.
For all these reasons, I voice my strong support for the funding in
the underlying bill that supports emergency operations centers. I ask
my colleagues, very respectfully, even though it is well intended, to
oppose the Feingold-McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, we are going to vote, I understand,
shortly. It is an important discussion. I am glad we had a little
exchange about it.
I first want to respond about what the Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Lautenberg, had to say about this. He expressed concern that because of
my amendment there would be no funding for emergency operations centers
if this amendment passes. That is absolutely incorrect. It is the
opposite.
To the contrary, there will be $20 million for emergency operations
centers that will be awarded competitively to those most in need.
Senator Lautenberg cited the 9/11 Commission endorsement for these
centers. Yes, they did. What he failed to note is that those at the
Commission recommended that the Homeland Security grants be awarded on
the basis of risk, not earmarks such as the one requested by Senator
Lautenberg.
Of course, there may well be a need in New Jersey, and I respect
that. I am not saying that program would not qualify under a merit-
based analysis. But it is not based on actual risk analysis and that is
the problem. If there are worthy projects the Senator has requested,
then I hope he would be confident that these communities in New Jersey
will be able to compete successfully for the grants.
I am sure it was not intentional but it is misleading to make the
Senate believe that these centers are being taken away by my amendment.
It is the opposite. In fact, if you look at the way this currently
operates, if we do not change this, currently the Senate bill directs
that half of all these emergency operations center funds will go to
only 10 States. The House earmarks all of these funds, and a fourth of
the predisaster mitigation funds. Last year, FEMA only funded a tiny
fraction of the emergency operations center applications it received
because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks.
On this program the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from
Arkansas were talking about, 10 States get 50 percent of it and 40
States have to share the other 50 percent. What are the odds that that
comports with any kind of rational analysis of real risk? Very small. I
guarantee, because they are earmarks, that analysis was not done. It is
not possible, because they were not put in the context of the
comparative risk that is involved.
To respond to some of the remarks of my good friend from Arkansas, I
understand the Senate has not earmarked any of the predisaster
mitigation funds. However, if my amendment is not agreed to, FEMA will
have to deal with the earmarks in the House report. I do not question
that some of these earmarked requests may be legitimate. But if they
are legitimate, then they should have no trouble in a fair competition
for the funds based on merit and risk.
I think this is the key, even for those who support earmarks in
another context. The problem here is that these are highly technical
projects. We are talking about communications equipment, flood
prevention projects that require engineering studies and the like. We
do not have the expertise in Congress to make an objective
determination of which projects are the most worthwhile. So who gets
the funding? Those who are somehow able to get an earmark without any
real analysis, without any real consideration of the merit as to who is
at the greatest risk, where in the country we need to think about these
disasters more than others.

That is no way to think about potential earmarks. Earmarks are sent
to small communities to set up operations centers that do not need them
while State centers remain unfunded. During recent flooding in
Wisconsin----
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to.
Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that the Senate bill the Senator
has described directs half of the emergency operations funds to only 10
States, and there are 50 States in America. But half of these emergency
operations center funds--it doesn't make much geographic sense, if you
look. Funds are directed at Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York,
Montana, Washington, Rhode Island--East and West, all over the country.
Maybe my friend from Wisconsin can describe what do they have in
common, 9 of these 10 States have in common?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I can tell you one thing they don't
have in common is any analysis of the need or requirement they be done
in their communities. What they have in common is somebody stuck an
earmark in this bill.
It would be different, I say to my friend from Arizona, if these 10
States had shown on the merits they have the risk in their communities
and they need to get ahead of these disaster situations. That would be
great. In that case I could support that only 10 States get half the
money. But when there is absolutely no analysis and where this actually
undercuts the very integrity of the programs they are trying to
protect, the lives of the American people, and leaves the other States
to fend for themselves with regard to 40 States fighting for the other
50 percent--this is a terrible way to protect the American people from
disaster.
As an answer to the Senator, I would say there is only one
explanation. You and I know what it is. Somebody got an earmark and
that is all.
Mr. McCAIN. There is an additional question I have to my friend from
Wisconsin. Isn't it true that the administration has requested that
this entire program be canceled?
Mr. FEINGOLD. The entire program?
Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. They want the program merit based. They want the
program to be based on actual need for these emergency operating
sectors.
Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that the Office of Management and Budget
recommended this as one of the programs to be eliminated, as the
President announced?
Mr. FEINGOLD. They want it eliminated, Madam President, because of
this practice my friend and I are discussing. Because of the use of
earmarks, which undercuts the integrity of the program, they want to
say this is not worth continuing. By this amendment we will have the
effect of restoring its legitimacy.
Mr. McCAIN. In other words, the administration believes we need
emergency operations center funds because of the requirements of
homeland security. But this process is so badly flawed that they want
to go back to do away with this and go back to the merit and needs-
based system, is that correct?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is absolutely right, Madam President, I say to the

[[Page S7236]]

Senator from Arizona. The President of the United States has pressed to
ensure these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of risk.
That failing, which is what will happen if we do not agree to this
amendment, the recommendation is to not go forward.
I accept the premise that so many Members have identified here, that
this is a worthwhile program, as long as it is based on merit and need.
So the Senator from Arizona is correct in that. The President of the
United States is clear on that. We have a chance here to fix this
program, get away from the earmarks, and make sure it can continue;
otherwise, there will be continuing efforts to say this is not what was
intended.
Obviously, it was not what was intended. Yes, it is one thing to get
an earmark for a museum somewhere in your State and that does take away
from the general funds--and the Senator from Arizona and I have strong
feelings about that--but it is another thing to use this in a situation
where a program has specifically been set up to figure out where in the
United States is the most important that people have money to be able
to do what they need to do to protect the lives of the people in their
communities because of a particular vulnerability to disaster.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator respond to one more question? So the
Senator is not saying we do not need emergency operations centers in
America? We would not be eliminating the need for emergency operations
centers, let me be perfectly clear. But what he is saying is we need to
eliminate them in this form, which does not give the highest and most
needed priority to these emergency operations centers around the
country?
In other words, we still have a threat to our Nation's security, but
this is not the way to meet it. We can come up with a far better and
more efficient way.
Mr. FEINGOLD. We do need a program for emergency operations centers.
What we do not need is another earmark trough for people to feed at. If
the program becomes just that, which I fear it is becoming, then it
does not stand on its own merit. This is truly an opportunity to
protect it.
I thank the Senator from Arizona for his questions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I listened with interest to the questions and the
conversations concerning Senator Feingold's amendment. I rise to
strongly support this amendment. You know, one of the fantasies around
here--and I yield to the long experience of my two colleagues on
fighting this battle on earmarks--is this fantasy that the money for
earmarks is created out of nothing; that somehow the money for earmarks
just lands on everyone's desk and no programs are hurt by the
earmarking process; that no money is taken from worthy projects for
earmarking.
Truth be known, I can give example after example in the budget that
over the years good competitive programs have been cut while earmarking
has skyrocketed. The Byrne grants are a good example. Byrne grants are
a competitive process in every State where they can compete for law
enforcement based on need, decided at the local basis.
What has happened to the funding for Byrne grants over the years? It
has dwindled, while in that very same budget earmarks have steadily and
continually grown over the last decade.
This is a perfect example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This
amendment will say: You must compete for these dollars based on need.
Is that not how we should be spending the public money? Last year FEMA
received a total of 675 individual emergency operations center project
applications; 675 applications they received for this funding last
year.
They were only able to select 22 of them for funding. You know why?
Because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks. So because of the
earmarking, there was less money for worthy projects that, maybe on
merit and need, were much more important to protect people than the
earmarking process.
This is a textbook example of taking a pot of money and deciding
through some waving of a magic wand that it goes individually to 10
States without any discussion as to whether those are the 10 most needy
projects or 10 most needy States--no discussion whatsoever.
In my State there have been years where we have been under a constant
emergency declaration: flooding, ice storms, tornados. We have
floodplains. In fact, the National Association of Floodplain Managers
supports Senator Feingold's amendment. Do you know why they support
Senator Feingold's amendment? They say it is causing floodplain
managers around the country to quit planning to mitigate because they
can short-circuit the process and just go for an earmark.
Why do the work and plan and compete as 1 of 22 out of 675 if you
know the easiest way and the best way to do it is to hope and pray your
Member is on the right committee? Just say it like it is. Just hope and
pray your Member is on the right committee.
So this is a great opportunity for everyone who believes we need to
be careful with the way we spend our money to be counted. This is a
great opportunity because this is very clear this money is being taken
from projects and being earmarked for projects. As a result, 40 States
are going to have less than a 50-percent chance to participate in this
kind of emergency funding.
I strongly support Senator Feingold's amendment. I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Missouri not only
for her comments about this particular issue but her dedication to
reform, transparency, and to making sure the American taxpayers'
dollars are wisely and appropriately spent. It has been a pleasure
working with her on various reform issues. I would argue this may not
be the last time the three of us are on the floor of the Senate.
When you look at the approval ratings of Congress, not just now but
for a long time, we are not held in the highest of esteem, and
sometimes for good reason. Sometimes for good reason. We have ongoing
scandals concerning the use of public funds for earmarking and
porkbarrel projects and rewards to Members of Congress that have caused
them to be in Federal court and, indeed, even Members of Congress
residing in Federal prison.
This is an important amendment because as the votes line up I think
we will see--on both sides of the aisle--we will see members of the
Appropriations Committee probably voting on the theory that if they
lose one they will lose a number of other efforts to eliminate earmarks
and porkbarrel spending.
I hope that would not be the case because this is particularly
egregious, particularly egregious. This legislation which Senator
Feingold's amendment is intended to cure is about homeland security,
and to direct half of the emergency operations center funds to only 10
States obviously is a gross misuse of the taxpayers' dollars and
could--and could--conceivably cause us not to fund emergency operations
centers that are more badly needed and could then put our homeland
security perhaps in some jeopardy, or certainly not ensuring our
homeland security to the best and wisest expenditure of tax dollars.
Could I just remind my colleagues, last year's appropriators provided
$35 million for the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program but
earmarked $12.5 million of them. The Department of Homeland Security
received 613 applications asking for $264 million for the purposes of
the grant program to construct emergency operations centers.
There is clearly a need for this money in the States. It is
unfortunate that many of the applicants were turned down by the
Department because there was no money left because we had already spent
half of it on earmarked projects which had no competition.
Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this is not a matter of
whether we need emergency operations centers. It is simply a matter of
whether we are going to wisely and appropriately use the taxpayers'
dollars where it is most needed. There has been no screening, no
authorization, no hearing held on this issue, and it was put in,
obviously, in an appropriations bill in an inappropriate fashion.

[[Page S7237]]

So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the Senator from
Wisconsin. I congratulate him on proposing this amendment.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today in defense of the $1
million that was allocated in this bill for an emergency operations
center in Mount Vernon, NY. Mount Vernon is the eleventh most densely
populated city in the United States of America, the eighth largest city
in the State of New York, and is located on the immediate border of the
largest city in this country, New York City.
Mount Vernon has three Metro-North train stations, which could
provide a vital route for citizens exiting New York City in the event
of an emergency. Thus, Mount Vernon is a first line of defense and a
``safe haven'' for millions who live and work in New York City.
In order to facilitate a proper and effective response to any
emergency incident, Mount Vernon needs an emergency operations center.
If, God forbid, another September 11 type incident occurs in New York
City, which, as on September 11, compromised the communications system
and emergency services in the city, it is imperative that we have a
local emergency operations center nearby.
New York City is one of the largest terrorist targets in the country,
and it does not make sense to be cutting emergency operations where we
could be the most vulnerable. The threat of terrorism has not
diminished, and our preparations should not either.
At present, the city of Mount Vernon does not have an emergency
operations center for the managing and mitigation of a major incident.
At best, the Mount Vernon Police Department's Field Command Center
vehicle could coordinate an incident. However, this would greatly
hamper police operations and the ability to manage a multiagency
incident.
Utilizing an existing city facility would reduce costs associated
with the project. This is an example of good government: repurposing an
existing building to fulfill a new need and building important
infrastructure to protect our citizens in an emergency.
However, if the Federal Government does not fund this emergency
center, the local community will have to raise property taxes in order
to make the upgrades necessary. Westchester County has some of the
highest taxes in the country and should not be forced to pay more in
order to provide a resource that benefits the entire region.
Terrorism is not a local problem, it is a national problem. So it is
only right that the National Government makes the kinds of investments
that can keep our communities safe.
I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
In response to the arguments that were made on the Senate floor, in
all due respect I think the judgment of a Senator knowing what is best
for their State can usually overcome the judgment of any agency that
makes that decision in a grant-making process because they know what
are the most important investment needs for their communities, and our
voices should be heard. That is why in this instance, it is very
important that an earmark of this nature that is directed to protect us
from terrorism and create a safe haven for citizens in the judgment and
discretion of the Senator from New York is very much needed.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the problem with this is the earmarks. It
is not that New York may not need this. It is that you have taken 50
percent of the money for 10 States. The other 40 States will have to
divide the remaining portion of this money for those types of emergency
centers and the calculation of risk. It ought to be true competition
based on real risk. There is no question New York has greater risk than
Oklahoma; that I do not deny. But the fact is, we have taken half the
money away from 40 other States and said: You have to compete on the
remaining portion, and you may have requirements greater than those
earmarked in the bill.
I support this amendment. I wholeheartedly ask my colleagues to do
the same.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. In response to my colleague, with regard to this
particular earmark, New York has only received one earmark for $1
million. In relation to the amount of risk and the necessity for an
emergency response center, the need is great. Our judgment, as Senators
from New York, as to what is the best investment for all of New York in
terms of an emergency response investment is helpful to this process.
It should not necessarily be left only to a grant process. Much of the
money is still available to a grant-making process which is a great
process because it does have competition and we hopefully get the
greatest good for the greatest need. There is a balance where the
judgment of a Senator or a Congress Member is very important in that
conversation. The agencies and the administration can make their own
judgments. That is why a combination of targeted earmarks on the one
hand and other investments through a grant process on the other hand is
probably a better balance and approach, because we are getting the
judgment of all parts of the three branches of government--at least two
of them.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro temproe. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Feingold-McCain amendment. I do not believe this amendment serves the
country well as far as it applies to the reality of public safety in
rural America and the northern border.
It is important to start by noting that this is about people, about
public safety, about homeland security, about firefighters and other
first responders in our frontier communities and across rural America.
Specifically, it is about protecting folks in and around the greater
Flathead Valley region of northwest Montana.
The city of Whitefish is 60 miles from the northern border, nearby to
areas where smuggling and illegal crossings are known to occur. In
places such as Whitefish, local law enforcement often ends up assisting
Border Patrol in response to suspicious activity at or near the border.
Local law enforcement also helps out with security around and awareness
about wildfires during Montana's fire season. Many of the fires up in
northwestern Montana occur on Federal lands. When the Feds need
assistance, whether it is the Border Patrol or the Forest Service or
ICE, they depend on resources of local communities such as the
community of Whitefish. In Whitefish and similar communities, local law
enforcement works closely not only with those Federal agencies, but
interagency cooperation is a fact of life in northwest Montana. That
costs local governments money which too often they do not have with an
unfunded mandate.
Special interest groups located right here in Washington on
Connecticut Avenue have called the Whitefish Emergency Operations
Center a pork project. Unfortunately, I question whether they know
where Montana is, much less northwest Montana or the city of Whitefish
or the conditions that evolve around this project. I do, as a Senator
from Montana. Unfortunately, they use a figure that is off by more than
one-third. I suggest this is further evidence that the folks in
Washington, DC, simply do not understand the State of Montana as well
as its congressional delegation.
I wish to be clear about what this amendment does and does not do.
This amendment would not save the Federal Government a single penny. It
would simply give the money back to FEMA to spend as bureaucrats, as
unelected officials here in Washington see fit.
Before 2007, there is no doubt that the Senate appropriations process
was abused. Some lawmakers buried their special pet projects deep in
large bills where they had little or no chance to be reviewed by
Congress or withstand public scrutiny. That is how the taxpayers ended
up footing a bill for the

[[Page S7238]]

infamous bridge to nowhere. The very first bill I voted for, back in
2007, as a Senator was legislation to clean up the system and restore
transparency and accountability to the appropriations process. Now
every project secured by a Member of Congress has his or her name
attached to it--no more secret requests made in the dark of night.
I am glad my name is next to the Whitefish Emergency Operations
Center project. All Senators are now required to post requests we make
on behalf of constituents on our Web sites. Everyone can do it. I
invite folks to go to my Web site, tester.senate.gov/
appropriations.cfm, or they may want to see the distinguished
Republican leader's request at mcconnell.senate.gov/approps.cfm.
The point is not that the Republican leader has asked for specific
projects. The Democratic leader has also. The point is that no Senator
is above the transparency requirements instituted in the last couple of
years. That is a good thing. It is also a good thing that we can have
this debate here today.
Why is this particular project needed, a project in Whitefish, MT?
Over the last 10 years, the population of Whitefish has doubled. The
fire department is transitioning from a volunteer department to a full-
time professional department, as the call volume has increased, as has
the population, over the last 7 years. The police department has seen
call volume increase by over 200 percent in that same time. The current
building is not big enough to house the growing needs of the city's
first responders. The current building is in a 100-year flood plain and
an earthquake zone. Why does that matter? It matters because Montana's
Disaster and Emergency Services office has done a number of scenarios
of massive disasters in Montana. Most of them revolve around a
catastrophic earthquake that disables emergency operations in multiple
cities. That is one of the most likely disaster scenarios in our State
and this region of our State.
I will fight to make people around this body understand that not
every disaster in this country happens in a major population center.
Folks in rural America deserve to have effective and efficient
emergency response also.
The new Emergency Operations Center in Whitefish will solve several
deficiencies identified by a 2006 facility needs assessment.
Interestingly enough, Whitefish used the Department of Homeland
Security criteria for this study. The center will provide
interoperability and improved efficiency for ICE, Border Patrol, FBI,
Secret Service, DEA, Montana Highway Patrol, and several other regional
law enforcement agencies.
The EOC Grant Program is intended to improve emergency management and
preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure,
and interoperable emergency operations centers with a focus on
addressing identified deficiencies and needs. That is exactly what this
project does.
I oppose this amendment for many of the same reasons as the senior
Senator from Montana. As elected officials from our States, it is our
obligation to know what the needs are out there much better, I believe,
than an appointed bureaucrat.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I speak today about the importance of
retaining funding for the Providence Emergency Operations Center in the
fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
The Providence Emergency Operations Center coordinates emergency
response for 60 percent of the population of Rhode Island. I visited
this state-of-the-art facility earlier this year and was very impressed
by the caliber of its technology, its seamless integration of many
different local law enforcement and emergency response agencies, and
those who stand at the ready to protect the people of our state against
disaster, terrorism, and other threats.
This funding will help make necessary improvements to the facility,
including expanding space and improving security and survivability,
addressing shortfalls identified in a 2007 review by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. These funds are also expected to create
approximately 20 new construction jobs, which are urgently needed in my
State, where the unemployment rate has reached a staggering 12.1
percent.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Feingold amendment so that we do
not deprive Rhode Islanders of the resources needed to meet federal
requirements for effective emergency response efforts.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of
debate prior to a vote in relation to the Feingold amendment No. 1402,
that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in
relation thereto, with the time equally divided and controlled between
Senators Murray and Feingold or their designees.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Let's be clear. We just heard two good examples by the
Senators from New York and Montana. These are not separate programs
they have fought for. They are not even separate earmarks. These are
earmarks carved out of a program for emergency operations centers that
were supposed to be based on the merits, a comparative analysis that
can be highly technical of where it is most needed and where it is less
needed, so there is some kind of opportunity for all of us to compete
openly for these dollars for our States to make sure the American
people are protected to the maximum extent.
We have the Senator from New York talking about Mount Vernon being
near New York City, where, of course, the 9/11 attacks were. That is
understandable. But if it is that strong of a case, why can't it be
made on the merits? Then we have a completely different kind of place--
Montana. I will not say for a minute that the Senator from Montana
doesn't have a case. He talks about the greater Flathead Valley. Yes,
he would know more about that place than anybody else in the Senate,
but does that mean his case for that particular location is so
overwhelming that it should not be reviewed in comparison to those of
us who have similar concerns?
A majority of my State was covered with flooding waters last June. We
did not have an adequate emergency operations center. We would like to
be able to compete for these dollars in an open and fair manner through
a program that has been designated for that purpose on the merits, not
because somebody happened to sit on a particular committee or was able
to get an earmark. Whether it is a threat to human lives in New York or
Montana, if these Senators are confident they can make the case, they
should make the case on the merits.
I say to the Senator from New York, whom I am thrilled to have in
this body, Senators should be able to exercise their judgment. The
Senators of this body exercised their judgment to help create the
Emergency Operations Center Program. That program, which Senators help
create, is supposed to be based on merit. That was the judgment of the
Senators, not that some individual Senator would say: Hey, I heard from
somebody in my area that this is important, and that should override
the will of the Senate and the government that this be done in this
way.
I remind everybody, the President has suggested that this program
should not even continue unless we can get to merit-based consideration
because that is the whole idea behind it. When the lives of American
people are threatened by disasters and terrorist threats, our decisions
should have something to do with the comparative needs and risks to the
American people, not whether somebody is able to get an earmark.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to
eliminate congressionally directed allocations of emergency operations
center construction funding. The committee bill before the Senate today
contains emergency operations center funding of about $20 million. This
emergency operations center construction program is an authorized
activity under the Stafford Act. The 9/11 Act which was approved by the
Senate on a vote of 85 to 8 in July of 2007 reaffirmed this program by
approving an amendment to the Stafford Act to adjust the Federal cost
share for these projects from 50 percent to 75 percent.

[[Page S7239]]

Emergency operations centers are critical to the effective
coordination of emergency response, which we all know is necessary to
save lives. The State of Texas, for example, has used these Federal
funds to improve communications equipment and warning systems for its
emergency operations center. The Texas EOC was used effectively in
Presidentially declared disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,
Dean, and others; major flooding in El Paso and Wichita Falls;
wildfires in 2006, 2008, and 2009; a tornado in Eagle Pass; and, of
course, the recent H1N1 influenza outbreak. The EOC in each one of
those cases was the critical node for communication between the layers
of government.
The OMB assertion that the EOC program duplicates other programs is
really without merit. While EOC construction is an allowable activity
under several grant programs, State and local governments have not
chosen to use that discretion for this purpose.
Since 2004, only $16.6 million out of the $11.5 billion of other DHS
grant funds has been used by State and local governments for EOC
construction, only one-tenth of 1 percent. The Emergency Management
Performance Grants Program has provided a mere $755,000 to EOC
construction. It is clear that the demands for the funds in these
programs is great. In order to effectively administer emergency
management programs and to equip and train first responders, there is
not sufficient funding for EOC construction. In this committee bill,
over half of the total amount made available for emergency operations
center construction is available for competitive award.
I have listened to the Senator make some very persuasive arguments. I
remind all of us that what we are providing is accountability and
visibility for where those dollars are going. It is not being done in
some bureaucracy where we cannot see it. It is laid out in this bill,
and we have heard the arguments of many Senators here on why those
funds are being appropriated to where they are. So I urge opposition to
the amendment.

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7240]]

____
Department of

Public Safety and Corrections,

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

Arlena Zeigler-McDonald,

District Administrator,
Division of Probation & Parole.
____

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

Louisiana Department of

Agriculture & Forestry,

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

Bienville Parish Sheriff's Office,

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

Claiborne Parish Sheriff,

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

Jackson Parish

Sheriff's Department,

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

Ouachita Parish

Sheriff's Department,

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

Sheriff--Union Parish,

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

Sheriff--Webster Parish,

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

Lincoln Parish Police Jury,

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

To Whom It May Concern: The Lincoln Parish Office of
Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness fully supports
the proposed Lincoln Parish Public Safety Complex. The
Complex will be available to house

[[Page S7241]]

state and local agencies responsible for the security and
safety of the citizens of Lincoln Parish. The Lincoln Parish
Police Jury has agreed to provide twenty acres of land across
from the Lincoln Parish Detention Center for this project.
This property is located on the Road Camp Road near LA 33
approximately one mile north of Interstate 20. The Police
Jury is willing to work to secure alternative sites if
required.
The Lincoln Parish Office of Homeland Security and
Emergency Preparedness would also be interested in receiving
an allocation or use of space in the proposed facility. I
look forward to working with the other Public Safety entities
in Lincoln Parish to move this worthwhile project forward.
Thank you for your consideration of this important project.
If you have any questions that I can answer please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Dennis E. Woodward,
Lincoln Parish Director, Office of Homeland Security &
Emergency Preparedness.

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

YEAS--38

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

NAYS--60

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

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

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

Amendment No. 1432 to Amendment No. 1373

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1428 to Amendment No. 1373

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

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

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

[[Page S7242]]

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

[[Page S7243]]

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

Amendment No. 1406 to Amendment No. 1373

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report considered these systems, including the Department of
Transportation's Loran-C system, to be unneeded by the early 1990s and
cautioned against further investment in Loran-C. It also recommended
that the Secretary of Transportation become more involved in the GPS
program to ensure the timely availability of low-cost civil receivers.
Obviously, we have low-cost civil receivers.
So beginning in 1981 and here we are 28 years later trying to
terminate a program that literally every agency of government is trying
to kill. But will we succeed? Again, the votes so far do not indicate
that.

[[Page S7244]]

Yesterday there was an article by Mr. Walter Alarkon, which says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats make show of budget cuts.

That was on June 23.

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

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

[[Page S7245]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

Federal Protection Service (FPS)

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

E-Verify Extension

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

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

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

Loran-C Termination

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

Immigration Services

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

Mrs. MURRAY. It says:

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

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

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

So after the completion of such activities, the unexpended balance
shall be available for any other environmental compliance and
restoration. Why not stop it now? Why not stop it now? Why spend an
additional $18 million? Why open this? Since 1981, we have been trying
to kill it. Why open it for an additional period of time when clearly
this system needs to stop?
With all due respect to the Senator from Washington, let's stop it
now. We can stop it now. We know it can be stopped now. We don't have
to spend an additional $18 million on the program.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator and I are on the same page.
We want to terminate this program. But we have a responsibility, as
oversight, to make sure that we do it in a way that mitigates any
problems that are out there.
We have high-value equipment. We have electronic hazardous materials
that are out there. The Coast Guard--whoever is responsible--has to
remediate the environmental concerns. They need to secure these sites
where the Loran-Cs are. That is what this funding is for, to make sure
it is done responsibly.
If we do not provide the funds in this amendment, the Coast Guard
will be required to take the money to do that out of other very
important missions that many of us care about, whether it is search and
rescue or drug interdiction or marine safety or threats of terrorism.
We do not want the Coast Guard to have to take away that money to do
that.
I want to specifically say again, the amendment before us, the way it
is written, strikes the language that the President requested to
provide for the orderly termination by providing authority to sell the
Loran-C assets. If this amendment is adopted, they will not be able to
sell the Loran-C assets and thereby save taxpayer dollars.
I understand where the Senator is coming from. I know his past
concerns about this program. We are going to shut it down. That is what
this amendment does. The commandant, who is, in our language, being
asked to certify, goes at the behest of the President. As the Senator
from Arizona well knows, the President has said he wants the program
shut down, and that is what this committee is trying to do, in a
responsible way, to save taxpayer dollars in the long run and
specifically to be able to sell the Loran-C assets so the taxpayers can
regain their money at the end of the day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S7246]]

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in 2007 I offered this direct amendment.
We spent 3 hours on it on the Senate floor. Everybody agreed we needed
to get rid of this program then. We had some concerns. The thing I do
not understand is why we are waiting the extra 5 months to shut down a
program. There is nobody who needs this program. That 5 months--just
that 5 months of continuing the program--costs the American taxpayers
$18 million.
So if, in fact, we are going to shut down the program, I would like
to understand the logic of turning it down in January instead of
October 1.
First of all, nobody is using this system now. Nobody is using it.
Why can't they notify in 3 months all the people--which is zero--who
are using this today? The other question is, why does it take $35
million? Where is the backup detail that shows what the costs will be?
Maybe it is $18 million.
Mrs. MURRAY. It is $18 million.
Mr. COBURN. So why does it take $18 million? There are only seven
stations left, and we are talking about facilities that are smaller
than these four desks. Tell me how it takes $2.5 million per buoy to
shut them down. Only from Washington would it take that much money.
Where is the basis for the knowledge that it takes $18 million?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator understands from the
budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010 that the Office of
Management and Budget submitted to the Congress, it says the
administration is proposing to terminate and achieve a savings of $36
million in 2010, and now the Senator from Washington is obviously
contradicting what we were told by the administration, which is what we
wanted.
How it could cost $18 million, as you say, to shut down seven sites,
and not be allowed to sell off valuable assets, of course, is
foolishness. Of course the government sells off assets that are
extraneous assets all the time without the permission or the need to
have legislation.
Is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would tell the Senator from Washington,
first of all, I do appreciate that the Senator is attempting to shut
this down, and I thank the Senator for that. It has been long overdue.
But I do question the amount of money it takes to shut this down. We
know the bureaucracies always want more money than what is necessary.
You have allowed in this bill that whatever is not used they can plow
back into anything they want to use it for.
Why would we not terminate it at the end of the fiscal year? Every
month we are running it, it costs $3 to $4 million--$3 to $4 million. I
know it does not seem like a lot when we are going to have a $1.8
trillion budget deficit this year, but I do not understand why we would
not do it.
I say to the Senator, I appreciate the fact that he is doing it. I
think it can be done for a lot cheaper, and I think it could be done
sooner, and I would hope the committee would consider that.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At this moment there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. COBURN. There is not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today, colleagues, I rise to give voice
to my strong support for President Obama's proposal to create a
consumer financial protection agency separate from our prudential
banking regulators. I believe establishing this new independent agency
is critical to protecting the economic security of the American middle
class and ensuring the stability of our financial system and the banks
within it.
Let me share with you a story about Ira Cheatham. Ira is a 73-year-
old retired veteran of the Korean war. I think his story helps explain
why we need to do more to protect middle-class economic security. Ira
and his wife lived in Portland, OR, for 21 years. By 2002, this couple
had nearly paid off their mortgage. But a few years ago, in the midst
of the subprime boom, the family received what looked like a check from
their bank, their mortgage company, a check for $1,000. Ira cashed in
the check. Ira did not realize that the check actually represented a
high-interest loan.
Within a week or two after cashing the check, the family received a
call from their mortgage company urging the couple to consolidate this
$1,000 loan with their credit card debt into a single mortgage. This
family had excellent credit, and the mortgage company promised the
couple they would receive an interest rate between 5 and 6 percent,
which would have reduced monthly payments.
Based on this promise, the couple agreed. But what they soon
discovered was they had been assigned an interest rate of 11.8 percent.
Moreover, the loan contained discount points financed into the loan,
inflating the loan amount and stripping away equity in the house. Under
this new subprime loan, the mortgage payments swelled to $1,655--nearly
60 percent of the family's monthly income.
Having discovered this, it would have been great if this family could
have simply refinanced. But in the loan was a $7,500 prepayment
penalty; in other words, stripping them of another $7,500. Once they
discovered what they had been trapped into--what they had been tricked
into--they were then locked into this prepayment penalty that would
further decimate their equity.
They did not have many good options--an unsustainable interest rate,
an outrageous prepayment penalty--but, finally, they took and did what
they had to do, which was to pay that prepayment penalty in order to
refinance their mortgage with another lender.
Our financial marketplace has become infested with these kinds of
predatory lending products and practices that exploited this elderly
couple and millions of other families across this Nation. Now these
practices are commonplace because they are not regulated. They are
commonplace because they are highly profitable. They are embedded in
documents inches thick in a home loan. They are written in light gray
ink on the back of a check. When deposited, you have actually signed a
financial document.
Well, these types of tricks and traps are unacceptable. Mr.
President, $2.7 trillion in losses to subprime writedowns only
scratches the surface of the total cost of this economic catastrophe--a
catastrophe that would have been avoided if banks had sold stable prime
loans instead of tricking and trapping families into volatile subprime
loans.
In short, we need to reestablish strong consumer protection in our
financial markets. The solution is simple and should have been adopted
a long time ago: centralizing financial consumer protection regulation
in a single agency, an agency that is not compromised by having another
mission, another mission of regulating monetary policy or another
mission of overseeing the stock market or another mission here or
there; no, a mission responsible to the consumers of this Nation of
financial products that says our transactions are going to be
transparent, the terms are going to be clear, we are going to get rid
of the tricks and traps.
Many of you know we recently passed a bill in this Chamber on credit
cards to get rid of the tricks and traps we know of in the credit card
industry. That is a tremendous step forward. But who would doubt--who
in this Chamber would doubt; who in America would

[[Page S7247]]

doubt--that within 12 months we will have a new set of tricks and
traps?
You cannot simply legislate every time one of these is created. You
need a consumer financial products agency to oversee this process, to
make sure we protect the consumer from new, clever ways of stripping
Americans' wealth. Establishing a strong consumer financial protection
agency would be a major step forward in protecting the economic
security of working Americans. There are folks who say: You know what,
we are making a lot of money. We don't want this type of regulation.

Let's draw a parallel here to consumer products in other areas. How
about toys for our children. There are folks who would say: No, we
shouldn't regulate the quality of toys, we shouldn't regulate whether
there are small parts that will choke our child, we shouldn't regulate
whether there are exploding parts that might take out an eye, we
shouldn't regulate the lead in the paint, because this reduces choice.
But we have recognized that when it comes to consumer products
appearing in our homes, we need to have ongoing oversight to make sure
products are fair and safe, and we need to do the same thing in the
financial world.
The failure to regulate has had an enormous toll: $700 billion in
taxpayer money spent to bail out our banks, $12.2 trillion in household
wealth lost in America since 2007, and the tragedy of millions of
Americans losing their homes and their jobs. Those are the real costs
of failing to regulate financial consumer protection.
Let's look at a few things such an agency would do.
First, it would mean less bureaucracy and less cost. Each of our
banking regulators already has a consumer protection obligation, a
consumer protection division. Three of four Federal banking agencies
have separate consumer protection functions from the rest of the
agency. Now, that mission is often set aside, that mission is often
ignored, in light of the other missions of the agency, but it is far
more effective, cost-effective, to have these missions combined into a
single entity with the responsibility directly to consumers.
A second concern has been that it would be a mistake to have folks
who offer financial products provide a simple, plain-vanilla product as
a comparison to give them a framework for the contract being put before
them. But these types of straightforward, plain-vanilla comparisons are
very useful to consumers to allow them to make an informed choice. In
the long term, a smarter consumer produces better competition between
those who provide these products because now they are forced to compete
not on tricks and traps but on transparency, on consumer service--
customer service--and that is a positive thing. It means real
competition in terms of price. I think our community financial
institutions in particular would have a stronger claim in such new
business because who provides better consumer service than our local
community bankers?
Third, a consumer protection agency would clear the field of
unregulated bad actors whose competition lowers standards across
financial products. Well, I wish to draw a bit of an analogy here to a
football game. Imagine a football game where only one side gets called
for penalties. That is what happens when you have one responsible
financial player and another that isn't abiding by any sort of fairness
or transparency. That does not produce good competition. If only your
opponent can jump the line or face mask or get away with just about
anything without penalty flags being thrown, how is your team going to
compete? That is the challenge the responsible players have in the
marketplace today. Well, let's not put them in such a difficult
position. Let's make sure all of the players are acting responsibly,
and that is the role such an agency would carry on.
We need a consumer financial protection agency to protect the hard-
earned wealth of hard-working Americans--Americans like the elderly
couple I told the story about earlier, Americans like Maggie from
Salem, OR. Maggie paid her credit card bill on time, and then what
happened? She was charged a late fee.
So she called up and said: Why is that?
The credit card company said: Well, you know what, we get to sit on
your payment for 10 days before we post it, so technically you are late
even though you paid us early.
Maggie said: Where is the fairness in that?
Folks like Maggie across this country are asking that simple
question: Where is the fairness in that?
Our consumers deserve fairness. Let's not try to have short-term
profits that undermine the success of our families by stripping wealth
through tricks and traps. Let's have our consumers say: Isn't it great
that here in America we make sure there is fairness in our financial
products, that we don't try to depend on tricks and traps that strip
wealth from elderly couples, strip wealth from young families trying to
raise children, that take away the opportunities of those families to
provide for their children. Let's put a referee into the game again. We
need this agency.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 1406

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from
Maine would like 10 minutes to speak on the McCain amendment. I ask
unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Maine,
the Senate vote in relation to the McCain amendment, with no other
amendments in order prior to the vote on the McCain amendment, in
relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
Let me start with some background on the Loran system since it may
not be familiar to many of our colleagues. This is a radio navigation
system with 24 land-based transmitters which are operated by the Coast
Guard that can be used to determine the location and speed of the
receiver. Some mariners and aviators use the current system, which is
known as Loran-C, for navigation, while others have switched to the GPS
system. An upgraded Loran system, which is known as eLoran, would use
Loran-C transmitting stations as its foundation and it would serve as a
backup to GPS as well as a primary navigational tool.
This infrastructure would provide the foundation that is necessary to
have a backup for the GPS. If we abandon the Loran-C system, as Senator
McCain has advocated, we would lose the considerable investment of $160
million we have already made to deploy the eLoran system, and this
system is one that a joint Department of Homeland Security and
Department of Transportation assessment team has recommended as the
backup for GPS.
Why do we need a backup for GPS? The fact is GPS is vulnerable to
atmospheric interference and jamming. A loss of the GPS signal for even
a short duration and in an isolated region would adversely affect cell
phone coverage, the national power grid, and air traffic.
Our Nation needs a reliable backup. This isn't just my opinion. This
is the considered opinion of an independent assessment team that just
filed its final report in January of this year. One of the previous
speakers referred to a GAO report that is over 25 years old. I am
talking about an assessment that was just completed in January of this
year. DHS and the Department of Transportation jointly commissioned an
assessment team that included a diverse group of senior decisionmakers
and experts from government, academia, and industry. This team reviewed
40 previous reports, interviewed the key stakeholders, industry
representatives, and other experts, and received 980 comments on what
should be done, and 93 percent of those comments were in favor of
maintaining the Loran system--93 percent.
Listen to who some of the commentators were. Sprint Nextel, which is
the supplier of critical communications capabilities, and the
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration both
stated that they currently use the Loran system and that

[[Page S7248]]

they support upgrading to eLoran as a backup and complement to the GPS
system. The Department of Energy moves controlled nuclear material
around the country and uses Loran-C as ``an active and robust
supplement to GPS.'' This is the Department of Energy's Nuclear
Security Administration telling us it needs and relies on the Loran-C
system. They describe it as an active and robust supplement to GPS. The
Department of Energy uses Loran-C to provide location information on
nuclear material in the event of blocked visibility, solar storms, and
intentional jamming of the GPS system.
In January of this year, when the team released its report, it
unanimously concluded that the eLoran should serve as the national
backup system for GPS and that the Loran-C infrastructure should be
maintained until we have full deployment of the eLoran.
Think what we are doing if this amendment passes. What we are
proposing is to discontinue a system that is being relied upon by the
Department of Energy and countless other users. That is why this
independent assessment team--this isn't my opinion, this is the
independent assessment team's conclusion--says we must maintain the
current system until we have fully transitioned to the eLoran system,
which will be the backup for GPS. What is being proposed by this
amendment is to discontinue the Loran-C system prior to having a backup
in place. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Again, I would emphasize that this was a unanimous conclusion of the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation's
independent assessment team as of January of this year. It is the
newest assessment we have. It is the most complete review that has ever
been done.
The fact is, the weaknesses in the GPS system are well known. A GAO
report published in May raised serious concerns regarding the near- and
long-term health and reliability of the GPS network, noting that there
is a high risk--that is GAO's assessment--that the Air Force will not
be able to meet its schedule for the deployment of GPS satellites. The
Department of Defense predicts that over the next several years, many
of the older satellites will reach the end of their operational life
faster than they will be able to be replaced.
A Wall Street Journal article in June concluded that the GPS
satellite system--the article cited new interference problems with the
signals being transmitted by recently launched GPS satellites, raising
additional serious concerns about the timeline for the deployment of
the next generation of GPS satellites.
The assessment team reported on a GPS interference incident in San
Diego that lasted 3 hours. The GPS system is not failproof. It can be
intentionally interfered with or it can stop operating due to
atmospheric conditions.
The eLoran would fulfill the requirement established in National
Security Presidential Directive 39 for a backup to GPS. This is a
modest investment of funds to make sure we do not experience a
dangerous gap.
Another myth we keep hearing is that there hasn't been sufficient
study into the issue of whether a backup is needed for the GPS system.
In fact, as I have indicated, eLoran has been exhaustively studied. The
result of these successive scientific and budgetary analyses is that
eLoran represents the most cost-effective backup to GPS.
Again, that is not just my opinion. That is the unanimous conclusion
of the independent assessment team that was established by the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1406, offered by the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. McCain.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

YEAS--37

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

NAYS--61

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

NOT VOTING--2

Byrd
Kennedy

The amendment (No. 1406) was rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have made great progress over the last
day on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This is a very
important bill that provides for the security of this country.
We have made good progress with a number of amendments that we have
worked our way through today. We intend to finish this bill tomorrow.
We ask Senators from either side of the aisle to notify either myself
or the Senator from Ohio, who is managing for the Republicans on this
bill, to let us know this evening if they have any amendments they want
to be considered; otherwise they may find themselves not able to offer
their amendment.
So we ask all Members to please let us know, the managers of this
bill, this evening if there are any amendments you will require a vote
on tomorrow. We do intend to finish this bill tomorrow.
I also notify Members that the majority leader intends to file
cloture on this bill tonight. If we cannot work our way through it
tomorrow, we will be here Friday voting on cloture. So I again ask
Members to work with us to finish this bill in a very timely manner.
We have got a lot of work done. We expect that we can finish it
tomorrow in a timely fashion if we get the cooperation of all Members.
I urge Members to get their amendments in to either myself or the
Republican manager of this bill by this evening so we can move forward
tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 1432

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, taking the chairman up on her offer, let me
speak on an amendment I got pending earlier today. It is amendment No.
1432. This is an amendment to strike an earmark in the bill. It is a
$900,000 earmark for the city of Whitefish emergency operations center
in Montana. That is all the amendment does. The amendment does the same
thing the administration did in that it terminates a program that the
Obama administration terminated in its budget. It is one of several
projects that was terminated in the budget submission.
I do not strike the program because I agree or disagree with it. I
think you could make an argument that it is a reasonable thing to do. I
suspect my colleague from Montana will make that argument. That is not
the point. As the administration pointed out, the point is there is a
way to do these

[[Page S7249]]

projects and then there is a way not to do them. The way not to do them
is through earmarks.
The Whitefish emergency operations center has not been subject to a
congressional hearing, nor has it been authorized by Congress.
Moreover, not only did the administration not request funding for the
project, they specifically zeroed out the funding.
On the floor the day before yesterday--or maybe it was yesterday; I
have forgotten now--my colleague Senator McCain described several
projects, including this project, and noted why it and other earmarks
in the bill should not proceed.
He said: The earmarks are in the bill for one reason and one reason
only, because of the selective prerogatives of a few Members of the
Senate. Sadly, these Members chose to serve their own interests over
those of the American taxpayers.
His point also was not that the project is either good or bad, but as
the administration noted, there is a way to do it and a way not to do
it that is fair to all of the States and to all of the Members, and
that way is to have those subject to authorization and then
appropriated.
Senator Feingold also on the floor yesterday noted:

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 1

Termination: Emergency Operations Center Grant Program

Department of Homeland Security

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

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

Justification

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that we do intend to
vote on this amendment tomorrow morning. There will be time prior to
the vote. We will work out an agreement with the Senator on how much
time.
The Senator from Montana is on his way to the floor right now to
debate this amendment. I think the Senate has a right to listen to him.
I will say this, having been in the Senate for a long time, we
respect other Senators and the knowledge they have about their States.
And when they come and talk to one of our committees about a specific
need, we listen to them and respect what they know.
I certainly know the Senator from Montana knows this area very well.
He has visited it numerous times. He understands the deep concerns that
face this region and knows exactly why they need an emergency
operations center there. He made a very good argument to the
subcommittee, and the subcommittee included it in our mark that is
before the Senate today.
The Senator was out on the floor earlier today talking about the
importance of having an emergency center located at Whitefish. I will
tell all of my colleagues that it is easy to pick out one earmark
because it is in someone else's State or region. I am not

[[Page S7250]]

from Montana, but I certainly respect the Senator from Montana when he
tells me that Montana has suffered numerous natural disasters in recent
years, including, I remember, a devastating fire at Glacier National
Park.
I do not know all of the geography of this region, but do know that
this emergency center in Whitefish, as the Senator from Montana talked
to us about it, supports Glacier National Park. That is a national park
that all of us have a responsibility for. It is next to an Indian
reservation, and Federal land with Federal responsibility. When we talk
about an emergency center that assures that we protect the assets of
this Nation, I think the Senator from Montana is right in telling our
subcommittee that an emergency center is needed there.
The EOCs respond to a lot more than terrorist threats. I remind all
of my colleagues of fires, floods, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes,
and countless other disasters.
I notice that the Senator from Montana is on the floor and he can
describe to all of us the importance of this EOC in his region.
Disasters happen anywhere in this country at any time, and our local
communities have got to have the tools they need to be able to respond
effectively, especially when they are next to national assets such as
Glacier National Park and an Indian reservation that the Senator will
describe to us. But I want to remind all of our colleagues that these
so-called earmarks, congressional mandates that we put into these
bills, are here because the Senator has come to the subcommittee,
described it to us in detail, put them up on their Web sites, and
everyone has an opportunity to look at them.
This subcommittee marked up in subcommittee and full committee and
had an opportunity to listen to the Senator from Montana describe the
need. We respected the wishes of an individual Senator and his
understanding of why this emergency operations center was so badly
needed in his State. In having the respect of other Senators, this
Senate can do the will of the people.
The interesting thing I think all of us should recognize, in writing
out where these are going to be, we actually have them in the light of
day. They are held accountable. We do have votes on them. People are
able to see them. If we just pass funds over to an agency, these
decisions are made without any input from people who live in those
States, who know the regions and who know the needs of their
communities.
I respect the Senator from Montana when he comes to this
subcommittee--and I know Senator Byrd, who chairs this subcommittee--
when he goes to Senator Byrd and makes a case for what he has. Senator
Byrd listens to everybody's requests and puts them into these bills. It
is done so out of respect for that Senator and the knowledge of his
State. I certainly believe the Senator from Montana has made the case.
I urge our colleagues to reject this single-minded amendment that
simply picks out one Senator's State and says we will not fund an EOC
in their State.
I will oppose this amendment tomorrow when we vote on it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for
her remarks. They were spot on. I had the opportunity to see part of
Senator Kyl's comments on TV, and I have a few responses. Then I wish
to talk about the project.
First, Senator Kyl said the EOC program was a target of the
administration. His amendment is not taking away the program and
zeroing it out. If that is his concern, that is what he should have
done. It takes away this specific project.
The second point was about security. The fact is, the EOC program is
to respond not only to terrorist activities, which I will get into in a
minute, but to all hazards as they apply, natural and manmade.
Finally, fiscal responsibility was the third point. He said we can't
afford this earmark. This amendment doesn't save one red cent. It moves
it back to FEMA.
I spoke earlier today on the floor about this emergency operations
center in Whitefish. I will reiterate some of those points. It is in
the northwest part of the State, about 60 miles south of the Canadian
border. People who deal with this Nation's security tell us the main
threat on the northern border is terrorism. Immigration is the main
threat on the southern border. This EOC facility will be located 60
miles south of the border, just west of Glacier National Park, which
sits beside the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. To the north, to the
west, and to the south of Whitefish are literally millions of acres of
forested ground. Whether it is the potential--and I mean potential--
that something may happen on the Canadian border that is bad, this
center is there. Whether it is the potential of forest fires on Forest
Service ground or in the park, this emergency operations center is
there. It also houses police, fire, provides for interoperability for
radios. It is very much needed.
Their current facility is in the basement. It is about a third the
size they need. It is built on a fault line and a flood plain. The fact
is, if we want to talk about the need for an emergency operations
center in this country, there is no doubt the need is here.
I wish to talk about one other thing. The EOC program is just not for
manmade disasters. It is for all disasters. We all know what beetle
kill and disease and global warming has done to the forests, and the
northwest of Montana is no exception.
This amendment picks on one specific area in one specific State. This
picks on an area I happen to know very well. I have been up there
several times. I was there last weekend, one of the many weekends I go
home, which is every weekend. I was in Whitefish. This area is a good
place for an emergency operations center. I am an elected official from
the State. I have seen it with my own two eyes. I know what is
necessary. We are going to take this away and give this money back to
FEMA, to an appointed bureaucrat who probably maybe has been in the
State of Montana, maybe not. Chances they have been in Whitefish are
doubtful.
This is a good project. I am all for fighting waste. I am all for
fighting pork. The fact that we are having this debate speaks to the
fact that we have moved a long way in this body, as far as earmarks in
the middle of the night plugged in and not having the opportunity to
debate them. I will tell my colleagues this: This is a good project. It
is a project that spends our taxpayer dollars wisely, and it will
benefit the entire country when it is done. It is a project that is
very much needed. There is no pork in this. This is about our country's
security.
It is unfortunate I didn't have the opportunity to visit with the
good Senator from Arizona while he was on the floor because, quite
frankly, it may have changed his opinion. Maybe not. I don't know why
he singled this project out for his amendment. He brought up the point
that the administration took the EOC program, and it was a target of
the administration. Then put up an amendment to zero it out. That is
not what his amendment does. He talked about fiscal responsibility.
This doesn't save a penny. The fact is, if we are talking about
security, it is just not manmade terrorism, it is emergency hazards
caused by Mother Nature. This facility will help address all those
issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. This is an
unfortunate amendment, but we will vote on it and see what happens.
I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership and support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. We will be voting on this amendment tomorrow morning.
There will be time for debate on this amendment as well.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record, the Budget
Committee's official scoring of S. 1298, the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.
The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
provides $42.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal
year 2010, which will result in new outlays of $25.5 billion. When
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account,
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $46.7 billion.

[[Page S7251]]

The bill includes $242 million in budget authority designated as
being for overseas deployment and other activities for the Coast Guard.
Pursuant to section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010, budget
resolution, an adjustment to the 2010 discretionary spending limits and
the Appropriations Committee's 302(a) allocation has been made for this
amount in budget authority and for the outlays flowing therefrom.
The Senate-reported bill matches its section 302(b) allocation for
budget authority and is $1 million below its allocation for outlays. No
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1298, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
[Spending Comparisons--Senate-reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Defense      purpose       Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
Budget Authority...............        1,582       41,345       42,927
Outlays........................        1,404       45,298       46,702
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
Budget Authority...............        - - -        - - -       42,927
Outlays........................        - - -        - - -       46,703
House-Passed Bill:
Budget Authority...............        1,553       41,064       42,617
Outlays........................        1,390       44,931       46,321
President's Request:
Budget Authority...............        1,365       41,473       42,838
Outlays........................        1,219       45,079       46,298

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget Authority...............        - - -        - - -            0
Outlays........................        - - -        - - -           -1
House-Passed Bill:
Budget Authority...............           29          281          310
Outlays........................           14          367          381
President's Request:
Budget Authority...............          217         -128           89
Outlays........................          185          219         404
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Both House and Senate bills include $242 million in budget
authority designated as being for overseas deployment and other
activities for the Coast Guard.

____________________