Floor Statements

Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies, I rise today to clarify for the U.S. Senate the sponsorship of a congressionally designated project included in the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany the consolidated appropriations amendment to H.R. 2764. Specifically: Senator Levin should be listed as having requested funding for city of Grand Rapids, MI, for LOOP funded through the Department of Justice.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield back our time.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I would like to speak on the bill and ask for approximately 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we have a great country. Here we are, we are debating essentially what is going to be the Federal statute on electronic surveillance on the American people and on those who might have predatory intent toward us.

We are doing it in an open, public session, with the world to watch on C-SPAN and talking about what are the right parameters to be able to protect the American people and yet protect the American Constitution.

I think this shows the strength of our democracy and also calls upon us, as we deliberate, to come up with the widest and most prudent choice. For those who are following this debate, I would encourage them to turn to the report that has been put out by the committee, called the Foreign--note it said ``Foreign''--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the amendments of 2007 to the act of 1978.

This report will go into detail about the deliberations of the committee, the amendments that were offered, the debate we had, and additional views offered by colleagues. I commend it to their attention because it goes through the background in more detail. We are talking about law, which can be quite technical, but we are also talking about the consequences of the law which are quite important.

I sit on the Intelligence Committee. In that job, I have two responsibilities: No. 1, to protect the American people and, No. 2, to protect the Constitution of the United States. Implicit in that is the right of privacy and explicit in that is their civil liberties. The Intelligence Committee's job was to modernize FISA in a way that would do both--protect the American people against predatory attacks and yet at the same time protect their constitutional rights, explicit and implicit. What this legislation does is gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to prevent, disrupt, detect, and derail terrorist plots while at the same time safeguarding the rights of American citizens.

The FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was created in 1978. Since then, technology has changed with great speed and sophistication. I have at my home in Baltimore a rotary phone. I bought it in 1977, when I remodeled my home in Fells Point. My nieces and nephews are regaled with laughter when they say: Oh, Aunt Barb, how '70s. But when we look at the rotary phones and a blackberry was something you ate with cereal, look how far we have come since 1978. Technology has changed with speed and will continue to change with ever increasing sophistication. At the same time we are facing constantly emerging, radical, and treacherous threats that demand a new reform of the FISA law. Yet while technology and the nature of the threats have changed, we have to be very clear that our democratic values and the Constitution have not. It is an imperative that this Congress uphold both, our Constitution and our democratic values.

I believe our Intel Committee bill will do exactly that. It will make America safer. It does this by giving the U.S. intelligence professionals the tools they need to safeguard and protect against predatory attacks. Six years ago, after September 11, terrorists remained--and continue to remain--on the hunt for U.S. vulnerabilities. They use now disposable phone cards, laptop computers, and different e- mail addresses. They are always on the run, and they are always probing to find our vulnerabilities. The old FISA law made it impossible for the U.S. intel community to engage in any kind of realistic techno hot pursuit, unless we change the law. This bill enables intel professionals to keep pace with those who have this predatory intent. They have to be able to monitor terrorists overseas with speed and flexibility.

This reform legislation empowers the intel community to detect, disrupt, and prevent terrorist attacks. It does it, though, in a way that protects the constitutional rights of American citizens, both in the United States and when they travel overseas.

This bill protects their privacy in two important ways. First, it strengthens the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Intel Committee requires a FISA court to approve a warrant in order for a U.S. person to be monitored in the United States. Let me repeat that. If a U.S. person is at home in the United States, not only their home address but on the physical territory of the United States, any surveillance of them requires a warrant that is approved by the FISA Court. This means the FISA Court determines whether the surveillance is legal and necessary. The FISA Court must also judge the procedures used. The FISA Court, also looking at terrorists, takes a look at the procedures used to target them to be sure there is no reverse targeting of U.S. citizens.

Second, this bill protects the privacy rights of all Americans, whether or not they are in the United States. One can ask: What about those U.S. citizens who are traveling overseas or who are actually living overseas? What about people who are students? What about those conducting business? What about those on the cruise of a lifetime? Our good colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, offered a terrific amendment which said: Your privacy rights as an American don't stop when you leave the borders of the United States. I am giving plain English. I am using Barbara Mikulski language rather than committee language. In a nutshell, the Wyden amendment requires the FISA

Court to approve any targeting of Americans overseas. The FISA Court approval is required in order to do this. It means your constitutional rights are based on your citizenship, not your geographic location. It is your right as a citizen that gives you the right of constitutional protections, not what ZIP Code or area code you are in at any given time. The Constitution travels with you wherever you go. This is absolutely important. I believe the Wyden amendment sets out very clear language about this.

Let's talk about the immunity for the telecommunications industry. Ordinarily I am skeptical of any giveaway to these corporations, whether tax breaks or whatever. But this is one I do support. I understand there are a lot of concerns about that, and they have been raised by my colleagues in a very eloquent way. But let's examine what the telecom community was asked to do, what legal assurances they were given and by whom, and the context in which they acted. Think about where we were on September 11. There had been an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The people of Flight 93 had given their lives in the most gallant kind of way, ostensibly to protect us against a plane that was heading to the Capitol. All of us will tell you where we were that day. Quite frankly, I was in a meeting with Senator Daschle when the Pentagon was hit. Sixty Marylanders died, and I thought I might die that day. I think there were a lot of other people here who worried about that as well. We got through that day, and we stood on the Capitol steps and linked arms and said: God bless America. But we were filled with fear and apprehension. We were concerned that other attacks were being planned, that another attack might even be imminent. We were worried about the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Golden Gate bridge, about getting on planes, about getting on trains, about riding subways. We were even worried about going to football games.

I remember on the eve of the Army-Navy game, wondering what would that mean with the best and brightest of our leadership, would even the Army-Navy game be attacked? The U.S. Capitol at that same time was hit by an anthrax attack. Don't you remember the wonderful day when they sealed the Hart Building, when I was told that my office was a crime scene and a public health incident? My chief of staff, who was a new nursing mother, was filled with fear that she might have anthrax. I remember taking that little swab with the Navy medic who shook my hand and said: Good luck. Good luck? I wanted Cipro. I didn't want good luck. We were scared to death. People were snapping up gas masks and survival kits. You walk around this Capitol today, you see all of that.

So every single American was clear that they wanted to do anything to prevent or disrupt the next attack. We were all asked to do our part. It was in this context, then, that the Bush administration went to the telecom companies. These companies were asked to assist with a communications program to prevent further attacks. They were given letters of assurance that essentially said: The Attorney General of the United States, then John Ashcroft, deemed what they were being asked to do legal and necessary. There was a subsequent letter where then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales also assured these companies that what they were doing was legal and necessary. The correspondence declares that these activities were also authorized by the President of the United States during this time of anxiety.

I know my colleagues would say the lawyers knew that and it was law school and so on. But what would you have done if you headed up a company in the law department? Would you have fretted over the law or would you look at how maybe you could cooperate, how maybe when you see the Beamer family on TV and they said they were ready to roll and we all felt as though we were ready to roll, maybe if you were a telecom company, you were ready to roll too? Maybe you were rolling the dice. But you did have a letter that assured you what was legal and necessary from the Attorney General, the White House, and that also had been authorized by the President.

Within this context, the telecom companies thought what they were doing was patriotic and legal. At a time when the United States felt it was under imminent threat of an attack by a new kind of emerging threat, they were given these assurances. That is why I support giving them focused immunity, because they thought what they were doing was patriotic. Look at the context. At the same time they had these letters of assurance. What I do not support is what the Government additionally wanted, which was to give immunity to all persons connected to this, which means essentially the Bush officials, officials in the Bush administration who either knowingly broke or sidestepped the law. That is not what the committee bill would do. What the committee bill does is focus only on the telecom community. It does not give immunity to these Bush administration people.

When we look at this, I ask everybody to remember what this was. This bill also has a sunset of 6 years which I think we need. We are now in the heat of war, and we must continue to reevaluate and improve this law when cool heads will prevail.

I know others want to speak. I will speak later on on this bill in a more amplified and legal way. But I think the time has come to reform FISA, to make ourselves modern and contemporary and, at the same time, not to punish those who thought they were working with us; last, but not at all least, to protect the American people, both in terms of their safety but also their constitutional rights.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 513, S. 274.

I further ask that the amendment at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read for the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a great American who passed away last week-- Casimir Lenard.

Cas Lenard was an American patriot, who also made a tremendous contribution to strengthening the friendship between the United States and Poland. He served bravely in three U.S. wars. He was a leader in the Polish American Community. He was also a beloved husband to the late Myra Lenard, his partner in life and his partner in his work on behalf of the Polish American community.

Cas Lenard was born in Chicago to a family of Polish immigrants. Like so many children of immigrants, Cas Lenard embraced his country while never forgetting his homeland.

After hearing that the Nazis had invaded Poland in 1939, Cas joined the Chicago Black Horse Troop, 106th Cavalry, Illinois National Guard. Two years later, he requested and was assigned to the 1st U.S. Infantry Division--the first U.S. Army unit to go overseas. From 1942-1945, Cas was engaged in overseas combat duty, participating in the Operation Torch landing at Oran, North Africa, the invasion of Sicily, and in the D-Day amphibious landing at Omaha Beach, Normandy.

After his discharge from the Army in 1945, Cas married his beloved wife, Myra, and began working in the family restaurant business in Chicago. Again heeding the call to service, Cas volunteered for active duty and served for 6 years during the Korean War. In 1962, he was selected for a 5-year tour of active duty with the General Staff at the Pentagon, where he became Chief of the Army Intelligence Reserve Office. Cas then went on to serve in Vietnam and at the U.S. Army Institute of Land Combat at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.

After 30 years of distinguished service, Cas retired from the military and was awarded many citations, including the Silver Star Medal with Cluster, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal with ``V'' for Valor, the French Croix de Guerre with Palm, seven overseas campaign ribbons, and the Normandy Medal of the Jubilee of Liberty.

I got to know Cas and Myra Lenard because of their work with the Polish American Congress--where Cas served as its first executive director in Washington.

Cas and Myra worked tirelessly to support the Solidarity movement in Poland. And when the wall came down, Cas and Myra Lenard were strong advocates for Poland's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The Lenards were there every step of the way-- organizing the Polish American community to educate their Senators about how Poland's membership in NATO would strengthen America's security.

For all of his efforts on behalf of Polish Americans and for improving Poland's position in the world, Cas received many awards, including the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, the Founders Award by the Polish American Congress, and the Polish American Congress Medal of Freedom.

Cas Lenard's life was a triumph. His legacy is a deep friendship and alliance between the United States and a free, democratic Poland. His children and grandchildren are in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, wouldn't you like to find a cure or wouldn't you like to be part of an effort to find a cure for Alzheimer's? Wouldn't you like to be part of a Congress that helps save lives, helps people and families struggling with Alzheimer's so perhaps there could be medicines for cognitive stretch- out for those who are facing some form of dementia? Wouldn't you like to give help to those practicing self-help, providing relief to hard-working caregivers?

I know you do, and I also know a bipartisan group of my colleagues want to do that. That is why I introduced the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2007. I started this work a couple years ago, working with my colleague, Senator Bond, who then was chair of the Subcommittee on Aging. Now I am working with Senator Burr. We passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in July critical legislation, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. It is pending on the calendar. We need unanimous consent to bring it up. I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to give consent to move this bill forward.

This bill has two components: one is an authorizing component and the other a tax credit component. In the spirit of comity, I would be willing to actually divide the two because I know tax policy needs to be very sensitive in terms of the consequences.

Let me tell my colleagues what this breakthrough legislation does. It doubles the funding for Alzheimer's research at NIH. It goes from $640 million to $1.3 billion, giving researchers the resources to make breakthroughs. It

funds a national summit on Alzheimer's so the best scientists in the country can come together and identify the most promising breakthroughs. We are not talking about long-time, longitudinal studies. We are talking about studies that are at a point of significant breakthrough, that need help, and need a boost.

Also in our bill is the family caregivers support tax credit. It would create a $3,000 tax credit for caregivers with the extraordinary expenses of caring for someone who has a chronic condition, such as Alzheimer's.

Why is this needed? Alzheimer's disease is the tsunami on the horizon we cannot ignore. Today there are 5 million Americans living with Alzheimer's disease. It is expected to triple in the next couple decades.

We know a lot about Alzheimer's disease. It has been 100 years since it was first diagnosed, and though we know a lot, we do not have a cure, and maybe we will not have a cure, but we certainly can have the breakthroughs for what we call cognitive stretch-out. For those people who are gripped by this terrible disease or another form of dementia and those who are in social work and medicine, they have watched people say the long goodbye. We watched a gallant President and an incredible First Lady by the name of Reagan, in which the President had his long goodbye and the First Lady, Nancy Reagan stuck with him every minute, every hour of every day until his final resting. We salute them. We know that when the President does not have the resources to deal with this disease, we have so much work to do for the little people. Knowing that President, he would want help for the little people.

We need a sense of urgency about Alzheimer's. If we find a cure to delay the onset of the disease, we could save a tremendous amount in Medicaid and Medicare.

It is estimated that for every year we can have that cognitive stretch-out that enables people not to have to turn to institutional long-term care, we can save over $500 billion in both Medicaid and Medicare.

Should we even put a price tag on finding a cure, better and earlier diagnosis, faster creation of new drugs for people? Can we afford not to invest in this disease? I don't think so.

Alzheimer's is a terrible disease. I know it because we lived through it in our family. We watched prominent people be gripped by it. We know Alzheimer's is terrible for the person living with it, and we know it is an incredible drain on the caregiver, both emotionally and financially. Our country last year spent over $120 billion in dealing with this disease.

I wish to come back to the caregiver. Usually it is a daughter or a spouse who takes care of an aging parent or spouse. Often they need help with durable medical equipment and specialized daycare. It could add up to anywhere from $5,500 to $8,000 a year. Caring for a sick loved one means often you give up work, you reduce your work to part time or certainly take money out of your household.

We held a series of hearings on this bill, including Dr. Zerhouni of NIH and Dr. Gerberding of the CDC and some of our most eminent physicians working on this disease. It was amazing because it was so energizing. Often when we think about Alzheimer's, we think there is no hope and no opportunity to crack this disease, but there is.

What the scientists told us is there is now an array of medical possibilities for both the prevention of Alzheimer's and also intervention that would enable people to have this cognitive stretchout.

I am using the words ``cognitive stretchout.'' Maybe it is a little too fancy. What it means in plain English is you have a memory, you can think, you know night from day. I know for families that are gripped by Alzheimer's, both the person with it and the person living with it experience a 36-hour day, because often with Alzheimer's, the person gripped by it cannot tell the time. If we can stretch out that decline where they still have their memory, still can function with the activities of daily living, still know whether it is 3 o'clock in the afternoon or 3 o'clock in the morning, still be able to recognize their grandchild and still be able to remember how to eat, my God, what do we give them? We give them a year of life, we give a breather for those who love them and are taking care of them, and we also give a break in terms of the Federal budget with the assistance we provide in long-term care.

This bill is pending on the calendar. We have asked unanimous consent to go to it. I ask my colleagues, let's have a vote. If they would like to separate out the tax credit aspects from the authorizing legislation, I would be more than willing to cooperate in the closing hours of this session to do that.

I know on the floor is my very good colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, who chairs the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. He has been such a strong advocate of NIH, and we thank him for what he has done. But he needs help from those of us in the Senate to come up with these breakthroughs.

Mr. President, rather than a parliamentary request asking consent, I know our cloakroom is circulating the request. I look forward to a reply from our colleagues in moving this bill forward, but I ask our colleagues: Join with us and move this bill forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the conference report for the Head Start for School Readiness Act. Since 1965, Head Start has been one of the most successful Federal programs for helping low-income children and their families. This long overdue reauthorization is good news for over a million Americans who rely on Head Start's comprehensive services.

Head Start is for the poorest children. About 75 percent of Head Start families are at or below the poverty level. For a family of four, that is just $20,600 per year. These children are often the furthest behind in learning to read and learning the alphabet. Yet Head Start makes a difference. In 1 year, these students see huge improvements in their vocabulary, increasing from the 16th percentile to the 32nd percentile, which is almost the national norm.

But Head Start does so much more. It brings children to the doctor to get immunizations and hearing checks. It helps parents get on the right track. Many parents become Head Start teachers and go back to school to get their degrees. It provides nutritious meals for children who might otherwise go hungry. I am a social worker. I have seen first hand children whose lives were changed by a simple hearing

aid or a good breakfast. Believe me: it can make all the difference.

Head Start is also a smart investment. Research shows that society accrues $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in Head Start children. Head Start graduates are more likely to have increased earnings and employment than non-Head Start participants. Head Start graduates are also less likely to be dependent on welfare or to have been charged with a crime when compared to their siblings who did not participate in the program.

Unfortunately, only 60 percent of eligible preschool children are in Head Start, and less than 5 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are in Early Head Start. In Maryland, about 25 percent of eligible children age zero to 5 years are in Head Start and Early Head Start. The Bush administration has underfunded this critical Federal program for the past 7 years. Now is the time to renew the Federal investment in Head Start.

That is why I am proud to support this bill that makes low-income children and families a priority in the Federal checkbook. It increases the authorized spending level from $6.9 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008. That is nearly a $450 million increase. This increased investment will allow tens of thousands more children to participate in the program who would be otherwise turned away because of inadequate funding.

This bill also expands Head Start by increasing the eligibility income level from $20,600 to $26,800. This means that a family of four who are scrimping and saving on an annual income of only $26,800 will no longer be denied the comprehensive services Head Start provides.

The Head Start for School Readiness Act makes a serious investment in our youngest children and their families. The benefits of Head Start to the children, their families and society at large far outweighs the cost. I urge my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report. Our young children deserve nothing less.

Madam President, would the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware the President's budget actually cut NIH by $310 million? He cut the National Institutes of Health projects by $310 million, wiping out research opportunities for those young scientists with breakthrough ideas, as well as those which were ready for advancements; is the Senator aware of that?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments on the farm bill be laid aside and that I be allowed to speak on two important amendments that I will offer at an appropriate time.

Madam President, today I rise to speak about two very important amendments. I will ask for a vote on both of these amendments at an appropriate time. The first amendment requires the U.S. Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal or its progeny. The second amendment would increase food safety because I will ask for three studies on the impact of cloned products in our food supply--the impact on trade, the impact on the economy, and the impact on health.

But let me talk about the fundamental problem. See this picture up here? This is Dolly. You remember Dolly, the cloned lamb that burst onto the scene? Dolly is cloned. She has gone from a novelty to a biotech product, to possibly Dolly burger in your food supply. So we have gone from: Hello Dolly, who are you, to being on the verge of having Dolly burgers in our school lunch program, maybe Dolly Braunschweiger in our Meals on Wheels program. Why are we on the verge of doing that? It is because the FDA said it is OK. You remember the FDA. They said OK to Vioxx. They said OK to a lot of things.

It seems, in December of 2006, the FDA announced that milk and meat products from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. Now, I have very serious doubts about that, but I am not a scientist, so I want more science and more research. Most Americans agree with me, that scientists should be able to monitor cloned animals as they enter the food supply. To my dismay, FDA has refused to label cloned food. I believe people have a right to know and a right to make their own decisions.

The American people find cloned food disturbing. A Gallup poll reports over 60 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals. My bill doesn't deal with morality. My bill deals with: When you eat it, you know where it came from. Consumers have a right to know. They have no way to tell if the food comes from a cloned animal, the cloned animal's progeny, such as Dolly, or if it comes from a cow, a pig, a chicken. I want the public to be informed.

I am for consumer choice. If most Americans don't want cloned milk and meat, they should not be required to eat it. I cannot stop the cloning of animals. Maybe that would not be a good idea. I cannot stop the FDA from approving it. I don't believe in meddling at that level. But I can insist on labeling. And if it enters your food supply, whether you buy it at the supermarket or whether you are in a restaurant or whether it is going to be in the child's school lunch program or your elder parents' Meals on Wheels program, you ought to know about it. My amendment would require labeling by the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, to put a label on all food from cloned animals that says this product is from a cloned animal or its progeny. These labels would be at the wholesale level, retail level, or restaurant level, or wherever the U.S. Government acts in calling it nutrition. It would allow the American people to make an informed decision on what they are eating.

You would think I am creating Armageddon. The BioTrade Association has been all over me with the functional equivalent of cleats, running editorial boards, and whispering science as they know it into the ears of the ed boards. If they have such confidence that cloned food is OK, why would they care if it were labeled? If they had such confidence that the American people would be indifferent to labeling, why would they oppose it?

They say it will cost too much. Guess what. They said it about nutritional labeling. They said that about other forms of labeling on our food. I reject those arguments. I believe you want to know this. I really believe you want to know if you are eating cloned food.

Madam President, you know me. You know I am one of the people in the Senate who has stood fairly on the side of science, the technology advancements it brings and the need always for more research. I believe we need more research into what this means. What is the impact and consequence on public health, on individual health, on unborn children, which I know is a great concern to many of our colleagues here? We don't know. Are we going to wake up and, instead of fetal alcohol problems, have the impact of cloned food? I don't know that.

My second amendment would require three studies: a health impact study on cloned foods and do more of it; an economic impact to the United States from adding cloned food to our food supply; a foreign trade impact on exporting food made in the United States from cloned animals.

My amendment also requires scientific peer review of the FDA's decision to improve scientific rigor. It would eliminate and assure there were no conflicts of interest. Many studies done with cloned food were done with the supporters of cloning, and those who would profit from cloning. The FDA received over 13,000 comments

when it released its initial decision that food from cloned animals is safe. Many of these comments said more information is needed. Scientists said there is more information needed. The public said more information is needed. I believe we need to listen to the National Academy of Sciences, which is the premier adviser to the Congress and the people on this.

The National Academy of Sciences agrees that cloning is a brand-new science. There may be unknown and unintended consequences. These scientists recommend this technology be monitored and urge postmarket surveillance. You cannot have postmarket surveillance unless it is labeled. If it is mixed in with your food, you won't be able to do this.

The FDA tells us that once they determined cloned food is safe, they would allow it to enter the market. The scientists want this labeling. I believe we are going down a difficult path. In Europe, they call this type of food ``Frankenfood.'' Cloned beef is having a hard time in the marketplace. Do we want the EU to ban all American food products because the people are worried about ``Frankenfood'' and are worried that this ``Frankenfood'' has been mingled with the other food? Essentially, they could ban all exports of meat products there. I don't want to hear one more thing coming from the EU that says they don't want to buy our beef or lamb because they are worried that it is ``Frankenfood.''

Again, I am worried about it. How about having an amendment that mandates a study on the trade impacts?

I also believe in science and research. I believe, therefore, we need to mandate a study now and follow a scientific program based on sound science. Were they accurate? Were they impartial? Were they free of conflict of interest? What additional research needs to be done? We need to be able to also look at the impact on our economy. Are we running a shortage in beef, lamb, and so on, so that we have to go to cloned animals? I don't think so. It seems to be readily available in the American marketplace. I don't know why we need to do this.

People say, well, don't you believe in the FDA? I do. The FDA is in my State. Over a thousand dedicated men and women work there every day. What I also know is that the FDA has been making some pretty big mistakes. They have been making mistakes in their food supply. They cannot stand sentry over spinach and E. coli in our own country. How are they going to monitor Dolly as she makes her way into our food supply? They don't even have enough people to keep an eye on E. coli spreading in spinach in our own country. What about the food coming in from other countries that we don't seem to be able to stand sentry over?

The FDA has not had enough resources in the food supply area. Then they say: Don't worry, honey, we will take care of you. We learned that line a long time ago and we know how false it was. The FDA, I believe, needs more help. They need more research. They need more monitoring, and this is why I am for labeling. Labeling would tell us where these foods go. It would give us the ability to have postmarket surveillance to look at the consequences, some of which might be OK and some of which might be quite questionable. So all I am saying is give the public a right to know and let's do more studies.

I don't know about Dolly. She looks so sad here in this photo, doesn't she? I don't know if she is happy that she is a clone, and I don't know if she is sad that she is a clone. I know whatever happens to Dolly, and whatever breakthrough comes from cloning--and maybe there are wonderful things that I don't know about. I do know that when I sit down on my heart-smart program and bite into a nice juicy roll, I want to know whether I am eating beef, lamb, or a Dolly burger. So my amendment simply says: Give me the right to know; otherwise, I will take further steps to say bah, bah to Dolly burgers.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,

Science, and Related Agencies, I rise today to notify the Senate that I sponsored an amendment to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that provided $3 million in funding for Teach for America, headquartered in New York, NY, to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

Mr. President, I would like to first thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for doing a wonderful job drafting a spending bill for fiscal year 2008 that makes a true commitment to the priorities of so many Americans across the country, especially our older Americans. Close to 90 percent of all seniors in this country want to or, by necessity, will remain living in their homes, even as they grow frail. That is why I created a new, innovative program in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 called the Community Innovations for Aging in Place. Are the chairman and ranking member aware of this program?

The chairman and ranking member are right. The Community Innovations for Aging in Place

program provides community-based services by supporting partnerships between government and health and human services providers in caring for the nation's elderly. The federal government needs to be able to fund programs that work not only through government but through nonprofit organizations. That is why I would like to ask the chairman and ranking member if they support implementation of the Community Innovations for Aging in Place program?

I sincerely thank my colleagues from Iowa and Pennsylvania for addressing this issue that touches so many older Americans.

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

Mr. President, to bring our colleagues up to date, we are resuming consideration of the appropriations on Commerce, Justice, and Science. Working on a very collegial and bipartisan basis, our staffs, the Mikulski staff and the Shelby staff, have worked through the evening working to clear amendments. We believe we are making very good progress.

Where we are now is the Senator from South Carolina will be offering some amendments, and we will probably be having a debate before the noon hour, and at that time we would like to have our colleagues visit with us on how they intend to deal with the amendments they have filed.

I wish to share with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is intent of the Democratic leader, Senator Reid that we will finish this bill tonight. Senator Reid has instructed me as the manager of this bill to complete action, even if it means staying well into the evening.

We do not have to do that because we have just a core group of amendments. If the Democrats would talk to me during the first vote, and the Republicans would talk to Senator Shelby, we can move to dispose of them, either to withdraw them, clear them or we ask our colleagues to offer them.

I wished to thank the Senator from South Carolina for being here so promptly. I wish to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the spirit of reform of the Senator from South Carolina. We too support the spirit of reform on these matters. I support this amendment. I do believe we can accept it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at noon today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 3289 and that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote and that the time until then be equally divided between Senator DeMint, Senator Shelby, and myself, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know I rise in support of the DeMint amendment. I think it is a very commonsense amendment. I believe that when we are regulating how Government employees travel, I do believe they follow the rules. I do not believe they travel in a lavish lifestyle.

I wish to acknowledge the fact of two things: One, our colleague from South Carolina has a GAO report that indicates reform is needed; reform and clarity are needed on what our Government employees, traveling on official business, can do.

We have heard all kinds of stories about some going on business class, some going on first class, some where it is even short trips, and so on. We acknowledge, of course, as always, the validity of the GAO report. What I also want to say is this subcommittee, chaired by myself and my ranking member, Senator Shelby, is on the side of reform. Our three themes this year were security for our country, innovation to keep us competitive, and, at the same time, accountability. We have done a major set of reviews on things such as cost overruns in the NOAA satellite program. We have also taken on things where we offered an amendment together dealing with discipline in the funding of conferences. We stopped the lavish conferences, the so-called $4 Swedish meatball amendment.

We believe the DeMint amendment is also in that same spirit of reform Senator Shelby and I brought to this subcommittee and we now bring with our bill to the floor. We are deep down reformers. We want to make sure we accomplish the mission of the agencies for which we are the guardians of the purse. But at the same time, we want to make sure taxpayers are getting value for their dollar. Where there is excess, poor judgment, or poor management, we are going to hold agencies to the fire. We are going to hold agencies accountable. Therefore, when this vote is taken, I urge, in the spirit of reform, the spirit of accountability, that we join, once again, on a bipartisan basis and pass this amendment. We so appreciate the work of the GAO, a wonderful independent watchdog that Congress can turn to where it is not the Senator from South Carolina's opinion or the opinion of the Senator from Maryland about what is going on or the need for reform, but we work on clearheaded analysis, intellectual rigor, let the facts speak for themselves.

When you look at this GAO report, the facts do point to the fact that we do need reform in this area. I am a supporter, but I also want to acknowledge, though we need reform, I want to clearly state that most civil servants follow the rules when they book their tickets on Government travel. It ensures that these employees follow current regulations that will limit the purchase of first-class tickets.

In the spirit of accountability, reform, and responsibility for the taxpayers, again, I thank Senator Shelby for his work. We have made a lot of progress on the spirit of reform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from Nevada, both on process as well as content. I believe, with the concurrence of Senator Shelby, that there is one of the amendments we might be able to take, and then the other, of course, would be a vote in which we would move to table the amendment after lunch. But if I could respond to the Senator from Nevada in terms of content, where he wishes to increase funding for the Marshals Service for the full funding of the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, we acknowledge the validity of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada in this regard. The Senator and I have been involved in a group where we are trying to put our values into action. The Senator might recall my own background is that of a social worker. I was a child abuse worker. I find that there is nothing more despicable than a child predator. I believe it is so dastardly, so despicable, so repugnant that every time I think about the work Adam Walsh did, the work that comes out of our excellent bill with our funding, we know we always want to do more when our children are stalked in neighborhoods or playgrounds. We know they are being stalked on the Internet. Without going into putting even more vile things out there in conversation, the Senator from Nevada is well aware of some of the most awful things that are going on on the Internet. We want to acknowledge the validity of what he wants to do.

I know the Senator from Alabama wishes to speak on it, but we believe we could take this amendment. I know the Senator will want to speak about it.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, our majority staff who helps us organize the traffic of this is now going to be writing this up. Let's see how we can accommodate the Senator from Nevada. We will be able to ask for a UC before we go into the caucus. But the minority Republican staff is here. Senator Shelby will certainly protect the interests of the Senator from Nevada.

If I may comment on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, we will debate that amendment later when we are heading to a vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 p.m. today, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Ensign amendment No. 3294, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume amendment No. 3295, another Ensign amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to that amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that no amendments be in order to either amendment in this agreement prior to the vote; and that the debate time be equally divided and controlled between Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby or their designees.

Mr. President, we also believe we will be having a vote at more or less the same time on the Thune amendment, as it relates to the Legal Services Corporation. We are waiting for final word from Senator Harkin on that. But when we return from the respective caucus lunches, we expect there to be a debate on the Thune amendment, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, will be speaking, and about that time we expect to have another UC.

There will be votes throughout the afternoon. We urge our colleagues at our respective party lunches to speak to both Senator Shelby and myself as a way of disposing of those amendments that have been filed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her poignant comments.

Mr. President, we have another UC that has not quite ripened as yet, so I will suggest we recess for the party luncheons.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now, at 2:15, Senator Murray of Washington State be recognized for up to 7 minutes; that following those remarks there be 30 minutes of debate with respect to the Thune amendment, No. 3317, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Thune and Harkin or their designees, that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that the vote in relation to this amendment occur upon the disposition of the Ensign amendment No. 3295, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3214 be withdrawn.

I yield the floor.

I know the hour between 3 and 3:15 has not been designated for debate, but as the manager of the bill and also as a professionally trained social worker, I want to speak against the Thune amendment.

What we want to acknowledge is the validity of the concerns to fund help for the Indian tribes. But let's go to the facts. Fact No. 1, the President's budget request eliminated dedicated funding for tribes. This very President, this very administration has eliminated dedicated funding for tribes. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, rejected that. It is true, we do need to help get those resources into Indian country. We do not doubt the validity of that. In response, we said no to the President eliminating dedicated funding, and yes to $83 million. This subcommittee will put in $83 million for tribal programs to fight crime, protect victims, and to help troubled tribal youth; $35 million for tribal law enforcement, for training, hiring, for equipment, for court improvement projects; $28 million for additional tribe assistance; $10 million for youth intervention programs; $6 million for domestic violence programs. We have said no to the President eliminating this, and yes to the $83 million. Even the way OMB counts, that is real money. The second thing is we should not pit one group of needy Americans against the needs of other Americans.

Let's go to Legal Services. This agency was created in 1974, and it has been fighting for its existence ever since. But little by little over the years we made incremental improvements in its funding. However, in 1996 came a horrendous and Draconian cut. Legal Services endured a 50-percent cut in their funding. In 1980, the funding was $300 million. Remember what we are talking about now. In 2007 funds, we are talking about $390 million. If we had kept funding at the 1980 levels, just

with inflation, Legal Services would be funded at $757 million.

So guess what. Senator Mikulski, the Democrats take charge. We take a look at Legal Services and we say: We are concerned. We are concerned that for over 1 million people Legal Services helps, 1 million need to be turned away. Fifty percent of the people who come for legal services have to be turned away because of a lack of lawyers, paralegals, and other support staff.

Let me say this: As a social worker--and, I might add, I am a dues- paying National Association of Social Workers member. I was a foster care worker. I was a child abuse worker. I was an antipoverty program worker. I am still that kind of social worker, only now I fight it on the floor of the Senate rather than in the neighborhoods of Baltimore.

As social workers, two of our best friends were our Legal Services lawyers and our school nurses. We could turn to them to have a team to help get families on the right track. We would turn to those Legal Services lawyers so that if a spouse was in a domestic violence situation, we could get the law enforcement help to them. We could get them through a divorce proceeding to get them on the right track, to give them a second chance, to get them moving.

Often they were victims of predatory lending or other schemes and other scams. It was the Legal Services lawyers to whom we would turn to get that taken care of. Sometimes unscrupulous landlords would have them in lead-saturated houses. We could turn to our Legal Services lawyers and our public health nurses and we were able to turn lives around. Thank God for the Legal Services lawyers.

Now, the Senator from South Dakota says this will not hurt anybody. You are not going after a corporation. We are eliminating lawyers and paralegals and the social support staff to help 1 million people. Darn right you are having an impact. You are not going after something called a corporation; you are going after our increases there.

Now, we did not fund administrative costs. We did not kind of bloat up a bureaucracy. Our money is specifically focused on lawyers, paralegals, and the social support staff for a difference. So when we say let's take it from Legal Services to help the tribes, well, 70 percent of the Legal Services population in South Dakota is Native American.

So I would hope we are not pitting one group of needy Americans against another group of needy Americans. We hope you reject the Thune amendment, support the Mikulski-Shelby bipartisan bill that puts $83 million in to help with tribal assistance. We are looking at how to deal with additional resources on the meth issues.

Let's put Legal Services back on track. Let's help those lawyers. Let's help those paralegals. Let's help that social support staff work with people, families, and child services to turn lives around. One of the best ways to really help fight crime is in those early interventions we can do with families. So really, I ask you, with all the professional experience I ever had in these areas, let's stick with Legal Services.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence now commence at 3:30 p.m. today under the same conditions and limitations as previously ordered and that the time until then be equally divided between the managers or their designees.

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

Madam President, in about 15 minutes we will be voting on a series of amendments, and I wish to comment now on one of them, the Ensign amendment No. 3295.

I want my colleagues to know I oppose the Ensign amendment No. 3295. What the Senator from Nevada is proposing is to reduce the NASA funding in this bill by $150 million and to put it into something called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

Again, we are pitting good ideas against each other. That is why you have to really rely upon the chairman and ranking member, who kind of strike a balance with this bill.

In the CJS bill, we did want to fund the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We know how important it is because it reimbursed the States for detaining illegal immigrants. This is a priority for this subcommittee, and we provided $400 million to do that. We are very aware that State budgets are stretched thin, that they should not bear the cost of paying the bill for detaining illegal immigrants. We do not want to create another unfunded Federal mandate there. So working with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, we made sure there was $400 million in it. Now, we acknowledge that the Senator from Nevada would like to increase it. We would like to increase it as well. But already the President is threatening a veto because we restored the funding for the COPS Program.

Now, the cut to NASA is not a benign cut. It would be a devastating blow to NASA. It would be a major setback to the exploration programs and a devastating blow to the science programs. It would harm our effort to do very important things, one of which is a key priority for funding the next-generation shuttle.

The shuttle, as we now know it, will retire in 2010. It is getting older, it has fewer flights that it can continue, and we need to be returning to space with a new vehicle. It is the No. 1 priority, on a bipartisan basis, for Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby, Bill Nelson, and Barbara Mikulski, who kind have been the space Senators here. Also, it is the No. 1 priority for the administration, and it is the No. 1 priority for the director of NASA that we need not delay in getting ready for that vehicle that returns us to space.

From 2010, for another 3 to 5 years, we will have no access in space. We are going to rely on the kindness of allies to go back. We cannot lose time or ground. Our national security and our national honor depend upon it. Also, this would have a tremendous impact on the state of science, which goes to major efforts in terms of better understanding our planet Earth, where we do suspect intelligent life, and also the impact of climate changes. It is wonderful that we win the Nobel Prize on climate change--and we support our former colleague, Vice President Gore--but we have to keep winning those. Remember, the Nobel Prize not only went to Gore but to the scientists studying this. Regardless how you feel about the climate crisis, I think we need sound science and sensible solutions. So please, while we are looking at how are we going to pay the bills for the detention of illegal aliens in State facilities, don't penalize NASA. That would be an incredible setback to national security, to national honor, to national innovation, and a key administration priority.

So I hope that when the Ensign amendment No. 3295 comes up for a vote, my colleagues will join me in tabling this amendment.

I cannot say enough about the cooperation of Senator Shelby and his staff and about finding a balance in this bill, because we had so many competing needs, and in each one we tried to strike the balance. We had the will, but we didn't quite have the wallet to do what we needed to do. But we certainly have made significant progress and went well beyond downpayments in meeting our responsibility.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I reserve 30 seconds for myself.

Madam President, on Ensign amendment No. 3294, I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. We have arrived at a bipartisan solution. It is Ensign amendment No. 3295 that the Senators from Florida and Alabama and I oppose.

So on Ensign amendment No. 3294, I urge support of this amendment and urge we go to a vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I think it is important we hear from the Senator from Nevada on this next amendment, which is an important one.

Amendment No. 3295

Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

Mr. President, I too oppose the Ensign amendment. We have met our responsibility to the State Criminal Alien Program. We have put $400 million in it. I believe the amendment is unnecessary.

I oppose it, and I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change Of Vote

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, we vigorously oppose this amendment. We too acknowledge that we should help people who are victims of crime on Indian reservations. But the administration eliminated all funds to do that.

The bipartisan agreement puts $83 million in for tribal programs to fight crime, protect victims, and help troubled tribal youth. What this amendment does is take money out of the first meaningful increase that Legal Services has had. This does not take money from something called a corporation, it takes it out of the lawyers, the paralegals, and the support staff who provide legal services to the poor in this country. In South Dakota, 70 percent of those are Native Americans.

Senator Harkin and I oppose this moment.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Vitter amendment, No. 3277, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that the time from 5:30 to 6 be equally divided and controlled between Senators Mikulski and Vitter or their designees.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for working with the subcommittee. I know from firsthand experience how important Boys and Girls Clubs are in keeping our kids safe in neighborhoods and also doing the very important work that keeps them on the straight and narrow. Both the Senator from Alabama, my ranking member, and I would like to do more for Boys and Girls Clubs. We are more than willing to accept the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I, therefore, urge its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, ordinarily I would wholeheartedly and enthusiastically agree with the Senator from North Carolina, but here I have to respectfully disagree, not with her intent but where she is getting the money. I rise to oppose this amendment because it would take $75 million from State and local law enforcement that has already been troubled and under siege and give it to the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that has its own appropriations.

I acknowledge the work of North Carolina, what they are doing, the fact that they have a unique partnership that has been done. We acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that other law enforcement would also benefit. But she is talking about $75 million. The Department of Homeland Security received billions. The place for the Senator to have made this fight was when Homeland Security was on the floor, and she should have offered that as an amendment on Homeland Security and gotten it through an offset or gotten it in Homeland Security or gotten it by raising the Budget Act under a point of order.

Let me tell you where we are. When we received the President's budget in February, I was horrified, as was my colleague. The COPS Program was eliminated. That is the program that actually puts money into the Federal checkbook to put cops on the street to fight violent crime. But it was eliminated.

Under President Bill Clinton, who created the program--of course, Congress creates the programs, but working in partnership with the President when we did have the White House, we put on the streets of America 118,000 cops through that program, and we reduced violent crime by 10 percent. But in this President's budget it was eliminated.

Then we saw another program called Byrne grants--not B-U-R-N, as if when

you are injured in a fire, but B-Y-R-N-E, named after Edward Byrne, a police officer killed in the line of duty--it was President Bush's dad who created that program, again, with money going to local law enforcement to fight local problems, including sheriffs' departments.

Now, the Senator from North Carolina is going to gut State and local law enforcement by taking $75 million out of it. We cannot do this. Violent crime in America is on the rise--murder, burglaries, rape, other things so despicable I do not want to speak about it on the Senate floor.

When the Senator talks about her sheriffs, I have sheriffs too. But I am going to be one of the posse that helps them shoot straight. That means they need their resources that will come from State and local law enforcement grants we are going to provide for them to either add more police officers, have technology upgrades to maximize their efficiency and help them get real convictions, and have the kinds of things that will help them get the bulletproof vests they need, the other more advanced equipment that our rural communities--as the Presiding Officer from Colorado knows--do not have.

So what we did in the Mikulski-Shelby bill is restore $1.5 billion so we could have cops on the beat, so we could have money to fund local law enforcement for technological upgrades, for the equipment they need such as bulletproof vests to protect themselves while they are busy helping us.

We have to make sure they have those resources. I do not deny what the Senator is talking about, but I will say what she is trying to do right now would gut the local law enforcement program. She would have a Draconian impact on our ability to put cops on the beat and to also give them the equipment to protect themselves, the technology that is needed to extend their effectiveness and make sure the thin blue line does not get thinner.

So I think this $75 million request is inappropriate. It is inappropriate not because of what she wants to accomplish, but it is inappropriate because she is taking money out of a Justice account and putting it in a Homeland Security account, when we had a Homeland Security bill and the Senator could have added it there. That was the place to make this fight.

Now, we are afraid that no matter how well intentioned this amendment is--and I know it is very well intentioned and has a lot of intellectual rigor behind it--it is not appropriate to take money out of State and local law enforcement and give it to Homeland Security, when they have their own whole subcommittee, and that was the place to make that fight.

It is not about which committee. This is not about committees. But I am telling you, the Senator from Alabama and I have worked hard--really worked hard--to make sure we are helping our local law enforcement--our very first line of defense--with the resources they need with more officers and better equipment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Dole amendment occur at 5 p.m., with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote and that the time until then be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Carolina, I am sorry, I was handling a procedural issue. Could you repeat what you said?

But, Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from North Carolina, whom I worked with when she was at the Department of Labor as well as the Department of Transportation, along with other issues in our community--her support for the concern of battered women, homeless women is so well known--this is not SCAAP. This is not the program that helps pay State funds for the detention of detained illegal immigrants. This is taking real dollars in the Federal checkbook out of which local law enforcement can apply for the COPS and for the Byrne grants.

So I have to continue my opposition.

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

Madam President, I oppose the Dole amendment No. 3313. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, as I look about, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New Jersey, an outspoken opponent of this amendment, such time as he may consume, reserving for myself the last 5 minutes of my time for my own closing argument.

Madam President, how much time does our side have?

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, who is a leading expert on this matter.

Madam President, how much time does the Senator from Louisiana have?

And how much time do I have?

I will use 3 minutes now and reserve the remainder of 1 minute.

I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on this bill. I thank the assistant majority leader, Mr. Durbin, for helping me work this. The reason I am thanking him is this is a very important amendment. This isn't some throw-away amendment on how we can say we are being tough on illegal immigrants.

First, every single Senator here opposes illegal immigration. We oppose illegal immigration. This is why we voted for strong measures when border enforcement came up. This is why we advocated comprehensive immigration reform. We are opposed to illegal immigration. But we are where we are.

Let's talk about why municipalities have said ``no'' to enforcing immigration laws. Many municipalities, cities, towns, say they cannot afford to be the Federal cop on the beat. They know that enforcing immigration law takes a tremendous amount of training and takes a tremendous amount of money, and they simply cannot put their resources into that.

The second is they have the right to decide how they best want to fight crime. Many municipalities have chosen not to ask their local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws exactly because they want to fight crime. What they would say is, if we go in and we are INS officers or ICE officers by proxy, we will never find a witness, and victims in many instances will not come forward.

If you are a young girl and you have been gang-raped by MS-13, do you think you are going to come forward if you think that when you do, instead of getting the protection of the United States of America and getting justice done, you are going to be doubly brutalized and asked your immigration status, and you are the one who is punished?

Do you think the witnesses to these brutal crimes that sometimes occur in communities--not Latino against Latino, but if someone were working in an office building and saw a burglary, would they say: Heck, I am not going to report that, even though I am an eyewitness, because they are going to ask my immigration status? Or if you are walking down the street, and you might be a day laborer, and you see someone mugged, you aren't able to go report it.

My time has expired, but I think we need to defeat the Vitter amendment. At the appropriate time I will make the appropriate tabling motion.

Madam President, I oppose the amendment. I disagree with the interpretation of the Senator's amendment. I want local law enforcement to get every nickel they are entitled to from the Federal Government. Again, I oppose the Vitter amendment. I move to table the Vitter amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I have a number of amendments at the desk. We ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to these amendments be printed in the Record, with all the above occurring en bloc. I would note that all the amendments have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle, and we urge their adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3279

I am glad that the subcommittee will include $1.5 million in NOAA funding in the report to address the environmental needs at Suisun Bay and I pledge to carry that funding through conference.

juvenile accountability

I thank the Senator for his leadership in this area and look forward to working with him on securing funding that is necessary to fight violent crime across the country. I know from our conversations of your concern for your home State of Pennsylvania and your particular concern about the recent rise in violent crime in Philadelphia.

Certainly.

I have always been a strong supporter of the juvenile accountability block grant program and its goals. I wholeheartedly agree that we must link law enforcement with effective prevention and intervention strategies aimed at at-risk youth. JABG does this and assists the juvenile justice system and community-based programs to promote accountability among youthful offenders. The value of this program is that it helps youth understand the impact of their actions and holds them accountable. This approach has been shown to be instrumental in helping young people turn away from delinquency and work toward becoming productive adults.

I agree with the Senator.

The reduction in funding for this program has been an unfortunate result of overall budget cuts in recent years. We have worked hard to maintain funding and restore cuts that impact State and local law enforcement. It is our duty first and foremost to protect the American public. I share your support for the JABG Program and would support your amendment if it were possible to find funding for an additional $30 million. I regret to say that is not the case.

I appreciate the Senator's remarks and I look forward to working with him whenever the opportunity arises to strengthen our capacity to fight crime through increased funding for both law enforcement and prevention and intervention strategies for youthful offenders.

I agree that such a study would be useful and I thank my colleague for bringing this important matter to our attention.

Mr. President, we are now coming to the closing hour of this debate. As we get ready for the Republican leadership to offer an amendment, then Senator Shelby and I will be making the appropriate motion to move to final passage.

Mr. President, with all due respect to the Republican leader, I rise to oppose the motion to commit this bill to the full committee. This bill is the product of strong bipartisan work. Our bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Some say we spent more than the President asked. Yes, we did. We are proud of the fact that what we spent money on was that we didn't overspend, that the President underfunded.

We had three--when I say ``we,'' I am talking about the ranking member, Senator Shelby, and I--priorities: Security, keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime; our second priority was innovation, investments in science and technology that will create jobs that will stay in the United States of America; No. 3, reform. We were soundly on the side of fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We stood sentry over waste, fraud, and abuse. We stood sentry over lavish conferences that spent $4 on a meatball. We reformed the NOAA satellite program.

But our first priority was also to make sure local communities are safe. We lifted the hiring freeze on DEA agents so they could fight the heroin and Taliban in Afghanistan as well as keeping our streets clean. We also, at the same time, added money for local law enforcement, particularly dealing with the fact that the COPS program had been eliminated and that the Byrne grants had been cut down to only $32 million. Yes, we added $1.5 billion. We certainly did. People all over America who understand what violent crime is know what this means.

I know my other colleagues want to speak. I do appreciate the Republican leadership for wanting fiscal accountability and stewardship. But I believe we also need to fund America's priorities. I believe law enforcement and the fight against terrorism is No. 1. By God, we did it in this bill. And by God, this bill should stand.

Mr. President, I will agree to the yeas and nays. First, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to vote on the motion to commit; that no amendments be in order to the motion; that if the motion is defeated, no further amendments or motions be in order and the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; and that the subcommittee be appointed along with Senators Byrd and Cochran; that following morning business on Wednesday, October 17, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3043, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill; and further, that if the motion is agreed to, then the remaining provisions of this agreement be nullified.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. I thank my colleagues and staff for their cooperation.

I, too, thank the Appropriations Committee staff, particularly Charles Kieffer and his able team.

Mr. President, I thank the floor staff of both parties, because we worked together and showed that you can actually run a bill and have collegiality and have civility and yet have robust debate where we can disagree without being disagreeable. With that, we are ready to vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to review the efforts of the Transportation Security Administration, to meet the requirements in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and other plans the agency has to strengthen transportation security in the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 11:45 a.m. to hold a briefing on the Gulf Security Dialogue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``One Year Later: A Progress Report on the SAFE Port Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 16, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 3:15 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Financial and Business Management at the Department of Defense.''

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

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

Mr. President, to bring our colleagues up to date, we are working on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations. Senator Shelby and I are working to clear amendments now. All amendments have been filed. We have 60 of them, but we hope some can be cleared. For those Senators who wish to have a vote on their amendment, I wish they would consider offering the amendment and debating it this evening. I certainly will be willing to stay for that.

While we are working on clearing these amendments, I rise to stand up for my constituents, to stand up for a family in Baltimore who has been vilified by the rightwing bloggers because they dare to say that they benefited from and support a public program called the Children's Health Initiative.

I don't know what is happening in America now, where instead of working to change policies, the right wing tries to change the subject, and they do it by attacking people rather than attacking the problem-- the problem of poverty, the problem that our children don't have health care, the problem that one of my constituents, a little boy named Deamante Driver, died in Prince George's County because he didn't have access to dental care and had a severe oral bacterial infection. My colleague Senator Cardin has taken up the cudgels on that issue, and I support him. It is our Children's Health Initiative, and I will help to override the veto.

Let me tell my colleagues what happened. I am taking up for a family named Bonnie and Halsey Frost who live in Baltimore. A few weeks ago they stood here in the Congress to say that they benefitted from the SCHIP program. They told the story about how two of their children had been in a horrific accident.

Graeme, the boy who gave the Democratic radio address, spoke about what he needed. He had a brain injury. He was treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital. So was his little sister. Graeme was in a coma for weeks. One of his vocal cords was paralyzed. One of his eyes continues to be damaged. Gemma, his little sister, has suffered permanent injuries, which I will not go through. The families had their business spread all over the right wing blogs. I will not spread it all over the Senate floor. But I want to take up for them, for the fact that when they stood up to talk about how they benefitted from this program, they were attacked because they weren't seen as worthy. The Frosts have four children: Graeme, who is 12; Max, Graeme's twin, who saw the accident; Gemma, who also was in the accident; and an older brother named Zeke.

Bonnie and her children were in a car crash in 2004 when the SUV she was driving had an accident. The children had these terrible problems. Who is the Frost family? Well, the Frost family is a family of six. They live in Baltimore and they qualify under the Maryland SCHIP program, which says that if you have a family of this size and an income under $51,000 a year, you qualify. They qualified. What happened?

Through other friends of theirs who were involved with health advocacy in the State, they were invited to come and tell their story to show why there is a compelling need for the Children's Health Initiative. Well, they did it. Then guess what happened. After young Graeme, who, along with his sister, had this terrible thing happen to them--after they then spoke up and Graeme gave the Democratic radio address, what followed was unbelievable. It was a firestorm against them that went across the right wing bloggers. It

was vitriolic, volcanic, ugly, nasty, shredding their names and reputations. You ought to talk to them about what they went through. They could not believe they were in the United States of America. One of the right wingers showed up in the area where he has his business to do on-the-spot investigative reporting. I wish we were as good at keeping our borders safe as we are at keeping the boundaries around SCHIP. I wish we were as good at keeping an eye on terrorists. But, no, they went after the Frost family.

Paul Krugman felt so outraged about it that he wrote a column in the New York Times about it. He called it ``a teaching moment on politics and health care.'' He tells the story about this and then he said what happened to this family should be a teaching moment.

I will read from this and then I will ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record:

. . . The Frosts and their four children are exactly the

kind of people SCHIP was intended to help: working Americans

who can't afford private health insurance.

The parents have a combined income of about $45,000.

What they have is that the father is a self-employed woodworker and welder. They bought a house in east Baltimore in a neighborhood that is going gentry, called Butchers' Hill. When they bought it, it was called Butchers' Hill from years and years ago, when there were slaughterhouses where they were killing cows for beef and making sausage for the ethnic communities. But it took on another name about the time they bought it. It was like a frontier town--riddled with drugs and all kinds of problems--but they believed in Baltimore, they believed in their country, and they were willing to be urban pioneers, so they bought this home for a modest price. Now, we have been reclaiming Baltimore. Yes, the houses are selling at very high prices, but that is not what they paid for it.

This man is self-employed. When he married, yes, they were from a prominent family. Their wedding announcement was in the New York Times. Since when does that mean anything? He has a small warehouse that provides a modest rental income. His wife works part time at a medical publishing firm. They don't have health benefits.

To go on with what Krugman said, he said that soon after the radio address, right wing bloggers began insisting that there is something wrong with the Frosts; that they have a house in a neighborhood they said is expensive. I can tell you that when they bought it, it was truly Butchers' Hill. They have two children in private school, but they were on scholarship. Nobody bothered to find that out. The right wing bloggers made unfounded accusations against them all of the time. It was led by a woman who, according to the technocrats, is the most trafficked right wing blog on the Internet.

This tone of vitriol and viciousness has to stop. The attack on this family was picked up by Rush Limbaugh, the same guy calling dissident military people ``microphone marines.'' And then the smear went on with that. At the same time this was going on, a CNN report suggested that the Democrats made a tactical error because we had this family on.

I don't know what we are doing here. Again, we are attacking a family when we should be attacking the problems of children's health. First, I called the Frost family. I listened to what they have had to endure because they didn't have health insurance, after what happened to their children after this terrible accident and the recovery. Then I listened to what they had to endure because they spoke up for the Children's Health Initiative.

When I listened to them, I said to them I think the Senate owed them an apology that we now have come to this point. Now, I have watched good people be attacked by the right wing. The other day, we sanctioned MoveOn.org because of what they did to General Petraeus. I voted for that sanction. What about my Frost family? Should we have a sense of the Senate on that? I don't know if I am going to put this family through more. But I will tell you this: I think we have to start changing the tone. We have to start changing the tone in our institution to work on a bipartisan basis the way the Senator from Alabama and I have. We are moving forward a solid bill that promotes scientific research, keeps America's space program going, but equally we are funding local law enforcement.

Can we not change the tone? Do we always have to attack each other? Do we have to be so violent in our language, so vicious, so vitriolic? I don't think so. I think our country has to get back to the basics, where you can disagree without being disagreeable, where you focus on the policies, not on the person, where you try to deal with issues and you don't attack people for the simple reason that they have spoken up and they have spoken out.

I think we need to take a timeout in this country. I respect free speech, I respect the bloggers and what they have; but when there is a deliberate attempt from either the right or the left to go after people simply because they have spoken up, I think it is the wrong direction. I think we have been heading in the wrong direction.

I wanted to bring to everyone's attention what happened to this family. I ask unanimous consent that the Krugman article be printed in the Record and that the David Herszenhorn article about what happened be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, they speak more eloquently about it than I have been able to. I felt badly about what happened to the Frost family. I hope we can focus on dealing with the Children's Health Initiative. It is for protecting all of the children. Today I stand up here for the Frost family.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague from New Mexico that we agree with him on the amendment. Certainly there are challenges facing the West. We see the scourge of meth, and that is one of the largest areas of requests we have for congressionally designated projects. I know my colleague wants them to be eligible for grants and to compete for them, and so we support the intent.

Right now, there is an objection from two Senators, and we also understand that the Senator from Arizona would like to have further conversations with my colleague about the possibility of a modification. If you could have that conversation and see if we can come back, we could either move to a vote or see if it could be accepted.

I think the Senator has our word that he will have--Mr. President, what is the parliamentary mechanism to reserving the right to a vote?

I would say to the Senator from New Mexico that he has our word that if he can work it out, we will see whether we can take it, and if not, we will have the vote.

I would further like to say to the Senator from New Mexico, in keeping with what my colleague from Alabama said, we would like to finish this bill before the caucuses tomorrow. So I will discuss this with the Senator from Alabama, but it would be our intention to see how much we can get cleared and then have some stacked votes tomorrow morning. So if the Senator from New Mexico could let us know by tomorrow morning--say, 9:30--whether he has been able to reach an accommodation--or this evening--we will be here and would welcome that.

The Senator has our word on that.

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

Mr. President, we are working very well, here again on a bipartisan basis. I thank Senator Shelby and his staff for the way we are working. We have been able to look at a variety of amendments colleagues have offered, and we are ready to accept them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside.

I now call up amendment No. 3309 offered by myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified with the modification at the desk.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3251

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3251 offered by Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask the amendment be modified with the modification at the desk.

This amendment has been cleared on both side of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3275

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3275 by Senator Levin of Michigan and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3247

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3247 by Senator McCaskill of Missouri and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask that I be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle, and I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3234

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3234 by Senator Obama of Illinois and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3263

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3263 by Senator Pryor of Arkansas and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3271

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3271 by Senator Shelby of Alabama and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3272

Mr. President, I call up another amendment by Senator Shelby, No. 3272, and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3273

Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 3273 by Senator Shelby and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3288

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3288 by Senator Shelby and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment also has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3318

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3318 by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have now cleared 28 amendments. As we continue to move toward a vote that we will be having at 5:45 on the Brown amendment dealing with international trade, we hope if colleagues do have amendments on which they wish to have a vote they will please come now and offer the amendment and let's have a debate on it. We would like very much to debate as many amendments as we could to have stacked votes tomorrow, and even to come to final passage before the 12:30 caucus.

Colleagues out there on both sides of the aisle, Senator Shelby and I are here. We are open for business. We are ready to hear your ideas and ready to debate them and follow through on our regular process. Either that, or if you do not wish to offer it, come see us and withdraw it and perhaps offer it at another time.

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

Will the Senator from Colorado yield for a question?

I thank the Senator for his comments about our bill that were so complimentary and for speaking out. As a former attorney general of the State of Colorado, who is essentially the top cop in Colorado, knows one of the hallmarks of good law enforcement is strong law enforcement opportunities, along with prevention in terms of intervening with our young people. But is the Senator aware why this bill is under a veto threat?

The Senator is exactly right. We face a veto threat not because we have done bad legislation but because we have done good funding.

Is the Senator aware that the legislation called for the elimination of the COPS Program?

So then it is the belief of the Senator that our addition of over $500 million to guard the streets and neighborhoods and communities of America will be well spent?

I thank the Senator from Colorado. I appreciate his comments and support.

Madam President, by way of information for our colleagues, when we talk about the COPS Program, one might recall, as the Senator from Colorado said, violent crime really skyrocketed in the mid-1990s. President Clinton, working then with our colleague who continues to be in the Senate, Senator Joe Biden, a leader on the Judiciary Committee, came up with the COPS Program. During the Clinton administration, from 1993 to 1998, they put 118,000 extra police officers on the streets of America. They were in 13,000 communities, and violent crime dropped 10 percent. Cops do make a difference. We are concerned that by eliminating the COPS Program, the thin blue line that protects us in our communities is even getting smaller. So working on a bipartisan basis within the Senate, we have added over $500 million to restore that COPS Program; not that we micromanage from the national level, but we empower the local communities to apply for these grants and deploy where they know best to protect their citizens.

We think we have a great bill. We want to move it along. We thank the Senator for the kind words. Now our colleagues can help us not only with words but with deeds, which is, if they have an amendment, offer it or send their staff to either see if we can modify it or have it withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2360

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I stand here with my colleague from Alabama to tell all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle it is the intention of Senator Shelby and myself to finish this bill tomorrow. We have some amendments that have been filed, and yet we do not know what the intent is of the Senators who have filed such amendments. We are going to be voting very shortly--in a matter of minutes--and we would like every Senator who has filed an amendment to come and tell us what their intent is. Do they intend to offer it? When do they intend to offer it? Or do they wish to seek another accommodation?

We would like to present to the leaders on both sides of the aisle-- the majority leader and the Republican leader--a finite list tonight before Senator Shelby and I go home so we can have the finite list for tomorrow and assiduously, earnestly, thoroughly work through these amendments. But we must know the intent of the Senators.

I believe there is an old-fashioned saying: It is now time to fish or cut bait. We would prefer Senators actually cut their bait. But being an old Maryland fisherwoman myself, we want to talk to our colleagues. Talk to us during this vote. Senator Shelby is at his desk. I will be at mine. Let's talk things over and see how we can move this bill and make America proud of us. Too often when all is said and done, too much gets said and nothing gets done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I, too, rise to oppose the Vitter amendment. For the benefit of our colleagues, they should know a similar amendment was defeated on the immigration bill this year. I opposed the amendment then and I oppose it now. I oppose it on substantive grounds, and I oppose it also on the grounds related to States rights and home rule.

To refresh everyone, what the Vitter amendment would do is ban local governments from receiving Federal law enforcement funds if a city or a locality has passed a law prohibiting police from asking an immigration status.

Why is this bad? First of all, local law enforcement officers all across America are opposed to this amendment. Their opposition has been very well articulated by our colleague from New Jersey. What has been articulated by local law enforcement communities is they believe they should not be held responsible for enforcing Federal immigration laws; that Federal laws on immigration should be enforced by Federal immigration authorities.

This amendment would also make it harder for local police to enforce laws and stop crime. One of the things that would happen, if police are forced to do this, it would foster great mistrust in our immigrant communities--meaning immigrants who are here legally. You know, there are many immigrants who are here legally. Because you might have a last name such as Sanchez doesn't mean you are an illegal immigrant. You might be the owner of an IT business in Silver Spring, MD.

One of the things we are concerned about is that immigrants, then, will not report crimes or will not give information to those who could go after serious crimes--such as the gang effort.

We are also concerned when people will not come forward particularly related to domestic violence. If there is domestic violence, a battered spouse might not call the police because it could trigger some type of raid in their own community.

This is not a good way to go. Let's go to the consequences of local communities deciding what they want to do.

What we are talking about is a situation where a city or a locality has passed a law prohibiting police from asking an immigration status. That is their right. That is their right, to say what they want to do in their own community. Then to deny Federal funds for law enforcement, funds for all the other things they might be applying for funds for, I think is outrageous. What happens if they are applying for interoperable communication equipment so they can fight violent crime? Oh, no, they can't have it.

What happens when they have applied for funds for the Violence Against Women Act, to deal with battered spouses or abused children? Oh, no, they would not be able to get their Federal funds.

What happens, then, in the issue of sexual predators? We have a robust effort to go after sexual predators in our communities. If they have applied for grants to be able to protect our children, they will not be able to get them under the Vitter amendment. So the Vitter amendment is not targeted at illegal aliens or illegal immigrants. What the Vitter amendment does is target law enforcement. If the Vitter amendment is agreed to, in many of these communities it will stifle, shackle, and impede local law enforcement from applying for Federal funds to which they would otherwise be entitled.

I think this is misguided. I think it is misdirected. For those of us who are very concerned about the issues of protecting our borders, we understand we need to protect our borders, but we also need to protect our communities. One of the ways we protect our communities is to let law enforcement apply for Federal funds for a variety of things, from cops on the beat, which they wouldn't be able to get; Byrne grant money for technology or bulletproof vests, they wouldn't be able to get it; violence against women funds, they wouldn't be able to get that. I think the Vitter amendment is misguided and misdirected. We should defeat it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are making great progress. We have some amendments we wish to clear.

I call up amendment No. 3256, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3310

Mr. President, I call up amendment 3310 for myself and Senator Collins.

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

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3239

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3239 by Senator Kennedy and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we are making great progress. Our staffs are going to be working through the night. We have about 36 amendments pending; 10 on the Democratic side, about 26 on the Republican side. We know the staffs are working well after 7. This is a good time to come over and work with us. We hope tomorrow morning we will be able to have some votes and also further progress. It is the intention of the majority leader and the Republican leader to finish this bill tomorrow, even if we have to work through the night. The best way not to work through the night tomorrow night is to work through the night tonight. So come over, help clear up some of these amendments. It would be a great help.

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