Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

I am grateful, as so many of us are, to our chairman, Senator Lincoln, for her continued leadership to craft a child nutrition bill that protects and assists the most vulnerable of our society--pregnant women and children who are food insecure, especially in a time of economic difficulties for so many families and high unemployment in so many communities across the country.

In the Scriptures, they tell us that a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter, and he or she who has found a faithful friend has indeed found a treasure. I am paraphrasing a little bit, but I think that line from the Scriptures about a faithful friend being a sturdy shelter has application to this discussion we have had about the Child Nutrition Act and helping our children because so many elected officials around the country say they are a friend of children. That is a good sentiment. We like to hear that. But often we do not have the opportunity to demonstrate our friendship, our concern for children, and sometimes we don't take the opportunity even when it is presented to us. So in our efforts to show and demonstrate--sometimes in small

ways, sometimes in more substantial ways here in the Senate or in other instances as well--we have a chance to demonstrate, to prove or to provide some proof that we are trying to be a friend to children.

The bill itself reauthorizes our Nation's major Federal child nutrition programs which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As many people who watch these proceedings know, reauthorization means we want to do it again, we want to continue a policy and keep the policy moving in the right direction and fund it.

Under this program, the following are included: the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known by the end of that program's name, WIC--women, infants, and children; the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which is not something we hear a lot about but is critically important; and the Summer Food Service Program.

The act itself--the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010--provides $4.5 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years, nearly 10 times the amount of money provided for the previous child nutrition bill and the largest new investment in child nutrition programs since the inception of these particular programs.

This historic new investment provided by the act could not come at a more important time, particularly given the incidence of hunger and the corresponding need for Federal nutrition assistance, which has increased in recent years. We know the economic realities. The numbers do not begin to tell the story, but the numbers are part of the story.

Throughout the country, more than 15 million people are out of work. In Pennsylvania, for example, a 9.2-percent unemployment rate equates to 591,000 Pennsylvanians out of work. I know some States are at 10 percent unemployment and 11 percent and 12 percent and some even over 13 percent. But in our State, having more than 591,000 people out of work is close to if not a record number of people.

I have always believed that when it comes to programs and policies that impact our children, whether it is a nutrition program or an education program, whether it is helping to protect our kids, I have always believed that what motivates us and what motivates people across this country to take steps to help children is a basic and fundamental belief that every child in America is born with a light inside them.

Some children, because of their circumstances, because of the family they are born into or because of other reasons, do not need a lot of help, and their light shines so brightly, it is blinding, it is boundless, it is assimilating--you can fill in lots of other words. Some children are born with a light inside them, but it does not burn as brightly because of limitations or because of adverse circumstances they are born into or because the family they are born into does not have some of the advantages many of us have had. They do not have a steady job. They do not have income. They do not have the ability to provide for their family.

I have always believed that it is the obligation of every public official, whether you are in the Senate or whether you are a State official or local official, but especially if you are elected, to do everything you can, to take every opportunity you can to help our children at a minimum with at least four things: nutrition and the prevention of hunger, early education, health care, and certainly basic safety and protection. This legislation takes a substantial step forward in at least one of those areas--the area I mentioned as it relates to preventing hunger and making sure kids are being given nutritious meals.

We know providing care at the beginning of a child's life is so important. That starts with that child's mother. Through the WIC Program, pregnant women and new mothers have access to nutritious foods and learn more about healthy eating--something we could all learn a thing or two about. The program encourages breastfeeding and supplies formula, food packages, and farmers market vouchers. The WIC Program is a strong investment in our future and serves more than half--more than half--of all infants in the United States. As babies grow into toddlers, they benefit from the nutritious meals and snacks provided by childcare homes and centers and Head Start Programs participating in that program.

I mentioned before that we don't hear a lot about the Child and Adult Care Food Program. That program allows children to develop, it prepares children to enter school ready to learn, and it helps working families to work.

In the vast majority of States, the Child and Adult Care Food Program--the afterschool program that it is--only provides reimbursement for a snack. The bill we passed today gives communities in all 50 States the ability to be reimbursed for a meal.

When toddlers grow into young children and arrive for their first day of school, many are able to enter the cafeteria and eat a healthy meal for breakfast and for lunch. These meals fuel them with the energy they need to grow into healthy adults. We know the numbers on these for children are so substantial. More than 10 million children receive a free or reduced-priced breakfast, and nearly 20 million children in the United States receive a lunch. In Pennsylvania, that translates into 1 million kids having the benefit of school lunch and just about a quarter of a million children getting the benefit of the School Breakfast Program.

Congress has taken a step now--at least the Senate has today--to ensure more eligible children receive meals, increasing the number of eligible children and increasing the nutritional value of meals. Hungry and malnourished children cannot fully participate in school. If a child can't, during school, have the benefit of a school lunch or a school breakfast or sometimes both, they can't learn. It is as simple as that. None of us could learn. None of us can function if we don't have enough to eat. I have always thought that if we invest in children, making sure they can learn at a very young age, they can learn more now and earn more later. We have to remain committed to these programs.

I have had a very strong interest in and have advocated for a long time for the so-called universal feeding concept because I believe the experience in a major urban school district--in this case, the city of Philadelphia--in that school district, that universal feeding concept as a model in one school district has reduced the stigma of poverty and increased participation in the School Lunch Program. Philadelphia schools are reimbursed for only the number of students who qualify for free or reduced-price meals but agree to offer free meals to all children. It covers everyone; it doesn't single children out for different treatment. Universal feeding enhances efficiency by dramatically reducing the administrative burdens of the program, and it maintains the integrity and congressional intent of the National School Lunch Program.

There is a lot more I could talk about with regard to the bill, but I wish to move very quickly and then conclude by highlighting some photographs.

This first photograph was made available to us by a Dr. Mariane Chilton. Dr. Chilton is at Drexel University. I have met a lot of people who have been champions for our children, who have stood up for children in all circumstances, but if there is one person who I can think of in any university of the United States who has done so much for our children and has stood up for them, who has been even more than just a faithful friend--Dr. Chilton has been the person who, time and again, has reminded us about the moral gravity of making sure children are first on our list.

She developed a program called Witnesses to Hunger. This particular project began after consent was given by mothers across the city of Philadelphia who agreed to participate. More than 40 of them were given a camera. They took pictures of their lives, the lives of their children, their own life, what happens in their homes. They made these pictures available. They gave us a window into their own lives by their own consent. By providing that insight, they allowed us to see the real misery of hunger for children. They allowed us to see the horrific nightmare so many children and so many families were living through, even before this recession.

The first picture I have is a photograph of a young boy sitting at a table.

Here is what his mother Melissa said about him:

My son, he's already on the small side and he needs every

bit of food that he can get to make him healthy, keep him

healthy. He has failure to thrive. He has a bone deficiency

that doesn't allow him to grow. He's only 30 pounds. He has

acid reflux. He had RSV, failure to thrive, chronic asthma.

This is one example of a child who doesn't have enough to eat, which leads to the obvious health problems that entails.

This next picture is a photograph of three children sitting at a table. They have beautiful smiles. They are wonderful children. The title of this picture is ``Oodles of noodles.'' These children are eating lots and lots of noodles. Their mother says:

And the kids know my food stamps got cut off. Because when

they came home from school today, they didn't have their

snacks. So they know that I didn't go to the market. I really

didn't tell them why or anything like that, because I don't

think they understand. But it affected them.

When people make decisions about cutting programs or voting against programs, we know they have real consequences.

The last picture is a young boy holding bananas and giving the photographer a great smile. In this photo, Gale, his mother, captures her son's happiness as he holds up a bunch of bananas.

Some people tell us people choose to eat unhealthy foods. They use that as a rationale, a pathetic and insulting rationale. But sometimes they make that argument. We know families want more access to fresh fruits and vegetables. But, frankly, in a lot of inner cities, they are not available, not at all. We have to recognize that, rather than denigrate or judge people who live in those communities. There are plenty of folks in Washington who are good at judging. They are not real good at responding to the needs of people.

There is so much in this bill. I will not go through more of it because we don't have time. I believe this bill does meet that basic obligation to do everything we can, at least in this program, at least with this opportunity, to make sure that light inside every child burns as brightly as the full measure of that child's potential, as brightly as we can possibly allow it to burn with our help. I believe this bill does one thing as well, going back to that reference to Scripture about a faithful friend being a sturdy shelter. This bill will not solve all the problems of the families who will be positively impacted. It will not eliminate hunger. It will not rescue a child from so many challenges in the life of a child who lives in a poor family. But this bill is one example of one way we can demonstrate what that scriptural reference tells us. It gives us a chance to demonstrate in a significant way that we are trying to do all we can to be that faithful friend to our children and to provide some measure of shelter when the storms of this recession hit that family and hit that child. We can take a step in proving that we are trying to be that faithful friend to children.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5875) making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5875.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a total of $701 million to support high-priority Homeland Security and Justice programs to enhance security along the Southwest border, where violence on the Mexican side is intensifying due to turf battles among murderous transnational criminal organizations competing for drug, alien, and weapons trafficking business. The funding would enable DHS and DOJ, in cooperation with the National Guard, to build on the current border enforcement surge.

This bill is largely uncontroversial. It simply re-proposes funding the House already approved as part of the war and disaster supplemental bill on July 1. As we all know, these funds, along with funds to stop teacher layoffs, were stripped by the Senate, leaving only funding for the wars, the Disaster Relief Fund, and Haiti earthquake relief. This funding is required now to improve security on our border and in our border communities.

I want to thank the dedicated Members from the Southwest border region who have kept the focus on this issue and are responsible for bringing us here today. We will hear from a good number of these Members tonight. I especially want to thank Gabby Giffords and Silvestre Reyes for their effort leadership on this effort, along with Ciro Rodriguez, a member of our subcommittee who is a tireless advocate of these border communities; Alan Mollohan, who helped shape the Department of Justice items in the bill; and many others who helped substantially: Chet Edwards, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Teague, Henry Cuellar, Solomon Ortiz, Ruben Hinojosa, Susan Davis, and Gene Green, among others.

Very briefly, the bill would fund several critical initiatives, including 1,200 new border patrol agents to sustain current levels on the Southwest border and build up capacity for when the National Guard is withdrawn next year, and 500 new Customs and Border Protection officers for the Southwest border to keep up staffing at ports of entry as customs and immigration fee funding continues to fall.

The bill includes funding for integrity programs to ensure CBP personnel operate at the high standards we expect and to combat efforts by the cartels to corrupt CBP personnel.

The bill would fund three new forward operating bases and better tactical communications to enable the border patrol to operate close to the border and to close gaps that can be exploited by smugglers.

It would establish four new Border Enforcement Security Task Forces on the border and build up a permanent ICE presence in joint counterdrug efforts in the region, as well as provide for a surge in ICE's criminal alien removal efforts.

It would add $50 million to expand support for State and local joint law enforcement efforts on the border.

It would add two additional Predator unmanned aircraft systems to ensure better coverage of the Southwest border, in particular on the Texas border.

And finally, it provides $201 million for Justice Department staffing to surge agents and U.S. attorneys to high-crime areas in the Southwest border region, to provide more robust assistance to Mexican law enforcement authorities, and to better handle criminal aliens referred by the Department of Homeland Security.

On June 22 of this year, the President requested a $600 million border security supplemental, offsetting $100 million of these funds and designating the rest as an emergency.

This bill is consistent with that request, funding $500 million under an emergency designation and offsetting $201 million from unobligated balances in TSA Aviation Security, FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations, the Census Bureau, and CBP's delayed virtual fence effort, or SBInet.

Consistent with past practices for supplemental appropriations, we consider our challenges on the southwest border as important as our military's work to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban or to promote stability in Iraq, and some would argue that the southwest border mission is more important. That's why this President, like past Presidents, has requested the funding under an emergency designation. I know the minority has agreed with this point of view repeatedly in the past, and I hope we can count on their support now.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help us counter the pressures on our law enforcement agencies and our border communities, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our subcommittee, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding chairman of our authorizing subcommittee, Mr. Cuellar of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another outstanding Member who has worked tirelessly to secure the border, Mr. Teague of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Giffords of Arizona, who is a sponsor of this bill and has also worked with citizens in her region ever since she came to this Congress to secure the border and to make certain that the citizens of Arizona on the border region were safe and protected.

I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the pertinent questions raised by our ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised a series of questions which deserve answers. I will briefly attempt to provide those answers, and then we will, perhaps, bring this debate to a close.

The gentleman asked: Why this bill in this form at this point?

The answer to that is very simple, which is that it was only this week that the Senate stripped these provisions from the supplemental appropriations bill. Up until this point, our hope was--and, indeed, our expectation was--that the Senate would find a way to pass these border security provisions, or some major portion of them, in the supplemental appropriations bill. It is only because that did not happen that we find ourselves in this position here tonight, offering those provisions as a free-standing bill.

The gentleman asked: Does this somehow supplant the regular bill?

Absolutely not. As the gentleman knows, we have worked cooperatively in putting together the 2011 Homeland Security bill, and that bill addresses border security in serious ways. It builds on the work we have done in the last number of years to fortify that border, to equip those who are protecting the border and to have adequate personnel at the border. So the 2011 bill is going to address these matters and in a serious way. We still hope and expect to send that bill to the President this fall.

This, however, is an emergency supplemental, a supplemental which was debated on this floor weeks ago, which addresses the urgent needs. Our colleagues from the border regions have made it very, very clear tonight, I believe, that these urgent needs really shouldn't have to wait for that regular bill, but it absolutely takes nothing away from the regular 2011 bill.

The gentleman made some assertions as to what might have happened had the markup gone forward on schedule yesterday. The fact is that neither of us knows exactly what would have been offered, much less how the votes might have gone.

I do want to address one very serious matter, though, and that is the question of offsets, the question of where this bill fits in the overall budget picture.

As I said in my opening statement, when the President requested a $600 million border security supplemental on June 22, he proposed the offsetting of $100 million of these funds, and he designated the rest as an emergency. This bill is consistent with that request. It funds $500 million under an emergency designation. It offsets $201 million from unobligated balances from DHS and DOJ.

As I said, this is entirely consistent with past practice under the leadership of both parties. When Mr. Rogers was chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee and when the Republicans were in control of this body and were in control of the administration, Congress passed three emergency spending bills for the Southwest border, and none were offset.

Of these bills, the administration, in fact, requested only one as an emergency. The other two bills contained border security funding, added by a Republican-controlled Congress, not even requested by the administration, and congressional Republicans unilaterally deemed this as emergency funding.

The situation on the border necessitates immediate action. It makes it a true emergency. Why would the minority or anybody else consider this a less emergent priority than fighting the Taliban or stabilizing Iraq? No questions are ever raised about the emergency status of those funds. These are missions that are much more expensive, I might add.

Finally, let me quote a letter that we got from Mr. Rogers, Mr. Lewis, and other leading Republican Members a mere week ago. This has to do with the kind of enforcement efforts that might be undertaken on the Southwest border:

While cross-border criminal activity is not a new phenomenon, it has escalated into an unquestionably clear and present threat to the security of the United States. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to pursue any and all means of addressing this threat within the parameters of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is exactly what our supplemental emergency appropriations bill does, and for that reason, I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are ready to move to a vote. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky, and I, of course, share his hope that we will in reasonably short order have progress to report on the fiscal 2011 Homeland Security bill.

We have that bill assembled. We have put it through the subcommittee process, and we plan to proceed with it in due course.

I stress, this bill tonight is in no way a substitute for that bill. This bill tonight is not new. This bill was passed by this House. The exact language, the exact provisions were passed by this House on July 1 as part of a supplemental appropriations bill, and the only reason it is before us tonight as a freestanding measure is because of the Senate's unwise action in stripping these border security provisions from the bill.

As for the emergency spending, we did run surpluses in this country in the 1990s. We remember that period when we were actually paying off part of the national debt. Unfortunately, that's not the period we're talking about when we talk about the previous precedents that have been set in this area.

The emergency spending that was done during the last administration in this border security area on three occasions under Republican leadership, this was done not at a time of budget surpluses; it was done at a time, in fact, when this Nation was sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

We have no more speakers on our side. I appreciate the attention of our colleagues, and especially the work that has gone into this measure from our colleagues on the southwest border. They have been absolutely tireless in standing up for their constituents and in calling to the rest of the Congress and the rest of the country this emergency situation that demands to be addressed.

Mr. Cuellar, I think it was, this afternoon said to the press, however, that this isn't just a border matter. This isn't just a border security. This is a matter of national security. It's a matter of urgent national security.

And so we're grateful for those who have worked very quickly now, after the developments in the Senate, have worked very quickly to put this bill forward in this form. We urge its passage. We want to send it along to the Senate and hope very much that this bill will be law in a matter of days and that we can get the emergency relief where it's needed. And then, of course, we will address all of these matters more systematically and in a more long-term basis in the regular appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I take a backseat to no one on border security. I have read the intelligence reports, the briefings. I have been on this subcommittee since it started in 2003, chaired it for its first years, now ranking member on the subcommittee.

I have led and supported the robust funding for the Coast Guard, CBP, ICE, DOJ, all the other law enforcement agencies, even the local ones.

I have implored, in fact, practically begged, the White House and the Democrat majority to recognize the spillover violence from this heinous drug war raging on the border with Mexico.

I have even pushed for a new joint command along the southwest border for all of the American agencies.

Finally, I have been first in line calling for a serious, sustained approach to breaking the backs of the cartels and enforcing our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious, sustained response. Rather, this is little more than a cynical knee-jerk, political ploy.

I have three concerns with this bill:

This suspension bill is not paid for. At a time of record deficit spending, why can't we at least attempt to find the prudent offsets necessary to address our Nation's border security needs, as $600 million of this money will be borrowed money. Is this so important that we will ask our children and our grandchildren to pay for it?

Secondly, this bill circumvents regular order. These expenditures should be considered as part of the 2011 Homeland Security bill, the very same process that was derailed by the majority only yesterday when the Homeland bill was to be considered by the full committee. Ten minutes before we were to meet, they cancelled the meeting.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly and disappointing, this bill is woefully inadequate and the wrong mix of security, leaving gaping holes at the Judiciary, CBP, and the Coast Guard.

If we are going to do this, let's do it right, as $500 million out of this bill's $700 million price tag, as I said before, is borrowed money. So, in many ways, in bill is addressing one urgent security issue and creating another. While border security is, indeed, a priority, our skyrocketing debt and continued deficit spending have the makings of a genuine national security crisis. We can no longer ignore our debt and continue to recklessly spend, call everything an emergency and simply hope it will go away. We have to make the tough, disciplined decisions at every level and on every issue.

So these border security enhancements can and should be paid for by way of responsible offsets. More to the point, why can't we consider these obvious funding needs as part of the 2011 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill? That's where it belongs.

The majority took 6 months to consider a true emergency, funding our troops at war, and sent that bill through a tangled, politicized labyrinth. The White House only woke up to this drug violence on the border in June with a haphazard request, which begs the question: Where is the administration's and Democrat majority's commitment to security?

Instead, yesterday, the Democrat majority cancelled the full committee markup of the 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill, where this belongs,

just 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin. And for what? So that we can turn to this suspension bill, borrow half a billion dollars, and then ignore all the other vital Homeland Security issues for the coming year. Addressing the critical needs facing our Nation's aviation security, immigration enforcement, disaster response, and cybersecurity are now left dead in the water with little hope of resurrection.

Or was the last-minute cancellation of the markup for some other more political reason, like the fact that Arizona's new tough immigration enforcement law is in the midst of a contentious lawsuit?

Mr. Speaker, the murderous drug war along our border with Mexico demands serious solutions, not reckless spending in the middle of the night after no preparation or no hearings, a flawed process, and, worst of all, political games.

As it were, I was prepared to offer yesterday, at the full committee markup of our annual bill, I was prepared to offer a responsible, completely offset amendment that would have achieved this goal and would have included many of Chairman Obey's ideas. And the minority was prepared to take a strong stand in defense of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, a law that simply makes being illegally present in the United States against the law. Sadly, thanks to the dictatorial tactics of the Democrat majority, we don't get a chance to offer, let alone debate, these sound amendments.

So, let's get our border security right. Let's provide the right mix of enforcement resources to combat the ruthless drug cartels, but let's do so through regular order in a fiscally responsible way.

This bill, just like President Obama's flawed request, neglects our countersmuggling needs in the source and transit zones, fails to fully address aerial surveillance shortfalls, and ignores the judicial resources required to follow through on enforcement actions.

If only the Democrat majority would be willing to take up the regular 2011 Homeland Security Department and Commerce and Justice Department appropriations bills, we could consider and debate the improvement of our border security in such a way that all of these issues could be addressed and paid for without passing along the bill to our kids and grandkids. Sadly, that's not the case here tonight.

I have grave reservations about this bill, Mr. Speaker, as you may have noticed, and this process. While I wholeheartedly believe we can and must do more to shore up our porous border, I believe we can do it far better and be willing to pay for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Years ago, when we requested and put in the bill funding for the border, some of it was so-called ``emergency spending,'' but that was at a time when we did not have a $1.4 trillion annual deficit. Times were different. We are in a monetary crisis in the country now. So that is the reason that I believe now is not the time to use what is called ``emergency money,'' which means borrowed money. It means not paying for it. This is not the time to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the drug cartels have demonstrated that they will not relent so long as there is a viable way to smuggle their drugs and money--blood money--across our border. To take this threat lightly or to address it with only half-baked ideas which are brought up under suspension, at night and without any preparation, will only, I think, get us further into the morass.

The last thing we want to do is to cause trouble for President Calderon as the drug war reaches its boiling point, because he has been so diligent in his efforts. We must not rush into something that does not have their, President Calderon's, complete understanding and agreement.

So that means we must get our border security right through serious solutions, having thought through them carefully and having worked with our allies in the matter rather than through reckless spending and flawed political gimmicks like this bill is. It is not paid for. It is incomplete, and it is absolutely no substitute for the urgently needed fiscal 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Now, as to this funding and as to the urgent need that it is said to represent, the Congressional Budget Office told me that none of this bill's funding will outlay in this fiscal year. According to the CBO, this money will not be used in this year. What that tells me is that this bill is really padding the fiscal 2011 regular bill process.

Where is our fiscal 2011 bill?

It is almost August. We're going on recess for 6 weeks, and there is no bill that this Congress has produced that the Democrat majority has put before us to fund the department a few days later.

Where is the bill?

We had it scheduled to be heard in the full committee yesterday. Ten minutes before we were to convene and mark up the fiscal 2011 bill, which could have included moneys like this in the regular process, they canceled the hearing. They pulled the rug out. We are not worried, they apparently said, about the Nation's security.

Where is the bill?

This is neither a substitute for the regular department bill that funds everything nor is it the substitute for one that funds the border war. Bypassing regular order and throwing more money at the border is not responsible leadership with regard to our Nation's security needs.

Though, Mr. Speaker, it is not too late. The Democrat majority can still make up for all of the lost time and for all of the inaction this year, and it can move the DHS fiscal 2011 and CJS appropriations bills to properly address our border security and enforcement needs. That is what I would have proposed had we actually convened our markup yesterday, had we moved the fiscal bill through regular order, and had we had a genuine and thoughtful debate on our security priorities. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to get that chance.

So I caution Members to consider this bill very carefully, and I urge the Democrat majority to move the regular appropriations bills through regular order with all due haste.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I intend to speak for a few minutes on climate change and the need for a new energy strategy for this country.

I will just note that if any of my colleagues intend to seek the floor to conclude the business Senator Schumer and Senator McCain were engaged in, they can just signal me and I will yield the floor to allow them to finish that business.

Mr. President, we are now at the end of this work period, and we will shortly be going back to our home States for our home work during the August recess from Washington. We are doing so without having done anything about our dependence on fossil fuels, the carbon pollution that we subsidize going into our atmosphere, the undisputed science of what is happening in our atmosphere as a result of that, and the consequences that are beginning to pile up on our planet as a result of our negligence in addressing this pressing issue.

It is easy when you are in Washington to think that this is the center of the universe and that the little fights and quarrels that happen here and the politics of this town are what is most important. In this Chamber, which is very often a hotbed of those politics, I think that problem is particularly severe. There are political situations where, if we don't get it resolved, then it just keeps going along and there is no real harm done. But nature doesn't give a darn about our politics. Nature doesn't give a hoot about our campaign contributions. Nature doesn't care about what motivates delay. Nature doesn't care whether you are lying or telling the truth. Nature just goes on about her business, driven by chemistry, biology, physics--the basic elemental forces of nature.

We are getting ourselves into a situation where by ignoring those forces we are beginning to imperil ourselves and future generations.

It is astonishingly irresponsible to be in the predicament we are in right now, with what is fair to describe as a looming global emergency that we can't get anything done on.

The big oil companies, the big coal companies, the big energy companies are able to drop into this particular Chamber their delay, their desire to have nothing happen on this subject, and that trumps the interests of all the people of the United States, all the people of the planet, their children and grandchildren, off into our future.

I want to read into the Record a few things that have come out in the press in the last few weeks. Here is USA Today, in the middle of last month:

The world is hotter than ever. March, April, May and June

set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since

recordkeeping began in 1880. . . .

That is not some fringe group reporting this. That is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Government of the United States of America.

In my home State, back in Rhode Island, ``July was more than 4 degrees above normal,'' quoting from the Providence Journal on August 2, ``and the second hottest month on record for Providence; 4.2 degrees higher than normal.''

Here is a newsclip about what effect these temperatures are having on our oceans:

The rising temperatures have been particularly hard on

oceans, which have absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat

trapped by greenhouse gases over the past 50 years.

This was another NOAA report.

Oceans are taking in increasingly more carbon. The report's

analysis of global ocean uptake of carbon dioxide estimates

that the seas stored 33 percent more anthropogenic [man made]

carbon in 2008 than they did 14 years earlier. Oceans'

absorbsion of CO2 has caused rising acidity that

is damaging the ability of shellfish, crustaceans, corals and

plankton to build shells and skeletons.

You might ask, who cares about shellfish, crustaceans, corals, and plankton? Shellfish keep a lot of American fishermen busy and occupied and productive, and feed an awful lot of families. Ditto crustaceans-- the Rhode Island lobster in particular. Corals are the nurseries of our tropic seas. When they die, it has a pronounced effect throughout the oceanic food chain. And phytoplankton--all plankton--are the base of the oceanic food chain. When you have a collapse in the phytoplankton, you have a potential collapse of the entire oceanic food chain.

There have been massive die-offs in the historic record of the ocean and we are trending toward having another one, with an ocean that is more acidic now than it has been in 8,000 centuries. We are getting to the point where the small animals that form the base of the ocean food chain are becoming soluble in the water that is their environment.

Lobsters in particular--again from the Providence Journal of July 29:

Meanwhile, the water off our coast has been unusually warm.

Lobsters like cold water and in the colder waters east of

Cape Cod, the heartland of the fishery, the crustaceans seem

unaffected. No moratorium has been recommended there. The

lobstermen explain a decline in the local stocks by saying

there has been a general migration toward cooler waters.

So the warming of our waters is having a pronounced effect on Rhode Island businesses, on Rhode Island lobstermen. I was out the other day with Rhode Island lobstermen, hauling in pots, seeing what was down there, and the fishery has not been wiped out, but it is suffering, it is under pressure, and it relates to our warming planet and to climate change.

It is a global situation. According to the Wall Street Journal, there are 400 oxygen-depleted dead zones identified by scientists in our oceans--oxygen-depleted dead zones in our oceans, 400 of them, covering an area of nearly 100,000 square miles of dead ocean because there is not enough oxygen in it to support life, as though it is on some alien planet.

Now a very recent study, July 29, reported:

Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global

population of phytoplankton--

Again, the basis of the oceanic food chain--

has fallen about 40 percent since 1950. That translates to an

annual drop of about 1 percent of the average plankton

population between 1899 and 2008. The scientists believe that

rising sea surface temperatures are to blame.

There is another side to this story and, frankly, most of it is phony baloney science. It is bought-and-paid-for mercenary science. It is not the real deal. It masquerades as the real deal, it is designed to fool the public, and it is designed to prevent us from taking action. Regrettably, for a while it is working.

Here is what Paul Krugman wrote the other day, looking at the variety of evidence that supports the need for us to do something about that for the sake of our planet, our children, and our grandchildren.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You

probably heard about the accusations leveled against

climate researchers--allegations of fabricated data, the

supposedly damning e-mail messages of ``Climategate,'' and

so on. What you may not have heard, because it has

received much less publicity, is that every one of these

supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud

concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into

by many in the news media.

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

It should be a win on national security, protecting us from those circumstances. It should be a win across the board. But the special interests will not let go, will not step into the future. They know they control enough votes in this place to make this not happen.

I promise my colleagues this is a day that the future will look back at and look at this Senate, and this will be our day of infamy. This will be the day when all of the evidence was before us, we had every chance in the world to do

what was right, we in fact knew what was right, and we allowed lies and phony science, concocted evidence and the big money from big oil, from big coal, from the big polluters, to steer us away from our duty.

I hope when we come back in September we will take this back up, that we will take it up seriously. It is my strong belief that if we go at this with real diligence as a Senate--if we have the White House with us and behind us and fighting for us, if we have the environmental groups out there in the field doing their work, pushing this issue, and if we have the hundreds of thousands of Americans who work in green energy industries and who are green energy investors and who are going to grow into this green energy economy out there explaining the true economic value, and if we have our national security apparatus making the point as to how important this is, as all the national intelligence estimates have already said--we can push this over the top. Not the first time, because the lies and the money will trump the first time. But if we do it a second and a third and fourth time and force this issue, I think we can bring it home. I hope we will at least try. Some battles are worth the fight even if you are not sure you can win.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am going to ask unanimous consent for a proposal on the border. First, I will speak for a minute and then ask consent. I know my colleague from Arizona will then speak and offer some amendments to it.

Today, I join my cosponsors--Senators Reid, Inouye, Murray, Feinstein, Bingaman, McCaskill, Casey, Udall of Colorado, Begich, and Burris--to try to make our borders as secure as possible. We are asking unanimous consent to pass a smart and tough $600 million emergency border security appropriations package that will provide immediate relief to the border.

Here is what our border security package will do: It will provide over $250 million to hire 1,500 new agents to permanently patrol our southern border and ports of entry.

It will also create a strike force that will be deployed in different areas of the southwest border, depending on where the need is greatest at any particular moment.

It will provide funds to deploy unmanned drones to fly along our southern border and provide our patrol officers on the ground with real time information on unlawful border crossings. I believe there are seven working now. They have been very successful, and they should be expanded quickly and immediately.

It will provide funds to improve communications capabilities between Federal border enforcement and State and local officers along the border.

It will provide funds to construct forward operating bases for the Border Patrol to use that are actually located on the border instead of being hundreds of miles away.

It will provide funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to conduct investigations of drug runners, money launderers, and human traffickers along our border.

It will provide over $200 million to increase the number of ATF, DEA, and FBI agents on our border because the focus on drug dealing and crime on our border is very important and has to be coordinated with immigration enforcement and bolster the number of prosecutors and court resources along our border so wrongdoers can be immediately brought to justice.

The best part of this border package is it is fully paid for and will not increase the deficit by a single penny. The emergency border funds will be paid for by assessing fees on foreign

companies known as chop shops that outsource good, high-paying American technology jobs to lower wage, temporary immigrant workers from other countries. These are companies such as Infosys. But it will not affect the high-tech companies such as Intel or Microsoft that play by the rules and recruit workers in America.

This border package will, therefore, accomplish two important goals. It will make our border far more secure extremely quickly, and it will level the playing field for American companies and American workers to compete against these foreign companies known in the industry as using ``outsourcing visas.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5875, which is at the desk; that the Schumer substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 3721, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Yes; 1,000 Border Patrol and 500 ICE and DEA.

So far, exactly right.

Yes.

That is basically correct, yes.

The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B program, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways.

There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that.

Madam President, first, I appreciate the spirit in which the Senator from Arizona has talked about the proposal. Let me try to be in the same spirit. I always said I believe in comprehensive immigration reform. I know my colleague from Arizona has focused on this issue for at least as long as I have. I was involved in the original legislation back in the late eighties with a great deal of care, a great deal of concern, and a great deal of focus.

I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border. Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants--which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on the border and work on it quickly and soon.

My problems with the amendments are as follows: First and foremost, taking funds from the stimulus is something I could not support. The reason is very simple. In my view--and it may be different than my colleague's--the stimulus creates jobs. I do not want to tell my constituents in Buffalo that they may be laid off or not have the opportunity for a job to work on a road, to be employed as a sheriff or firefighter or teacher because there are less stimulus dollars. I do not believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say--they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source.

On the third amendment, I do believe we have that one, the $21 million for the center. I believe that is in our bill, the Law Enforcement Support Center. I believe that is in our proposal.

As for the second amendment, which is probably the one where we have a substantive disagreement, Operation Streamline is, first, expensive. If you are going to immediately incarcerate everyone who is apprehended at the border, you pay for their medicine, you pay for their health care, you pay for their food. It is over $100 a day. DHS has been using a different program. When they find someone crossing the border illegally, they bring them to the Mexican interior. Secretary Napolitano has shown some good documentation that works, and it is a lot cheaper.

Until proven otherwise, I think we ought to continue that program and maybe expand that program based on the agreement we have that there should be more people on the border so there are more apprehensions.

What we learned in a different area--asylum--is that building detention centers for all those who are caught creates problems.

In New York, we have a large number of asylees--and I support asylum in many justified cases--and it has proven to be very expensive. It has proven to be cumbersome, and oftentimes you don't have the supply of space to keep up with the demand.

So I would respectfully oppose the three amendments and urge that the original proposal be supported.

I yield to my colleague.

I believe so, yes.

I thank the Senator, and I am glad we were able to--

I yield to the Senator for a few thoughts.

I have been told they need to do some conferring in our cloakroom, so the Senator may speak and I will hold off for a minute.

Mr. President, we are waiting to see if there are other Members on our side who would like to come and speak, so I would like to either yield time to the Senator from Rhode Island, who has been waiting on another subject, and then come back to this, or suggest the absence of a

quorum, whichever would be OK with my colleague.

Mr. President, I temporarily yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague. As you know, our goal--most of us on this side--is comprehensive reform. We believe securing the border is part of that, and this bipartisan effort can help move us in that direction. I hope we can move forward in a bipartisan way on many other parts of immigration reform beyond the border in the future.

I yield the floor.