A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Federal Government is a reluctant shareholder in the ownership of General Motors and Chrysler.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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?

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?

Yes.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Pending me finding the right number, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thanks to my crack staff, that amendment number is 1406. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

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. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I yield my time to the Senator from Ohio, Senator Voinovich.

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.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Wisconsin yields his time back, I will yield my time back.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Reserving the right to object, can we get the correct number?

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.

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.

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.

It is $18 million.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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.

We will be voting on this amendment tomorrow morning. There will be time for debate on this amendment as well.

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----

I am happy to.

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.

The entire program?

They want the program merit based. They want the program to be based on actual need for these emergency operating sectors.

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.

That is absolutely right, Madam President, I say to the

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, how much time remains on each side?

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.

Mr. President, I yield it back, and if it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1428.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

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.

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

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. 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.