Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, community health centers provide care for over 15 million patients nationwide each year and are a critical part of our country's health care network. Many of these centers operate out of buildings that are in need of modernization or expansion. Current law limits access to federal funds to community health centers for any type of construction, modernization, or expansion. Therefore, the only funds available to community health centers for facilities are through congressionally directed spending.

We are introducing a bill today to include community health centers as eligible recipients for funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Small Medical Group Facilities Program. Under this competitive program, community health centers will be able to access loan guarantees and mortgage insurance, thus giving them a tool to address their facility concerns and by doing so, better serve their patients.

I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help improve access to and quality of community health center care.

Mr. President, community health centers provide care for over 15 million patients nationwide each year and are a critical part of our country's health care network. Many of these centers operate out of buildings that are in need of modernization or expansion. Current law limits access to federal funds to community health centers for any type of construction, modernization, or expansion. Therefore, the only funds available to community health centers for facilities are through congressionally directed spending.

We are introducing a bill today to include community health centers as eligible recipients for funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Small Medical Group Facilities Program. Under this competitive program, community health centers will be able to access loan guarantees and mortgage insurance, thus giving them a tool to address their facility concerns and by doing so, better serve their patients.

I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help improve access to and quality of community health center care.

Five minutes.

Mr. President, under the order, I think there were 5 minutes, and 2 of the minutes I yielded to my colleague and distinguished Senator, so it is my intention to proceed with 3 minutes.

I will use the balance of that in the morning.

The purpose of my being here tonight was to be sure I was available to hear the comments of all Senators who wanted to speak on this confirmation. This has been a very frustrating experience for me personally, because, as my colleague pointed out, we have confronted difficulties in submitting names for the consideration of the Senate for this particular position. Two he pointed out have been nominated by the President and, in fact, rejected. Names were withdrawn because of delays that made it clear those judicial nominees were unacceptable. So we put our heads together, we talked about what the other options were, and decided Leslie Southwick was the epitome of someone who had to be acceptable to the Senate. Not only is he an experienced judge in an appellate court position, but he is a person of great integrity, widely respected, even though he has been a Republican and active in politics in our State, supporting candidates that he thought were the best in his party who were available to be nominated and elected. He is a person who is widely respected by Democrats, as proven by William Winter's very generous letter complimenting him and pointing out his personal qualities. That should be instructive to the Senate in its consideration of this nomination.

I don't know of any situation I have confronted since I have been in the Senate that has been more frustrating than watching and listening to the criticism of this nominee who has been totally unjustified, totally unjustified on the record. Viewing his career as I have observed it, it is not the same person I hear described by those I hear criticizing and objecting to this nomination, reaching through 7,000 opinions trying to find something he had said or done or indicating a view that was unacceptable in a Federal judge. And they come up with two opinions that he didn't write, and they are fully explained by him, and totally contradictory, in the way they have interpreted, to his personality, his good judgment, and the way he has lived his life.

I think it is a lot more instructive if you could have been with me yesterday in Natachez, MI, dedicating a new Federal court building, the shock, I guess, that others might find, that the Presiding Officer at that ceremony was United States District Court Judge

Henry Wingate, an African American I had recommended 20 years ago for the Federal bench, who is now the chief judge of the Southern District in the United States District Court.

There are several other judges, all of whom were there. Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit, who is the chief judge now of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was our principal speaker on this occasion. And I noticed that the person who is a U.S. marshal for the Southern District of Mississippi is Nehemiah Flowers, whom I had recommended many years ago and has served in that job with distinction and reflected credit on African Americans of our State, but also as an individual in his own right who is the chief keeper of the peace and law enforcement official in the Federal District Court, I was proud to be there on the podium with him.

Leslie Southwick is totally well qualified and ought to be confirmed by the Senate. I have spoken on the Senate floor a couple of times at great length about it and put into the Record letters from people all over our State commending him and vouching for him, talking about his experiences as a judge and my familiarity with him as a person. He has a record that would be the envy of anyone who would aspire to be admired and respected as a judge or a lawyer or a citizen. I can't believe that he is being challenged as harshly as he is by some in this body, and I urge the Senate to confirm him as a United States Court of Appeals judge tomorrow.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Judge Sharion Aycock and recommend her confirmation as U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Judge Aycock is exceptionally well qualified by reason of her education, her experience, and her temperament to serve as a U.S. district court judge. As a lawyer, she was highly respected, and as a judge on our State court that has general, civil, and criminal jurisdiction, she has served with competence and distinction and with a keen sense of fairness. She will reflect great credit on the Federal judiciary, in my opinion. Judge Aycock has earned the respect and admiration of her fellow lawyers, as well as the judges who have worked with her. She has been selected to serve in many professional and community positions of trust and responsibility.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously concluded that she is ``well qualified'' to serve as a Federal district court judge. This is the highest rating a judicial nominee can receive from the American Bar Association.

She was born and raised in the northeast Mississippi town of Tremont in Itawamba County, where she graduated from high school with honors and was elected President of the student body.

She also graduated with honors from Mississippi State University in 1977, studying economics and political science. While a student there, she was selected for membership in Phi Kappa Phi, the Nation's oldest and largest honor society. She was inducted into the Mississippi State University Hall of Fame, the university's highest undergraduate honor. She also served as President of her social sorority.

She received her law degree from the Mississippi College School of Law, where she served as co-editor in chief of the Law Review and as treasurer of the Student Body Association. She graduated second out of a class of 146 and was admitted to practice law by the Mississippi State Bar.

After graduating from law school, Ms. Aycock returned to Itawamba County and started her own practice in 1984. During her 12 years of law practice, she represented the Itawamba County Board of Supervisors and the Board of Education, the town of Tremont, the city of Fulton, and the Northeast Mississippi Natural Gas District. She served as the Itawamba County prosecuting attorney from 1984 to 1992 and was honored as the State's most distinguished juvenile justice professional.

Judge Aycock was elected circuit court judge for the First Circuit Court District of Mississippi in November 2002. She was unopposed when she sought reelection 4 years later, in November 2006.

Except for statewide elected officials, trial judges have the largest geographic areas of responsibility in our State under their jurisdiction. The fact that she was unopposed when she was reelected in 2006 means that many people respected and appreciated the tremendous job she had done as a trial judge. Her court's docket is one of the busiest in the State of Mississippi, and

it is also one of the largest districts, encompassing seven counties.

During her tenure on the circuit court, Judge Aycock has had the opportunity to hear numerous criminal and civil cases, covering a broad range of subjects. She has expedited the work of the court, both on the civil and criminal dockets. She led the court in disposing of civil cases and the collection of fines and criminal cases.

She has contributed substantially to the improvement of the administration of justice in our State and in the betterment of her community.

She has been an active member of local and State bar associations. She served as First Judicial District secretary and president and was the first woman to serve as president of the Mississippi Bar Foundation, an organization dedicated to the improvement of the administration of justice in our State. She is also a fellow of the Mississippi Bar Foundation.

She served as president of the Itawamba County Development Council, as a member of the Itawamba County Hospital Foundation, and as cochair of the Itawamba County March of Dimes.

Senator Lott and I recommended the nomination of Judge Aycock in December of 2006. I am pleased that the President nominated Judge Aycock and that the Senate Judiciary Committee has recommended the approval of her nomination.

I urge Senators to vote to confirm this well-deserved nomination.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will complete action on this bill today. The Senators from Hawaii and Alaska have worked in a bipartisan manner to determine how to provide the resources necessary to sustain the operations of the Department of Defense while providing the capability to meet future threats. It is worth noting that this bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee by a unanimous vote. The bill does not attempt to force controversial policy changes that would trigger a veto by the President. The bill fully supports our military by providing increases in end strength for the Army and Marine Corps. It supports military health care reforms, and it provides needed funds to replace or repair and maintain aging and heavily used equipment.

Our military is providing trained and equipped forces to sustain multiple fronts on the global war on terrorism, while at the same time transitioning the force to meet future threats. Our military leaders need these resources in a timely manner if they are to succeed.

It is particularly critical that we complete action on the Defense appropriations bill as soon as possible to support our men and women in uniform and the civil servants who work with them. We need to complete action on this Defense appropriations bill so we can go to conference with the House and deliver a bill as soon as possible to the President.

While the continuing resolution we passed last week contains some bridge funding to support the troops through November 16, it is not adequate for the longer term.

The President submitted a fiscal year 2008 war supplemental request in February. Last week, in our Appropriations Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Gates made clear the need for this additional funding. We should not delay action on providing supplemental funding until next year. It is simply unacceptable.

The fact is, we have tens of thousands of American men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world performing the mission that our Government has assigned to them. The new fiscal year has already begun. We should not cause uncertainty or hardship for our Armed Forces or try to change American policy in Iraq by starving our troops of needed resources. Let's get on with it and provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to perform that mission successfully.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that request.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to speak about the continuing resolution on which the Senate will soon vote. The resolution itself is a reasonable product that is largely the result of bicameral, bipartisan discussions. The resolution will allow the day- to-day functions of our Government to continue and will provide at least some of the additional funding that is necessary for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to execute the mission with which they have been tasked. It is also worth noting that the resolution does not attempt to use its inherent leverage to force any significant or controversial policy changes. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the resolution.

But as we come to the end of the fiscal year, I must express my deep concern about the lack of progress toward enacting the appropriations bills. This lack of progress is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee. Under Chairman Byrd's leadership, the committee reported all twelve bills in ample time to be considered by the full Senate over the course of the summer. But for whatever reason, to date the Senate has passed only four of the twelve regular appropriations bills, and prospects for consideration of the remaining bills appear uncertain at best.

Last year, under Republican leadership, the Senate failed to send all but two of the appropriations bills to the President. We were roundly criticized for this, and rightly so. As a result we left Federal agencies to limp along on a continuing resolution for 5 months, and were then presented with a full-year, formula-driven joint funding resolution to which no Senator had an opportunity to offer amendments. That is a process that I hope will not be repeated. No Senator should want that.

We simply need to buckle down and do our work. It is true that the President has said he will veto many of the appropriations bills based on his concerns about spending levels. It seems that there are people on both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue who feel strongly about that question, and who are quite anxious to have that debate. But we can't have the debate if we don't call up the bills. The President can't veto what we haven't presented to him, and Congress can't vote to uphold or override a veto that never gets executed.

I understand that completing action on the remaining bills seems like a daunting task. But I know of no better way to complete such a task than to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I am pleased to hear the majority leader suggest that next week we will consider the Defense and the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bills. This is good news. I urge my colleagues to offer their amendments promptly when these bills are called up and to recognize that the opportunity to offer amendments to the subsequent bills is dependent on completing action on the pending bills.

It is particularly critical that we complete action on the Defense appropriations bill and the supplemental appropriations necessary to support the men and women in our Armed Forces and our diplomatic corps. While I am encouraged that we may consider the regular Defense appropriations bill next week, I am seriously concerned about reports that Congress may not consider a supplemental appropriations bill for the global war on terror until next year. While the continuing resolution we will pass tonight contains some ``bridge'' funding to support the troops through November 16, is an inadequate amount for the longer term.

As directed by Congress, the President submitted an FY 2008 war supplemental request in February. We expect to receive an amendment to that request any day. The Appropriations Committee held a hearing on these requests on Wednesday, and should be prepared in short order to act on legislation to fund our troops in the field. Delaying consideration of such legislation until next year is simply unacceptable. We have spent the last 2 weeks, and much of this Congress, in earnest and often useful debate on Iraq war policy. Amendments have been offered and votes have been taken. Deeply felt disagreements remain.

But the fact is that we have tens of thousands of American men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan performing the mission that their Government has assigned to them. The new fiscal year is upon us, and it is time for us to get on with the business of providing our men and women in uniform the resources they need to perform that mission successfully. To try to change American policy in Iraq by slowly starving our troops of those resources is unfair, and it is dangerous to American interests.

I urge the Senate to both forge ahead to complete action on the regular appropriations bills and to act promptly to provide our troops with the supplemental funds that they need.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Weyerhaeuser Corporation for its assistance in the relief efforts and the rebuilding of the gulf coast that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005. This outstanding company has gone well beyond the call of duty, truly exemplifying community service.

Weyerhaeuser was incorporated in 1900 and is one of the world's largest integrated forest product companies. Headquartered in Federal Way, WA, Weyerhaeuser employs over 49,000 people in 18 countries. In 2005, Weyerhaeuser recorded sales of $22.6 billion and managed more than 6.5 million acres of timberland in nine States.

On November 29, 2006, Weyerhaeuser received the Ron Brown Award, the only Presidential award to honor companies ``for their exemplary quality of their relationships with employees and communities.'' The Ron Brown Award, originally established by President Bill Clinton, is named after the late Secretary of Commerce who believed that ``businesses do well by doing good.''

I am honored to have such a dedicated company operating in Mississippi in places such as Magnolia, Philadelphia, Richland, Columbus and Bruce. Weyerhaeuser has been operating in Mississippi since 1956 with approximately 1,700 employees at 14 locations, as well as 776,000 acres of timberland.

To date, over 300 employees and retirees from across the United States have volunteered more than 42,000 hours of their time, helped rebuild more than 50 homes, and contributed more than $2.8 million for disaster relief. Weyerhaeuser has a generous policy of allowing employees 2 to 4 weeks of paid leave to help volunteer in the rebuilding efforts of the gulf coast.

The people touched by Weyerhaeuser's response say it best. As one family wrote in response to help from Weyerhaeuser volunteers, ``Because of all your efforts, we are home! Words cannot truly express the outpouring of love we have received. We are eternally grateful to our Weyerhaeuser family.''

The high caliber of Weyerhaeuser employees can be seen in their comments after volunteering on the gulf coast. One man noted, ``The days were long and hot, the work was intense, but the rewards were immeasurable. This has been an experience I won't soon forget.'' Another volunteer employee commented, ``This experience was such a blessing. I got so much more from it than I felt I gave.'' One Weyerhaeuser retiree said, ``Having once more the opportunity to work side by side with other Weyerhaeuser employees and retirees made me realize anew why I enjoyed working for Weyerhaeuser so much. It's all about the people and the values the company ascribes to. Thanks again.'' Testimonies such as these speak volumes about Weyerhaeuser's dedication to its employees and others.

I cannot thank the company enough for the work they have done and continue to do. It is truly deserving of such a prestigious award, and I am delighted to see Weyerhaeuser's efforts have been recognized.

Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I want to be sure that there is consent on this side among those who are engaged in the debate, specifically the Senator from Texas and the Senator from South Carolina, so that they understand the proposed order and have no objections to it.

We are getting his reaction to it.

Mr. President, I notice the presence on the floor of the distinguished Senator from Ohio, who is under the order to have a specific amount of time for debate.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported on behalf of myself and Mr. Byrd.

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

I make a point of order.

Mr. President, point of order. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I have no objection to proceeding to a vote at whatever time the majority leader suggests.

Mr. President, I make a point of order against the Landrieu amendment, that it is legislation on an appropriations bill, in violation of rule XVI.

Mr. President, I thought the distinguished Senator from Tennessee made a very compelling argument about this amendment, which he has offered. We have heard him discuss his ideas on federalism, and there is no better proponent of clear thinking on that issue than the Senator from Tennessee.

But what occurred to me when I was sitting here is that I have heard some of these arguments before. I started thinking back to the hearings that were held and the markup sessions that were held in the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee of legislative jurisdiction, when the Department of Homeland Security was being created by Congress to more effectively--with a better Federal organization of talent and wherewithal--cope with the challenges from threats to the security of our homeland. Many of these issues were discussed in great detail.

I remember the Senator from Connecticut, in particular, Mr. Lieberman, being in a position of leadership on the committee at that time. We had other talented Senators working on that authorizing legislation.

What is happening to us, I am afraid, is as we get about the business of implementing the changes in our laws that were made by the creation of this new Department, and the creation of new agencies to implement and carry out these responsibilities in a coherent way--the policymakers have their guidance from that legislation, but we now here are considering an appropriations bill. We are not at a point where we are going back and reviewing in an oversight hearing or in a consideration of changes that ought to be made in the law. We are appropriating the funds to give to the Department and the agencies that were created and given these responsibilities.

So to come in now with an amendment--and I hate to argue against this amendment because the eloquent argument on its behalf was very impressive, but this is the wrong vehicle and this is not the right way to deal with the problem. If we have made an error in requiring too expensive, too stringent, too illogical, unworkable requirements or laws, let's change them. Let's change them. But let's not try in an Appropriations Committee to halfway fund our needs. We do not have the money to pay for this program. That was pointed out very clearly.

The REAL ID program is hugely expensive, and at some time there will be a day of reckoning. Maybe we are fast getting there. We have heard the warnings. I think we should heed the warnings and urge the legislative committee to think about modifying the authorities and the directives that are contained in the law--make it affordable, for one thing; decide, are State and local governments going to share the responsibility for these costs or is the Federal Government going to build up a huge Federal deficit trying to pay for the costs on an annual basis through the annual appropriations bills.

Well, anyway, as my law school dean used to say, it is not a horse that is soon curried. This is something that is going to take some time and effort, and we need to rise to the challenge the Senator from Tennessee presents to us and come up with a more thoughtful and workable and affordable way to deal with this issue.

So I am going to oppose the amendment because I think it should be done legislatively, and the problem cannot be solved with adding money and adding new language which is legislative in nature. I hope the Senate will carefully review the options we have and try to do the responsible thing.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this amendment has been reviewed. We have no objection to proceeding to consider the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2416 Withdrawn

Madam President, there is no objection to proceeding to consider that amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2447

Madam President, we have no objection to proceeding to consider the amendment.

Madam President, I rise to compliment the distinguished Senator from Colorado. In his statement, he is right on when he is talking about the fact that there is no other bill we have pending in the Senate that is more important than the bill we are considering here today, the funding of the Department of Homeland Security and the agencies which are charged with the responsibility of carrying out the authorizations that have been passed earlier creating the Department following the 9/11 attacks on our country.

This is serious business. I compliment the Senator on the manner in which he is carrying out his duties as a new member of this body-- relatively new member. He has important committee assignments, and we appreciate the commitment he has shown during consideration of this bill and the discussion of amendments and the offering of amendments to try to help make sure that the work product we produce is the best we can produce for our great country and our homeland.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are ongoing discussions with both sides of the aisle as well as the administration to come up with bipartisan, consensual language on this issue and that we are unable to clear the agreement at this time. Therefore, on behalf of several Republican senators, I object.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2449 Withdrawn

Mr. President, isn't it true that we don't have to have unanimous consent to proceed to a vote? This is all that is being asked. We are not asking to adopt these amendments, but we are simply setting up an order and a time for the voting to begin. I just didn't want anybody to misunderstand what is being asked.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his contribution to the debate and consideration of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside so that I may call up another amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, I call up amendment No. 2405 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, I will set this amendment aside and take it up in due course in the consideration of the bill.

Mr. President, a moment ago, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, was speaking and described an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish reasonable regulations relating to stored quantities of propane. On his behalf, I send that amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside for consideration later.

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

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2387, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2430 to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2425, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2390, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2383

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just one moment?

Mr. President, I am pleased this afternoon to join Senator Byrd in presenting the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security for the next fiscal year. I might say, having sat here and listened to all the comments of the distinguished chairman, there is another side to the story on some of the issues that he raised, and I assure the Senate that they will have an opportunity to hear the other side.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in presenting the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the courtesies of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and his staff and all members of the Appropriations Committee during our hearings and the preparation of this bill. We haven't agreed on everything, but this bill reflects our best effort to reach a fair resolution of our differences.

I had hoped, for instance, that we could have held the overall level of proposed spending to no more than the President requested in his budget that was submitted to the Congress earlier this year. I am pleased that the bill recommends approval of the President's budget request for border security and includes 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, $1 billion for continued work on the virtual fence, and other tactical infrastructure. Funding above the President's request is added to accommodate an additional 3,000 detention beds.

One of the consistent criticisms we hear about the Department is its challenges to hire the right people for the right jobs and to reduce its reliance on contractors. Unfortunately, the bill before us proposes to cut the human resource accounts significantly. These cuts handicap the Department in getting the right people into the right jobs to address many of the issues critics have complained about. We can all agree that the Department should be focused on hiring and retaining the best personnel it can.

Succession planning, diversity initiatives, performance management, and workforce relations are all critical issues. By underfunding the programs that are designed to meet these challenges, we run the risk of creating a cycle of unmet promises and potential. This Department is too important for that.

I must also express my concern that this bill restricts the obligation of funds in 10 instances. While I recognize this is within the power of the Appropriations Committee and is sometimes necessary, I think we have overdone it in this bill.

In three separate instances, this bill provides reductions in funding for the Deputy Secretary of the Department of $1,000 per day if certain deadlines are not met. I would prefer to express our concerns in some other way and at least consider reasons that may have caused the deadlines to have been missed before automatically reducing appropriated accounts. I am equally frustrated with the Department's inability to meet deadlines Congress sets, and I expect the Department to meet statutory deadlines, but this approach is not workable.

The report accompanying this bill is harshly critical of the administration's handling of security at Federal facilities. These are Federal facilities which receive protection from the Federal Protective Service, and I do not agree with that. The Federal Protective Service has worked hard to rationalize its fee structure and its mission since joining the Department of Homeland Security. It has not yet finished the process. But the administration remains deeply committed to the safety and security of all Government employees.

The report accompanying this bill also criticizes the Department for legislation Congress has passed. It is unlikely that all Senators agree with all of the legislation that is enacted here, but to blame it on the executive branch agency charged with carrying out the law is hard to rationalize. It is unfair and it is wrong.

Last year, the Appropriations Committee worked very closely with the authorizing committees to craft a compromise on chemical site security language. Chairman Byrd's leadership last

year led to the enactment of a provision in the fiscal year 2007 act that will lead to regulating the chemical sector for the first time. I intend to continue to work with the chairman to ensure sufficient resources are provided to the Department so enforcement of these regulations is achieved.

I am pleased the committee is recommending nearly full funding for the Coast Guard's Deepwater recapitalization effort as well as support for the Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and infrastructure protection. These are activities which are needed to continue to improve the security of our homeland, and generous funding is fully justified.

This bill comes to the Senate floor during a time when our intelligence community has judged that the Nation is, and I quote, ``in a heightened threat environment.'' While there continues to be no credible specific intelligence to suggest an imminent threat, recent events in the United Kingdom serve to remind us of the very serious nature and the potential consequences of terrorist attacks.

I hope we can move expeditiously to pass this bill so that we can begin conference with the House.

Mr. President, earlier remarks today on the floor of the Senate may have suggested that the Department of Homeland Security isn't doing its job.

Well, today, this one day, the Department of Homeland Security will process more than 1.1 million passengers and pedestrians, including 680,000 aliens arriving at our Nation's airports and seaports.

Today, the Department will inspect more than 70,900 trucks and containers, 580 vessels, 2,459 aircraft, and 327,042 privately owned vehicles coming into this country. It will house and care for 19,000 aliens in detention facilities. It will screen approximately 2 million passengers and their 1.6 million pieces of checked baggage before they board commercial aircraft. It will make 63 arrests at ports of entry and 2,984 apprehensions between ports for illegal entry. It will intercept 27,000 prohibited items at airport checkpoints, including over 3,000 knives. It will train more than 3,500 Federal officers and agents from more than 80 different Federal agencies as well as State, local, tribal, and international officers and agents.

Today, the Coast Guard will save 14 lives, assist 123 people in distress, and respond to 12 oil and hazardous chemical spills.

Today, the Department of Homeland Security will naturalize more than 1,900 new citizens. It will conduct 135,000 national security background checks on those applying for immigration benefits. It will process 30,000 applications for immigrant benefits. It will help American parents adopt nearly 125 foreign-born orphans. The Department will help protect an additional 104 homes from the devastating effects of flooding and protect dozens of high-profile Government officials, including Members of this body, the President, and the Vice President of the United States, visiting heads of state, and former Presidents.

This list of daily accomplishments provides just a sample of the important responsibilities and roles of the Department of Homeland Security. To accomplish these responsibilities, this bill provides $36.4 billion in discretionary spending and $1.1 billion in mandatory spending for fiscal year 2008.

I must point out that this bill provides $2.25 billion more in discretionary appropriations than the amount proposed by the President in his budget submission to the Congress. The bulk of the increase from the President's request level, $1.8 billion, is devoted to increasing grants to States and localities. These proposed increases would come quickly on the heels of nearly $300 million being added for grants contained in the Emergency Appropriations Act, which was enacted in May.

The 9/11 Commission Report warned about grant programs becoming entrenched as entitlement programs for State and local governments. We need to make a strong and successful effort to ensure that all funds we appropriate are fully justified.

Mr. President, I look forward to considering any amendments Senators may suggest to the bill and to continuing our work to ensure we produce a work product that will reflect credit on the Senate and provide the funds that are important to the carrying out of duties and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security for the next fiscal year.

Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment. It is as the Senator from New Mexico said, a matter that has been before the body

before and has been previously approved. We have no objection to proceeding as suggested by the Senator.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.